The Problem of Caliphate
They object in the following manner:
Firstly, from the beginning of Islamic Caliphate to the present age, more than a thousand years have passed. Many important and authentic scholars have graced these centuries and all of them have examined the matter carefully. Needless to mention that they were right from all aspects. Then why is there any need to raise these objections (against the Caliphs) and conduct dialogue? But even if they were wrong, thousands of years have passed and tens of thousands researches conducted but they were not sufficient to solve the problem. From this aspect too, it is impossible to solve this great problem in a book as brief as this.
Reply: In spite of numerous studies in the past centuries, the problem has not been solved satisfactorily. It means they did not really intend to solve it. For, in order to solve a problem, we have to rid ourselves of bias, prejudice and enmity. And the scholars of Ahle Sunnat have not achieved this so far, because this problem is the chief cause of controversy in the Ummat. The Muslims have trodden the way of controversy and hypocrisy on this issue and divided themselves into two major sects.
Firstly: The present day Ahle Sunnat accepts the concept of Caliphate without any reservations. Secondly: The Shias challenge this and have opposing beliefs. Due to this the rulers of both sects have succeeded in keeping the people of the Ummat divided.
During the rule of Bani Umayyah, the conditions of caliphate were clear. That everyone was not allowed to express the truth is obvious on the dark pages of Islamic history. If anyone denies this, I can show that the chiefs of the tyrannical rule were from the tribes of Mu'awiyah, Ziyad and Hajjaj ibne Yusuf.
Mu'awiyah used to severely punish all those who mentioned any virtue of Ali (a.s.). Whenever anyone related anything against Ali (a.s.), no matter how great an allegation, he was rewarded amply by Mu'awiyah. Thus, in that period, it was impossible to differentiate truth from falsehood. Only the ignoramuses would differ on this score. Ziyad and Hajjaj were the worst characters in this regard. These two usurpers could never stand anyone having love and regard for Ali (a.s.). Such a person was invariably arrested and severely punished by them. It is a fact that in this atrocious era, thousands of sincere people were falsely implicated and punished. Then, the love for Ali and his progeny (a.s.) was considered to be a great crime.
Yes! Those people who know the condition of that age will agree with me. Let me quote a few examples for the benefit of our readers so that they may get an idea of the gravity of the situation.
First of all, we shall discuss the origin of caliphate. A group of companions, who did not pay allegiance to the first caliph in addition to all of the Bani Hashim, had gathered in the house of Ali ibne Abi Talib (a.s.). They were threatened and forced by some people to Hashimites to give oath of allegiance. This was followed by the snatching of sword from Zubair and being smashed on a stone. There were disturbances, crowds, attacks, and the terror tactics used by them.
For further details, refer to the following: Chapter of Imamat and Khilafat of Ibne Khaldoon, discussion of caliphate in Iqdul Farid's book, Sharh-o-Nahjil Balagha of Ibne Abil Hadeed, the volume on Politics and Imamat of Dinawari, the topic of 'Caliphate' in Daairatul Maa'rif, Al Bayaan wa Tabiin of Al-Jahiz, twelve volumes of Al-Aghani of Abul Faraj Isfahani, etc. Numerous other ancient writings can be studied for details. By this you will agree to the opinion of this humble writer. A point to be stressed at this juncture is that only the writings of Ahle Sunnat scholars have been quoted herein to prove each point. Books of Shia scholars are not used as proofs in our discussion.
Also apart from these intrigues and plots and trampling of rights, were the causes of Battle of Jamal. Keeping this in mind that all this proves our assertion we leave it for the moment and begin the discussion of Umayyads. The horrible battle of Siffeen is before our eyes. We shall discuss it at the proper place but here we only mention a tragic incident of this battle. After the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.), Muawiyah gained absolute rulership over the Islamic Empire. He also usurped the titles of 'Amirul Momineen' and 'Caliph' for himself. There was not a single companion of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) who had not heard his words of infidelity and his imprecation for the Master of the Pious (a.s.). And the limit is that during that time not a single senior scholar dared to criticize his words of disbelief and oppose him! Yes! How was it possible to prove the right of Caliphate in that time? And who could dare to accomplish this?
One day Muawiya invited Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) to the mosque so that people may hear some words of respect for Muawiya from the tongue of Imam Hasan (a.s.)! Needless to mention that he failed miserably in his devilish attempts and Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) never uttered such things.
When Mu'awiyah found that his words were against his wishes, insultingly, he brought Imam Hasan (a.s.) from the pulpit in such a way that the respected head of Imam (a.s.) was hurt by the pillar of the mosque. Finally, Imam Hasan (a.s.) was poisoned with special poison formulated by Mu'awiyah's doctor, Ibne Aasaar. Hujr bin Adi and his comrade Amr bin Hamq Al-Khuzai along with five members of their family were buried alive due to their love and attachment for Ali (a.s.) and his progeny! Now you understand why it was impossible for anyone to speak the truth!
During the Umayyad rule, the renowned poet Farazdaq, was reprimanded and exiled. His crime: he had composed a poem (Qasidah) eulogizing the Purified Ahle Bayt (a.s.) Qambar, the slave of Ali (a.s.) and a close companion of the people of Infallibility, was martyred at the hands of Hajjaj. At this juncture, I would like to present an example that would explain the mentality of the scholars of that age. By this we shall be able to get a slight inkling of the conditions prevalent in that period.
Shu'bah, the well-known scholar says: One day Hajjaj ordered me to present myself before him. In a state of extreme fright, I presented myself. As soon as Hajjaj saw me, he called a cruel executioner. When the executioner appeared, Hajjaj said to me, “O Shu'bah, I have heard that you say that Hasan and Husain are the progeny of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.). If you cannot prove your assertion from Quranic verses, I will have you executed.”
Shu'bah was sure of his death and destruction and without any fear said, “Yes! I will prove this statement in the light of the glorious Quran.” Hajjaj said, “But you must not indicate the verse of Mubahela, you must use some other verses. I said, “All right, I will prove from other verses and I recited,
And We gave to him Ishaq and Yaqoub; each did We guide, and Nuh did We guide before, and of his descendants, Dawood and Sulaiman and Ayub and Yusuf and Haroun; and thus do We reward those who do good (to others). And Zakariya and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas; every one was of the good; (Surah An'aam:84-85)
I said, “How many generations come between Nuh and Isa (a.s.)?” Hajjaj said, “So many that it is impossible to count them.” I said, “How many generations come between the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and Hasan and Husain (a.s.)?” Hajjaj understood what I meant and said, “As if I had never seen this verse in the Quran!”
But despite accepting my argument, Hajjaj threatened to execute me and I escaped to Muwarun Nahr. There too the order to arrest and execute me was sent by Hajjaj. But I hid myself and escaped punishment.” Yes! The aim of relating this incident is to know the reality. And who were the people who possessed the qualities of Caliphate? Was there no person who had such capabilities?
Now let us study the period of Bani Abbas: This was a period of great Islamic scholarship and jurisprudence. Therefore it should have been a period of expounding of the realities. But what a pity! It proved to be worst for the Muslim Ummah wherein the worst types of evils and crimes were perpetrated. The members of the household of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were martyred through sword and poison, one by one! Those who harbored malice against the progeny of Ali (a.s.) were rewarded and valued. In the same way, truth-loving people were degraded and tortured and a great number of scholars were killed and terrorized as mentioned earlier.
We shall mention all such atrocities at their appropriate places. Let us revert to our discussion. We have said that the early scholars did not undertake to solve the problem of caliphate. We do not feel it is necessary to present all the proofs. From the origin of Islam to this day thirteen centuries have passed4 but it is still the main cause of differences and disunity. Please, for the sake of justice, is there anything more effective in causing divisions in the Ummah?
It is only the matter of caliphate that has caused dissensions in the ummah and wrecked havoc and unfortunately, it still continues. As we said before, people will object that the 1000-year-old problem is not worth repeating.
Reply: This problem in the Ummah is like a wound that is always oozing blood and puss. Obviously, no matter how much you cover the wound, without proper medication, it will deteriorate and gradually become incurable. Thus if one intends to cure a wound, one should use good medication, and for this, it is inevitable for the wound to be opened. Yes! Just as a closed wound is bereft of cure and medicine, in the same way, the problem of Imamat is a very dangerous wound and has shaken the very foundations of the unity of Ummah. If any of the sincere researchers do not address it impartially, it will remain in its state of incurableness and the foundations of unity that can strengthen Islam will be rendered weak. Hence, we have made a firm determination that with the help of logical arguments and authentic books written by great scholars of Ahle Sunnat, we may study and arrive at a conclusion. And we pray to Allah for help and grace in this regard.
This was when the book was written. Now, fourteen centuries have passed- Translator.
Caliphate of Amirul Momeneen (a.s.)
There is no controversy regarding the matter that Hazrat Ali ibne Abi Talib is the caliph - the difference is on the point whether Ali (a.s.) is the absolute legatee and immediate successor of the Prophet (s.a.) or is he the fourth one? It is clear that Ahle Sunnat believe him to be the fourth Caliph, whereas the Shias consider him to be the immediate Caliph after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a). But in the beginning, we will quote the writings of some great scholars. And with a little study, accompanied by the rules of research, arrive at some conclusions so that the falsity of those claims is exposed.
Now we present the great scholar, Imam Muhammad Ghazzali's words that are also famous in Europe. We shall quote it and then decide upon it. With due respect to his scholarly capabilities, we shall not indulge in any personal attack but still his criteria will be followed by us. Ghazzali writes in his well-known book Ihyaul Uloom:
“If a saying comes from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), we accept it with all respect. And if it has come from the companions, we have the choice to accept it or not. But if it has come from the Tabeen scholars, all of them are (ordinary) mortals and so are we. (That is, they are also like us, and hence we should not follow them blindly).”
Well said, Ghazzali! We shall also act upon this statement. In the same way, we shall also not accept without scrutiny the sayings of the early scholars. Just as you do not accept blindly the sayings of his predecessors, we shall also follow his example. With due respect to your merits and knowledge, we shall conduct our own research and arrive to our conclusions in the same way. By this the soul of Ghazzali will not be unhappy with us because we are acting on his method. Hujjatul Islam Ghazzali writes in Ihyaul Uloom (consisting of 20 volumes) 2nd volume part 5:
“Caliphate by Ijma (consensus) of Ummat is valid. For, if divine text (Nass) were present, the companions would have definitely acted upon it.” Reply: This is a claim without proof because it is very likely that Nass was present but the companions did not act upon it. And this could be due to two reasons. Perhaps they were ignorant of Nass when they had gathered at Saqifah. This was because very few people were present at Saqifah and ignorant of this matter. The act of 10 or 12 persons cannot be called Ijma and to take the absence of Nass as an excuse is not correct. It is clear that only three persons from Mohajirs were present in Saqifah. From the Ansar were a few that came with Sa'ad bin Ubadah.
Firstly, the situation was that the mortal remains of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were not yet buried. The hastening of all companions to rush to Saqifah for Ijma was against the spirit of Islam.
Secondly, not a single member of the household of the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was present; and it was not even possible for them to be present there. Thirdly, the gathering was secretly held by Sa'ad bin Ubadah and even the claimants of caliphate reached there afterwards; but they also kept it a secret. Fourthly, a few days after the popular allegiance received by Ali (a.s.), he entered the mosque and reiterated his claim to caliphate to the gathering of Migrants and Helpers. They replied, “O Abul Hasan! If at all we had heard your statements before the oath of allegiance was given, we would certainly not have paid allegiance to any one other than you.” From this it becomes clear that at that time Ali (a.s.) informed all the people of the nomination (Nass) regarding him from the Messenger of Allah (s.a.). The group of companions was aware of the Nass and they had testified to it and narrated it. It is for this that the first caliph expressed regret of having accepted the caliphate but he could not convince his supporters.
Fifthly, on the day of Saqifah Bani Saaedah, Abu Bakr ibne Abi Qahafa told Umar ibne Khattab and Abu Ubaidah Jarrah, “Give me your hand, so that I pay allegiance to you.”
All this was grossly incorrect because:
The right of Ijma is for the whole Ummah and was not restricted to three persons. So much so, that at that time apart from Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubaydah and Awaim none of the Migrants were present as is proved from other historical sources. Specially, Ibne Khaldun on page 77 volume 1, Iqdul Farid, pg. 33, vol. 3, Dairatul Ma'rif, pg. 70, vol. 4, and many others books can be mentioned. From this case, it was necessary for all the companions to have unanimity (Ijma). Since this was such a critical issue, it was necessary that all the great companions should have been aware of it and should have discussed in detail so that it would become clear whether Nass existed or not and in case there was no Nass then, if not all the Muslim Ummah, at least the senior companions should have been the decisive authority over the selection.
In what way is it possible that the pivot of Caliphate Hazrat Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and the uncle of Prophet (s.a.), Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, were absent from this Ijma? In fact, not a single person of the Bani Hashim was present there! The Ijma of those seven people does not solve the problem of Imamat and this kind of the Ijma does not even constitute a simple gathering. Secondly, it is possible that the people who were present in Ijma had heard the Nass but refrained from acting upon it. This was not unlikely at that time. To prove this, we present the following example.
After the murder of the third caliph the companions led by Talha and Zubair willingly paid allegiance to Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.). But Talha and Zubair were not happy with it. Later, on some pretext, they went to Makkah Mukarramah, joined forces with a woman having a similar view and invited her to create rebellion and dissension in the Islamic Ummah. They instigated her come out of the four walls of chastity and brought her to Basra.
At that time Uthman bin Hunayf, the ruler of Basra objected to Zubair and Talha that they had previously given oath of allegiance to Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.). They said, “We had given allegiance to Ali under duress. Now we dissociate from it!” On the basis of this, it was decided that a person should go to Madinah and ascertain the situation. Thus a person deputed for this purpose arrived at Madinah on a Friday at the time when all the people had gathered for Friday prayers. The messenger stood up and said, “O companions of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.)! Talha and Zubair sow the seeds of dissension in the Ummah and say,
'We had given allegiance to Ali (a.s.) under duress.' Now tell me whether allegiance was extracted with force or did they pay it willingly?” It is clear that all the companions were aware that allegiance was paid with the will and wish of Talha and Zubair. First of all to testify to truth and to promote peace in the Ummah it was obligatory of all those present to announce the truth. But not even one spoke up the truth and all of them remained silent. Usamah bin Zaid became the first to give a false testimony and said, “The allegiance of Talha and Zubair was given under duress and force.” Now, please pay attention: They denied the allegiance that was clear as the sun so it is very much possible that they did not follow the Nass with regard to Imamat.
I request all the readers: Without casting aspersions on the companions and with all due respect to them, we shall continue to follow the truth in proving our claim and we do not have any fear in this regard. Yes! We object to the claim of those who claim Ijma without noticing their proofs and support our objection with the following arguments and quote Ibne Abde Rabb the famous scholar of Ahle Sunnat from the book Iqdul Farid page 77, volume 3 who writes under the topic:
“And from those who refrained from the oath of allegiance to Abi Bakr were Ali ibne Abi Talib, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, Zubair bin Awwam. They had gathered in the house of Ali (a.s.) when Umar ibne Khattab went to the door of Ali and they did not heed his demand. So Umar said to his group to bring some fire. Fatimah said, “O Umar! Would you torch my house?” Muhammad Wajdi, an Ahle Sunnat scholar, writes in the third of the 22 volumes of Daaeratul Maa'rif under the topic of Khilafat as follows: “Ali bin Abi Talib and his party refrained from paying allegiance to Abi Bakr. So Umar came to them with some of his friends. Zubair the supporter of Ali (a.s.) attacked them with his sword. Umar ordered them to restrain Zubair. Salmah attacked Zubair and snatched the sword from his hand. They took Ali (a.s.) forcibly to Abu Bakr to extract allegiance from him but Ali (a.s.) demanded his right. Abu Bakr told Umar not to force him but Umar said, “I will not leave you if you do not pay allegiance.”
Yes! The above lines are exactly as given in the most important books of Ahle Sunnat viz. Daaeratul Maa'rif, page 757, volume 3. Hazrat Ali (a.s.) said, “O Umar! You are establishing such a thing of which half is yours. Today you are consolidating caliphate for Abu Bakr so that tomorrow he will hand it to you.” Ali (a.s.) made Fatima sit on a mule and took her to the houses of companions demanding his rights.
O readers! Kindly pay attention to this tumult. Whose house was it? And this crowd and attack? How it could Ijma be proved in this situation? In case it was the consensus of Ummah, what was the cause of this crowd and attack? What was this for? Were not Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (a.s.), Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib members of the Ummah? Is it possible that one says the claim of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was invalid? Were not the claim and demand of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) the claim and demand of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.)?
Thus it becomes clear that Abu Bakr being incapable of rejecting the proof of Ali (a.s.) said, “I do not force you for allegiance. And I am regretful for having accepted the Caliphate,” It is proved in all the writings of the Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat that Abu Bakr said, “O Abul Hasan! If I knew I wouldn't have accepted the affair (caliphate).” But by what authority did Umar on his own came to the house of Ali (a.s.)? Was he the Caliph, or the commander of his army? No one knows! It's a pity. This incident is a blot on the pages of history, which can neither be removed and nor can it be corrected.
Let us discuss the nomination and selection of the second caliph:
The problem is obvious that the first caliph appointed the second caliph by a will. It is right that the majority of people paid allegiance to Umar ibne Khattab on the basis of this will. But it was a clear nomination and not a selection. Nomination also is quite different from consensus. Now here we wish to ask a few questions? Firstly: Is the nomination of a Caliph compulsory in Islam or not? In case it was compulsory, did the Messenger of Allah act upon it or did he not? In case the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) did not act upon the matter of appointment of Caliph, wasn't the appointment of successor on the part of the first Caliph an innovation (bid'at)?
We repeat: Appointment of legatee by the first caliph is an unacceptable matter. Because in case the right of selection of Caliph is with the Ummah, a Caliph by appointing his own legatee has deprived the Ummah of its rights. In case the preceding caliph had the power to appoint the Caliph then all people would not have opposed the appointment of Yazid by Muawiya. Both these cases were identical.
We shall also discuss in brief the Shura for the selection of the third caliph. We have always claimed that people, who do not accept that Nass existed for Imamat, must accept that Ijma is the right of the Ummah. But from the very beginning, it was deprived of this right. Even if it is proved for the first and the second Caliph, our aim here, is to prove that the Shura appointed by Umar did not constitute Ijma. After the ten years of his Caliphate, the second Caliph, it must be said, committed error in appointing the Shura.
Firstly: The second caliph devised the selection of Caliph through a Shura (Committee) of six persons. Such an appointment of Shura is not based on Nass, or nomination or Ijma. It was not Nass because he did not specify a particular person. It was also not Ijma because it was entrusted to only six persons. Secondly: In the appointment of six members, the second caliph gave all sorts of proof yet there remained many doubts. Because if just being a companion was their merit, there were thousands of others as well who were almost equally qualified if not more than most of the members of the Shura. If being present in the battle of Badr was their virtue, there were many others who were also present at Badr. If it is for some rare tradition that mentions some merit of these six people (who constituted the Shura), then a tradition is solely recorded regarding the merits of Ammar Yasir. That is,
“Truth turns with Ammar.” Such a tradition was not recorded for all the members of Shura together, how it can be for each of them separately. Thirdly: The second caliph ordained that the decision of Abdul Rahman bin Auf should be final. This is unacceptable!
Fourthly: Muhammad bin Salmah was instructed that if after six days a caliph is not selected; all these six persons should be executed. Now we say: This was an extremely improper and illogical matter. Because in case the opinion of all the Ummah was made subservient to these six persons and each of them asserted their own rights or in spite of the Nass rejected the Shura, it was possible that the appointment of caliph had been delayed for some days. It was possible that six days might have passed without the selection of caliph and Muhammad bin Salmah would have killed them with the help of the fifty men under his command. Who would have been responsible for that?
Fifthly: The second caliph after appointing the Shura members pointed out some defect in each of them. Thus, implicitly implying by these alleged defects that the matter of caliphate was not of much importance. Sixthly: He also ordered that his son should be present there without expressing his opinion - but Umar totally ignored Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) the beloved grandson of the Prophet (s.a.). Even though at that time Imam Hasan (a.s.) was much more deserving and concerned with this matter than Abdullah. Seventhly: Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib was not included in the Shura even though he was more suitable for it than five of the members.
Eighthly: The second Caliph made unworthy mention regarding each member of the Shura but when he came to Ali (a.s.) he said: This is the man sufficient for your affairs if he hadn't a humorous strain for it- meaning for Caliphate. After mentioning the names of the five members of Shura, Talha, Zubair, Uthman, Abdur Rahman and Sa'ad and implying that not one of them deserved caliphate he said:
“Only this man Ali bin Abi Talib is suitable for it and would fulfill your affairs. And I would have appointed him for the caliphate if he had not been greedy for it.”
The famous scholar of Baghdad Ibne Abil Hadeed in his book Sharh-e- Nahjul Balagha has discussed this matter in detail. Now in this matter there are some points that become clear, so much so that respectable scholars did not consider them suitable to write about. The worst of these was the fact that in spite of confessing that the most suitable candidate for Caliphate was Ali (a.s.), the Second Caliph advised him not to contest. If at all the Second Caliph had been concerned with the welfare of Islam and Muslims, he should have himself appointed Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph, whom he considered most suitable. This would have guarded the Islamic faith from hypocrisy, divisions, sedition and confusion till the day of Qiyamat. Is there any other matter, which caused such divisions and shook the pillars of Islam? No, it is this very matter! This Shura was invalid from the aspect of reason as well as traditional proof. We consider it to be absolutely illogical.
Now let us examine the opinion of Ghazzali: He says: If Nass (Quranic verse or hadith) had been present the companions would not have differed! Just for argument sake we can say that Nass was there but the companions did not act on it, in this way or that the Nass was not known to them or they intentionally did not act on it. We have explained both these matters at their appropriate place but here we only state that Nass did exist, as proved with logical as well as traditional proofs, because it is the most important point of our analysis. First of all, we shall present the logical proofs in brief and then move on to textual proofs:
Yes! Nass was present for Imamate as apparent from the fact that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) struggled greatly to expound and explain the religion of Islam. He made every effort for the protection and defense of the upright faith. Since Islam ensures for its followers the well-being of this life as well as the hereafter, in order to protect this institution from external as well as internal dangers, it was incumbent on the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) to specify in his lifetime, a capable and deserving person to manage the affairs of this institution. This matter is clearer when we consider that at the time of his death, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was aware of his approaching death and was concerned for Islam. And since the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was the most concerned person for the well being of Islamic religion, he naturally should have appointed the most capable person at the helm of its affairs. That person should also be the most deserving. It is necessary according to the dictates of wisdom and not acting upon it would have destroyed the very aim of sending Prophets and Messengers, which is against divine wisdom.
Then in this situation it was necessary for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to appoint a suitable person.
We shall mention the traditional proofs in brief and prove our point. We shall be content to discuss the following points:
Firstly: All the great Prophets and Messengers (a.s.) had appointed their successors to manage the affairs of the community after them as is evident from the Holy Quran. Therefore it was also incumbent on the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to maintain this practice and appoint somebody as his successor. So that the saying “As is the leader, so are his followers” will be fulfilled.
Secondly: The traditions that are recorded and famous among the Ummah, especially the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which are considered our most authentic books. All the traditions mentioned therein are considered reliable and no one has an iota of doubt among them. These traditions shall be quoted by us. These traditions will prove that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) did appoint a successor. And this was none but Ali (a.s.) because the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had announced at Ghadeer Khum.
“Of whomsoever I am the Master, this Ali is his master.” 'Master' in this context meant the master of affair (one who possesses absolute authority). If this was merely a command for love and devotion to Ali (a.s.), there was no need to announce it to such a large gathering because the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had time and again advised the Muslims to love Ali (a.s.). Hence the announcement of this did not call for arrangements of such magnitude. The Prophet (s.a.) had repeated many times:
“Love for Ali is a virtue. One who loves Ali loves me. The sign of the believers is love for Ali.”
But here the meaning of Wali is Successor and master of affair. Secondly: The hadith-e-Manzilah proves that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) appointed Ali (a.s.) as his successor because the similarity with Haroon, apart from successorship and Wisayat, nothing else was worth comparing. Thirdly: The tradition of the 'Mender of Shoes' (Khaasif al-Na'l) proves the Wilayat of Ali (a.s.). Because in this tradition the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) says: As I had struggled for the revelation of Quran this person will struggle for its interpretation and this is none but the mender of my shoes, that is, Ali (a.s.).
Indeed, it is clear that the one who is supposed to wage a holy war for the propagation and interpretation of the Quranic message must also be the legatee and successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Fourthly: Imam Hasan (a.s.) says in a report that, “My grandfather the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said, 'And you Ali are from me and I am from you. And you are the guardian of all the believers after me.' From this tradition, it is clear that after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Ali (a.s.) is the master and guardian of all the believers. Because if 'wali' denoted only love (for Ali), it was incumbent during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as well.
Fifthly: Imam and Mujtahid Ahmad bin Hanbal has recorded in his Musnad a tradition from Abdullah bin Hanbal that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said: “O Bani Waliya! Either you will be destroyed or I will send to you a man who is like me and establishes my command and will fight for truth and make children prisoners.” After that he looked at Ali (a.s.) and said: “It is this man!” This hadith proves that Ali (a.s.) was appointed by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to manage the affairs of Islam. This is a clear Nass in favor of Imamat. Sixthly: The case of announcing the verses of Surah Bara'at also proves that Ali (a.s.) was to manage the affairs of the community after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Because initially the Surah was given to the First caliph and he departed to Makkah. But on this juncture divine revelation descended commanding that the announcement of the Surah Bara'at must be entrusted to Ali (a.s.).
This was in keeping with Allah's order that the Prophet (s.a.) himself, or his successor, must announce the divine laws. And since Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) was the successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he was deputed to take the Surah from Abu Bakr and recite it himself.
Seventhly: In all the military expeditions Ali (a.s.) was appointed as the Commander while the three caliphs were under Ali's command and none of them ever held command.
Another important point that is derived from the above is that Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) was appointed as the Master of the affair through divine Command whereas the three Caliphs were under Ali's command.
Since only an indication is sufficient for the people of intellect we feel that the above logical and textual proofs are sufficient to prove our view. Yes! Ghazzali said: It is the belief of Ahle Sunnat that all the actions of companions be justified and we must praise them all. In reply we say: It's a pity! Hujjatul Islam, while making this statement has not paid attention to the meaning of Tazkiye Jamea (purification of all). Because, the word Sahaba (companions) in that period denoted hundreds of people and the term 'All the companions' indicates the purification of all companions and makes them immune from errors and mistakes.
Because by 'cleansing' Ghazzali means to prove their infallibility and inerrancy from all evils and sins. Actually, infallibility is restricted to the Prophets (a.s.) and very few personalities called the Imams (a.s.), but according to Ghazzali it is incumbent for all to consider all the companions infallible. We say if that is the case then why Haatib, who was an immigrant (Muhajirin) and one of the senior most convert, try to betray the secret plans of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) regarding the conquest of Makkah?
And hundreds of companions even after entering the circle of companionship had resorted to hypocrisy and intrigue and thus reneged from faith! The supreme example is that of Thalaba, who refused to obey the laws of Shariat. That Mughira bin Shu'bah committed fornication was absolutely proved to the Second Caliph. Harqoos bin Zuhair, in spite of the fact that he was a companion at Badr, became the leader of the Khawarij in the battle of Naharwan. Similarly in Naharwan a few thousand companions joined the sect of Kharjities. And Ghazzali himself agrees that all of them were beyond the pale of Islam. Mu'awiyah and Marwan despite the fact that they had been companions, rebelled and reneged and their acts of rebellion are well known and well chronicled among the scholars of Ahle Sunnat. Mu'awiyah also mobilized his army to fight against the Imam of the Muslims (Ali a.s.). He also initiated the vile practice of cursing Ali (a.s.) from the pulpits of Islam. This is recorded in the history of Islam. Such acts were not only against Nass, they even amounted to infidelity.
If we begin to relate the crimes and evil deeds of all the companions in this book, we will stray from the main purpose. But the engagements of Jamal, Naharwan and Siffeen are mentioned here just to clarify the matter. If we were to act upon the view of Ghazzali we would be agreeing to the cleansing of all the misguided satans and their justifications. Their crimes are such that judicious and religious people remain aloof from such things.
But since the writer himself belonged to the Ahle Sunnah, he will endeavor to clear the misconceptions about Ahle Sunnah - because Ahle Sunnah means the followers of the Sunnah (practice) of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Thus one who justifies all the vile acts of companions would not have followed the practice of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
How apt is the couplet of the great Sufi thinker, Hafiz Shirazi: One who does not befriend Ali (a.s.) is an infidel Whether he is the pious one of his time or a Shaykh All the sects of Islam are obliged to respect and have regard for all those that follow the path of the Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.a.), whether Ahle Sunnat or others.
Ghazzali says, 'Respect and regard for all the companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is incumbent on us'! The reply to this baseless assertion has been given in my book Irshad-e-Hamzavi in detail and it will not be repeated here. Ghazzali says, 'No one refrains from justifying the deeds of the companions except the Raafedis'! It is pity! It is a statement that does not befit the scholarship of Ghazzali, because some people use the word of Raafedi as a weapon to save themselves. That is those who are helpless in logical reasoning and those who are ignorant. But the status of Hujjatul Islam Ghazzali is much higher.
Yes! We repeat that no one from the Muslim Ummah is capable of refuting the proven merits of the companions but if one does not accept the alleged and mythical virtues of the Sahaba, he cannot be labeled as Raafedi. With all pleasure we announce to the readers that Hujjatul Islam Ghazzali has mentioned some things in Ihyaul Uloom. And in another book Sirrul Aalemain, he has contradicted himself drastically. I request the reader to read carefully the chapter titled “The Fifth Essay on Caliphate”. And I feel indicating this much is sufficient.
42%
Author: Qadi Bohlool Afandi
