Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter 4 - the Muslims' Attitudes Towards the Authority After the Prophet

Regarding the authority succeeding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), Muslims were engaged in two main parties each of whom is claiming following the manifest right.

1. The historicists: This term is called upon those who justified and legalized the total occurrences of the political history of Islam, eminently the reign of Rashidite caliphate. They are known as ‘Ahlus­Sunneh.’ This term was originated in the Umayid reign and, markedly, in Muawiya's, when power overcame legality and survival became for the strongest who could submit majority of people to his domination. Thence, this year was called ‘year of congruity’, and the party who followed the prevailing force was called ‘the congruous.’ They are, in fact, the ruling party. They are, although disagreeing to the ruling regime in some situations, loyal to the Umayids who possessed the riches banned to those who stood against the ruling regime. Ahlus­Sunneh, however, looked at the Umayids as an emblem of the Muslims' unity.

2. The Shariites: They are, in various proportions, the party that opposed and decided illegality of occurrences of the political history of Islam. Proportionally, the Rashidite caliphate is considered as a golden reign if balanced with the Umayid. Moreover, there is no single face of comparison between the two. The Abbasid caliphate was worse than the Umayid.

The Shariites see that the divine doctrine did nominate the authority after the Prophet, and that God did not leave this affair for personal impressions. They believe that God did elect an authority and granted him the authorization of joining leadership to issuing judgments. The defined authority after the Prophet is Ali­bn­Abi­Talib (peace be upon him). According to arrangements of the doctrine, each authority is to nominate the successor. The adopters of such a belief is known as ‘Shia.’ Since the time of the Prophet, Shism was instituted. They are the opposition party all over history. At all the reigns, especially the Umayid and the Abbasid, Shias were chased, banished, banned from their basic rights, inadmitted as testifiers, disavowed as beneficiaries of the state imports and cursed forever.

Below, both parties' opinion and argument of the authority after the Prophet shall be respectively debated.

Who is the Authority Succeeding the Prophet?

The Sunnis' Opinion: the Claim of the Prophet's Leaving His Nation Without Nominating A Successor Or An Authority

Sunnis allege that the Prophet left his nation without nominating a successor or an authority. That is to mean that he did not indicate to an Imam or a leader whom should succeed him in undertaking the political and the religious affairs of the state. They referred to Omar's replying those who commended him to nominate a definite successor, as their evidence on the Prophet's leaving his nation without nomination. Omar, the caliph, said: “Should I name someone, this matter had been done by that who was more honorable than me - Abu­Bakr. Should I neglect so, this negligence had been practiced by that who was more honorable than me - the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family.)­”[3]

The Prophet, they claim, had never willed to anybody to undertake his mundane and godly affairs, including authority. They referred to Ummul­Mu'minin, A'isheh, as an evidence on their claim. A'isheh alleged that the Prophet had died while he was put between her neck and breast, and his head was on her thigh. She would have certainly heard him had he willed of anything. Thence, depending on Ummul­Mu'minin's previous claim, Al­Bukhari and Muslim denied the allegation of the Prophet's will.

Pursuant to their opinion, too, had the Prophet definitely nominated somebody in his will, as his successor, Ali­bn­Abi­Talib would never have been the one intended, as Shias allege. This is by the reason that had Ali been the one intended, the virtuous Sahaba would most surely not have disdained this will and elected someone else. This is arisen from the fact that the Sahaba, as a whole, are decent. He whoever bears any doubt about the order of the caliphs (Abu­Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali respectively), is debasing about twelve thousand Sahaba.[4]

Briefly, the Prophet did leave the affair of leading and ruling the Muslims for themselves considering it as an affair of their own concern. Necessarily Imamate and authorization are adjacent to headship of the Islamic government.

Settlement of the Claim of the Prophet's Leaving His Nation Without An Authority

Later on, Sunnis perceive that the ever most menacing matter that threatens the existence of the Islamic state is the current leader's neglecting nominating a successor. They also descry that assigning a successor is a concern resulting in the benefit of Muslims and Islam.

Let's take a view on the following incident. A'isheh addressed at Abdullah, the son of Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab: “O son! After carrying my greetings to Omar, tell him that he should never leave Mohammed's nation without a guide. He should nominate a successor, lest, they shall be dispersed. I anticipate that they shall be engaged in seditious matters.” Abdullah carried Ummul­Mu'minin's message to his father.[5]

Ummul­Mu'minin was quite true; leaving the nation without nominating a guide or an authority is a matter leading to the arising of seditious disadvantages and the dispersion of people.

Abdullah, the son, paid thorough intention to this point. While his father was dying, he stood before him and said: “O Amirul­Mu’minin! Nominate a successor for leading Mohammed's nation! You should certainly reproach the supervisor of your camels or sheep if he left the animals without appointing a supervisor as his representative. You would blame him for missing his depository. How would you, Amirul­Mu’minin, then do it with Mohammed's nation?” Al­Faruq, however, provided the same reply: “Should I name, this matter had been done by that who was more honorable than me - Abu­Bakr. Should I neglect so, this negligence had been practiced by that who was more honorable than me - the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family.)­”[6]

The process of the Prophet's leaving his nation without nominating a successor was settled by innovation of the procedure so-called the heir apparent of leadership. This procedure is practiced by the current leader's nominating a person, disregarding distinct qualifications and characteristics, as his heir apparent; that is to mean the successor. This is established for the reason that the current leader, Imam, caliph or president, disregarding legality or the way by which he had come to power, is the actual custodian and supervisor of the nation and, in addition, he is the only one who has full acquaintance of the convenience of the state he is ruling. Therefore, he is the most familiar with the future of his state. People, consequently, should accede and trust the one he is to appoint in the same amount of confidence they had already provided for the previous. This procedure was jurisprudentially called the nation's congruity. It was, first, processed by Abu­Bakr when he appointed Omar as his successor. The same was processed by Omar when he founded the six­member advisory board.[7]

The heir apparent was enacted as a law. Origin of this process was Abu­Bakr's nominating Omar, and the Sahaba's showing no objection that it was seen as the outcome of congruity. For bn­Khuldoun, congruity is measured as a lawful certificate defined for the benefit of unificating Muslims, getting rid of seditious concerns, evading keeping Mohammed's nation dispersed with no supervisor, as A'isheh, Ummul­Mu'minin expressed[8] , and evading any reproach as Abdullah­bn­Omar expressed[9] .

According to Sunnis’ opinion, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was the only leader who had not nominated a successor. On the contrary of other leaders and presidents of the Islamic states who could conceive the Muslims' advantages in their life as well as after their death, the Prophet, pursuant to bn­Khuldoun's exposition, saw people only during his lifetime, and he should not forecast their advantage after his decease![10]

In Abstract, after a long period of suffering, the virtuous Sahaba could perceive the fact that it is an inescapable collapsing to leave the nation without referring to the coming leader, Imam or authority. They also perceive that nominating a successor, by a will or conventionally, is a matter flowing in the advantage of the Muslims. Thenceforth, they enacted the law of appointing an heir apparent.

A more important matter is that the divine Islamic doctrine has shown everything mentioned in detail or generally in the Holy Quran or by the Prophet. The religion's being clear of this fundamental question is contrary to perfection of the religion and completion of the divine grace. This is emphasized by the fact that the Prophet had opted for his departure and had awareness of his decease during that final disease. God has planted caring for this nation in the Prophet's heart and made him benevolent and merciful to the believers, and let him in on the future of this nation. Is it, then, rational for him to leave the nation without referring to an authority succeeding him? How should a prophet neglect such a serious affair while Abu­Bakr, Omar and A'isheh, who are not prophets, treated it? Decisively, this matter is unacceptable and denied by positive doctrinal texts in spite of the estimation of dominant occurrences in that period.

Sunnis adhered to any argument for justifying occurrences. As they were disappointed by the texts, they clung to surmise. When surmise was collapsed, they clasped the advisory board. When that failed, they adduced mercy to the Muslims and keeping their benefits, unity and future so that they would not be scattered like a guideless cattle. After a long period of probing a pretext, they could settle on the principal that the current Imam or caliph is to nominate his successor to whom people are to declare loyalty.[11]

The Prophet’s Successor According to the Sunnis' Opinion

The caliph, the Imam or the president of the Islamic state is the religious and political authority since he is seen as the Prophet's representative. The caliph undertakes the Prophet's tasks and functions. He estimates the mundane and supernal benefits of the nation. He is the leader and the warden of Muslims in his life and after his decease. He is in charge of assigning the coming leader and the next authority whose responsibility is continuing the current caliph's missions. People should confide this new caliph as they confided the previous one.[12] The caliph enjoys also total privileges and competencies the Prophet had enjoyed on the nation. In our An­Nidhamus­Siyasi Fil­Islam, a whole chapter is debating such competencies. In the same book, the following saying of Dhafir Al­Qasimi recorded in his Nidhamul­Hukm, is written down: “Competencies and privileges of a caliph include the utter internal, external and military affairs. He is the only one on whose shoulders the responsibility of such affairs falls. In case the caliph authorizes some of managing any of these affairs, this should not extinguish his competencies and privileges.”[13]

Al­Mawerdi endeavored to define and proclaim these competencies on pages15 and 16 of his Al­Ahkam. A summary of this endeavor is entered on page194 of our An­Nidhamus­Siyasi Fil­Islam. Considering him as the Prophet’s successor who had been the authority in both mundane and supernal affairs, the caliph is the Muslims’ religious authority. He has the authorization of practicing the same acts practiced by the Prophet, since he is his representative in every field except prophesy. Moreover, there are some privileges given to the caliphs while the Prophet himself had not practiced. An example of these is the heir apparent of caliphate. According to Sunnis' opinion, the Prophet left his nation without nominating a guide, a leader, an authority or an Imam; while Abu­Bakr, the intelligent, named Omar as his heir apparent after he had been counseled by the grand Sahaba. In his turn, Omar defined six individuals for succeeding him. A scrutinizing view at Omar's will reveals that Othman was practically the one intended. Othman was originally called ‘Radeef’ which stands for the heir apparent.[14] Talha, however, was absent during the advisory board Omar had ordered of for electing the new caliph. Had Az­Zubeir, Talha and Ali adopted the same line, Othman should certainly, however, have been the caliph. A literal implementation of Al­Faruq's will, beyond any dispute, leads to Othman's being elected for caliphate. This very result is attained by taking an accurate look at any of the references involved.

During the Umayid caliphate, the president of the state, who came to power due to his domination, used to nominate his heir apparent. In other words, the prevailing individual was the caliph, who was the authority having competence of assigning his successor. The same thing is said about the Abbasid and the Ottoman caliphate.

Abu­Bakr and Omar were the originators of the principal of the caliph's nominating his successor. Hence; this procedure was pursued by the others. There is a difference between the purport intended by Abu­Bakr and Omar at inventing the heir apparent principal and that intended by the others. The earliers used this principal for evading the circumstance that any of their relatives may come to power, while the others used it for enabling their relatives from prevailing the state and ruling the government after them. Later on, the current caliph's naming and electing his successor became a regular practice. It was seen as one of the caliph's rights. Including bn­Khuldoun, a many Sunni scholars received this matter as one of the caliph's rights. “The Imam should select on behalf of people in his life and, sequentially, after his death.[15]

For Sunnis, the Prevalent Ruler is the Authority

Sunnis regard the caliph who comes to power and practices its responsibilities as the very authority of the political and religious affairs. Abu­Bakr, Omar, Othman, Muawiya, Yazeed, Marwan and so on were the supreme authorities during their reigns. Each played the role of authority in his time. The same thing is said about the Abbasid and Ottoman caliphs. Prevalence is the actual measure of authority. The prevailing ruler, similarly, is the Imam, the guide and the authority of the nation in both mundane and religious affairs.

Abu­Ya'li Al­Izz records: “Many reports ascribed to Imam Ahmed indicating that caliphate is attained by prevalence and preponderance. It may not be in need of a contract. In a narration related by Abdus­bn­Malik Al­Attar, Imam Ahmed says: ‘It is illicit for any who really believes in Allah and the Hereafter to pass a single night before he declares fealty to the individual, whether virtuous or immoral, who used his force in dominating affairs of the Muslims and became a caliph and titled Amirul­Mu'minin.’ In another narration reported by Abul­Harith with respect to rebellion against rulers, Imam Ahmed says: ‘Muslims should support the victorious party in case two parties struggle for coming to power.’ This rule was inferred from the (legal) ruling legislated by Abdullah­bn­Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab when he led the collective prayer in Al­Madina on the day of battle of Harra. He said: ‘We are with the prevalent. People should swear allegiance to the predominating.’”[16]

This is the conclusion of the political system of Islam. People should declare their fealty to the predominating, apart from regarding religion, qualifications or legal situation. Such a saying became a part of the political Shari'a.

Concisely, for Sunnis, the prevalent circulating ruler became the authority in the entire affairs of the Islamic nation.

The Representative Authority

The prevailing ruler is the actual supreme authority of the nation in total mundane and religious affairs. Rulers should, even if bed­ridden, nominate an heir apparent as the new Imam, leader and authority. Rulers enjoy authorization of doing so since they are the Wali and the warden of this nation who chooses for people in life as well as after death. Rulers should appoint an individual taking the charges of people whose role is to confide only. Legally, this procedure was known as ‘people's congruity’ which was first originated by Abu­Bakr's nominating Omar as his successor, and the attendant Shaba permitted and committed themselves to this.[17]

In a like manner, the ceremony of Muawiya's nominating Yazeed as the heir apparent was attended by the remaining Sahaba. Practically, people should declare their allegiance to the new caliph assigned by the late. Objectors of such a procedure should be decided as ill­doers.

Competencies of the current caliph regarding nominating an heir apparent are limitless and irrefutable, since he is looked as ‘confident’ as bn­Khuldoun describes. (Abu­Bakr, the bed­ridden, named Omar as the heir apparent and told Othman, the registrar of this decision, that he would have been fit for it.)[18]

Omar, in a like situation, discussed the Muslims' affairs with himself and reviewed various aspects of the matter while he was in his last moments. As he scrutinized the most appropriate who would have the ability of occupying his place, Omar said: “Had Abu­Ubeideh been alive I would have nominated for caliphate. Had Khalid­bn­Al­Waleed been alive I would have nominated for caliphate. Had Salim, Abu­Hutheifeh's slave, been alive I would have nominated for caliphate.”[19] This indicates that Salim, Abu­Hutheifeh's slave, could have been the caliph if he had been alive. Salim was not from Quraish. His lineage was unknown. Nevertheless, he was, as Al­Bukhari recorded, leading the Muhajirs and the Ansar in collective prayers held in Qeba Mosque. By the way, if Salim's being the caliph was an all right matter, why was it, then, illicit for the Ansar, who were racially closer to the Prophet, to be caliphs? Besides, how should Salim have been caliph while the three Quraishi individuals who attended the Ansar' meeting at the Saqeefa of Bani­Sa'ideh, argued that they had been more eligible to caliphate for their being the Prophet's clan and people? Similarly, how should Salim have been the caliph while the immutable rule says: caliphs should be constantly from Quraish? How did it become, later on, lawful to designate Me'ath­bn­Jabal, the Ansari, for leadership while it had been illegal for the Ansar to have leadership? Finally, Khalid did exert all efforts for the sake of combating Islam, while Ali spared no efforts for the sake of defending it; on which principal was Khalid preferred to Ali?!

For a simple reason, Omar refused the suggestion of nominating his son, Abdullah, as the heir apparent. The reason provided by Omar was that Abdullah had lacked even the ability to divorce his wife in the proper way!![20]

It is remarkable to reflect precisely upon the report that Omar (Pleased be him), finally, decided to designate Ali­bn­Abi­Talib for caliphate, but he was fainted!![21]

From the above we can conclude that, for Sunnis, competencies enjoyed by the present caliphate with regard to nominating the heir apparent or the morrow caliph, are incontrovertibly conclusive. It is worthy mentioning that the law of nominating an heir apparent was first originated by Abu­Bakr who named Omar as his successor, and Omar who established the six­member advisory board according to which Othman was practically the one intended. Nomination of an heir apparent was mostly followed, in the form of a legislated law, in the Umayid reign. The Abbasids and Ottoman followed the same practice. The heir apparent was usually the late’s son or one of the royal family members.[22]

Arguing for keeping Muslims' good, the nomination of an heir apparent and a morrow authority became an ordained law. Ummul­Mu'minin advised Omar to nominate the morrow caliph so that they, Mohammed's nation, should not be scattered. Omar sought her directions in this regard. This means that the caliph would have nominated the exact one A'isheh had selected.

Congregational Authority for Sunnis

“Not all of the Prophet's companions - Sahaba - were legible for issuing verdicts. Not all of them were referred in questions regarding the religion. This matter, however, was exclusively attached to the retainers of the Holy Quran, who were having full acquaintance of its entire aspects; such as repealing and repealed positions, bases and allegorical and the rest of its evidences. They had received these concerns from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) directly or from their supreme tutors. Those individuals were named ‘Qurra'’ - reciters of the holy Quran, since the Arab were illiterate nation and the ability of reading was an inexperienced matter on these days. This question lasted all over the first stage of Islam.” bn­Khuldoun says.[23]

By emergence of the Umayids as rulers, the essential sections of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception were originated to comprise the entire Sahaba, with the lexical and the terminological meaning of this term. Without an exception and without any introductory, the entire Sahaba became so decent that they shall be certainly in the Paradise, and none of them shall be in the hell­fire, and they are inapplicable to forge lies. They grew idiosyncratic religious authorities that it is lawful to rest upon.

As he is reckoned with the first class Sahaba, Abu­Bakr's opinions are lawful. The same thing is said about Omar's and any other Sahabi's. This is by the reason that the entire Sahaba are decent.

The following saying is imputed to Abu­Haneefeh: “In case I could not find the text involved in the Quran or the Prophet's traditions, I go straightly to the Sahaba's opinions. Supposing there were various opinions of various Sahaba, I, then, have full option to adopt any provided that I do not prefer their followers' opinions to theirs.”[24]

In his I'lamil­Muwaqqi'in, Ibnul­Qeyyim writes down: (For Imam Ahmed, principals of legislation are five. The first and the second are the - doctrinal - texts and the Sahaba's verdicts respectively. The Hanafites and the Hanbalites ruled of allocating the Holy Book of Allah to the Sahaba's deeds. Their argument is that the learned Sahabi would not neglect applying a general text unless he has an evidence. Hence, applying on the contrary of a doctrinal text is an evidence on the allocation of such a text. The Sahabi's deeds, however, are as same value as his words.)[25]

Like the Prophet, each Sahabi has his own words, deeds and signature. This means that each Sahabi has his own tradition. From Ibnul­Qeyyim's saying of estimating a Sahabi’s deeds as same as his words, we can deduce any Sahabi's deed is used for allocating general significations of the Holy Book of Allah and generalizing a restricted meaning. This indicates that the Sahaba's sayings were treated as if they were revealed from the heavens. The most catastrophic matter in this question is that every Sahabi, in both lexical and terminological meaning, is intended in this rule. Abu­Bakr, Muawiya, Marwan­bn­Al­Hakam and Abdullah­bn­Abi­Sarh are, according to Sunnis’

conception, Sahaba of the same degree and standing, and are authorities and stars that guidance to the right path is gained by following any of them.

As an abridgment, the following is inferred; there is a congregational authority believed in by Sunnis. Unexceptionally, each Sahabi is an idiosyncratic unadulterated authority that is impracticable to forge lies. He speaks only the most evident right since he is one of the people of the Paradise. He whoever suspects them, or any one of them, is decided as a miscreant whom should be neither share in food or drink, nor offered the funeral Prayer when he perishes!! The Sahaba’s followers became their successors. The Sunni scholars were successors of the Sahaba's followers. Hence, the variant parties were the dominant powers.

Roles of the Authorities for Sunnis

In the Rashidite caliphate, the caliph was the supreme authority of Muslims. He was a decent Sahabi who has the right of seeking the advice of any and, in the same time, neglects or follows any opinion. Abu­Bakr and Omar were wont to seek the advice of the retainers of the Quran such as Ali, Ubey­bn­Ka'b, Me'ath­bn­Jabal, Zaid­bn­Thabit and the like. It was not unacceptable for the caliph to adopt the opinion of any of them, since the most important thing had been recognition of the Shariite ruling. There was no existence for the Sahaba's ultimate decency in the meaning for which the Umayids advertised and legislated. The majority of Sahaba played a little role in the aspect of authority. In other words, they were not authorities.

In the Umayid reign, the matter was not so different. After he had planted the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, Muawiya, the decent Sahabi, became the Muslims’ supreme authority. He practiced his authority as same as the former caliphs did. He had the right to seek advice and adopt opinion of any. Thanks to the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, Muawiya was regarded as one of people of the Paradise that he took the place of Abu­Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali despite the fact that he had been ‘released’ and son of ‘released’. As he was seen as a caliph, Muawiya enjoyed the caliphs’ same competencies. He had the right to adopt any opinion from any in case there were variant solutions of the same question.

For scholastic individuals, they also had the right to adopt any opinion in case of variety of solutions of the same question. The same thing is said about Sahaba's followers and scholars; their successors. The parties enjoyed the same right. After the collapse of the Islamic caliphate, every scholar became an independent authority who had his own verdicts and followers. In a like manner, every Arab party became an autonomous authority enjoying the right of issuing verdicts and having followers. The mission of each party was not more than proving its meritoriousness of predominating power in the province taken as its center.

Chapter 2 - Political Roots of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

Islamic political system

A. Contradiction Between Idealism and Reality

There is a complete difference between the Islamic political system adopted since the Prophet's decease till the period of the last Ottoman caliph, and the divine political system constituted by God's revelation to Mohammed, His slave, for managing Muslims' affairs in every time.

Insisting on the factual existence of such a difference, we, hereby, are to prove that there is a diversity among persons and reigns regarding size of this difference. It is trivial to assert on existence of this difference since it is a matter facilely realized by every sane provided that partisan imitation is abandoned. If the Islamic political system, with its divine form and contents, had been literally applied after the Prophet's decease, the Islamic state would not have collapsed; those seditious matters and massacres would not have occurred; the Islamic nation would not have been engaged in discrepancies; the glorious Islamic extension would not have stopped at this mass and, finally, Islam would have prevailed this whole globe causing a radical changing in the mankind history. In his An Experiment In The General History, the English Philosopher, Wales, one of the most notable thinkers of modern history, says that Islam would have conquered the whole world if only it had been kept on its first procession and the seditious matters avoided.[14] While the Arab scholars - as far as they could conceive - misthink of caliphate system as the factual Islamic political system and, hence, they demand with re applying it. It is proved that the factual Islamic political system is only that applied in the Prophet's reign. This occurred before the formation of the caliphate system, since it means succeeding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Considering the Islamic system is caliphate; what was, then, the system applied in the Prophet's reign? Certainly, the political system applied in the Prophet's reign was the actual divine Islamic political system. This was utterly applied before the formation of caliphate. It is the origin and the ideal. Other strategies are not more than branches or forms of that ideal, which can be extended or acclimatized according to remoteness or closeness to the original.

B. the Islamic Political System

The Islamic political system is that applied by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) during his divine solicitation for organizing relations with his followers. As this solicitation was developed into a government, the Prophet applied the same system during his leadership which lasted for ten years.

God perfected the religion and completed His grace upon people and explicated absolutely everything before the Prophet's decease. By extrapolating this system, it is believable to describe it as a divine system that is prepared and formulated to be the ideal international system leading to an ideal world. It is indeed divine in its ideal form and ultimate composition.

C. Pillars of the Islamic Political System

The Islamic political system is based upon four pillars connected to each other in such a way that any is impossibly separated from the others. In case any separation occurs, the system entirely loses its Islamic characteristics. This is by the reason that these pillars are the distinguishing feature of the system. Perfection of such pillars is the only method by which fruits of application of the system are given.

1st Pillar - Political Leadership

As a matter of fact, political leadership in every divine doctrine, among which is Islam, is nominated or elected directly by God. Applied to this fact is the prophets David, Solomon and Mohammed. It was none but God, the Elevated, who selected them as prophets and presidents of states of God's oneness. This divine decision is notified directly or indirectly. An instance on the indirect notification of God's selection is Saul, when elected as the Israelites’ political leader. One of the Israelite prophets declared God's decision of electing Saul as the assigned king. They protested claiming that Saul had not been fit enough for such a position. God revealed the many reasons owing to which this man was elected. Among these was Saul's superlative objective and physical competence. In addition, preference is God's concern; he, the Elevated, does know to whom He should give. Another example - on the indirect notification of God's selection - is God's nominating Ali­bn­Abi­Talib as the successor of Mohammed, the leader of the nation. This preference had been widespreadly declared by Mohammed in the sight and hearing of one hundred thousand Muslims. That was in the Prophet's last ritual pilgrimage; the Farewell Pilgrimage.

Purpose Of The Divine Election For Political Leadership

As regard to the question of leadership, the pure impeccable necessity of ordinary people is having the most learned, the most favorable and the fittest in positions of authority. Realizing such an individual with such qualifications, that are hidden for everybody, is an impracticable matter. Hence, God, as a sort of His mercy to His believing creatures, has shown them the very intended individual provided that they are honest in their searching for the most qualified. Leadership, as a matter of fact, is a technical process of specialization. In most cases, it is succession of prophesy. Guidance, advocacy, solicitation, wide­heartedness and decisive judgments parallel to the exact divine purpose beyond the entire rules of the divine juristic policy, are considerable qualifications of prophesy. It is not pertinent to commit these affairs to people's various fancies and tempers.

This pillar, in truth, is the only practical factor that demarcates the Islamic political system among other positive ones. Allowing conjecture and guess, positive strategies decide according to people's intents and humors in matter of electing the fittest for political leadership. This election will not be resulted from perfect precision that is exclusively gained by following the divine approach.

2nd Pillar - Organic Relationship Between Divine Doctrine And Selected Leaders

Thoroughly every divine manuscript is revealed to an individual, every divine guidance is committed to a director and every divine missive is revealed to selected messenger. Depending on so, relation between the divine manuscripts, guidance and missives, from one side, and the individuals, directors and messengers, from the other side, is organic in such a way that it cannot be incoherent.

It is inevitable to substantiate divine manuscript, explicate guidance and display missive for enabling followers to pursue, as well as altering the space between the beginning and the end result into a calling of interpretation and a field of application of the texts contents. By this operations, a fertile probation that betters and demonstrates the divine missive, manuscript and guidance will be progressed. Unless process of prophesy is technical and specialized, God may convey a copy for each individual. Mohammed, none else, is the qualified skilled in this field. He is the unique expert in field of calling for Islam in such a way that is fully concurrent to the divine intendment of the whole texts. He is the most learned of the divine missive, script and guidance, the superior follower and the fittest political leader who directs his followers pursuant to policies of the divine revelation. He whom is nominated by the Prophet, according to God's divine order, is the unshared authorized for keeping perpetuity of the organic relation between the divine doctrine and its political leadership.

3rd Pillar - The Divine Jurisprudential Formulation

According to the Islamic political system, the Imam - political leader - is restricted to the divine jurisprudential formulation. Hence, he does not enjoy any sort of self-determination in the field of issuing judgments. The Imam's judgment, however, must be fully and identically concurrent to the divine will in both characterization and components. The jurisprudential formulation is God's making. It is the operative law to which every individual under leadership of the Imam - political leader - is submitted. Repeatedly, the jurisprudential formulation is not the constituting of the Imam or the mandate people, it is God's making. As a matter of facts, Mohammed's sayings are not more than forms of explicating and expounding upon the divine revelation. This is regarded as another difference between the Islamic political system and positive ones which are issued and organized by some individuals and imposed upon followers. The jurisprudential formulation of the Islamic political system, on the other hand, is made by Allah, and imposed upon both leaders and followers in the same degree under the supervision of the Maker, Allah. Those submitted to, implementing and judging the Islamic system are, on even terms, slaves of God, the Maker. Both are imposed to the system. Both are to submit to God only.

4th Pillar - The Commonalty's Contentment

The public, usually, count on having an ideal jurisprudential formulation that is capable of determining general, as well as private, goals, and capable of delving into the apropos means for attaining such goals. They, as well, look forward to having the most favorable and fittest political leader that is most knowledgeable of constituents of the jurisprudential formulation. In favor of saving people from this grievance, the Divine Care provided the solution by explicating the most agreeing jurisprudential formulation. The solution was Islam with all its components; the Holy Quran and the Prophet's traditions; words, deeds and signature. The leader who is most familiar with that jurisprudential formulation, as well as the most favorable and the fittest, was Mohammed. After Mohammed's decease, the succeeding leader must be the one nominated by Mohammed according to God's command through revelation. The same is repeated after the decease of the current divinely assigned leader.

The public's contentment to this divine characterization of the jurisprudential formulation, as well as the political leadership, shall lead to sublime welfare and guidance to the right path. This result is attained only by accepting the divine characterization which means applying the formulation and acceding to the leadership. In adversary conditions, God shall certainly leave the public for undergoing and suffering penalty of disobedience if they reject the divine mandate, formulation and leadership by opting for one not assigned and decided by Allah.

Simplicity of the Islamic System

How can one realize that he is on the divine right path? It is an undiscussible rule that he whoever accedes to political leadership assigned by Allah is with Allah. In a like manner, it is logic that those who supported Mohammed are forming the party of Allah, while those antagonizing are the party of the Satan even if they continuously adhere themselves to performing the duties God has imposed. This is by reason that acceding and following the divine leadership is the criterion with respect to which is membership of any of the two previous parties is determined. The very same thing is said about those who pursue or antagonize the divine successor of Mohammed.

Following Mohammed was the exact distinction between the truthful and the liar. There was a great deal of people who performed ritual prayers, established mosques, gave alms and could find excuses for their failing to appear in fields of battles led by the Prophet. Yet, they were decided, by Allah, as hypocrites. This was for nothing other than the fact that their following Mohammed had been incorrect.

Political Circumstances of Inventing the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

Othman­bn­Affan held leadership of the Islamic nation after the assassination of Al­Faruq. Othman, as a nature, was fond of caring for his relatives. The Umayids began their journey to throne consecutively. The caliph himself accredited their being his men and consults; so, he gathered them around him. Practically, the entire affairs of the state became in the hands of Marwan­bn­Al­Hakam who, later on, issued the orders of assassinating Mohammed­bn­Abi­Bakr and his associates, using the caliph's seal without seeking permission or authorization. This situation is precisely described in Ali's saying: “After his being old­aged, Othman, the previous companion of the Prophet, handed his sword to Marwan directing it as he liked.”

Who was Marwan? He is one of the ‘released’ and classified with the inclined­hearted group. Those are individuals given a share of the alms for making their hearts attached to Islam. His father, Al­Hakam­bn­Al­Aas, was deported out of Al­Madina all over the reigns of the Prophet, Abu­Bakr and Omar. When Othman came to power, Al­Hakam was permitted to return to Al­Madina with full respect and dignity. Besides, he was gifted one hundred thousand dirhams as a compensation.

Abdullah­bn­Abi­Sarh was one of those who played a considerable role in establishing the Umayid state. He was the governor of Egypt; that rich province. Who was Abdullah­bn­Abi­Sarh? He was the very one who had forged lies against God. Therefore, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) sentenced him to death penalty in absence. It was fully legally to kill that man whenever found even if he hangs to the Ka'ba's curtains. (This is recorded in As­Seeretul­Halabiyya, Section: Mecca Conquest.) On the day of conquest of Mecca, Othman accompanied the man as he was seeking the Prophet's canceling the death penalty. For a considerable period, the Prophet kept silence hoping that the man would be killed by any. None could implement the Prophet's will; thus, he had to secure him. It is not unacceptable to say that the seed; Muawiya, that had been planted by Abu­Bakr - by assigning him as the governor of Syria - had been rooted in the land firmly. For twenty years, Muawiya kept the position of governing Syria. He had full authority to do anything in that valuable land. So, he levied and gifted without supervision.

Marwan, Muawiya, Abdullah­bn­Abi­Sarh and Al­Waleed­bn­Aqaba, the governor of Kufa who performed the Fajr prayer with four Rak'as - units of prayer; those four released’ persons were the best students of Abu­Sufian's school. Even Othman, the caliph, was about to be given a graduating certificate from that school.

Al­Jawhari records the following: When Othman was named for caliphate, Abu­Sufian addressed at him: “This affair - authority - was Taim's. They were originally unfitting. Then, it became in the hands of the Edi's. They were more unfitting than the previous. Only then it returned to its proper place and settled for its original people. Yes, like a ball, receive it and hand it to one another.”

On another occasion, Abu­Sufian addressed at Othman: “My father and mother I do sacrifice for you! Spend over and do not be the like of Abu­Hajar. O sons of Umaya! Hand it one another, just like children's handing a ball one another. By God I swear, there is no Paradise and no Hell.” Az­Zubeir was attendant in this situation; therefore, Othman had to rebuke Abu­Sufian. “Is any body else here, my son?” wondered Abu­Sufian. Az­Zubeir shouted: “Yes, there is. By God I swear, I will never keep it secret!!”

Precisely, In his Al­Kamil Fit­Tarikh, part3, Chapter: Events Preceding Othman's Assassination, Ibnul­Atheer records: (Once, Marwan­bn­Al­Hakam shouted: “Deformed be your faces! Do you intend to strip our sovereignty?”)

In the last quarter of Othman's caliphate, authoritarian affairs became absolutely in the hands of the Umayids. It became hardly to see a province ruled by other than the Umayids, if not the ‘released’. Thus, it became reasoning that any who would succeed Othman should certainly be an instrument operated by the Umayids, lest he should engage himself in a lightless night and an uneven mined land.

As a result of large expansion of the Islamic state, owing to the conquests, numbers of the fresh Muslims and pocket beneficiaries of the state became greatly large. In a like manner, number of the honorable Sahaba on whose shoulders the Mohammedan government was established was in continuous deficiency. Thus, the foremost Sahaba became as sparse as a single white hair in a black bull's skin. As Imam Sharafuddin Al­Amili expresses: “Sahaba, in that period, became the like of alarmed sheep in a winter night.” This was because of the abundant catastrophic misfortunes they had to encounter sooner or later. Muawiya, the crafty, had full acquaintance of these matters. Before assassination of Othman, he menaced the Sahaba: “You are as scanty as a black spot in a white bull's skin.”

The situation became in this form; the whole provinces were loyal to or governed by the Umayids. Muawiya­bn­Abi­Sufian, son of the previous leader of the parties conflicting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), and the one suckled by Hind bnt­Utbeh, became the only leader. He was governor of Syria, center of the circle and guardian of the Umayids. Besides, he granted himself the right of avenging Othman. In fact, demanding with taking vengeance of Othman was not more than a game plan aimed at guaranteeing continuity of the Umayids' rule. It was certainly a case of continuity of the Umayids' rule which, actually and practically, began on the day when Abu­Bakr assigned Yazeed­bn­Abi­Sufian as a governor. All matters went well after assassination of Omar, and none demanded with taking vengeance. This rule became firmer and firmer till it attained climax in the last of Othman's reign. It was turned into a decided sovereignty. This is the very meaning intended by Marwan's saying: “Deformed be your faces! Do you intend to strip our sovereignty?”

It became proved that Othman's assassination was forming no crux at all. So, insistence on condemning the assassinators was not pivot of the case. This is confirmed by the fact that Muawiya, when became the authoritative caliph, did not demand with condemning Othman's assassinator. As a matter of fact, it was a case of domination! For the Umayids, killing blameless people is not that incompatible matter. Marwan­bn­Al­Hakam issued a decision of sentencing Mohammed­bn­Abi­Bakr and his group to death penalty without being condemned to anything. Muawiya did kill Al­Hadrami whom was accused, by bn­Ziyad, of acceding to Ali. It was Muawiya who killed Amr­bn­Al­Hamq whose face was distorted due to his distinctive worship. It was Muawiya who killed Hijr­bn­Edi and his associates; those godly pious groups who enjoined good and forbade evil. It was Muawiya who gave authority to bn­Ziyad in massacring people and crucified them on trunks of date palm trees. Hence, Muawiya's most important concern is sovereignty and taking revenge for killing his grandfather, maternal uncle, cousin and his brother.

Seizing the opportunity of Al­Jamal battle, Muawiya goaded Talha, Az­Zubeir and A'isheh. He promised Talha and Az­Zubeir to be assigned as rulers of Basra and Kufa. When they were defeated in this conflict, Muawiya enlisted for breaking a war against Ali.[15]

In his Muawiya­bn­Abi­Sufian Fil­Mizan, Abbas Mahmud Al­Aqqad says: “A certain trickery by which wonderful achievements were attained, was frequently practiced by Muawiya against Muslim, as well as non Muslim, rivals. This trickery was mainly depending upon ceaseless work of creating discrepancies and despondency among the adversary party. This was carried out by throwing seditious matters and arising malice in the lines of the adversary party. The same trickery was actually used against people of his family and relatives. He could not tolerate noticing any concord between any two individuals. The natural competition between his most remarkable enemies could support him in accomplishing the trickery of throwing animosity among them.”[16]

Muawiya went on practicing this easygoing plan. He would spare no effort for creating as much as possible variant trends and parties. He would be surely described as the sower of discord if he was accurately balanced historically. The authentic signification of men and deeds is determined by the straight readers of history especially in matters like some historians’ accounting the year of Muawiya's full domination of the Islamic state as ‘year of congruity’. This was because he had been the direct and main reason beyond Muslim's discrepancies and discord. Owing to so and the like, it is so unfamiliar to constitute forms of agreement with the existence of such claims. Being not sufficed by seeding discrepancies, Muawiya left people in plenteous discrepancies; each follows a definite norm.[17]

He used Bishr­bn­Arta'a and sent him to Al­Madina where he terrified and humiliated the Sahaba.[18]

Precisely, by means of killing, destroying, firing, creating discrepancies and reviling at the Prophet's supporters and companions, Muawiya could gain people's swear of allegiance. He used the wealth he had illegally levied and expended in Syria for twenty years, for solidifying his dominion. One of his strategies was naming a definite salary to be given to the military officials of the state at nominating the new caliph.

Disregarding the Announced Goal for Dissenting the Legality

Muawiya and A'isheh, Ummul­Mu'minin, mutinied against the legitimate caliph demanding with condemning Othman's assassinators. When Muawiya came to power by force, neither Ummul­Mu'minin nor did he practice or demand with this affair.

Renaissance After Inadvertence

Although his father and he were among the ‘released’ and they led conflicts against Islam with an unexampled enthusiasm till they had to profess Islam for saving their souls, Muawiya, the son of Abu­Sufian, became the authoritative leader, the representative and the successor of Mohammed on people.

How had such a revolution occurred? How had the right been defeated? How had the right become retarded while the wrong advanced? How had the ‘released’ become preferred to the Muhajir? How had those who restricted Islam become favored to those on whom this restriction fell, for the sake of Islam?

The most astonishing matter is that the year in which strength defeated legality has been named ‘year of congruity.’ Thus and so, the virtuous people failed. They were heavily depressed as they felt of deep sorrow and nonsuccess. Anyhow, it was too late to repent. They had matters within their hands. As is they were living in an inadvertence, they wake up on effects of a horrible nightmare. When they opened their eyes and minds, they found the nightmare a reality.

Hypotheses Serving the Factuality

People were engaged in analyzing what had been occurring. A great deal of variant hypotheses and conception were come forth. For instance, Sufism, the conception of imputing matters - good and evil - to Allah, fatalism and the Sahaba's ultimate decency; these faiths were originated. The Umayids, together with their supporters, were the main incentive beyond emanation of such conceptions. They were used as a high quality weapons for defending the Umayid royalty. Besides, they were used for dispersing the rivals' efforts for the sake of establishing pillars of the Umayid royalty and substantiating its false legality.

Chapter 3 - Purpose of Inventing the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

1. Substantiation

1. Substantiating the process of the wrongful seizure of power: Muawiya, the ‘released’, the son of the ‘released’ and one of the inclined­hearted category, found himself the president, or the king, of the Islamic state, the representative and, officially, the successor of God's messenger. This is incredible and unbelievable! It is unacceptable according to the entire intellectual, doctrinal and positive criteria. The father, Abu­Sufian, was the head of the parties opposing Islam and the director of polytheism during the entire battles. His sons, supporters and he exerted all efforts and used all weapons for resisting Islam. They had to confess Islam only when they had been completely surrounded. Here is his son, Muawiya. He is preceding all those who had preceded him to Islam and whose shoulders were the pillars on which Islam was established.

There should be a justification of this revolution. The best way selected was ruling of decency of all of the Prophet's companions. As long as Muawiya and his faction are reckoned with Sahaba, according to terminological and the lexical meaning of this idiom, who are entirely decent, and shall be in the Paradise, and none of them shall be in the Hell, and there is no difference between them because of the total qualifications they, indistinctly, enjoy, then what should prevent Muawiya from being the caliph and the Muslims' juristic leader? What, in the same manner, should prevent his faction, who are Sahaba terminologically and lexically, from being his close entourage? They are so decent that all of them shall be in the Paradise and none shall be in hell­fire. The far-reaching conception of the Sahaba's ultimate decency is the most ideal substantiation of Muawiya's royalty. This wide­spreadingness shows evidently a real view of Muawiya’s artfulness and evil cunning.

2. Substantiating deeds of Muawiya and his faction: The most catastrophic misfortunes Islam and Muslims had faced were on the hands of Muawiya and his faction. Bishr­bn­Arta'a and Muslim­bn­Aqaba, for instance, committed the most terrible crimes from which even the heavens complained and the most hard hearts bled. In the Harra collision, the whole warriors of Badr were killed. Seven hundred men of Quraish and the Ansar were killed. From ordinary people, about ten thousand souls were killed in that collision. Nothing intercepted those commanders from killing the children. This crime was perpetrated by Bishr­bn­Arta'a when he killed the babies of Ubeidullah­bn­Abbas. In addition, battles against Imam Ali prove the criminal conduct of Muawiya and his faction. The most offensive matter, however, was Muawiya's planning for terminating Mohammed's progeny inclusively. In executing so, his faction and he used several devious devices for murdering. He poisoned Al­Hassan­bn­Ali (peace be upon him), Abdor­Rahman­bn­Khalid­bn­Al­Waleed, as bn­Abdil­Berr records in his Alisti'ab, and Abdor­Rahman­bn­Abi­Bakr As­Siddiq. Malik Al­Ashtar was also poisoned by Muawiya. For this, Amr­bn­Al­Aas said: “Allah does have soldiers of honey!” Furthermore, Muawiya made Muslims engaged in various discrepancies and discord. Al­Aqqad says that Mohammed's nation had been absolutely incapable of achieving unanimity whatever they attempted. Certainly, the Islamic jurisprudence was deformed on the hands of Muawiya. (The truth is that the Umayid reign was not Islamic..,), Dr. Ahmed Amin says.

Is there any way of substantiating these ill deeds other than the invention of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception? As the entire Sahaba are so decent that they shall be in the Paradise, Muawiya and his faction, then, had not committed any mistake. Had they been mistaken, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), the indisputably authentic and true­tongued who does never speak out of desire, would not have declared the entire Sahaba’s being in the Paradise. Considering him as an elicitor Sahabi, Muawiya is rewarded in all cases. He shall be double rewarded if he kills rightfully, otherwise, he shall be once rewarded. Muawiya is the right, whether he fights or opts for peace, attacks or absconds, takes or gives. This is because he is a Sahabi; and Sahaba are entirely decent.

2. Immunity Against Criticism, Maligning, Reviling and Imputing Dishonor

Accompanying substantiation of Muawiya's usurpation of leadership, the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception verifies crimes and offenses committed by his faction and him. Likewise, the conception grants immunity against any sort of criticism, including the constructive, railing, maligning and detracting from the estimate of such individuals since they are Sahaba and, consequently, decent. He whoever criticizes, maligns or rails at any of the Sahaba, especially those who are presidents of the state, is reckoned with the miscreants whom are to be not shared in food and drink and to neglect offering their dead bodies the ritual funeral prayer. This (juristic) rule is recorded in At­Thehbi's Al­Mizan. There is no other conception or plan that can immunize Muawiya such as this Sahaba's ultimate decency conception.

3. Confronting Rivals of Muawiya and His Faction

Adopting the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception secures victory, or tie at least, of Muawiya and his faction in any conflict against rivals. For example, if Mohammed's progeny affirm that they are those from whom God has removed - mental and physical - uncleanness and purified them a thorough purification, Muawiya and his faction will immediately submit that simultaneous answer of considering Mohammed's companions - Sahaba - as decent that they do never lie, since they all shall be in the Paradise and none of them shall be sent to the hell­fire. If Mohammed's progeny assert that those who cause harm to them should be reckoned with those who cause harm to God, Muawiya and his faction shall provide that immediate answer that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) say: “They are harming me those who harm any of my companions..” In such a manner, the right is mixed with the wrong, the obedient with the disobedient and the virtuous with the sinful.

4. Engaging Muslims in Discrepancies

In case Muawiya obtains the ability of emanating and broadcasting of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception with its wide­spreading features, a party of Muslims will adopt, and another will contravene. Controversy, accompanied by fanaticism, will arise in each party's convictions. This will lead to discrepancy and that each party record convictions that shall certainly be followed by a great deal of successors pursuing partisan imitation, claiming of defending the right and their own viewpoints. Regarding the conception involved, those who support such a conception are not necessarily supporting Muawiya. They claim of supporting the Prophet's companions. Those who disagree to the conception, on the other hand, are acquitting themselves from the view of dissenting the Prophet's companions, indicating that their aim is divulging trickeries and political cabals hidden for the other party. Practically, each party has actually stood in the face of the other shunning Muawiya who, in that case, is watching the two cheerfully, preparing himself to be the arbiter whenever necessary. This is the very artfulness intended by Al­Aqqad in his Muawiya­bn­Abi­Sufian Fil­Mizan.

Grounds of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

bn­Arafa­Naftawayih, one of the most notable hadithists - records that most of narratives appertained to merits of the Prophet's companions were forged in the Umayid reign, as the forgers intended attaining the rulers' satisfaction since they conceived that such falsity would submit the Hashemites. These false narratives were formed in such a way that every Sahabi, lexically or terminologically, would be the most virtuous guide in this world and that curses are continuously thrown on those who malign or accuse any of the Sahaba of any matters.[19]

Unanimously, historians assert that the origination of forging lies against the Prophet was in the last of Othman's reign and after occurrence of the revolution that prejudiced the caliph's soul. This falsity was extended and spread after people's swearing allegiance to Ali as he became the legitimate caliph. As soon as Muslims selectively declared their fealty to Ali, the Umayid's devil moved its horn for usurping the affair from its rightful owner. At any rate, events went on and some of declarants of fealty broke their allegiance to the fourth Rashidite caliph. The consequence of such a repeal was a good many battles and conflicts between Muslims, that were ended by the Umayids' dominating power. Due to so, in fact, structure of Muslims' conformity was seceded, ring of the their unification was ruptured, many contradictory sects were originated. besides, the many irreconcilable parties went on advocating their ideas by words and deeds on the account of the other party. Ground of founding the false hadiths and exegesis of the Holy Quran was quite proper. So, each party exaggerated in defending its ideology that discrepancy, in its highest rank, occurred. Nothing was more catastrophic to Islam than forging false sayings and imputing erroneous and heretic matters to its doctrine. These were the elements that spoiled Muslim's intellects and caused others to mistrust fundamentals of Islam. Misfortunes and detriments of such false narratives were chiefly undergone by those who lived under dominion of the Umayids. In that reign, the number of hadithists had recorded a great typical progress, while the number of authentic people had been in gradual retardation. Majority of the moral Sahaba ceased reporting the Prophet's narratives unless they had full acquaintance of decency of the one they were to report to.[20]

Imam Mohammed Abduh referred to the procedures taken by Muawiya for himself. He asserted that Muawiya had used a mass of the Sahaba and their successors for fabricating ill news against Ali (peace be upon him). The composition of such mendacious sayings falsely imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), was referring to maligning and repudiating Ali. As Muawiya set a considerable remunerative prize for forging such lies, those individuals did their best for seeking his satisfaction. Abu­Hureira was one of those narrators.

In His Dhuhal­Islam, Dr. Ahmed Amin says: “It is to mention that the Umayids did actually forge or employ people to forge lies against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) that flow in the service of their policies from various sides.[21] Muawiya gifted Abu­Samara­bn­Jundub, the Sahabi, with five hundred thousand dirhams for inventing the lie of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stating that Ali­bn­Abi­Talib had been the one intended in the Verse: (And among men is he whose speech about the life of this world causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries.) In a like manner, Abu­Samara forged the lie of the Prophet’s having saying that Abdor­Rahman­bn­Muljim, the assassinator of Ali (peace be upon him), had been the one intended in God's saying: (And among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is affectionate to the servants.)”[22]

Ahaadeeths Narrators

Abu­Hureira Ad­Dusi, is one of Muawiya's associates and followers. He imputed 5374 sayings to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Only 446 sayings of them are recorded by Al­Bukhari. Abu­Hureira accompanied the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) for less than 18 months. The Prophet's grand companions who had adhered to him from the first moment of his divine envoy till his being transmitted to the Elevated Associate, reported less than one hundred hadiths - narratives. The grand Sahaba are Abu­Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali, Abdor­Rahman­bn­Awf, Talha­bn­Ubeidillah, Me'ath­bn­Jabal, Selman, Zaid­bn­Thabit and Ubey­bn­Ka'b. This is an evident example.

Muawiya's Merits

In his Al­Fawa'idul­Majmu'a Fil­Ahadithil­Mawdu'a, Ashawkani, who proves falsity and unauthenticity of the entire (hadiths) regarding praising or mentioning Muawiya's credits, says: “Having reckoned hadiths appertained to Muawiya's virtues with the forged ones, Ibnul­Jawzi excused that Isaaq­bn­Rahawayih, Al­Bukhari's most authentic narrator, confessed of the fact that none of the hadiths respecting Muawiya's virtues had been authentic at all.”

An­Nisa'i had that famous story pertaining Muawiya's virtues. Ad­Darqutni relates: An­Nisa'i's companions asked him about Muawiya's preference. He answered: “How come is it not sufficient for him to be equated with any, that he seeks preference?” For this reason, he was pushed out of the mosque..[23]

Ashafi'i's Impression on Muawiya

Abul­Fida relates that Ashafi'i informed Ar­Rabee, secretly, of the fact that testimonies of four individuals from among the Prophet's companions should not be admitted. Those four are Muawiya, Amr­bn­Al­Aas, Al­Mugheera and Ziyad.[24]

This might have been the incentive that made bn­Muin ruled of dishonesty of Ashafi'i in narrating hadiths.

Al­Hassan Al­Basri's Saying

At­Tabari mentions that Al­Hassan Al­Basri used to say:

“Four ill deeds, any of which is sufficiently periling, are Muawiya's. They are his using the ill­minded ones - with the existence of the Prophet's companions and virtuous individuals - as rulers of this nation till he could dominate and cancel principal of advisory. His nominating Yazeed, his son, the drunkard who dresses silky clothes and plays on drums, as his successor. His avowing Ziyad as his brother, whereas the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had said: 'Babies are for the bed, and the prostitutes' share is stones.' His killing Hijr and his companions. Woe will be him due to killing Hijr and his companions. Woe will be him due to killing Hijr and his companions.”

The Entire Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception is Having Umayid Flavor

According to the content of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, Mohammed's progeny must have been reckoned with the decent. This should definitely make the Umayids stop their maligning and reviling at them.

Nonetheless, it is noticeable that regarding to his situations towards Imam Ali, Muawiya, the chief of the despotic party, adopted the very situation his father had against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Yazeed, the son, made no difference in his situation against Al­Hussein­bn­Ali. As soon as he came to power, the first procedure Muawiya took was writing missives to his governors and officials, ordering them of declaring cursing Ali during prayers and from pulpits. Furthermore, sessions of sermons, in Syria, were programmatically ended with reviling at Ali. Testimonies of those who accede to Ali or any of his progeny were inadmissible. Names of such individuals, who showed loyalty to Ali or any of his sons, were erased from the general record of the province. Hence, they were discriminated and intercepted from receiving any of the governmental salaries everybody joined.[25]

In his Muawiya­bn­Abi­Sufian Fil­Mizan, Al­Aqqad records: “Even if only the preponderant reports regarding Muawiya's orders of cursing Ali from pulpits of the Umayid state, are accepted, this will be acceptably sufficient to prove authenticity of the other reports involved in the same topic.”[26]