ONE: THE PROPHET’S STAND TOWARDS THE CALIPHATE
1-whether the Prophet wasknowing
about the affair of the caliphate?
Do you see yourself inclined to believe that the Prophet had no knowledge of the affairs that were to betide after his death; the differences and the incidents for the sake of caliphate? Do you reckon him negligent about what should have been done in this respect?
If you are so prone, then I have nothing to address you. My dearreader, you better put aside the book and do
not bear with me till the end of discussion. I assume my reader a Muslim who believes in the Prophet and in his mission besides his acquaintance with the proprieties of a prophet, which serves a repudiation of such a maggot.
He who embraces Islam with a tilt of belief should have had been proved to him that the Messenger had revealed more than once the events that would overtake the nation after us death. He said repeatedly: “My nation will be divided into seventy three factions; a faction is safe while the rest in the fire.”
Moreover he did not make any exemption among his companions. What he said is this; they shall enter the fire for heir disowning and turning back on their heels, or come to him at the pool and shall shiver for what they did after his earth. In some narration’s he is quoted to have said: “They remained pagans upon their own hind disowning the faith ever since I departed them.”
He had disclosed that the traditions that proceeded they allowed inch by inch so arduously as to enter the hole of mastigure.
As for caliphate he pointed out that it would turn after thirty years into a property attractive enough to be held under gritted teeth; and the twelve Imams, all of them from Quraish, shall survive in that atmosphere. Finally, he hinted: “He who does not know the Imam of his time shall die a death of ignorance (i.e. in a state prior to Islam).”
Anyway, his conversations and his conduct establish clearly his knowledge of the difference that his nation will fall in. Hence, the caliphate or the IMAMAT was his first concern.
2- Did the Prophet contrive a solution to the difference?
So, the Prophet was cognizant that the time will turn a page upon his nation fraught with divisions, differences, travails and tests; and then the suzerainty shall be their need.
We have to suppose that he suggested a satisfactory solution, which ought to end the dispute and be the criterion so as to serve a weapon in the hands of Muslims and a yoke upon the hypocrites and insurgents. Such a supposition is congruous with the belief that he was one delegated by God with His Message to the World and that the Message was not meant to his time alone; and, therefore, he can not leave the nation to wander.
To save only a faction and keep the reason of safety or the path to be paced a secret from the others is a thing far from the justice of a leader; and, hence, too incogent to even conjecture.
If at all we suppose that neither a saying of the Prophet nor the history has indicated a way to rely on; but we cannot suppose him to have had been negligent to such an egregious extent to leave the nation, without care or a responsibility into a chaos of no stint -- to surmise, to scuffle, to contradict to conflict and ultimately to kill each other shedding in thousands the Muslim blood. Lo, all this at a time when he being at pre -- Knowledge?!
If at all we swim against the current of reason, we shall not coast any shore because Islam did not come to give a push to mankind so as to sink further into its pandemonium; but mercy it was that down poured over the world to fecundate the barrens. That bloodshed’s of humanity, without reservation and without restriction never experienced by history nor witnessed in the age of pagan hood, can not be the outcome of a sanction.
The blame, indeed, lies with the history for hiding the facts or obfuscating them intentionally or otherwise. For the benefit of supposition, if we do not acknowledge Mohammed Messenger of God who uttered and acted only upon revelation; we have to vouchsafe this much that he was a politician and there was none greater than him. An issue of such an importance concerning the nation but rather the whole world throughout the verdure of time can not remain out of the measure of clairvoyance of such a man. Hence, it was upon him to resolve in its raw if not repel before it could ripe.
We do not have in our conspicuity any wise to leave them upon the mercy of orexis, though for a short protensity, while he is able to set right the things for them and this after having entertained the responsibility of their affairs, and even beyond, those of a nation. Yes, unless he should be deprivedof every decency
or of deportment with depravation. But the Prophet as a mercy for the world; a manifestation of manners and the pinnacle that posed a prohibition to the past prophets from proceeding further. He was one, through his tongue, God said after the last pilgrimage: “Today I have completed for you your religion.”
Whenever he left Madina he appointed a deputy. When he left this world, he neglected to do so, neglecting the nation in quandary; this is a thing which can not cotton on him.
3- Left to the choice of the Nation:
Let us view the issue from this angle that the Prophet left the matter to the choice of the people or to the choice of those who were efficient in resolving the disputes particularly in determining the issue of caliphate.
Viewing such does not gratify the curiosity nor does it cater satisfaction. Apparently it is not the solution. To appoint a president through a franchise is the most advanced method which already proceeded in Islam; and, therefore, one of its privileges; some might argue thus. Hence, let us discuss the pros and cons of this subject. Justice, heed and open mindedness is my hope from the reader so that the distensions of passions should not influence and it should not pain if the privilege affixed to Islam proved to be not worth praising.
It is a chaos -- in its very sense -- tantamount to push the people from a precipice into an abyss of differences that has no stint, no bottom; if a nation is left throughout the cycle of time to choose its own president. This is the chaos we ran from in the preceding pages.
The reason; people are different and divided. Two among them do not concur in thought or taste or passion or practice or adhibition or action -- even if they were twins. An incidental or adventitious similarity that of near or that of remote could be the only element of analogy as it is the case with their bodies and features although in a similitude, yet different. But the fact is that the people vary from one another in every thing -- structure, character, spirit, and habit. There is not one single thing that could unite the two- even the fingerprints. It is generally said that to every individual there is a category of his own in his mind.
It is, therefore, impossible to unite the people of a town on a rule or on a work; no saying goes to a big nation such as that of Islam regardless of the continuity of time, particularly if the thing happened to be the government -- a general leadership wherein there is every possibility for every element to play its role such as personal interests, affections and inclinations. From this we can deduce that the public opinion does not exist at all in reality. Any nation in the world can never attain it.
One when demands to create a general public opinion or unanimity among a nation at a choice of a thing; indeed, he has erred in his own opinion. Such an endeavor it is impossible to prevent from bloody disputes and drastic disturbances if the required thing be of importance unless the ruler separates his antagonists by iron rod as it is the case currently with the civilized nations in the elections. Hence, judgment of the majority is the only good solution to the dispute and naturally the puissance to crush the disturbances. Judgment by majority, in fact, is a subterfuge from forming a true public opinion and a confession of its impossibility. On the other hand, we should not wink at the fact that there is no way out other than majority in the settlement of various tortuous factors that have bearing especially the ruling power. And, this has taken to itself a power to silence all and a tradition to satisfy all. This too should not be ignored that it is the medium to reach at the average of opinion. But the true agreement on the things in their details shall ever stand a mightyalps
which the ‘majority’ too can not conquer. As the man failed throughout the corridor of centuries in attaining a true unity of thought, the rule of majority finally dawned upon him as the best substitute towards securing peace among the nations of course, this does not mean to the majority makes no mistakes.
When there is a dedition to desire; and thoughts that conjecture low and high; and groups that list as per the weight of their lusts; the ‘majority’ is the only resort to relax in, and not a security to obtain the correct opinion. Although election has become a most cultivated legislation presently to appoint a president, it does not convey us beyond of the fact that a tradition entertained by the people of present age has been honored; and nothing more. This thing Islam never proceeded. Any claim that the Prophet left the choice to the nation to settle the issue of caliphate does not womb in itself a claim that the Prophet legislated the law of majority; because of no evidence nor there a proof in any of the past books. Majority! As said earlier, is not safe from mistakes and, therefore, can not be attributed to the Prophet who did not speak but on revelation nor did he desires but reality.
It is facinorous to say that the Prophet left the choice to his nation as it is tantamount to say that he, the Prophet, deliberately launched the nation into a gulf of everlasting dispute that claims lives, lacerates morals and harries the harmony besides weakening Islam.
However and whatever we try to coast this legislation by taking the nation granted for those skilled and efficient ones able to resolve the disputes and differences, we confront a prominent setback because the disputes and difference radicate from these very skilled and efficient ones. They do not differ with the rest of the people in the difference of their sentiments, irritations, resentments, contradictions and conflicts.As great they, so greater these divisions in them.
They could scarcely be expected to remain at such a distance where the personal interests or inclinations could not obumbrate so as to pollute them; and they so humble as to not raise their heads to dart a greedy look at the office of such an excellence and then dwarf themselves into the ambush awaiting the opportunity to hunt as famished wolves at their prey. If at all there be no intention but proclivity is the mineral if every person that prevails upon its possessor towards every wrong posing it as right? As such it is never to be felt that there had been a deviation from a right path. This likelihood can not be dismissed that self-ego would bring home to him that his leadership is the best for the nation. Direction from the self-love is another proof to contend him with his own opinion, which to him is the most correct.
Abu Baker appointed his successor and rather hasted too. This he did against the very legislation which was too recent and by means of which he had attained the caliphate; and which had stood a base for his being the caliph. He himself had witnessed the circumstance that surrounded the dedition to his authority at SAQIFA. So, he knew better than others how risky the game was. What it is to pass through the hole of a needle, if others could not know; he knew well and also he knew that the occupation of people in their calamity of losing the Prophet had kept them from knowing what was taking place at SAQIFA and that such a situation would not repeat itself again. So, he did against his own established criterion. Therefore, we can easily infer that Abu Baker himself had not banked any belief in the salubrity of this legislation and was afraid of its repercussions. Hence, he appointed Omar his successor instead of leaving him adrift in a franchise.His successor, Omar, too paced in the same track of his predecessor.
He appointed a committee of six persons. These six could not fix an opinion. Passions, sentiments and inclinations kept them away from one another although sitting all together. One leaned because of the enmity the other was sharing in; the other favored his son-in-law as Imam Ali later described. To bring them, a group of six persons, to one opinion became impossible. But this impossibility did not render Omar to not act the impossible. He gave them a deadline of three days to agree among themselves; the side which Abdul Rehman Bin Owf happened to be in was to be considered a majority incase if their opinion ran at parity due to the number in which they were. Still if they failed to agree within three days, they had to die by the sword already in the hands of those who were vested with the office of execution in advance. Why this threat; and why such a binding? Then what happened to that rule established by them -- reverting to the choice of the people? Of course, he wanted to avoid a greater division, which is a natural consequence of such a thing -- the choice. So, he had to send a rope down into the pit dug by him.
It is very interesting to note when the turn of Omar Bin Khattab came to bear the brunt of appointing a successor to him he aspired to have availed one of these three, Abu Obaida Bin Al-Jarrala, Salem Moula Abi Hazifa and Ma’az Bin Jabal -- and all these three had died long back. He did this in order to do that which was his intention -- first, to strengthen his plan; second, to produce his choice from behind the excuse.
It is not a matter to wonder that Abu Baker and Omar had already been aware of the corruption which is a natural consequence of this legislation that leaves the affair open to the choice of the people and the dispute and the scuffle that would spring there from. But the wonder is to attribute this legislation to the Prophet whose deeds depended upon revelation from God. Above all to claim having had understood the Prophet and Islam is yet far astonishing.
The caliph, Othman, had he availed an ear to hear him he would have whispered his choice. But that day obedience to him had vanished as he was undera besiege
, desperate, disappointed, without a power to retain neither his life nor a puissance to retard the approaching assassination. Otherwise, he was not the one to depart without determining who to arrive at place.
A concatenation of such incidents enhance upon our belief that the choice of people is so parched a desert that to dig into its sands is a maggot and to bury therein such a huge social problem a megrim. Of course, it did work only once. It was in real sense a peoples’ choice which brought Ali Bin Abi Taleb to caliphate. But with regards to Abu Baker; “Yielding to his authority was a mischief (or a tawdry). God protected its evil”; this is what Omar had said while he himself had laid down the foundation. Again it is Omar who declared: “Whosoever invites to such a thing there is no yielding to him or to that on whose behalf it would be.”
As for Imam Ali; when the consensus surrendered the caliphate to him, and it is the legislative procedure in the view of the experts, still we find him deserted by those who settled the disputes and they were the highest in that phalanx of companions.All this when every thing was yet new and nothing had gone old.
Then, the wars, those of ‘JAMAL’ and ‘SIFFEEN’; on what canon they were raged?
Wreck, ruin, bloodshed; they left nothing else. The progress of Islam paralyzed and the religious sanctuary were pulled down.
Then we do not see any caliph coming to power through this legislation but by appointment by the predecessor or by the threat of sword. Indeed, swords played a great role ruthless and fueful; navigated the boat of Islam in a bloody ocean, made every greedy a wicked miser to whom appeared the caliphate too worthy to rage the ward and the wars made legislation that of the choice of people and the choice opened the way to Talha and Zubair to ignite the battle of JAMAL as it paved way to Mawiya for his crimes and to Ibn Zubair to lift a hand against caliphate though it was short as it opened the avenue for Abassides to revolt against Ommiyds and so on and so forth and as much as history could say and what it says there are ramifications further and farther.
All these incidents and evidences are enough a cataclysm to uproot one’s belief, whether in redundance or in rudiment, in the salubrity of the legislation of the choice of people or those efficient enough to settle the disputes. Such a contagion is attributed to have come down from the Prophet! What a contagious this conjecture itself is!
Ayesha says to Omar in trepidation through his son, Abdulla; “Don’t leave the nation of Mohammed without a shepherd. Appoint one upon them and don’t let them as an animal infant. I am afraid of mischief to them.“Lo, what a pity!
Such a possibility struck Ayesha’s mind but never entered into the prospicience of a man like the Prophet.
It is far from comprehension as to why nobody asked Mohammed to appoint one or give the minimum indication of the method of succession when he would be no more amidst them so that the most dreaded mischief could be eschewed as Ayesha indicated to Omar? They used to ask the Prophet every trifle and titanic, but did not ask this thing; why...?
The sane is this; he was asked, and he answered! The history quailed and neglected but got immured in the annals of the history of Shia.
4- No text on the canon of choice:
Ignoring our own words preceded pertaining to the corruption of the canon of choice we would like to inquire them into the practice or a proof that could establish its having had originated from the Prophet as it is their claim. Not a day he said nor did he enjoin to choose one as their Imam or leader when he would be no more among them. There exists no such statement of his either clear or clandestine. Had there been any it could have never concealed in such a rife of motives under such a pressure since the beginning of Islam wherein a rich crop of opinions cultivated to be harvested later in an opportune season.
But among the gleaners in the field there is none to have traced a furrow that the Prophet might have tilled. Did it remain hidden from all of us and the narrators too?
Well, to revert to God the Almighty; He says in His Book:
“...And your Lord creates what He desires and Chooses -- at which to them there is choice.”
Then, this Quranic verse clearly denies; and, therefore, the Prophet could never say or act otherwise. To depend upon the choice of people is antipode to this verse; “...To them there is no choice.”
If we circumduct and say that the Prophet was aware of the issue, but he remained silent leaving the matter to the choice of people after giving a definition of one of his companions and that his silence shows his consent. This seems to be cogent if we could convince ourselves to believe his silence after having had given the definition of his successor. But the cogency loses ground in the absence of definition. We shall see into it in our discussion in (7) and (8)
as
to what the Shias and the Sunnis say pertaining to definition on Abu Baker or Ali Bin Abi Taleb.
A little thought will convince us that to adopt a way, occult and obscure, not plain to the understanding, in such a matter of importance that rifted the nation into such a wide division for such a man of wisdom besides his being a prophet was far from being congenial. There appears no reason to support his silence in spite of his knowledge of the events that were to betide.
If he had not defined any, it would have been better had he made known that the matter was left to their own choice. Then he should have confined it to those who settle the dispute and again with further definition as to whether they should be from the Madinians or from the capital. Finally he should have selected one or two from them (as the Sunni scholars hold); then he should have made plain the characteristics of an Imam so that the people know whom they should choose. It seems that all these things we have to seek in his silence, and his silence is the proof; whoever doubts it, fully or partly, deserves Divine’s dudgeon, and will be no more a Muslim but a Kafir?!?!
I can not believe in such a thing unless I lose the grip of reason.
5- Difference in my nation is a mercy:
In my preceding discussion the strokes of my pen might have created a raucous din shouting religious slogans while I connived the plan I had charted to myself; this is what I fear. Hasty steps might raise dust; I shall slow down my paces to ensure that.
It has been narrated that the Prophet said: “Difference in my nation is a mercy.” The word
is not interpreted condign to the Islamic moral. What a pity to have invented such a lie upon one who strive for the unity and campaigned with the word of brotherhood against the adhibition of pre-Islamic era; lifted the Arabs from a deep pit of division and difference.
The greatest phenomenon of Islam, rather its greatest achievement, is its invitation to an absolute unity in its widest sense that annihilates the rifts between individuals, groups and nations under the banner “Indeed, the faithful are brothers.”
We do not discern any proof more perspicuous than the very practice towards attaining the unity among the believers to an extent to make them like a structure cemented and compact in which every brick is a base to another and each column a support to a ceiling and each ceiling a floor to another. And such an edifice is displayed in the avenues of religious practices such as Friday prayers, mass prayers, ‘Haj’ (pilgrimage); and every thing deleterious, no matter however trifle, is prohibited such as back biting, carping, caviling, calumniating, winking and so forth. Such being the fact, how can a claim be laid that he invited the difference or endeavored towards it? This is a facinorous accusation. I seek forgiveness from God for writing it although for the sake of argument.
6- Consensus on the canon of choice:
Our Sunni brothers with the exception of a few interpret the attributed silence as we pointed out in our preceding pages. They even proceed further to prove the sufficiency of a consensus on the basis of dedition to Abu Baker at SAQIFA. A gathering to them is authority on the basis of a narration that quotes the Prophet to have said: “My nation does not group at mistake.” And “My nation does not group at deviation from the right course.”
But, the Shias; they do not consider such concourse authentic or valid unless it is also attended by an infallible Imam. Dedition to Abu Baker was not concomitant with the consent of Imam that is Ali Bin Abi Taleb. As such the concourse to them is not authentic. They still go as far as to say that the concourse never took place in all its conditions to validate the dedition to Abu Baker because of the disagreement of Ali upon whom rests the right and turns with him as he turns besides the disagreement of his people of Quraish and Sa’ad Bin Ebada and his son and a group of major companions like Salman, Abizar, Miqdad, Ammar, Zubair, Khalid Bin Sayeed, Huzaifa al-Yamani, Buraida and others. None of them yielded to his authority and when yielded afterwards, he did so compelled and obliged in order to preserve Islam that was yet in an imbroglio state like an egg and to protect the unity among the Muslims. Since they did not yield; better to deny them their status in society that they were not the men who settle the disputes; it is void of sense and reason. Another argument that Shias put forward is that gathering of the men of word or the settlement does not stand a canon so as to have trust or belief in it because it was never repeated which shows no pre-appointment. Ali Bin Abi Taleb was the only exception because of the text from the Prophet and because of the characteristic of the office of ‘IMAMAT’ in which people have no choice beyond God.
The two sides differ thus. Perplexed I stand in between. To find a way out; indeed, is the need. Hence, I grub in the incident of SAQIFA at its every corner. Perhaps I might come across what could release me from the perplexity and convince me with a final judgment cogent enough to one of these two factions. What I find, I shall display in my coming discourse although I do not prognosticate the outcome.
As I see the matters interwoven I can not arrive at a decisive result merely digging into the affairs of SAQIFA or giving the text that gives definition of IMAM succeeding the Prophet. So I shall narrate the both sides’ controversies and concurrence, their arguments and acknowledgements on the issue. Hence, I deposit my findings into the care and caution of my readers:
Reason shall not doubt in the light of preceding discussion that the Prophet did not give any remotest indication towards establishing a legislation of the choice of people to have their leader nor did he utter a loud word or whisper a silent one into any human ear however intimate to him nor did he wink at or wheedle one to take the officer of IMAMAT when all of them would miss him.
Anyway, the legislation such as this to select a leader by the choice of people is notlegislated
by him. So, what is the value of such legislation? If at all a concourse did take place and a choice was made; so what? How can it be a binding upon the people when it has not emanated from religion nor dictated by God through His Messenger? On the other hand, we have seen its evil con- sequences and corruptful outcome in our previous discourse. The Prophet would never goad the nation to such a thing in spite of its being deleterious to them. As such, the blame rests upon the concourse itself for having done such a thing. On what authority it is done? It remains open to interrogation. It can not be dismissed as incontrovertible only because they have, however, done it.
The more we search more we get entangled. Why at all they gathered at SAQIFA without consulting or referring to the people who were present in Madina? If it is to be supposed that the meeting itself constitutes authority; then why such a meeting never convened ever since that very first one at SAQIFA -- at least to prove the legality or the credibility of the first? So, it invalidates itself -- obviously and openly. Furthermore, and, therefore, Omar said to Sa’ad Bin Ebada when he made himself a candidate: “Kill him; may God kill him; he is a mischief monger.” Why he should be killed? He did no more than toaspire
the caliphate, as did the other.If he was to be killed; then why not the other?
He was a ‘mischief monger’ because he wanted to become a caliph. The other who too wanted the same; how it is that he was not a mischief monger? Supposingly, if it is proved that the meeting at SAQIFA was in line with the Prophet’s indication or his direction; then Sa’ad Bin Ebada committed no crime to be wiped out from the face of the earth.
As for the text that is quoted: “The Imams are from Quraish this was not known on that day to the Emigrants (MUHAJAREEN) or they did not want to know it. Therefore, they did not put it forward as a proof. The argument that Abu Baker put forward was the relation with the Prophet, which the Arabs did not know except this part of the Quraish.”
7- The Text on Abu Baker:
So far we have not arrived at any proof to prevail on us to believe that the Prophet left the office of IMAMAT to the choice of people or to those who were the men to settle the disputes. We have to still search for a man whom the Prophet should have appointed to succeed him. If so; then who he was?
Is it correct; he was Abu Baker? There is much narration available to a seeker if he could conceive the claimed one. The most authentic ones are those, which he himself had stated especially before his death that there were three things to be inquired which were never asked. One of them the issue of caliphate as to for whom it was so that to avoid the conflict. Then the statement of Omar Bin Khattab, while nearing the death that moreseceded
the prophet.Then, the state- ment of Ayesha.
She is the defender and zealot of her father; did a great deal to confirm his caliphate. She had denied the succession when she was asked as to who could he have had been, had the Prophet appointed to succeed him.
Will discredit all. The argument that the very concourse grouped there was the legality that gives sanction to the dedition to Abu Baker does not hold water.
Abu Baker stepped forward to Omar and Aba Obaida at SAQIFA and said: “I am satisfied with one of these two men for you.” Well, if there was a text strictly defining him to succeed the Prophet; then why he chose another? Why he refrained from the text? Why he acted as though he himself was out of question?
In the speech of Omar that day these words uttered by him make clear the situation: “Arabs do not know this affair except Quraish -- who are the best among Arabs in their status and lineage.”
Had there been an indication in favor of Omar, the Arabs would have not known the affair but him. It is not a station of shame to invite towards one’s self. The thing that dawn is the craft in inventing texts. Whoever invented them, they did so in the fatigue of argument about the legality of the caliphate on the basis of meeting, which too did not meet the consent of those whom can not be ignored because of their position. Here the bigotry pushed them to resort to falsehood or invention -- the obstacle in the way of truth hindering from reaching the target. Narration’s that spring from bigotrysnatch
away the trust from others and rob the confidence particularly when the issue be that of a belief.
As for his praying under a commission from the Prophet, if that be true; but he did pray among the Muslims-it is true. Let us probe therein:
First: There is no indication in it for him to be the caliph.
Second: Leading the prayers is not so important that the person should be an IMAM, or else, he can not. Particularly in Sunni religion (including all the branches) it is free from several restrictions. Muslims, one among them, used to lead the prayers for the others. They were used to such a cycle. It was hearsay in those days among the people that the Prophet encouraged the practice. It is narrated that Abu Baker led the prayers without the Prophet’s permission.
Then
he sought the good offices of Bani Omar Bin Ouf for reconciliation.
The narration that indicates the Prophet’s appointment of him to lead the prayers and that he performed this office for some days does not appear correct because of the fact that Abu Baker was then in the Asama’s army. The Prophet had strongly warned against any delinquency; and had stressed upon executing the mission. So, how could Abu Baker manage to be at two places -- in Asama’s army and at the same time in Madina to lead the prayers?
The thing that is established is this: He led the prayers, once only on Monday at noon -- the day of the Prophets death. Before Abu Baker could finish the prayers the Prophet came out of the house despite his sickness and the pain in his legs which he was pulling on the ground. He came to the mosque, pushed aside Abu Baker, and prayed. That the Prophet ordered Abu Baker to lead the prayers has come down from Ayesha alone. There is no other source to attest this. She contacted the Prophet in this respect and he told her angrily: “You are like the companions of Yousuf.” She proceeds in her narration and says about the Prophet’s going out for the very same prayers.
His going out in that condition for the prayers was on the day of his death-Monday.
Had the Prophet sent him to lead the prayers as an indication to his being the future caliph; then why he came out in that painful condition and performed the prayers by sitting down because of his inability to remain stood?
Let us see its ramifications: “The Prophet prayed; Abu Baker followed the prayers of the Prophet; and the people followed the prayers of Abu Baker.”
Then who is the leader of the prayers, i.e. the IMAM? It is confusion; the Prophet was there; Abu Baker was there; people followed two of them?One of them?
It could be this as far as we can understand and if that be correct. The Prophet was in a sitting position. So, the people were not seeing him as well as not hearing him because he was sick and his voice weak. The people made out his bowing and his prostration through the prayers of Abu Baker who remained a little apart parallel with the Prophet when the Prophet pushed him aside.
The narrations are confusing and conflicting in this respect and all of them being from one source - that of Ayesha, mother of faithful. The gist of difference runs in these six factors:
1) (Omar for the prayers) some narration gives us to understand that the Prophet said: “Go to Omar” after Ayesha’s contacting him about her father. Omar abstained and preferred to Abu Baker.
Some say that the Prophet first ordered Omar; then Omar told Balal to inform the Prophet that Abu Baker was awaiting at the door. Then, the Prophet ordered Abu Baker.
Some say that it was Omar who performed the prayers first. Upon hearing his voice the Prophet is quoted to have said: “God and the believers forbid that.”
Some say that the Prophet enjoined Abu Baker to repeat the prayers which bad already been performed by Omar.
Some say that Omar performed the prayers and Abu Baker was then absent.
Some say that the Prophet ordered Abu Baker and Abu Baker asked Omar to lead the prayers, but Omar abstained.
2) The Prophet ordered Omar to order Abu Baker. Some quote Ayesha, some Bilal and some Abdullah Bin Zam’a as the source of this narration.
3) As for the person who contacted the Prophet about Abu Baker; some say that Ayesha alone contacted the Prophet three times or more. Some say that Ayesha contacted the Prophet and Hafasa did so once or twice. When the Prophet got angry upon her, she told Ayesha; “No good from you has reached me.”
4) As for the time of the prayers: Some point to the evening prayers; some to the night prayers and some to the morning prayers.
5) As for going out of the Prophet: According to some, he went out and led the prayers; according to others, he brought his head out of the curtain, and saw the people behind Abu Baker, then let the curtain hang as it was before. But he did not perform the prayers.
6) As for the prayers of the Prophet after his coming out:
Some narrate that he followed the leadership of Abi Baker after slapping at his back and keeping him from giving the place. According to some, Abu Baker gave up the ministry of the prayers and followed the Prophet. According to some, Abu Baker followed the Prophet and the people followed Abu Baker.
According to some, the Prophet proceeded from where Abu Baker had stopped.
7) As for the sitting position of the Prophet by the side of Abu Baker: some say he sat at his right while according to some it was at his left.
8) As for the duration of the period: Some go as far as to cover the whole period of the Prophet’s illness. Some say he performed only seventeen prayers.
According to some, he prayed for three days; some say six days; and some indicated only one prayer.
9) As for the time of the Prophet’s coming out: According to some he came out for the same prayers for which he had ordered Abu Baker. Some say that he came out for the noon prayers after few days when Abu Baker had already prayed. Some indicate that it was for the morning prayers.
These differences in the very theme of the episode rob the trust to believe its particularities. How they conflict and how they contradict each other as though wrestling! From this labyrinth one can come out with only one thing in hand and that is the prayers of Abu Baker heading the people prior to the coming out of the Prophet.
We can only say by way of sympathy that it was perhaps a trick played on Abu Baker. A sham command of the Prophet was conveyed to him, as it appears in one of the narration, Abdullah Bin Zam’a deceived Omar Bin Khattab who in his turn conveyed the Prophet’s order to Abu Baker to perform the prayers.
As to the reality of the episode, it can be presumed to have had been this: When the Prophet saw himself unable to leave the house, ordered the people to perform their prayers themselves without waiting for him. This caused the bloom of the opportunity and the opportunity set the promise of a future excellence at bloom. Some one had to pick it up. So he did. When the Prophet heard of it, he had to come out pulling his legs on ground as the pain had failed them to pace; and performed the prayers in that emergency by sitting. He did so to show the people how wrongwas the deliberation that had committed such a hoyden hood
.
His impeachment to Ayesha at her contacting him about her father as he said:
“You are like the companions of Joseph" further supports the above presumption. Otherwise, there was no reason for such a harsh impeachment. If she did not deserve praise, she did not deserve the pain either. But, it shows the magnitude of the wrong.
This opens an avenue of doubt. Perhaps it could have beenher own
mischief. It could be she who concocted this, which failed in all that. It is natural for a daughter to desire dignity for her father. Ayesha could not be an exception. But she later seemed to have realized that the people did not like to see her father in the place of the Prophet performing what the Prophet used to do.
When the Prophet sent after Ali to make his will to him, Ayesha hurried in calling her father as Hafasa too did the same. When the Prophet saw them gathered, he dismissed them telling them: “If there be a need to me I shall send after you.”
Such a tone expresses his disgust and anger. Now to conclude: In spite of such a long search we did not come across any indication or reference to the benefit of Abu Baker so as to be the caliph.
8- Text Pertaining to Ali Bin Abi Taleb:
Is it correct what the Shias say about the text defining Ali? Of the preceding disappointment this question is a natural outcome. I wish my readers to be impartial about what the Shia say about this man, Ali. There is no need of the ado in reverting to their books. Who knows? They being zealots of Ali might say what would goad one towards him as did the narrators in favor of Abu Baker. So, vigilance is the best to remain at.
Whatever the Sunni authors have written about Ali; we should be at guard. It is not that they are adversaries to him. No, never. Many of the narrators have had been at guard with those who relate Ali’s praise or his superiority.
Wherever therebe
a list towards Ali the relevant author is expropriated and the narration itself censured under the pretext of the oddity it contains. There are those who entertain rancor towards Ali like Abi Huraira, Mughaira Bin Shuba and Omran Bin Hattan. Their narration could be trustworthy to those who share their rancor.
Besides, we find the swords of Bani Ommiyds drawn over the heads of the narrators in order to check them in their writings to not attribute a good quality to Ali against whom a long rankling antagonism was established and to scold him over the pulpits and on the pathways was made a tradition. On the other hand, we find them lavishing gift and presents upon those who could say or writebad
of him or take distance from him.
Therefore, you will find me, dear reader, halting at every narration in order to satisfy myself of its credibility. It suffices me to dwell upon what could come out of the traditions aided by its correctness and supported by a general acknowledgement. Several books of Sunni sources have recorded the superiority of Ah and the text that defines him as the caliph. But, still lam far from trusting them. I only take into accounts what is indisputable due to its having had obtained currency and continuity among the traditionalists as an acknowledged fact.
True it is that Ali enjoyed a great position serving his cousin, the Prophet. His nearness to the Prophet even incited jealousy among Muslims. Ayesha has stated: “I didn’t see a man dearer to the Prophet than Ali nor did I see a woman dearer to him than Ali’s wife.”
The Prophet used to praise his son-in-law, Ali. This was his practice at every occasion since Ali’s birth, which preceded the prophet hood by ten years till the Prophet, died in his embrace. We shall quote here a few traditions - the most authentic and the most repeated ones, which establish his competency to the caliphate:
1) “And admonish the nearest ones of your tribe”; when this verse descended, the Prophet gathered forty men of his family. This was at the initial stage of his prophet hood. The Prophet invited them to Islam and guaranteed brotherhood, inheritance, ministry, succession and caliphate to one who helps him (the Prophet). All abstained except Ali. The Prophet pulled him forwards and said: “This is my brother, my successor and my caliph among you (Or after me as per various narrations); listen to him and obey him.” Then, the gathering got up laughing amongthemselves
sarcastically. They taunted Abi Taleb upon having been enjoined by the Prophet to listen and obey the boy, meaning his son Ali.
2) In the battle of KHANDAQ, when Ali went to give the answer to the challenge of Omar Bin Abdawad; the Prophet said: The whole faith has emerged to a whole polytheism.” This was in the year 5 Hijra.
3) In the battle of KHAIBER the Prophet took pride in him against those, who had retreated with the banner, and said: “I shall give the banner tomorrow to a man who endears God and His Prophet and is endeared by God and His Prophet.” He gains and never loses ground in a battle. “All remained in anticipation. But the Prophet gave the banner to Ali. This was in the year 7 Hijra.
4) He chose Ali for himself and entangled him in brotherhood with himself. This he did prior to emigration to Madina when he imposed brotherhood among the Muhajareen to Madina when he imposed brotherhood among the Muhajareen and again after five months among the Ansaar (the helpers). He addressed him thus: “You are to me in the status in which Harun was with Moses with the only exception that there is no prophet after me.” These words the Prophet reiterated on several occasions; one of which was when the roadside doors of the mosque were closed down except the door of Ali.
During
the battles of TABUK in the year of 9 Hijra the Prophet ordered Ali to stay at Madina in his absence. He told Ali: “I should not go unless leave you; you are my successor.”
(Ibn Abbas Zaida is the narrator).
5) The Prophet has said to Ali: “You will not be endeared but by a faithful (believer) and will not be hated but by a hyprorite.” This became a standard, a criterion -on which hyprorites were used to be recognized.
6) The Prophet said: “There is one among you who will fight for the sake of correct interpretation of Quran as I fought for the sake of safe keeping its Revelation. “Then, he (the Prophet negated Abu Baker and Omar to be that man and said: “But he is mender of footwear.” Ali was that time mending the footwear of the Prophet in the room of Fatima.
7) One day a bird was cooked for the Prophet. Before eating the bird the Prophet said: “O God, let come one among the dearest ones to you to eat the bird with me.” Ali came and shared with the Prophet.
8) The Prophet said: “I am the town of knowledge and Ali its door.”
9) The Prophet said: “The most Just among you is Ali.”
10) The Prophet said: “Ali is with Truth and the Truth with Ali; never to be separated till both meet me at the fountain.”
11) The Prophet confirmed to Ali more than once that he would succeed him (the Prophet) and inherit him (the Prophet). Besides, he also specified that the succession and inheritance was that of the prophet hood. Once he said: “There is a successor and inheritor to every prophet; and mine is Ali.”
Ali once asked the Prophet: “What would it be that I shall inherit from you?”
The Prophet replied: “What the prophets inherited before; Book of their Lord and the Tradition of their prophet.”
12) The Prophet said (in the year 8 Hijra): “Ali is from me andI
from Ali. No one will pay on my behalf except me and Ali.
13) The Prophet said: “I am from Ali and Ali is from me; and he is guardian of every believer after me.”
14) The Prophet said to Ali: “You are guardian of every believer after me.”
15) All the doors of the mosque were closed down except that of Ali. Omar said: “Three things were given to Ali. Had I been given one of them it would have been to me the ‘red of the cattle’; his wife, Fatima -- daughter of the Prophet; his residence, the mosque with the Prophet -- hails to him what it is to the Prophet; and the banner given to him on the day of KHAIBER.” Omar’s son narrates that the Prophet, upon being asked about keeping the door of Ali open, said: “I am a servant under orders. I did what I was ordered to. I only follow whatever that is revealed to me.”
16) Prior to emigration when the Prophet brought together in brotherhood every two among the emigrants (MUHAJAREEN) he chose Ali for himself and said to him: “You are my brother and my inheritor’ You are to me in the same position in which Harun stood to Moses but the only exception is that there will be no prophet after me.” Accordingly he did the same when he brought together in brotherhood the ANSAAR (helpers) and the MUHAJAREEN. He chose Ali in the ties of brotherhood for himself. This was after five months since the migration. He used to call him brother on many occasions.
17) In the year 10 Hijra, after returning from the farewell pilgrimage (HAJAL-WIDA), that is his last pilgrimage, on the way the prophet ordered the caravan to halt for prayers; prayed in that meridional heat, then stood among the pilgrims who were more than one hundred thousand people and addressed them.
First, he informed them about his death; then he reminded the two heavy things to them: Book of God and his own progeny and that neither one parts the other nor that as long as they are adhered nobody would ever go astray. Then he took Ali’s hand and said:
“O, You the people! Am I not the preferred one among you? Am I said: “Yes, the Prophet ofGod.
” The Prophet reiterated his question and they their answer.
Then he proceeded thus: “To he whom I was his lord, so is Ali his lord.” his lord; so is Ali his guardian. “O, God, adhere to those who adhere to him, and be adverse to those who are adverse to him, help those who help him, and vilify those who vilify him, and steer the Truth with him however steers he.” Omar came to Ali and said: “Congratulations, O Son of Abi Taleb! You became lord of every faithful one -- he and she.’’
Or in some narration: “You became my lord and lord of every faithful he and she.”
These traditions are extracted from the books of AL-SAHEEH. We suffice on this little, as this book can not consume the much, which we have to forego. Now with regards to the Quranic verses: Ibn Abbas says “In the Book of God exists three hundred verses pertaining to Ali.” Through the Sunni authorities only one hundred verses are distinguished and classified in this aspect. We choose only three out of the bulk:
1)“Indeed, your guardian is God, and His Messenger, and those who believe, who establish the prayer and give alms while they bow down (in worship).” (5:58)
The occasion of coming down of this verse is that Ali, while bowing down in prayers, had given in charity his ring to a beggar. In this verse God confirms his guardianship over the people as that of God and His Prophet.
2)“This is what God desires-to avoid upon you the sin, members of the House, and purifyyou a (
perfect) purification.” (33:33)
The occasion for this verse is that the Prophet had grouped Ali, Fatima and their two sons, Hasan and Hussain, and blanketed himself along with them under a covering. This verse caters the condition needed for one to be the Imam that is the necessity of being infallible and impeccable.
3) “If any one disputed therein after the knowledge has come to you, say:
‘Come, let us gather our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves; then pray and invoke curse of God upon the liars.” (3:61)
The dispute with the Christians of Najran is the occasion.
In
the verse Ali is classified as the self of the Prophet.
The very saying itself that the Prophet left the appointment of caliph undecided; it becomes necessary that one of his companions should have been classified or identified. And, yet, Abubaker was not the ‘he’. Then, who that ‘he’ was?
There never exists anyone except Ali whom either the traditions such as those mentioned or the Verses of Quran which are in such a texture that one supports the other and stands as an interpretation to another. For instance, the inheritance of prophet hood and the inheritor of the Prophet, the Prophet’s successor, the Prophet’s brother, the Prophet’s own self, gaurdian of the Faithful ones after the Prophet, the preferred one among them, his position as that of Harun with Moses (excluding the prophethood), the Prophet’s caliph after the Prophet, steers the Truth with him as he steers-the both will never separate, he, the most just one in the nation, he, the door of the town of the Prophet’s knowledge, he, the purified one from the sin; all these qualities are attributed only to an infallible Imam or the Prophet’s caliph chosen by God and His apostle for the nation. How could it be coherent with reason to be the preferred one among the believers and be their guardian after the Prophet and yet to be goaded under the yoke like every common man and obedience should be the demand and to obey a duty upon him??? Bilemy!!
Desire on one side to preserve the prestige of the companions (of the Prophet) and dread on the other to pervert the text of the Prophet went hand in hand to push the researchers to interpret each of these words with either reservation or conservation. To them we would like to say that to go contrary to the text of the Prophet’s words is a thing neither odd nor strange when the intentions of those companions become known or remain no more a secret.
On the other side, these very researchers are very miser in giving interpretations to some of the traditions such as that of GHADEER or that of the verse “Indeed, your Protector is God...” or that of “...Lord of every faithful after me.” They have taken the word of MOWLA as ‘helper’ or a ‘friend’.
To dwell the word (MOWLA) as a helper or a friend particularly in the case of GHADEER is neither cogent nor coherent with the very occasion. The linguists have interpreted the word MOWLA as one who possesses the right of use besides the meaning of helper or a friend. The words speak not openly when they are put into comparison. The Prophet stood in that glowing heat and addressed a gathering of more than one hundred thousand people only to tell that Ali is the helper of the faithful ones or a friend to them? It is far from reason. Indeed, there should have had been a matter of great magnitude which the Prophet had to convey and had to make alert the attention of the people.
This he did. First he foretold them of his approaching death; then he mentioned the two things of much weight; then he took the hand of Ali and raised it to the length that the whiteness of the skin under his shoulders became visible to all.
In such a posture it was that he asked, “Am I not superiorthan
you among you?”
Then, what this bedlam?And what this conspiracy?
Were those words of the Prophet just balderdash? A matter of eternal importance was conveyed and it was brought home to understand that Ali is the lord to those whom the Prophet was.
Indeed, the words besides conveying their sense do obviously say this too that Ali is his example and his like --superior among the believers as he himself is, as the word MASTER represents; same it is as the word MOWLA does in Arabic that is the possessor or one who holds the use of a thing or the affair.
There is nothing to be argued here. The meaning of the word MOWLA envelops the sense of possession. Those who are stubborn have given an interpretation to this word, which is far from common sense.
To avoid the dispute let us dwell upon this tradition “This brother of mine is my successor and my caliph amidst you (or behind me); so listen to him and obey him.” This tradition is an acknowledged and irrefragable one. Its text clearly establishes the right for Ali to succeed the Prophet.
Abu Baker has this text for his successor: “I have ordered Omar Bin Khattab upon you.”
This text is benefit of openness and can not be fit with that of the Prophet. An order befits the army and anything else. The word of caliph was more frequent in the utterance either that of the Prophet or that of the Muslims and that too in the sense, which is the kernel of this word. To support our findings we quote here a statement of the Prophet: “This thing remains valid till the twelve caliphs, all of them from Quraish, succeed one another among them.” So, the sense of the word ‘caliph’ can not be doubted here as it is the case with the word Quraish. Then why should not the word ‘my caliph’be
taken into the same sense when it is used in relation to Ali? Did the (the Prophet) ever use this word in another sense?
The only difference between the text of the Prophet’s word and that of Abu Baker’s is that what Abu Baker said was imposed upon the people regardless of its interpretation and doubt while the Prophet’s word remained without practice or obedience within the folds of the book and the bosoms of the people. Moreover, mistake for scholars is not pleasant. We are long acquainted with them for not confining themselves to the text of the Prophet’s statements. And such instances are innumerous. To refer to some we suffice to mention: Their hesitation to go in the military expedition under Asama’s leadership which incensed the Prophet. They still refrained from going till the Prophet died.Objection of Omar at the peace treaty of HUDAIBA.
Disobedience of Omar to the orders of the Prophet when he asked for a pen and paper to write down for the guidance of the people so that they may not go astray.
Now there are only two ways ahead of us; to entertain these traditions regardless of their accuracy or discrepancy to the case or to say that those companions interpreted them for some errand or the other. Indeed, the second way is the nearest to debate under reason and logic because we have seen those companions going contrary to the words of the Prophet in his very lifetime while there stood no ground whatsoever for any interpretation Those who hold a good will towards them could believe that they (the companions) never intended to disobey the Prophet as they were only thoughtful of the common interests because they were used to be consulted by the Prophet in line with God’s orders, “And consult them in the matter.” Therefore, it never occurred to them that they were interfering in the public matters while the Prophet was binding them into orders.
We are far from entertaining argument to debate the excuse of the Companions of the Prophet. However, we do desire to point out to those who go blind to the facts as they just gaze the Companions. Let them know that we do not find any word more expounding than the word ‘my successor’ and the word ‘my guardian’ uttered by the Prophet and at once followed by his order ‘to listen to him’ and ‘to obey to him’.
Tradition No. 11 attests: “To every apostle there is a guardian and inheritor. To me he is Ali Bin Abi Taleb.” In this tradition the openness speaks for itself. Guardianship of prophet hood is not a thing common. Inheritance to the prophet hood too is the same; it is not that of property or pelf. Ali is his cousin besides his son-in-law. He does not inherit, as does the Prophet’s daughter (his wife). Inheritor of prophet hood does not mean a prophet himself. His station is such as that of the Prophet where obedience becomes obligatory to all to be performed, as a duty not presented as a favor. The Prophet exempted him from the rest. He inherits knowledge of the Prophet while others can not.
Each of the traditions if not testifying Ali’s being an Imam or a caliph does in the least possible establishes a ground where any likelihood of an interpretation is obviated. If still we see ourselves under a ruling of doubt, we can well ask for a word or two that could in some way or other point to one of his Companions. If we do not find any, it would again be our right to investigate into the whole business that vested the dispute to the choice of people. There too if reason does not satisfy us, we have to return back from this impasse empty handed.
A doubt still prevails on the researchers.A setback for them on their way to proceed ahead and a poke repeatedly put into the wheel.
This is what they say: The traditions specify and determine the caliphate of Ali, as the Shias say, then why Ali did not demand there upon his right. Why Ali did not protest the Companions or the Muslims gathered at Saqifa?
This is the doubt -- a better avenue than the denial of the text. Indeed, the researchers have answered this query. To shorten the length I would dwell on this much:
When the affair ended in the favor of Abu Baker and he was declared as the caliph; Ali had to face two alternatives without a third. One: To yield to the thing happened and forego any public campaign; this for the sake of the very entity or survival of Islam. Two: To fight till evening his right. Let us see what says he himself: “I started looking either to take with my amputated hand or to bear a dark pit.” When he made the choice and he knew what it was; he says: “Hence, I saw the patience on both the things more wise as there was no ground to launch an open compaign for the caliphate. So, I turned from it my face away, and shook my shirt from it.” Had he demanded, he had to endeavor too with whatever power available to him. In what time Islam was then? We shall dwell in the coming chapter. As for the companions, they had their men. Although at Saqifa Ansaar declared: “We do not yield but to Ali”. These words, as the winds blew, gone with the winds too and the history either ignored or forgot. We could only remind to our readers in our coming discussions in this book.
0%
Author: Allamah Mohammad Reza Al-Mudhaffar
