Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Alhassanain (p) Network for Islamic Heritage and Thought

An Introduction To The Political Upheaval At Medina

Author: Muhammad Sultan Mirza

WWW.ALHASSANAIN.ORG/ENGLISH

Table of Contents

Preface 3

Introduction 4

A. Direct Evidence 7

Supplement 1 11

B. Circumstantial Evidence 14

Supplement 2 16

Supplement 3 18

Notes 21

Preface

Dear Reader,

The book you mow have in hand is one of the many Islamic publications distributed by this Group throughout the world in different languages with the aim of conveying the message of Islam to the people of the world.

You may read this book carefully and should you be interested to have further study on such publications you can contact us through a letter.

Naturally, if we find you to be a keen and energetic reader we shall give you a deserv- ing response in sending you some other publica- tions of this Group.

You may express your views on this publication and the subject matter discussed in it, and how far you have benefited from it or which part of the subject matter has proved useful to you and your environment.

You will be able, in this manner, to introduce yourself as one of our good and active reader.

Meanwhile, you can keep our address at the disposal of your friends and those individuals interested in Islamic Studies.

Publication Secretary,

A GROUP OF MUSLIM BROTHERS.

Introduction

There was a great upheaval, a veritable revolution at Medina on the death of the Pro- phet.

Muhammad had not left the community in any doubt as to the person who was to suc- ceed him in the spiritual and temporal headship of Islam.

He had often, notably at Ghadir Khumm on the occasion of his return journey from the last hajj, declared in unequivocable terms that `Ali would succeed him, and on this occasion, he formally announced his appoint- ment as his successor.

But there was a party among his companions who were determined to seize power and place their own man on the throne.

How they achieved their object is fully described in this book: "The Political Upheaval at Medina on the Death of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam." by Aqa Muhammad Sultan Mirza, District and Sessions Judge, (Retd.).

The Book is concerned chiefly with analysing and criticising the theory on the basis of which the so-called election was arranged at Saqifah.

This theory is the dogmatic assertion, supported nei- ther by facts nor by logic, that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor.

From this they wanted the people to conclude that their meeting at Saqifah to select a successor of the Prophet was not only quite justified but was also absolutely necessary. All the rewards and allurements that a ruling fiction can offer and all the threats and punishments that are in its power were employed to weave this idea into the warp and woof of the very existence of the Islamic Nation.

To give it greater security and immunity from criticism, it has been taken into the fold of religion. But after all, the fact remains that this is purely a question of history.

and must be treated as such. It is the first con- cern of the historians of Islam to describe the constitution of the Islamic State founded by Muhammad; and how the head of a State is to be appointed, is the chief question relating to the constitution of that State.

It has been proved in this treatise that the arrangement by which the head of the State was appointed at Saqifah was neither open election nor honest selection.

An appeal is made to impartial historians, un- hindered by considerations of religion and un- mindful of noisy propaganda, to examine this assertion and theory critically in the light of proved facts and dictates of sound reason, and give their own finding, regardless of all con- siderations, political, religious or social.

That his "loving" companions left the dead body of the Prophet to take part in the meeting at Saqifah, that his relatives including `Ali remained by his side, overwhelmed by the great calamity that had befallen the whole nation,

that he died before noon on Monday and was not buried till late at night on Wednesday according to some 1 and till late at night on Tuesday according to a minority including Mawlawi Shibli,

2 that his funeral was not taken through the town to a secluded place in the graveyard and that on this occasion also as on other similar disputed occa- sions Abu Bakr came out with an alleged saying of the Prophet which no one else had heard and which has no rationalistic basis that Prophets are buried at the very place where they die, 3 and that, therefore, he was buried in the hujrah (room) of Abu Bakr's daughter,

`A'ishah, are clear indications that all was not well, and that there was something wrong somewhere. This book discloses what that something was and where it was wrong.

It must be patent to every student of History that some of those historical facts the correctness of which had for centuries been considered as finally established were eventually discovered to be incorrect,

but that it was only when the causes that had given rise to them had ceased to exist, and the passions and prejudices that had nursed them had subsided.

He often finds crystals of historical truth lying concealed in the layers of falsehood accumulated through centuries of religious fanaticism, personal pre- judices or state policies of rulers who had gained the throne after a struggle, open or secret, but not based on right and justice.

Their first neces- sity is to gain control of History and Propaganda, and stiffle any the slightest voice that is or may be raised in favour or sympathy of their defeated rivals. A criticism of their policy, nay, even of their daily movements and actions is taken to be an offence against State to be atoned for with nothing less than life.

This has been the govern- ing principle of politicians from the age of Hannibal to the days of Hitler, and this in spite of that much-talked-of boon called Modern Civilisation which is held to be the last word on all that is best and wisest in Man. That great historian of Muslim Spain, Dr. J. A.

Conde, has laid down a maxim of universal application which may serve as a guide to all who want to write impartial history, and have an ambition to occupy the position of an impartial judge of the Past. He says:

"A sort of fatality attaching itself to human affairs would seem to command that in the relation of historical events those of the highest importance should descend to posterity through the justly suspected channels of narrations writ- ten by the conquering parties.

The mutation of empires, the most momentous revolutions and the overthrow of the most renowned dynasties seem all to be liable to this disadvantage; it was by the Romans that the history of their own aggrandisement was written;

the narration of their rivalry and sanguinary wars with the Carthaginians has come down to us from them- selves; or if Greek writers have also treated the subject, these men were the tributaries and dependants of Rome, nor did they spare the flatteries best calculated to conciliate her favour.

Scipio thus appears to us the most admirable of heroes, but is not that in part because the history of his life is the work of his admirers and flat- terers? 1t is true that the noble and illustrious Hannibal cannot look otherwise than great and glorious even in the narratives of his mortal enemies,

but if the implacable hatred and aggressive policy of Rome had not commanded the destruction of all the Punic annals, the renowned African general would doubtless ap- pear to us under an aspect differing much from that presented by the ruthless barbarian, des- cribed by Livy and accepted by his readers as the portrait of Hannibal., ,4

What a striking resemblance with the early history of the khilafah (caliphate) and its heroes, which was the result of a struggle between two parties, one of which won the throne by a very clever coup d'etat.

Under the circumstances, it is apparent, as Conde goes on to remark that "a sound and just discrimination forbids us to content ourselves with the testimony of one side only, this requires that we compare the rela- tions of both parties with careful impartiality, and commands us to cite them with no other purpose than that of discovering the truth."

It is really very strange that the European writers on Islamic History have entirely lost sight of this wholesome axiom based on mere com mon sense, and have accepted, with credulity almost criminal,

the version of the events of that troublous period as published by the party that had won the throne and displaced the rightful heirs by means of a very skilfully planned coup d'etat giving rise to a fierce and long drawn struggle between the two parties and their representatives, in which one party had almost always the upper hand.

And this in spite of their knowing, or having enough material at their disposal to know the following facts: The appointment of a successor to the Prophet at Saqifah Bani Sa'idah was not an open, sincere and peaceful affair.

It was a very skillfully arranged scheme to capture the throne after the death of the Prophet. That it was nei- ther open and sincere nor peaceful is apparent from both (a) direct and (b) circumstantial evidence.

A. Direct Evidence

i) As soon as the Islamic movement entered its first stage of expansion, meeting and defeat- ing the rival forces in the open field, it became clear to all thinking persons that an Islamic State was in the making.

This idea grew in strength with time, and took possession of the mind of ambitious spirits; ii) The utterances of the Prophet and his conduct combined with the outstanding person- ality of `Ali and his services in the cause of Islam particularly his feats in the field of battle had not left any doubt that he had been marked out by the Prophet as his successor in the spiritual and temporal office.

There was another party which, as `Umar ibn al-Khattab rightly said 6 was bitterly opposed to this combination of nubuwwah (prophecy) and khilafah in one family, as they were averse to the rise, over other tribes, of one family, which looked to them un-precendented and intolerable.

This combined with the ambitious rivalry and jealousy of some and the personal hatred against `Ali of others whose.

relatives he had killed in the battles of Islam and who did not like his extreme zeal in the cause of Islam gave rise to a very noisy and powerful party against the house of the Prophet as represented by `Ali.

There was a third party of rich and i nfluential people who expected, as their birth right, a preferential treatment at the hands of the Caliph, and who rightly surmised that `Ali was not the proper person in this respect, as he would never sacrifice his principles of justice and equity for their sake, in fact, for any one's sake.

Naturally enough, this party wanted a pliant ruler who should pander to their wishes, and treat them as privileged people superior to the common run of men. All these factors joined together to give birth to a very powerful faction against `Ali; they had their own designs on the throne.

Though open opposition to the Prophet was impossible during his life, yet they were not entirely inactive even then. They tried secretly to secure adherents to their cause by taking advantage of every event that took place.

They pointed to the conduct and the utterances of the Prophet which appeared to them as giving undue preference to `Ali, they criticised the conduct of the Prophet when he confided his secrets to `Ali at an exclusive meeting with him, 7 their mur- murings amounted almost to open revolt when the Prophet passed a general order requiring all the companions whose houses opened into the mosque, except `Ali to close their doors.

These were thus shut out of the mosque, and the exception was galling to them.8 The members of this clique took a great advantage of this event to spread disaffection among the companions and to secure adherents to their cause.

They went to the extent of expressly disobeying the commands of the Prophet which seemed to them as creating opportunities for the smooth succession of `Ali.

They did not hesitate to plan the death of the Prophet. They could not con ceal their chagrin, and bitterly criticised his last speech at Ghadir Khumm holding up `Ali to the sight of a huge gathering as his successor. The Prophet himself was aware of the existence of this very powerful faction among his compan- ions.

The Qur'anic verse hints at the existence of a party to whom the succession of `Ali was distasteful, and for that reason they were prepared to go to the extent of causing harm to the Prophet.

iii) The attempts of this party to foil the efforts of the Prophet that were intended to provide means for the peaceful succession of `Ali. Clear instances of these attempts are recorded in History.

During his last illness, the Prophet thought that `Ali might succeed peace- fully if these ambitious members and leaders of this party were out of Medina at the time of his death. He, therefore, ordered all his compan- ions except `Ali and Banu Hashim to go out and join the army under Usamah ibn Zayd that was to invade the Roman territory to avenge the defeat and death of Zayd, father of Usamah. It appears that this punitive expedition had been postponed for this occasion intentionally.

The leaders of the opposite party were shrewd enough to realise the significance of this expedi- tion at this juncture, and refused to go. The Prophet continued urging the need of immediate march, but they kept evading the orders.

They did not move out, and the Prophet died.10 Another instance of this criminal and un- abashed disobedience of the express orders of the Prophet came during the same illness when the Prophet expressed his wish to write a will appointing `Ali as his successor.

The leaders of this opposition party prohibited the people from supplying the writing material to the Prophet, saying that the Prophet was delirious and talking non-sense.11 It is significant that Abu Bakr wrote his last will when he was so ill that he fainted during the dictation, so much so that `Uthman who was scribing the will wrote the name of `Umar ibn Khattab in the will while Abu bakr was unconscious,

fearing lest he might not regain conscious and die without completing the will.12 This shows the extent to which the members of this party were prepared to go.

They would not hesitate even to forge a will and foist it upon the nation. On that occasion the charge of ravings of a diseased brain was not levelled. On the other hand, `Umar ibn al-Khat- tab himself took out the document and forced the people to declare allegiance to what was writ- ten in it, with out announcing the contents.

13 iv) At the meeting of the Sagifah where the Caliph was to be "elected,"' Ali and his relatives, in fact Banu Hashim were not invited not even informed of it. 14

v) The possibility of a necessity arising to use force at the meeting at the Saqifah was not lost sight of by the actors of the Coup, and had been amply provided for. They had an armed force in Banu Sulaym ready for the occasion; and when the altercations reached a critical stage, they did intervene. `Umar ibn al-Khattab says that he was not sure of his success until the armed force of Banu Sulaym had arrived on the scene. 15 vi) The ansar (Helpers) were not averse to 'Ali's succeeding the Prophet; but the deeds and intrigues of the Opposition party of the muhaji- run (Immigrants) had convinced them that they would never accept `Ali and would get their own man placed on the throne. The ansar, could not, of course, tolerate this. They were, therefore, forced to set up their own man, Sa'd ibn ` Ubadah as a candidate for the caliphate. They 23 were not the first to move in the matter; long before they collected at the Saqifah, Abu Bakr had asked the people to come and elect a caliph from among themselves. This election speech was given just after the death of the Prophet when the speaker returned from his house at as-Sunh and saw his associate biding time by declaring, sword in hand, that he would kill anyone who would say that the Prophet had died. It is said that `Umar's extreme love for the Prophet caused him this loss of his senses. But this ebullition of exuberant love subsided at the sight of his comrade Abu Bakr, and then both of them went to the Saqifah as if, to use the words of Shibli, nothing had happened. 16 It seems that after this temporary politic loss, the senses returned with a vengeance. Shibli is forced to admit that this seeming loss was not due to any softer feelings, but that it was a political move to~arrest the news of the Prophet's 24 death from spreading.17 All this is a clear proof of the fact that this opposition party of the muhajirun and not the ansar were the first to move in the matter and start opposition against `Ali. The ansar stood up, not to oppose `Ali but to present a front against this party. The fact that after the people had been tricked or coerced into paying homage to the candidate of this party the ansar accepted the fait accompli and did not rise in revolt against the established authority who used all means in his power to guard against this eventuality has more explana- tions than one and is quite irrelevant in the present discussion. vii) This opposition party laid their plans very carefully and moved very cautiously. They foresaw possible lines of friction, and proceeded to smooth their way all round. They had their spies among the ansar, and had also tried to sow 25 dissentions among them. The speeches and the defections that took place in the meeting at the Saqifah clearly indicate that this policy of creating divisions among the enemy succeeded very well. viii) After the so-called election at the Saqifah, there was a bitter controversy, nay, open hostility, between the ansar and the muha- jirun over the question of outsing `Ali from the caliphate, and `Ali took the part of the ansar. ix) The so-called election was defective in many material points; it was not representative, no intimation of it had been given to the nation not even to the persons about whom every body knew that their leader had the best right to the khilafah and had been selected for it by the Prophet. 26 x) The election was, therefore, neither unanimous nor complete; Banu Hashim, Banu Umayyad, Banu Zuhrah, Zubayr, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, `Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf, `Utbah ibn Abi Lahab, Khalid ibn Saeed ibn al-'As, al- Migdad ibn `Amr, Salman al-Farsi, 'Ammar ibn Yasir, al-Buraa ibn `Azib, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Sa` d ibn `Ubadah and his party all declined to do homage to Abu Bakr. These persons occupied high positions in the nation. xi) The first care, therefore of the opposi- tion which was now the Government Party was to win these persons over by threats or entice- ments and both were used in abundance. `Umar ibn al-Khattab went with sword and fire towards the house of `Ali, and threatened to burn the house over them if they did not come out and pay homage to the Caliph. It was reminded to him that Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet 27 was also in that house. He replied, "Let her be, I do not mind."19 He also went to the mosque where those reluctant people had collected, and beat them into submission. 20 ` Ali went to the Caliph, but did not do the homage, though others had been terrified into submission. xii) The allurements offered by the Govern- ment were not less effective. The Caliph sent valuable gifts to win over the people to his side; most of them accepted them, but we hear of a widow who disdainfully refused to sell her conscience to them. 21 xiii) The arguments that were made at tlic Saqifah at the time of the so-called "election* were concerned solely with the question whether the Caliph should be selected out of the muha- jirun or out of the ansar; they mentioned neither the good of the State as the criterion or aim of 28 the election nor the abilities of any candidate. The wishes of the Prophet were not even hinted at. All this shows beyond all doubt that the party interest and not the good of the State was the object on which they had set their heart. xiv) During his Caliphate, `Umar ibn al-Kha- ttab heard the unpleasant news of a man saying that when `Umar would die, they would win the Caliphate for `Ali by the same contrivance by which Abu Bakr had been placed on the throne. This was too unpleasant to be entertain- ed even in thought; this set him thinking, and he came to the conclusion that though the hit had secured the boundary for him, yet that it was neither lawful nor reasonable and had set a dangerous example. He, therefore, ascended the pulpit, and gave a long harangue enlarging on the defects of this coup. He summed up his lecture with the order that if 29 anyone resorted to that sort of contrivance in favour of anyone, both that man and his candidate should be slain outright. 22 No better commentary on the nature and utility of so- called election proceedings can be imagined. The author himself condemns his own work. B.

Supplement 1

v) The possibility of a necessity arising to use force at the meeting at the Saqifah was not lost sight of by the actors of the Coup, and had been amply provided for.

They had an armed force in Banu Sulaym ready for the occasion; and when the altercations reached a critical stage, they did intervene. `Umar ibn al-Khattab says that he was not sure of his success until the armed force of Banu Sulaym had arrived on the scene. 15

vi) The ansar (Helpers) were not averse to 'Ali's succeeding the Prophet; but the deeds and intrigues of the Opposition party of the muhaji- run (Immigrants) had convinced them that they would never accept `Ali and would get their own man placed on the throne.

The ansar, could not, of course, tolerate this. They were, therefore, forced to set up their own man, Sa'd ibn ` Ubadah as a candidate for the caliphate. They were not the first to move in the matter; long before they collected at the Saqifah, Abu Bakr had asked the people to come and elect a caliph from among themselves.

This election speech was given just after the death of the Prophet when the speaker returned from his house at as-Sunh and saw his associate biding time by declaring, sword in hand, that he would kill anyone who would say that the Prophet had died. It is said that `Umar's extreme love for the Prophet caused him this loss of his senses.

But this ebullition of exuberant love subsided at the sight of his comrade Abu Bakr, and then both of them went to the Saqifah as if, to use the words of Shibli, nothing had happened. 16 It seems that after this temporary politic loss, the senses returned with a vengeance.

Shibli is forced to admit that this seeming loss was not due to any softer feelings, but that it was a political move to~arrest the news of the Prophet's death from spreading.17 All this is a clear proof of the fact that this opposition party of the muhajirun and not the ansar were the first to move in the matter and start opposition against `Ali.

The ansar stood up, not to oppose `Ali but to present a front against this party.

The fact that after the people had been tricked or coerced into paying homage to the candidate of this party the ansar accepted the fait accompli and did not rise in revolt against the established authority who used all means in his power to guard against this eventuality has more explana- tions than one and is quite irrelevant in the present discussion.

vii) This opposition party laid their plans very carefully and moved very cautiously. They foresaw possible lines of friction, and proceeded to smooth their way all round.

They had their spies among the ansar, and had also tried to sow dissentions among them. The speeches and the defections that took place in the meeting at the Saqifah clearly indicate that this policy of creating divisions among the enemy succeeded very well.

viii) After the so-called election at the Saqifah, there was a bitter controversy, nay, open hostility, between the ansar and the muha- jirun over the question of outsing `Ali from the caliphate, and `Ali took the part of the ansar.

ix) The so-called election was defective in many material points; it was not representative, no intimation of it had been given to the nation not even to the persons about whom every body knew that their leader had the best right to the khilafah and had been selected for it by the Prophet.

x) The election was, therefore, neither unanimous nor complete; Banu Hashim, Banu Umayyad, Banu Zuhrah, Zubayr, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, `Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf, `Utbah ibn Abi Lahab, Khalid ibn Saeed ibn al-'As, al- Migdad ibn `Amr, Salman al-Farsi,

'Ammar ibn Yasir, al-Buraa ibn `Azib, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Sa` d ibn `Ubadah and his party all declined to do homage to Abu Bakr. These persons occupied high positions in the nation.

xi) The first care, therefore of the opposi- tion which was now the Government Party was to win these persons over by threats or entice- ments and both were used in abundance.

`Umar ibn al-Khattab went with sword and fire towards the house of `Ali, and threatened to burn the house over them if they did not come out and pay homage to the Caliph. It was reminded to him that Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet was also in that house. He replied, "Let her be, I do not mind."19 He also went to the mosque where those reluctant people had collected, and beat them into submission.

20 ` Ali went to the Caliph, but did not do the homage, though others had been terrified into submission.

xii) The allurements offered by the Govern- ment were not less effective. The Caliph sent valuable gifts to win over the people to his side; most of them accepted them, but we hear of a widow who disdainfully refused to sell her conscience to them. 21

xiii) The arguments that were made at tlic Saqifah at the time of the so-called "election* were concerned solely with the question whether the Caliph should be selected out of the muha- jirun or out of the ansar; they mentioned neither the good of the State as the criterion or aim of the election nor the abilities of any candidate.

The wishes of the Prophet were not even hinted at. All this shows beyond all doubt that the party interest and not the good of the State was the object on which they had set their heart.

xiv) During his Caliphate, `Umar ibn al-Kha- ttab heard the unpleasant news of a man saying that when `Umar would die, they would win the Caliphate for `Ali by the same contrivance by which Abu Bakr had been placed on the throne.

This was too unpleasant to be entertain- ed even in thought; this set him thinking, and he came to the conclusion that though the hit had secured the boundary for him, yet that it was neither lawful nor reasonable and had set a dangerous example.

He, therefore, ascended the pulpit, and gave a long harangue enlarging on the defects of this coup. He summed up his lecture with the order that if anyone resorted to that sort of contrivance in favour of anyone, both that man and his candidate should be slain outright.

22 No better commentary on the nature and utility of so- called election proceedings can be imagined. The author himself condemns his own work.

B. Circumstantial Evidence

i) The effort of `Umar ibn al-Khattab to check the news of the Prophet's death from spreading, as he was not just then ready, his associate Abu Bakr being at as-Sunk, is very material in this enquiry.

As soon as the latter arrived, he at once started to put his plans into action. His imagination conjured up before his eyes a rally of 'Ali's friends before he himself was ready.

ii) The speech of Abu Bakr on his arrival was altogether a party speech, and not a bemoaning oration. He chastised the people for mourning over the loss of their Prophet and Benefactor; and invited them to select a successor.

iii) When they all were collected round the dead body of the Prophet, one of the spies appointed for the purpose came, and concealing himself behind a wall called `Umar ibn al-Khat- tab alone to himself, and informed him that the meeting at the Saqifah to nominate a Caliph had started.23

iv) `Umar kept the news a secret from all except Abu Bakr whom he took with himself and both started towards Saqifah.

On the way, Abu `Ubaydah ibn Jarrah met them as if by appointment. Of all the muhajirun, these three persons alone were present at the Saqifah meeting. 24 On the way, two more spies met and gave them the news of the Sagifah.

v) The next important factor is the place of the meeting. Saqifah was an out-of-the-way place where dacoits, ruffians and women mon gers used to assemble and contrive means for the execution of their nefarious projects.

It was at a distance from the mosque of the Prophet and his house. See how the plan is being kept secret from 'Ali and his relatives. The whole idea was to inflict it upon him as a fait accompli.

vi) The time chosen for action was in keeping with this plan. They knew the lofty nature of 'Ali and his high ideals. They were perfectly sure that 'Ali would not leave the dead body of the Prophet to join in the race for worldly, sordid gains.

vii) Had it been a frank, open and honest election or selection, they would have waited till the obsequies were over, and then would have invited the whole nation to a common meeting place, preferably the mosque where such political meetings had taken place before, and were taken after this incident.

There was no immediate need. They ought to have suggested to the ansar the advisibility of attending first to the funeral of the Prophet.

viii) The most important point to note in this connection is that they anticipated the eventuality of using force, and made arrange- ments for it.

ix) The coup was over, in the heat and haste of the moment, the people had done homage to Abu Bakr; now they found time to repent at leisure when the right and the wrong of the matter began to dawn upon them; they began to blame each other for acting hastily and falling a prey to the machinations of a party.

This was to be provided against, and it was done. Hastily and en masse, they were sent out on foreign expeditions which developed into Persian and Roman wars.

It was in consonance. with Arab nature; Arabs were passionately fond of women, loot and fighting, and this happy stroke of statesmanship provided them with all they wanted. There was a bit of pass-time nearer home as well.

Some of the tribes did not acknowledge Abu Bakr to be the rightful Caliph; they therefore, refused to pay him zakat which was in the nature of a tax. This was a dangerous beginning which might develop into a poisonous growth.

But a mere denial of zakat cannot be a good cause for killing a Muslim. It was, there- fore, given out that they were renegades from Islam.

It was not an organised rebellion, and those people were speedily over-come. But the armies were not allowed to come to Medina. While they were on the way, they were ordered to invade Persia and Rome, though these count- ries had given no cause for this action.

Such Imperialistic wars are not permitted in Islam. But to avoid internal trouble, they had to be undertaken. This is a contrivance which has been very often adopted by statesmen in similar circumstances.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, it would be sheer folly to deny the following facts which are fully established:-

1. The succession to the Prophet was a disputed one;

2. There were distinctly two parties to this dispute. One party put forth `Ali as the rightful claimant to the succession by virtue of his ability, kinship with the Prophet and his desig- nation by the Prophet as his heir and successor; the other party headed by certain leaders had an eye on the throne.

3. Various causes which have been detailed in the book contributed to the success of this latter party. They captured the Caliphate by means of the coup which has been mentioned above.

Henceforth, naturally enough, their main concern was to keep down the rival party by any means, fair or foul. For this purpose, the first thing that they did was to divide the Muslim nation into two factions, (i) Compa- nions, and (ii) Ahlu'1-bayt, that is, the descen- dants of the Prophet.

The Government party identified itself with the Companions, and tried to win over all the companions by this move.

They won them over to their side by represent- ing to them that if the ruling power was once acquired by `Ali it would remain in the family of the Prophet, and they would never be able to get it, but that if it were confined to them alone, everyone of them might hope to get it in his turn.

During the proceedings at Saqifah the question of ability and fitness was not allow- ed to come in. In short, the children of the Prophet were from the very beginning con- sidered as a rival party and throughout the period of the Caliphate were treated as such.

Supplement 2

The coup at Saqifah marks the beginning of that series of calumnies, cruelties, insults, indignities, inhuman brutalities, injustices, ill-treatments, whole-sale massacres, un-justifiable and jealous surveillance,

false accusations as excuses for killings, and long periods of incarcerations to which these innocent children of the Prophet were subjected throughout the history of the Caliphate; their only sin was that they were born in his house.

Having ascertained that there were two parties, one of which won the throne and the other was considered as a dangerous rival, we proceed to find who wrote the history and how it was written.

The Government party has come to be called "Sunnis" in common parlance. We have the testimony of a great Sunni historian of India Shibli, that all the great works on Islamic His- tory known to the world have been written by the Sunnis.

Let us see how it was written and who controlled the writing of it. Mu'awiyah, the Umayyad king who was at war with `Ali throughout the period of the latter's Caliphate and who eventually wrested the Caliphate from Imam Hasan, the son of `Ali, was the first to turn his attention to History.

He got a history of the ancients written by `Ubayd whom he called from Yemen. Marwan who had been exiled by the Prophet for his anti-Islamic activi- ties and who had a great influence with `Uthman was the implacable foe of `Ali. His son `Abd al- Malik ascended the throne in 65 A.H.

He was the first Islamic king who ordered the compila- tion of Islamic History, hadith (tradition) and tafsir (Interpretation of the Qur'an).

He asked the learned people to write works on these subjects, az-Zuhri, the first celebrated historian of Islam, wrote his history under the orders of `Abd al-Malik. He also wrote works on hadith; he is one of the preceptors of al-Bukharf.

He was attached to the royal court of `Abd al-Malik, and was the tutor of his sons. Of the pupils of az-Zuhri, two persons, viz. Musa son of `Ugbah and Muhammad ibn Ishaq obtained great renown as historians. The former was a slave of the house of Zubayr.

His history, though now not available, had for a long time been the most popular work on history; its references are found in many books on this subject.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq is the most celebrated historian. His bio- graphy of the Prophet is still the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it by Ibn Hisham, and is known as the as-Sirah of Ibn Hisham. az-Zuhri is the first to compile hadith also.

Their works on history and hadith are the authorities on the basis of which works on these two subjects were written afterwards. This evidence proves the following facts:-

1. hadith and History were first compiled under the orders of the Umayyad kings;

2. The first authors were az-Zuhri and his twc pupils, Musa and Muhammad;

3. These authors were attached to the royal court of the Umayyad kings.

The inveterate enmity and un-dying hatred of the house of Umayyad against Banu Hashim, chiefly the Prophet and `Ali, is much too well known to need any comment on our part.

The wars of Abu Sufyan and his son Mu'awiyah against the Prophet and `Ali respectively, the machinations of Marwan against the Prophet and Islam, his avowed enmity against `Ali, the horrible massacres at Karbala' perpetrated by the armies of Yazid in compliance with his orders are only some of the top items of a long list of such crimes.

Mu'awiyah instituted the custom of anathematising from the pulpits the memory of `Ali and his descendants which continued for full forty years until discontinued by `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz who proved himself too good to live under Umayyad atmosphere, and was, therefore, poisoned by the descendants of Umayyad. 29 These were the persons under whose orders and influence the history of Islam was written.

What justice they would do to `Ali and his rights and title can be left to the best imagination to picture.

Supplement 3

Let us mention the directions under which the books of history and hadith were compiled. Mu'awiyah issued three series of orders in this connection. They are fully detailed with re- ference in the Book. He ordered that:-

i) The virtues of `Ali and the sayings of the Holy Prophet showing 'Ali's superiority over all others should be suppressed;

ii) Anyone narrating those virtues and those sayings should be severely punished, his subsidies and allowances should be suppressed, he should not be employed in State Service, social relations with him should be cut off, his houses and properties should be forfeited, and eventually, if he did not desist from this practice, he should be killed.

iii) On the other hand, all imaginable virtues should be attributed to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman; people should be encouraged, by means of rewards in money and lands, to coin sayings extolling the virtues of these personages and ascribe those sayings to the Prophet.

Such persons should be reported to the Caliph of Damascus who would fix subsidies for them, admit them to his royal court, and honour them by other means.

Details and references to authorities are given in the Book. History thus shaped and hadith thus moulded have reached us and have been circulated in the whole of the World. And this is the history which European authors and writers have made the basis and source of their works on Islam.

It must be crystal clear to all by now that Islamic History has been written by the party who won the throne on the death of the Prophet, and that there was another party who claimed that the Prophet had designated `Ali as his successor.

The next question for determination is:

whether, apart from the usual political needs and natural temptings which induce a con- querring party to give a particular shape to the events which they wish the world to know and the posterity to receive, the party which won the throne on the death of the Prophet was under any pressing need to mould the events and formulate any particular theories to justify the coup d'etat carried out by them at the Saqifah.

The need is obvious; their very existence depended on it. Cogent evidence culled from the books of this party has been furnished by the book to show that the Prophet had designated `Ali as his successor.

As Muslims, they could not disobey any order of the Prophet. The only course open to them was to deny that the Prophet had designated `Ali or anyone else as his successor.

Once they admitted that the prophet has designated anyone as his successor, all their doings and proceedings at Saqifah were to become null and void. If they were to remain on die throne, they had to make the people believe that the Prophet had not nominated or selected anyone as his successor.

It is quite simple to understand that if they had accepted the position. that the Holy Prophet had appoint- ed his own successor; their meeting at Sagifah and the subsequent election or selection of Abu Bakr would have lost all validity, and in fact the election would have been a nullity.

Their trumph-card was the denial of the Holy Pro- phet's mandate of having appointed `Ali as his successor, and it was only on this glaring denial could they hoodwink the public and cling to their power.

For their existence they must coin the theory and stick to it that the Prophet did not designate anyone as his successor. This was the soul of their Saqifah Coup.

They, therefore, used all the means in their power to give currency to this view of theirs, to propagate it by means of propaganda, rewards and threats.

In fact, every allurement that royal power could hold out, every means that the man on the throne could have in his power were used and employed to instil this theory into the minds of the people and keep it alive and going on from generation to generation. We have the authority of a great Sunni divine and historian, Shibli, to prove the fact that all histories have been written by Sunni authors.

In fact, this was in keeping with the whole trend of their dip- loiacy. No one holding a contrary view could be allowed to write a history that would not fit in with the policy of the ruling party.

When this was the state of things, how could one expect the contrary view to find a place in the histories that were compiled and circulated under the direct supervision of the Government. Naturally the foreign countries adopted the view that was found in all the books of history written by the Muslims themselves.

It requires great courage and erudition in a foreignor to differ with the unanimous view held by almost all the native historians whose books are the only source of information to him.

I am sure that for various reasons which need not be detailed here the foreign writers of Islamic history have not bestowed that attention and care on the ques- tion of the Prophet's succession which its i mportance deserves.

It is obvious that no intelligent human being whom nature has pro- vided with faculties of discernment, discrimi- nation and judgment would accept the theory that the Prophet did not designate his successor, as foreign writers appear to have done.

To us the acceptance of this theory on non-appointment by foreign writers is as much of a problem as the most difficult question in Law or politics can be.

Why should this have happened has been considered at length in the book and cogent reasons have been given as to why this theory prof ounded by the Government party has found a ready acceptance in Europe in spite of its being entirely against facts and throughly opposed to reason.

In the name of Truth, Justice and Decency an appeal is made to the reader to survey the whole situation, weigh and judge the facts and then give his final and considered judgment. This is the only thing that is required of him who cares to go through this Book.

Established opinions and long accepted theories create a sort of prejudice in the mind against everything that appears to disturb them. But truth stands on a much higher level than Prejudice.

This book has been written pri- marily for European scholars of history, and the author will consider himself amply re- warded if they read this book from cover to cover even though as hostile critics.

It is certain in the end they will find themselves supporting the view which they had begun by criticising. The author has taken it upon himself to give authorities for every contested point and that too from the accredited works of the opposite party.

The value of this Book lies in its three characteristics, viz:- i) Sound Logic;

ii) Appeal to Reason; and

iii) Correct and apt references to reliable authorities.

THE END

Chapter 1: Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as)

Question 1: Do Shias worship Ali ibn Abu Talib (as)?

Shias do not worship Imam Ali (as). Shias worship Allah (SwT). How can anyone believe that Shias worship Imam Ali (as) when he himself tells us to worship Allah (SwT)?

Nahjul Balagha

In the famous book, Nahjul Balagha, a compilation of the sermons and sayings of Imam Ali (as), the first recorded sermon begins with:

“Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.”

Imam Ali (as) continues: “The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and he who mistook Him, pointed at Him; and he who pointed at Him, admitted limitations for Him; and he who admitted limitations for Him, numbered Him.”

This sermon, and others in Nahjul Balagha show that Imam Ali (as) is the most eloquent exponent of Allah’s existence, His unity (Tawhid).

Other followers

There are other groups, chief among them the Nuzayris, the various groups of the Ghuluww, the extremists, who have worshipped Ali, but not the Shias.

Shias take pride that Ali (as) was not Allah but was the first male to worship Allah, with the Prophet (S); the first to bow down behind Muhammad (S), in prayer (salah), in worship of the one true Lord, Allah (SwT).

The Ghuluww, the Nuzayris and others, who take delight in their worship of Ali (as), are not friends or allies, of the Shias. They are people who have abandoned Islam, who have traduced Ali (as) by ascribing divinity to him. Too many Shias over the years have praised the Nuzayris and the Ali worshippers in their hymns (marthiyas) and in their religious poetry. This is wrong, un-Islamic and this is something the Prophet (S) warned against.

In a famous tradition (hadith) of the Prophet (S), narrated by Ahlul Sunnah and Shia scholars alike, the Holy Prophet said: “O Ali, you have a resemblance to Prophet Jesus (Isa), the son of Virgin Mary whom some Jews hated so much that they slandered him and his mother Mary and whom some Christians loved so much that they placed him in a position not rightly his.”

Shias love Ali (as) but do not, and should not, put him in a position which is not rightly his, that is, above the Prophet (S) or in place of Allah (SwT)

As Imam Ali (as) himself said, “Two kinds of people will be damned on my account. Those who form an exaggerated opinion about me and those who underestimate me because they hate me.” (Nahjul Balaghah, list of short sayings no.116).

So the historical evidence, the consensus of the Shia ulema and common sense are all proofs that that Shias worship Allah (SwT), not Imam Ali (as).

Question 2: Do Shias believe that Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) is superior to the Prophet (S)?

Some enemies of the Shias claim that, we believe, Imam Ali (as) was better or superior to Muhammad (S); some have suggested that we believe that the revelation of the Holy Qur’an was intended for him but mistakenly given to his cousin Muhammad (S). This is nonsense.

Common sense

Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) was either 10 or 12 years of age when the Prophet (S) received his first revelation, (wahi), from the archangel Jibraeel (Gabriel) in a cave. Does it make sense to believe that Shias would claim Jibraeel, an infallible angel, mistook a 12-year-old boy for a 40-year-old man?

Shias do not believe this but rather take pleasure in pointing out how Imam Ali (as) slept in the bed of the Prophet (S) to protect the Prophet’s life. Ali (as) slept in the Prophet’s bed on the night of Hijra so that the Prophet (S) could migrate to Madinah safely. How could we then believe he is superior to the Prophet (S)?

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

In fact, the Prophet (S) famously predicted, in a tradition (hadith) narrated by very famous Ahlul Sunnah scholars like Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal in his Musnad and Imam Hakim in his Mustadrak: “In truth there will be, among you, one who shall fight over the ta’wil of the Qur’an, the interpretation of the Qur’an, just as I fought over its tanzil, its revelation.” Abu Bakr and Umar asked: “Am I he?” The Prophet said: “No, it is the one who is mending the shoes.” The companions turned to the side to see Imam Ali (as) mending the Prophet’s shoes.

This hadith shows that:

• Imam Ali (as) was the one the Prophet (S) singled out to his companions as the protector of Qura’nic interpretation;

• Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) used to mend the Prophet’s shoes and take pride in it.

After the Prophet (S), Ali (as) is the most superior and the greatest being created by Allah (SwT) - but the key point to note here is “after” the Prophet.

Question 3: Where is the proof that Ali (as) was appointed by the Prophet (S)?

This is one of the most important questions to ponder and needs a detailed review. The Shias point to the hadith of Ghadeer Khumm, narrated by the Ahlul Sunnah (see below) in which the Holy Prophet (S) declared: “Man kunto mawla hu fa haadha Aliyyun mawla” - “Of whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also his mawla, i.e. leader.”

Does “mawla” mean friend?

This comes up again and again - especially that “mawla” means friend, not leader, imam or amir. We can analyse this by the following:

Meaning of “mawla”?

According to one study, the word mawla has between 20 and 30 different definitions in Arabic, but only one of which translates as “friend”. Most translate it as “owner”, “leader”, “benefactor”, “guide”, “helper”. Look at the Holy Qur’an, the words, mawla, awla, wali, wilayat, all come from the same root word, “wali”, and are all used in the Holy Qur’an to refer to guidance and leadership. For friendship or companionship, the Holy Qur’an tends to use the words, khaleel, sadiq and hameem.

Context when word “mawla” was used

The word “mawla” was used at Ghadeer Khumm, on the return journey from the last pilgrimage (Hajj) of the Prophet. The Prophet (S) calls back all those who had gone ahead. He calls forward all the people at the back. He then builds a pulpit from camels’ saddles, goes up on it and addresses over 100,000 people in the burning heat of the Arabian Desert, to make an important announcement.

Then the Prophet (S) asked just before the declaration, “Do I not have more authority upon you (alastu awla bi kum) than you have over yourselves?” All the people replied, “Yes, surely.” Then the Prophet (S) declared: “Of whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also his mawla.”

Surely the word “mawla”, in this context, refers to authority, to leadership. The earlier reference is from the verse:

“The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves.” (33:6).[Surah Ahzab]

As Sunni scholar Sibt ibn Jauzi says, “The saying of the Holy Prophet that Ali has authority or is the master over the selves of all the believers clearly proves the Imamate or vicegerency of Ali and that obedience to him is obligatory.”

After the declaration, the Prophet (S) uttered the following prayer: “O Allah! Love him who loves Ali, and be enemy of he who is the enemy of Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali.”

This prayer shows that Imam Ali (as), on that day, was being entrusted with a position that would make some people his enemies and therefore he would need supporters in carrying out his responsibilities. This could not be anything but the position of the mawla in the sense of ruler, master and lord. Are helpers ever needed to carry on or protect a ‘friendship’ from enemies?

The body language

Sunni scholar Allama ibn Hajar Asqalani narrates in his book, al-Isabah, how the Prophet (S) stood next to Imam Ali (as) on a raised pulpit or mimbar built from the saddles of camels, raised Ali’s hand, his arm in the air, and placed a turban on his head. Now, if that’s not a coronation, then what is?

Common sense

Why would the Prophet (S) waste time in the hot Arabian Desert, to tell over 100,000 people that Ali (as) was his “friend”? Didn’t they know that? Wouldn’t you be annoyed if you were in that crowd? Why waste everyone else’s time, and that too after an exhausting Hajj and in all that heat, unless you have something important to announce?

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

Ponder over the Qura’nic verse which was revealed prior to Ghadeer Khumm:

“O Messenger! Convey what had been revealed to you from your Lord; if you do not do so, then [it would be as if] you have not conveyed His message [at all]. Allah will protect you from the people.” (5: 67) [Surah Maidah]

Countless classical Ahlul Sunnah scholars have said that this verse was revealed ahead of the event of Ghadeer Khumm, perhaps the most famous of all being Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi in his Tafisr al-Kabir.

How can Muslims believe, as the Holy Qur’an warns, that the whole of the Prophet’s mission was about to be rendered null and void if he didn’t tell the people that he and Ali (as) were friends? This verse shows how important the announcement was - and how controversial Allah (SwT) knew it would be. The Holy Qur’an says:“Allah will protect you from the people” .

Why might the Prophet need protecting? Because; the issue of succession was being clarified and confirmed, once and for all, explicitly and publicly, and some people in the crowd were going to be upset and rebellious.

And what happened after the sermon at Ghadeer was over? What verse was revealed? According to all the major classical books of the Ahlul Sunnah (Hafiz Jalaluddin as Suyuti, Shaykh Sulayman al-Qandoozi Hanafi, Allama ibn Kathir, among them):

“This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as your religion” (5:3) [Surah Maidah].

This is the final verse of the Holy Qur’an! And what an occasion it was revealed on!

Again, some common sense is needed: would Allah (SwT) really be unable or unwilling to “perfect” his religion and name it “Islam” unless the issue of the Prophet’s “friendship” with Ali was cleared up for the Muslims? This is illogical and an insult to our intelligence! The truth is that Islam was completed and named for the Prophet (S) only after the Prophet (S) announced Ali (as) as his successor. Islam wasn’t complete until the caliphate of Ali (as) was announced, revealed, made clear, to the Muslim masses.

Otherwise, you have to believe that that the 22-years mission of the Prophet (S) was being invalidated over the issue of his “friendship” with Ali (as). And ask yourself this: was it the announcement of a friendship or the appointment of a successor to the Prophet that perfected the religion of Islam? What do you think?

Second caliph’s reaction

It is narrated that after the sermon was over, the Prophet set up a tent with Ali (as) and the companions lined up to give allegiance (bay’at) to Imam Ali (as), led by, Umar ibn Khattab, second caliph of the Ahlul Sunnah.

According to, among others, Sunni scholars like Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi in his book, and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, in his Musnad, Umar ibn Khattab was the first to arrive on the scene, and looking at Ali, he said: “Well done ibn Abu Talib! Today you became the master of all believing men and women, ‘Ameer al-Mo’mineen’!”

This title, Ameer al-Mo’mineen, (Commander of the Faithful), that Shias use today to refer to Imam Ali (as), and for which they are often condemned and criticised by the Ahlul Sunnah, was first used by none other than Umar ibn Khattab. How ironic! Ameer al-Mo’mineen has only one meaning - commander, leader, master of the faithful. When Mullah Umar of the Taliban set up the Islamic Emirate of Afganistan, what did he call himself ? Ameer al-Mo’mineen.

Yet we know from Ghadeer Khumm, from the public testimony of Umar ibn Khattab, that the first and only legitimate Ameerul Momineen, appointed by Allah (SwT) via His Messenger, is Ali ibn Abu Talib (as).

Imam Ali (as) invoked Ghadeer later on

Imam Ali (as) himself offered the event of Ghadeer Khumm, as evidence for his leadership, his caliphate and imamat, later on in his life, after the Prophet’s death. There are numerous examples and one of the most famous is as follows: The Sunni scholars ibn Qutaybah, ibn Hanbal, Muttaqi al-Hindi and Abu Nuaym Isfahani, all record in their books that during the caliphate of Ali, (as) when his authority was being questioned and rebellions were brewing, Imam Ali (as), in public, said to Anas ibn Malik, the famous companion of the Prophet (S): “Why don’t you stand up and testify what you heard from the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadeer?”

Anas answered, “O Ameer al-Mo’mineen! I have grown old and do not remember.” To which Ali (as) responded: “May Allah mark you with a white spot (of leprosy) unconcealable with your turban, if you are intentionally withholding the truth.” And when Anas got up from his place he bore a large white spot on his face. From that day onwards, Anas used to say, “I am under the curse of the righteous servant of Allah, Ali ibn Abu Talib!”

The Ghadeer Khumm incident makes it clear that Ali (as) was the Prophet’s successor. But there are other examples from the Prophet’s life too. For example, at start of the Prophethood, according to the Tarikh, or History, of Allama Tabari, the famous Sunni historian: The Prophet (S) asked three times, at a dinner for his friends and relatives, who will help him in his prophetic mission? On each of the three occassions, only Ali (as) stood up and said he would. On the first two occasions, the Prophet asked Ali (as) to sit down. But, on the third occasion, the Prophet said: “Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you. Therefore, listen to him and obey.” Abu Lahab (the Prophet’s paternal uncle) said to Abu Talib (his brother and Ali’s father) “the Prophet (S) has told you to obey your own son!”

The tragedy is that the majority of the Muslims do not understand today what Abu Lahab understood on the first day of the introduction of Islam in Makkah.

Question 4: Why do Shias think Ali (as) is superior to the first three caliphs?

This is not just a Shia view, that Imam Ali (as) is superior to the rest of the caliphs and sahabah. A number of Ahlul Sunnah scholars and books agree with this view.

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the four Ahlul Sunnah Imams of fiqh, said: “There is no Companion about whom as many merits are reported as Ali ibn Abu Talib.”

The prominent Ahlul Sunnah scholar of India, Shah Ismail Muhaddith Dehlvi, wrote: “Ali al-Murtadha has also an edge over Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and Umar Faruq and this edge lies because of the greater number of his followers and all the highest spiritual and saintly activity, from his days to the end of the world, has to be mediated through him, and he has a say in the kingdom of the kings and the leadership of the leaders and this is not hidden from those who are familiar with the world of sovereignty. Most spiritual chains are directly derived from Ali al-Murtadha. So, on the Day of Judgment, Ali’s army, including followers of high status and great reputation, will outnumber and outshine others to be a source of wonder for all the spectators.”

In fact, to even compare Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) with any of the companions is absurd. It is a misunderstanding of who Ali (as) is, what Ali (as) represented and stood for. Imam Ali (as) was on a different level; he wasn’t a mere companion like Abu Bakr or Umar or even Ammar and Salman.

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

The Sunni scholar Allama Muttaqi al-Hindi, in his famous book, Kanz al-Ummal, narrates a tradition (hadith) from the Prophet (S), in which the Prophet (S) was asked by a visitor to Madinah to name his favourite companion. When he omits the mention of Imam Ali (as), he was asked: “But what about Ali? “To which the Prophet (S) replied: “Look at this man, he asks me about my own self.”

This hadith of course is a reflection of the Ayat of Mubahela of the Holy Qur’an, (Ch.3: V61) [Surah Ali Imran] which states:

“But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of God on the liars”(3:61)

All of the Ahlul Sunnah historians, including Muslim in his Sahih, Book 31, Hadith Number 5915, testify that the Prophet (S) took Hasan (as) and Husayn (as) with him as his “sons”, Lady Fatima (as) with him as the representative of “women”, and Imam Ali (as) as his self, (as his nafs).

The reason why Ali (as) is not just superior to the rest of the companions, including the first three caliphs is because he went beyond what a companion was: he wasn’t just a companion of the Prophet (S); he was, as Allah (SwT) says in the Holy Qur’an, and the Prophet (S) says in his tradition (hadith), a self of the Prophet, nafs al-Rasoolallah.

Question 5: Why did Ali (as) not fight for the leader- ship if it was his God-given right?

Imam Ali (as) never took up arms against Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman. Some Ahlul Sunnah scholars try and argue that this shows he was not opposed to them. This is an incorrect analysis and a misunderstanding of Imam Ali’s (as) thinking and motivations.

The reasons

The reason Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) did not fight after the death of the Prophet (S) is because he did not want to divide the nascent, infant Muslim community. He did not want innocent Muslims to die in battle, killing each other, in order to take power. The historians, Sunni and Shia, record how Abu Sufyan offered him troops but Imam Ali (as) turned him down and criticised his divisive offer.

His divinely-appointed role as Imam

Imam Ali’s (as) imamat, his caliphate, his wilayat, was given to him by the Prophet (S) on the command of Allah (SwT). He was not expected to go and force the Muslims, the people, to follow him; it was their job to find him and follow him. His position as the Imam was not a political or elected position. It was bestowed upon him by Allah (SwT). Kanz al-Ummal, the Sunni book of ahadith, narrates the tradition in which the Prophet (S) told Imam Ali (as): “[O Ali], You are like the Kabah, people go the the Kabah, the Kabah does not come to the people.…”

Common sense

Imam Ali (as) may not have fought against Abu Bakr and Umar; but he never fought for them either, as part of their armies. Why not? He also refused to give allegiance (bay’at) to Abu Bakr for at least six months after the death of the Prophet and his beloved wife Lady Fatima (as), who died soon after the Prophet. Why didn’t he? The Shias, of course, would also argue that he never pledged any formal allegiance to them at any point in his lifetime. Again, why? What was his problem with them?

This is explained in Nahjul Balagha where Imam Ali (as) devotes entire sermons to questioning how Abu Bakr and others robbed him of his right to caliph (caliphate) but this is a Shia book. So consider instead the words of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) to the six-man committee appointed by Umar on his deathbed to pick a new caliph - and narrated by all of the Sunni ulema.

The committee requested Imam Ali (as) to take over the position as caliph but on the condition that he abides with the following:

• The Holy Qur’an

• The Prophet’s traditions

• The laws and regulations, the “sunnah”, introduced by the first two caliphs.

Imam Ali (as) replied that the first two conditions were acceptable to him but, he had his own views and opinion on the third condition. All of the Sunni historians agree that Imam Ali (as) rejected the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar, upon the death of the latter. Why would he do that if he had accepted the legitimacy of their leadership?

Question 6: Why do Shias refuse to accept that the Prophet (S) did not leave a successor?

Some Muslims are of the opinion that the Prophet (S) left it to the people to decide. Wouldn’t he have written a will if he wanted to leave behind a successor or appoint Imam Ali (as)?

Common sense

The idea that the Prophet of Islam who never left Madinah without appointing someone to take charge of the city in his absence, left behind an Islamic state without appointing a successor and without even laying out the rules for how to appoint a successor, is just unbelievable, fanciful and absurd. It is illogical to believe such a thing.

Then there is the issue of the will - or lack thereof. In Islam, making a will is vitally important. The idea that the Holy Prophet (S) who told his followers to make sure they left wills behind, when they died, even if they were the poorest of the poor, would die without leaving a will behind is equally absurd - and an insult to the Prophet (S).

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

The truth is that the Prophet did try to make a will but was prevented from doing so by a group of his companions.

According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Hadith Number 393, Said ibn Jubair narrated: I heard Ibn Abbas saying, “Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn Abbas, “What is (about) Thursday?” He said, “When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah’s Apostle deteriorated, he said, ‘Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray’. The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of the Prophet.”

They said, ‘What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to understand). The Prophet (S) replied, ‘Leave me as I am in a better state than what you are asking me to do.’ Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying, ‘Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.” The sub-narrator (Said ibn Jubair) added, “The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.”

How can it be possible that the people who memorized the Holy Qur’an forgot the last, dying instruction of the Prophet (S)?

According to this tradition (and others) in Sahih Bukhari the Prophet (S) went to write his will but was prevented by a group of his companions, led according to most of the narrations by Umar ibn Khattab, who defied the Qur’anic injunction against raising one’s voice in front of the Prophet (S) and who accused the Prophet (S) of being delirious, of having lost his mind. When the Prophet tried verbally telling them the contents of his will, his final commands, they claim to have forgotten what he said.

Abu Bakr had the foresight to leave behind a will; Umar appointed a six-man election committee - but the Prophet (S)? He died without leaving behind any guidance or will… Does this make any sense?

The reason there was no written, public will is because the Prophet (S) wanted to write such a document but some of his companions knew he was going to put in writing what he had said at Ghadeer Khumm and so they stopped him from doing so. This important event, this act of rebellion on their part at the deathbed of the Prophet (S) is narrated in Sahih Bukhari, in Sahih Muslim, in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and countless other Ahlul Sunnah books of ahadith and history.

Question 7: Why is Ali’s (as) name not mentioned in the Holy Qur’an?

There are four responses to this common and provocative question.

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

Imam Ali’s (as) name might not be mentioned in the Holy Qur’an but there are countless verses of the Holy Qur’an devoted to the praise of Ali (as) and to announcing his superiority over the rest of the Muslims, proving his leadership, his wilayat and his imamat.

Allama ibn Hajar Makki, the famous Sunni aalim, quotes the companion and cousin of the Prophet, Abdullah ibn Abbas, saying that he heard from the Prophet (S) himself that 300 verses of the Holy Qur’an were revealed specifically in praise of Imam Ali (as).

For example, the famous verse of the ring:

“Your master [wali] can be only Allah; and His messenger and the those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor rate, and pay the zakat while bowing down (in prayer), in ruku” (5:55) [Surah Maidah].

Ahlul Sunnah and Shia commentators of tafasir unanimously agree that this particular verse refers to Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as), who gave his ring to a beggar while in the state of bowing (ruku) in the middle of his (salah) prayer, as narrated by Abu Dharr al-Ghafari.

Importance

Why is it so important to have Imam Ali’s (as) name in the Holy Qur’an? Are we ranking people’s importance on whether their name appears in the Holy Qur’an or how many times? If so, then it is worth mentioning that the name of the human being mentioned most in the Holy Qur’an is Prophet Musa (Moses) - 136 times in 34 different chapters (surahs). Then there is Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) mentioned by name 27 times, and Prophet Isa (Jesus) mentioned 25 times.

The Holy Prophet, however, Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Islam and the Seal of the Prophets, is mentioned by name just four times, in surah numbers 3, 33, 47 and 48. Are Muslims expected to believe that Musa is higher in status or more important than the Holy Prophet? Or Yusuf is? Or Isa is? This is what happens when you start determining people’s status on the crude and arbitrary basis of how many times their name is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. Allah (SwT) decides in His wisdom whose name appears in His book.

What if his name had been mentioned?

What if Imam Ali’s (as) name was mentioned in the Holy Qur’an? Would that change anything? Would that change his opponents’ minds about the validity and legitimacy of his imamat? Of course not! Those who do not want to follow Imam Ali (as) would not do so no matter where his name appeared in the Qur’an. After all, the Holy Prophet explicitly said at Ghadeer Khumm: “Of whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also his mawla”. Imagine this sentence as a verse of the Holy Qur’an - how would life be any different? Some would still say it meant friend not leader, others would try and deliberately misrepresent and misinterpret it, or simply ignore it.

It’s a diversionary tactic to bring up the fact that Allah (SwT) in His Infinite Wisdom decided not to refer to Imam Ali (as) by name in the Holy Qur’an, even though He did make around implicit or indirect 300 references to Imam Ali (as) - as testified by Ibn Abbas.

Common Sense

Imagine if we extended this argument - Ali (as) is not the leader because his name isn’t mentioned in the Holy Qur’an; Ali (as) is not important because his name is not explicitly cited in any of the verses of the Holy Qur’an- to the rest of our religious principles, beliefs and obligations. How would we know how to pray morning (Fajr) prayers? Or know that evening (Maghrib) is three units (rakaat) and night (Isha) is four units (rakaat)? The Holy Qur’an doesn’t say so; it was left to the Prophet (S) to explain the details of the Qur’anic diktats, the Qur’anic commandments.

As the sixth Shia holy Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as) famously told his companions: “The Qur’an says to pray Fajr salah (morning prayers) but it is the Prophet who tells us that Fajr is two units of prayer (rakatain), the Qur’an tells us to pay zakaat, but it is the Prophet who tells us how to calculate zakaat; in the same way, the Qur’an tells us to obey the “ulul-amr”, the people charged with authority, and it is the Prophet who tells us that the “ulul-amr” are: Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) and the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt.”

Question 8: Why do you call yourselves “Shias”, or “Shias of Ali”, and not just Muslims?

The word “Shia” in Arabic simply means follower, friend, lover, partisan. It is a word that has no negative connotations. In fact it is used in the Holy Qur’an twice with reference to prophets of God.

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

“And, verily, of among the followers, among the Shias, of Nuh (of Noah), was Ibrahim (Abraham) (37:83)[Surah Saffat].

“And he (Musa /Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being his Shia - min SHIAtehe - and the other being his enemy, and the one who was his Shia cried out to him for help against the one who was of his enemy.” (28:15)[Surah Kahf].

So Shia is a word used by Allah (SwT) Himself! But these Shias weren’t, of course, Shias of Ali (as). Where does this phrase, “Shia of Ali”, come from? It comes from the Prophet’s own lips, during the Prophet’s own lifetime.

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Allama ibn Hajar Makki, Hafiz Abu Nuaym Isfahani, and countless other classical scholars of the Ahlul Sunnah all narrate that the Prophet said: “Glad tidings, O Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shia (your followers) will be in Paradise.”

Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, the famous Ahlul Sunnah scholar of Egypt, in his book, al-Durr al-Mansur, narrates a tradition (hadith) in which the companions say: “We were with the Holy Prophet when Ali came towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shia will acquire salvation on the Day of Judgement.”

Allama ibn Hajar Asqalani, another famous Ahlul Sunnah scholar of hadith, narrates the following tradition of the Prophet (S): “The parable of Ali is like a tree, in which I am the root, Ali is the branch, Hasan and Husayn are the fruits, and the Shias are the leaves.”

Allama ibn Hajar al-Haythami al-Makki - of the Ahlul Sunnah says in his book al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqa that the Shias are “rafidhi” (liars, deviants) and yet in the same book he narrates a tradition from Abdullah ibn Abbas in which ibn Abbas says that: When the verse:“Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation” (98:7) [Surah Al Bayyina] was revealed, the Messenger of Allah said to Ali: “They are you and your Shia.”

He continued: “O Ali! (on the Day of Judgment) you and your Shia will come towards Allah well-pleased and well- pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up. Ali said: “Who are my enemies?” The Prophet (S) replied: “He who disassociates himself from you and curses you. And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-Arsh on the Day of Resurrection.” Ali asked: “Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?” He replied: “Your Shia, O Ali, and those who love you.”

Now, here is an important point to consider: some Muslims ask why there is a sect called Shias? They tend to call themselves Sunni Muslims. But where is the word Sunni in the Holy Qur’an or in the ahadith of the Holy Prophet? Where is the hadith in which the Prophet (S) refers to his “Sunnis” or even to the “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaah”? There isn’t one. But the Shias have been around since the time of the Prophet (S) and Shia is a title of distinction used in the Holy Qur’an.

Question 9: Isn’t Shia’ism a product of Abdullah ibn Saba, a Jewish convert to Islam?

Who is he?

There is a question as to whether Abdullah ibn Saba even existed! In Ahlul Sunnah tradition, he was a Yemenite Jew who embraced Islam very late in life. During the time of Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) he is alleged to have introduced a number of concepts that later were ascribed to both the Shias and the Ghuluww: the exaltation of Ali (as), his divine appointment by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (S) as a successor, and his alleged divinity. These are all claimed to be concepts that were first formulated and expressed by Ibn Saba and his followers, who are also accused of killing the third caliph of the Ahlul Sunnah, Uthman ibn Affan, and dividing the Muslims into two sects.

Yet neutral modern western historians, non-Muslims like Godfrey Hodgson, Leone Caetani, Israel Freidlander and Bernard Lewis have all concluded that he probably did not exist and even if he did, he certainly wasn’t responsible for all the intrigues, plots and religious conspiracies that have been attributed to him by some anti-Shia scholars.

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

Tabari’s source for the story of Ibn Saba, Sayf ibn Umar, has been discredited by Imam Hakim, Ibn Hajar Asqalani and several other prominent Ahlul Sunnah scholars. In his acclaimed book, “The Succession to Muhammad”, former Oxford University professor Wilferd Madelung writes how “few if any modern historians would accept Sayf ’s legend of Ibn Saba”. Note the use of word “legend”!

Even the Egyptian historian, Dr Taha Husayn, one of the most influential Ahlul Sunnah scholars of the 20th century, has said that the “fabrication” of Ibn Saba was done by the enemies of the Shias and that the insertion of a “Jewish element” was aimed at discrediting the Shias. He noted that the absence of any record of Ibn Saba being present at the Battle of Siffin suggests that Ibn Saba is a fictitious person.

Question 10: Why do you give such importance to the father of Ali (as), Abu Talib? Wasn’t he a non- believer?

Some Muslims not only criticise and reject Ali (as), they even go after his father. Abu Talib is described as an unbeliever (kafir). Even the recent BBC2 documentary on the life of the Prophet (S) presented by Rageh Omaar, stated as a fact that he died as a non-believer.

Yet the following proofs from history and proofs from the Holy Qur’an prove that he was a Muslim.

He perfomed the Prophet’s wedding

Abu Talib performed the wedding ceremony (nikah) of Prophet Muhammad (S) and Lady Khadija (as) and paid the dowry (mahr). How can anyone believe that the wedding ceremony of the Holy Prophet of Islam would be performed by a non-Muslim?

His marriage

Abu Talib was married to Fatima bint Asad, the mother of Ali (as) and stayed married to her even after the advent of Islam. If he was a non-Muslim, this would be in defiance of the injunctions contained in the Holy Qura’n.

Even the Prophet’s own adopted daughters were divorced from the sons of Abu Lahab (who refused to become Muslims). Fatima bint Asad, remember, was the second lady to accept Islam (after Lady Khadija (as) the Prophet’s first wife).

Imam Sajjad (as), the fourth Shia Imam, said about his great-great-grandfather: “I wonder why people doubt the faith of Abu Talib, when a woman cannot continue her matrimonial alliance with a non-Muslim husband after she has embraced Islam, and Fatima bint Asad was amongst those women who embraced Islam at a very early stage and still remained his wife till he breathed his last.”

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

Ch.4:V 144 [Surah Al Nisa], says:

“O you who believe! Do not take the unbelievers as protectors instead of the believers” (4:144)

and Ch 9:V 23 [Surah Tawba] proclaims:

“O you who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.”(9:23)

The Prophet’s grandfather Abdul Muttalib died when he was 8 years old. The Prophet was looked after by Abu Talib (not by his other uncles, Harith or Abbas); from the age of 8 to 25. The Prophet lived under either the direct or indirect care and supervision of his uncle Abu Talib right up until the latter’s death in 619 ad, when the Prophet was 49. The Prophet lived under the protection of his uncle, the alleged non-believer, for over 40 years! So was the Prophet (S) violating the commands of the Holy Qur’an?

The Holy Qur’an refers to Allah (SwT) and the Prophet, in Ch 93, V 6-9) [Surah Al Duha]:

“Did He not find thee an orphan and give you shelter? And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance. And He found thee in need, and made thee independent.”(93:6-9)

There is no disagreement, as the historical records show, that it was Abu Talib who gave shelter to the Prophet (S) took care of all his needs and gave him guidance. Now how is it that in this case Allah (SwT) is taking credit for things that a “kafir” did? How could Allah (SwT) ask for help from a “kafir” in taking care and bringing up His most beloved and final messenger? How could Allah (SwT) do something that He is prohibiting the believers from doing? The fact that the Prophet of Islam took refuge with, and guidance from Abu Talib shows that Abu Talib was not only a Muslim but a mu’min; not just one who submits, but one who believes.

Here is a challenge: can any person, Sunni or Shia, Muslim or non-Muslim, identify even one occasion on which Abu Talib publicly or privately:

• rejected the concept of unity and oneness of Allah (Tawhid)?

• condemned Islam by name, rejected Islam by name and, in doing so, rejected his nephew the Prophet (S) of Islam?

• worshipped in front of an idol?

On the contrary, when Muslims pray they should thank Abu Talib, because without him, there would have been no Prophet of Islam and, by extension, no religion of Islam. There is no Muhammad (S), without Abu Talib.