Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Value Of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

It should be clear that according to the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnat that are expounded in the books of Sahih Tirmidhi, Sahih Muslim, Aqaid Nasafi, Sharh Aqaid Jalali and Sharh Nahdi, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was not due to the appointment of the Holy Prophet (S), it was at a result of the selection by people. Thus, it could not be said to be from Allah. It was from the side of people. Those Ahlul Sunnat, who consider it to be in keeping with divine appointment, are living in a misunderstanding. Thus, it is not proper to consider Abu Bakr as the Caliph of the prophet, because the people had selected him.

In Sharh Aqaide Nasafi1 , it is written that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat regarding Caliphate and Imamate is that for it to be valid it is necessary that all the people should have consensus on Caliphate. Then there is election; that it is for people to select an Imam and not Allah according to Quran and tradition, because the Holy Prophet (S) said that one who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies a death of disbelief. Due to this, after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) considered it the most important duty to select an Imam. They considered the appointment of Imam to be more important than even the burial of the Holy Prophet (S).

Readers! Please note! One who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies the death of infidelity. This only implies that the recognition of the Imam is obligatory and not the selection of an Imam. In such a condition, by giving preference to the selection of Imam over the burial of Prophet, the people committed two sins. One is that Abu Bakr and the other participants of Saqifah Bani Sadah were deprived of the rewards of participating in the burial of the Holy Prophet (S). Secondly, the selection of the Imam was itself an innovation. There is no doubt that innovation is deviation. The selection of Imam was an innovation because there is no proof of selection of Imam from Quran and tradition.

If it had been an obligatory duty, the Almighty would have informed about it and the Holy Prophet (S) would also have mentioned that ‘after me you may undertake election and select anyone as my successor.’ In the same way, the selection of Imam is also an illogical act because sometimes reason earns rewards and sometimes it becomes eligible for punishment. Therefore, the Almighty Allah refrained people to use reason where there was no Quranic verse or tradition regarding something.

“O Muhammad! Therefore, do not follow (your) conjectures…”2

Thus, if such a command is for the Prophet, how can the people be allowed to use their opinion for formulation of religious laws. Allah also says:

“Surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.”3

In other words, from the aspect of both religious text (Nass) and reason, the selection of Imam was an innovation committed by the people of Saqifah and it informs us of their deviation. Now, we have to see whether anyone can be selected by ‘election’ for the post of Prophet or Caliph of Prophet. It is well- known that since the time of Adam (a.s.), till the Holy Prophet (S) there has never been a single instance when a prophet or the Caliph of a prophet was selected by the ‘election’ of people.

Prophets and Caliphs were always appointed by Allah. The Almighty Allah made Adam (a.s.) a prophet as well as His Caliph. In the same way, the Almighty Allah made Dawood (a.s.) His Prophet and also appointed him as His Caliph. This proves that prophethood is from Allah and not from the people.

The appointment of Abu Bakr by the people was a sort of innovation and a new system. It was a pity that the Caliph of the greatest Prophet should neither be appointed by the Prophet himself nor by Allah, and that he should be selected by a group of people that did not even deserve to be called a perfect group. That is some people should gather and select him as the Caliph in a casual way.

If there had to be a real consensus for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, if not from all the lands of Islam, at least the leaders of various Arab tribes who had embraced Islam should have been invited. Here the position was, that leave alone the tribes of other than Medina, even the tribe of Bani Hashim, which resided in Medina, was not informed, while it was also related to the Holy Prophet (S).

Umar hurriedly called for the hand of Abu Bakr and an instant ‘marriage’ was performed, thus making him the Caliph. Many companions also did not participate in this ‘election’. For example Zubair, Utbah, Khalid, Miqdad, Salman, Abu Dharr, Baraa and Ubayy, who were having some inclination to Ali (a.s.). By studying all the events, we realize that the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was neither from the side of Allah nor was it absolutely from the side of people. No one in his proper sense could call this defective Ijma ‘an election’.

Evidently, it seems that if with this haste, Umar had not made Abu Bakr the Caliph, and he had initiated a proper system of election, it would not have been possible for Abu Bakr to become the Caliph so easily. In the end, it is my humble statement that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat that the Holy Prophet (S) had not appointed anyone as his successor is an invalid assertion. The truth is that by the command of Allah, the Holy Prophet (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) his Caliph, practically and by his statements.

But his selfish community (Ummah) rejected his choice. Though apparently the choice was of the Holy Prophet (S), actually it was that of the Almighty. There can be no doubt in its validity. Ali (a.s.) was indeed such a great person that he had no equal in the Ummah of the Prophet and his selection as a Caliph carried many advantages, as mentioned by the writer in the foregoing pages. We should know that the Prophet and Allah dictate the affair of Caliphate. The ‘election’ (Ijma) of Ummah cannot interfere in it. As we see in these words of Allah:

“And set out to them an example of the people of the town, when the messenger came to it. When We sent to them two, they rejected both of them, then We strengthened (them) with a third, so they said: Surely we are messengers to you.”4

The incident is that Isa (a.s.) sent two of his Caliphs or representative to Antioch but the people denied them both. Then the two were helped by a third representative. In this verse, the Almighty has mentioned the act of Isa (a.s.) as His own act and says: “We sent…”

Indeed, this verse clearly proves that Caliphate or representation of Prophet cannot be by anyway, except by the Prophet or Almighty Allah. Rather, this verse also proves that even a prophet is not allowed to appoint his Caliph. He has to take permission of Allah. He mentions in Surah Taha:

“And give to me an aider from my family: Haroon my brother, strengthen my back by him, and associate him (with me) in my affair.”5

This proves that Moosa (a.s.) requested Allah to appoint Haroon as his vizier. This proves that if a Caliph could be appointed by the people, what was the need of Moosa (a.s.) to pray to Allah for this? After the acceptance of this prayer, we learn that Moosa (a.s.) told his brother: You are my Caliph for my people after me.

“And Moosa said to his brother Haroon: Take my place among my people…”6

If Moosa (a.s.) did not value the permission of Allah, he would have appointed Haroon his Caliph or he would have gone to meet the Lord without appointing anyone as his Caliph and the Bani Israel could have appointed a Caliph of their own choice. Regarding the appointment of Haroon (a.s.) as the Caliph, the Almighty says in Surah Furqan:

“And We appointed with him his brother, Haroon an aider.”7

This clearly shows that only Allah has the authority to appoint the Caliph or representative of a prophet. No prophet has the right to select anyone as his Caliph or representative. May Allah be merciful on the nation (Ummah) which appointed Abu Bakr as the Caliph after the Prophet and they did not try to see the choice of Prophet and Allah. The establishment of belief by these people that Allah and the Prophet had not appointed anyone as Caliph is very astonishing. Reason cannot accept it. That the Caliphs of the previous prophets be appointed by Allah by special arrangements and the Prophet’s Ummah be not given any Caliph and it should be left like cattle to select its own Caliph.

Indeed, this Ummah has more importance in comparison to the past nations. To get such careless treatment by Allah is against reason. Indeed, Allah and the Prophet appointed Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph on Muslims, as clear from the event of Ghadeer Khumm. But the world-seeking people preferred the bounty of the world to the bounties of the Hereafter and did not accept Ali (a.s.) the Caliph.

In brief, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr cannot be in anyway from the side of Allah. It also seems to be deficient in being referred to as being from the people. When the Caliphate of Abu Bakr is such, the Caliphate of Umar cannot have any value, whatsoever. That is, his Caliphate is from such a Caliph who himself was not a Caliph from Allah, and it was even doubtful, if he could be called from the people.

Thus, the Caliphate of Umar was itself baseless. From this aspect, he was only the Caliph of Abu Bakr. To think that he was from the Messenger of Allah (S) is wrong. The tradition itself that “the thirty years…” is the period of the Righteous Caliphate is a concocted tradition. If the tradition is really from the Prophet, the total period of four Caliphates had reached 30 years. But this period of 30 years is not complete even after adding the six months of the Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.). Indeed, this tradition is fabricated and it was most probably fabricated so that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs should be said to have been acceptable to the Holy Prophet (S) and thus should be accepted as the Righteous Caliphates.

Notes

1. Pg. 94

2. Surah Nisa 4:135

3. Surah Najm 53:28

4. Surah Yasin 36:13-14

5. Surah Taha 20:29-32

6. Surah Araaf 7:142

7. Surah Furqan 25:35

Caliphate From People Or Caliphate From Allah

The writer has already shown the political necessity of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), according to which, if Ali (a.s.) had been appointed a Caliph after the Holy Prophet (S), his Caliphate would have been from the people. Just as the Caliphates of the three Caliphs is considered to be from the people, by Ahlul Sunnat. However, it is not the religious belief of the writer and Shias that Ali (a.s.) should have been the Caliph due to political exigency.

The religious belief of the Imamites is that Ali (a.s.) is the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S) by the leave of Allah. His appointment as Caliph was not in need of selection by people. It was only Allah that had made him the successor of His Prophet in the world and in the religious sphere. It is a link of the complete series of spiritual Caliphate and Imamate. The material factors are in no way allowed to interfere in it.

A Close Look At The Present Situation Of The World

On this point, the writer advises that a rational person should look with a critical mind, anything that is related to religion, politics and poetry or any other art. He must not be biased or bigoted. For if he sees the world through these eyes, he would not able to see the truth. There are very few truth-loving people in the world. Such are very few who could form an independent opinion. Most of the people can only follow blindly. The results of blind following does not need to be mentioned. The duty of man is to always try to unravel the truth.

First, he must work hard to do research and only then should he form an opinion. But those who look for truth and those who seek the truth and those who see the truth are very less in the world. Most of the people are such that they form an opinion without investigation and begin to act on it. Such people cannot form an opinion based on research. If their companion says that in China the crows are white, they would believe it without going to China or confirming it with a native of China or from a book of natural science. This is the condition of common people. They could not be expected to carry out independent research.

It is on this basis that the writer has no hope that this book will become very much popular. Since the writing is not aimed at common people, it is not expected that except for people of discerning minds, anyone else will like it. This book does not contain things that are required for popularity. First of all, it is not printed in colored ink. Secondly, the results of the research are not the same as the views held by common people. Thirdly, this book is different from Asian taste.

Fourthly, this book is filled with discussions of Muhammad’s Progeny. Apparently, it is not a taste of the Islamic world of this country that the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny should be propagated freely and that they should be seen in a wise way. Indeed, this book is not written keeping in mind the conditions of the present age. It is not to please any ruler, any wealthy person or a particular sect. The only aim of this book is public good. The writer does not expect any monetary benefit. He only intends to express the truth. By the praise of Allah, till date, the writing of this book has continued in the path of expressing the truth.

Obviously, the writer has no worldly greed through it that he should have deviated from the straight path. Selfishness and bigotry have never been allowed any scope therein. And why should he have deviated from the path of truth, while he had no intention to hurt the feelings of anyone or to usurp the rights of others. He considers all such things to be degrading. When the writer of this book had no desire for fame and greed for wealth or intention for gaining honor, why he should have taken up such freedoms. Anyone, who is needless of the world and the people and not dependant upon any government or authority, if even such a person cannot write the truth, only Allah can help him. Obviously, such a person would not be eligible for Divine Mercy.

Caliphate Of The Prophet In The View Of The Two Sects

It should be clear that the religious differences between Shia and Sunni are not that their twelve Caliphs are different. Rather, it is that Ahlul Sunnat consider their Caliphs to be appointed by people, while Shias consider that vicegerency of the Holy Prophet (S) could never be from people. It has to be from Allah. This difference clearly shows that Caliphate from the side of the people is something, which has no interference of divine revelation and neither is infallibility a requirement of it.

On the other hand, Caliphate from the side of Allah is a spiritual affair, which could not be possible without Allah’s permission. Ahlul Sunnat consider Caliphate same as selection of Presidents in democratic governments. No one can say that the Presidents of America, Europe and France have been appointed by divine revelation. Everyone knows that the appointment of such people is from the public. On the basis of this, Ahlul Sunnat consider the Caliphate of their Twelve Caliphs to be based on election or consultation or force, and consider it valid for these reasons. Obviously, all these conditions have no spiritual aspect.

In brief, Ahlul Sunnat regard Caliphate in a way that when the Prophet passed away from the world, Abu Bakr became the Caliph by consensus. When he passed away, he nominated Umar as his successor and when Umar was on his deathbed, he left Caliphate at the discretion of Consultative Committee (Shura).

Uthman was appointed as Caliph through Shura Committee. It is not clear from any Sunni book, by which principle Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph. Anyway, when it was the time of Muawiyah’s Caliphate, he became the rightful Caliph by obtaining it through force.

Obviously, it is an unscrupulous method of Caliphate, so there could not any basis for it in revelation. Therefore, we should know that the Caliphate from the side of the people is the belief of Ahlul Sunnat in particular. And due to this belief, many scholars of the sect, like Allamah Nawawi, the commentator of Sahih Muslim and Allamah Ibn Hajar, author of Fathul Bari and Imam Razi, the writer of Nihayatul Uqool etc. do not believe that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs or other Caliphs are based on Quranic or traditional injunctions.

But there are some Sunni scholars who are not completely satisfied with this mundane way of selecting the Caliph. And even in the people of that time, there was no Sunni who could prefer to consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr an independent result of consensus. The writer has tried his best to find out the beliefs of contemporary Sunni scholars and the result that he has obtained is that they all consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr to be in the way as Shias believe in the divine sanction of the Imamate of Ali (a.s.).

Now the matter to be investigated is, is there any Quranic verse or prophetic tradition, according to which Abu Bakr or the Caliphs after him attained their posts? These Sunni scholars have tried to prove the Caliphate of Abu Bakr with the help of Quranic verses and prophetic traditions and Shias have refuted these dissertations. There is no scope in this book to discuss the arguments of the two sects. Its aim is centered around the tragedy of Karbala’.

This book has no relation to the arguments whether the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was right or not? The writer just had to show the relationship of this Caliphate with the tragedy of Karbala’, and this relationship has already been explained. The writer has not argued with all the traditions and verses that Ahlul Sunnat use to prove the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, but he will only discuss two verses in the following pages. One of the verses is considered by Ahlul Sunnat to be particularly the proof of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and the second verse supports the Caliphate of the Rightful Caliphs. The readers are requested to study these verses and see if these verses in any way prove the Caliphate of the Caliphs?

Verse Of The Cave

Ahlul Sunnat present the verse of the cave to support the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. The complete verse is as follows:

“If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see…”1

Ahlul Sunnat people prove various merits of Abu Bakr from this verse. Even the Caliphate and rulership of Abu Bakr could be derived from this verse. The Imamites say that leave alone Caliphate, it does not prove any special quality of Abu Bakr. Rather, it seems to be just the opposite. To know the truth, we shall study the parts of this verse, there are many portions of this verse that are points of contention.

First of all is ‘Thani Ithnain’ (the second of the two), secondly, ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion), thirdly, ‘Laa Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us), fourthly, ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (tranquility upon him). Below, we shall discuss each of these portions in detail. First of all, regarding: “The second of the two”, Ahlul Sunnat say that the second of the two is Abu Bakr who is the second person after the Messenger of Allah (S) who is nominated for the fulfillment of religious responsibility after the Holy Prophet (S).

The Imamites say that the second of the two denotes the Holy Prophet (S) himself and not Abu Bakr and there is no indication of conferment of religious authority in the verse. The Almighty is complaining about those people who are not helpful to his Prophet (S). They are such that either they avoid Jihad or flee from the battlefield, instead of sacrificing their life. Abu Bakr himself was one of those who had fled the battlefield. Or there were such people, who could not help the Prophet in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn and they left him and ran away. Then the meaning of “second of the two” and the “third of the three” is “one of the two” and “one of the three.” Here the “second of the two” is that same “one of the two” who was one of the two people in the cave and who was comforting the other.

Apparently, this comforting one was the Holy Prophet (S) and not Abu Bakr. This portion of the verse in no way proves the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and it has no relation to Caliphate or rulership. Although there is no cure for religious obstinacy.

Second: ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion): Ahlul Sunnat say that ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion) has proved the companionship of Abu Bakr. The Imamites do not deny the companionship of Abu Bakr, but they say that companionship on its own is not something that deserves to be praised, if there is absence of belief or faith. Only that companion of the Holy Prophet (S) is deserving of honor, who has faith; and mere companionship is of no use.

What is the use of such a companion, who is denounced in the words of Allah? As Allah mentions about those companions who avoided Jihad or who were the first to flee the battle, leaving the Holy Prophet (S) in danger. Apparently, this verse does not even mention those characteristics of companionship that are generally accepted by the people. Here, companion means one who was with the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, that is Abu Bakr. This is the apparent meaning of that companion. Apart from this, the Arabic word of Sahab is not a word whose use is limited to special people. It can be used for ordinary people also, as mentioned in Surah Yusuf:

“O my two mates of the prison! Are sundry lords better or Allah the One, the Supreme?”2

It is used for people who had no sort of worldly or religious power. The Arabic word of Sahab does not prove any merit for Abu Bakr.

Thirdly: ‘La Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us): Ahlul Sunnat say that these words prove that the Messenger of Allah (S) comforted Abu Bakr and made him his partner in receiving Allah’s help and peace. The Imamiyah say that these words do not indicate any merit for Abu Bakr or anyone else. The condition is that Abu Bakr did not give up his native place for helping the Prophet or the religion of Islam.

When he left Mecca with the Holy Prophet (S) in order to escape the enemies, the Holy Prophet (S) took refuge in a cave and Abu Bakr also entered the cave. But Abu Bakr was so nervous in the cave that he started weeping in fear of the enemies. The Holy Prophet (S) comforted him and asked why he was weeping? But despite this, he did not stop crying. Obviously, in such a condition, while the Holy Prophet (S) was inside a dark cave to escape the enemies, it was very much necessary that they should be quiet and peaceful. This untimely crying would have given them away, because the enemies had come out to search for the Holy Prophet (S).

It is surprising that when Saraqa reached the mouth of the cave, the weeping of Abu Bakr did not stop. If that enemy of Islam had entered the cave, Abu Bakr would hardly have been able to defend the Holy Prophet (S), keeping in mind that he was already crying in fear. The Holy Prophet (S) would have had to fight a duel with that enemy of Islam alone. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) comforted such a chicken-hearted companion in the words:

“Do not grieve, certainly Allah is with us.”

So what is the merit of such a companion? Rather, it certainly indicates that the companion of the Holy Prophet (S), in spite of knowing that the Almighty will not allow His Prophet to be killed at the hands of infidels, had no faith in Allah.

We should know that as with ‘La Tahzan’ (Do not grieve…), Ahlul Sunnat prove many merits of Abu Bakr by the words ‘Inallaha Maana’ (certainly Allah is with us). They show many types of companionships with ‘Maana’ (with us).

Truly, priesthood (Maulviyat) is a strange thing. Sometimes they decorate their speeches to say that the companionship was of help and assistance and sometimes it was companionship in knowledge. In the end, they also show that the words of the Prophet prove the companionship of Allah with Abu Bakr. The Imamites say these are all wordplays. Actually, it is nothing worthy of mention that could prove any merit of Abu Bakr. The Holy Prophet (S) was comforting him not to be sorrowful, Allah is their helper and aider. ‘You think that enemies have arrived and who is it that will help you? Do not be aggrieved Allah is our helper and friend.’

The Imamites also refute Ahlul Sunnat saying, that here the Prophet has said ‘Maana’ (with us) denoting ‘Maaii’ (with me) and it is a style in Arabic to speak in plural form. In the Urdu language too, instead of singular, we speak in plurals. Thus instead of ‘I’ we say ‘We’. Is it necessary that ‘Maana’ (with us) should be considered ‘Maaii’ (with me)? The clear thing is that just as Allah was with the Holy Prophet (S), He was also with Abu Bakr and was with every creature; He was and He shall remain to be so. Thus, what merit could anyone have in this type of companionship?

Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) said ‘Maana’ (with us). This does not prove any merit of people, rather it proves the quality of Allah that He is with everyone. In my view, Shias are not required to say that ‘Maana’ (with us) is used in place of ‘Maaii’ (with me).

A Shia scholar says that if Ahlul Sunnat say regarding ‘Maana’ (with us) that we do not like to use plural instead of singular and it is necessary that instead of one, two people must be included in it, we shall say that the second person is Ali (a.s.). That when the Holy Prophet (S) asked Abu Bakr why he was weeping, as Shah Waliullah writes in Izalatul Khifa that Abu Bakr said: “I am not crying for myself. I am crying for Ali (a.s.). That he must have been killed and I am crying for you that soon you will be martyred.”

Then the Holy Prophet (S) said Allah is with both of us. This means that “Allah is the helper of me and Ali (a.s.).” On this point, both the scholars of Shia and Sunni have indulged in word play. The reply of each sect is as per the objection of every sect. On top of this is the statement of Shah Waliullah. Now I ask: O Imamites! What did you lose if ‘Maana’ (with us) includes Abu Bakr? Indeed, Abu Bakr was included in this ‘Maana’(with us). And if there had been a third, even an infidels, he would also have been included in this ‘Maana’ (with us). And Ahlul Sunnat are requested to consider what merit is obvious from the fact if Abu Bakr was indeed included in this?

The fact is that those who indulge in religious argumentation are distanced from nature, which is why they are prone to such unnatural views. Here, the arguments of the two sects are mere arguments. It is astonishing that a scholar of the caliber of Shah Waliullah should write such weak statements, as mentioned above. No sane person will give importance and consider true, such imaginative affairs. Such a person would consider the writing of Shah Waliullah to be unreliable and away from truth.

It is surprising that the Holy Prophet (S) did not weep for Ali (a.s.) in the cave, while it was Abu Bakr who wept. The condition of Abu Bakr himself was so tense that it seems unlikely he would worry about Ali (a.s.) and weep for him. Indeed, the cause of this weeping was the weak-heartedness of Abu Bakr. The truth is that he never wept for anyone. If the statement of Shah Waliullah is that he wept for Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S), it is an ignorant action. Fear is a natural feeling. Very few people could be said to possess bravery. Thus, one who is not made brave, cannot be blamed for cowardice.

I also do not agree with the claim of Imamite writers, who say that Abu Bakr was weeping and wailing, so that enemies may learn of their presence and enter the cave. In my view, Abu Bakr never wailed for this purpose. He had entered the cave with utmost sincerity. He started crying when faced with this difficulty. It cannot be construed that Abu Bakr desired that the Holy Prophet (S) should be caught. Abu Bakr stood to gain more if the Holy Prophet (S) remained safe and sound. He was not a wealthy person nor his tribe had any superiority. He had taken up companionship of the Prophet only because through this, he would gain monetary progress.

Thus, by living in Medina, and through trade and war booty, his economical conditions improved till the time that after the Holy Prophet (S) he also became the ruler of Muslims. Abu Bakr was a very clever person. He could never desire Prophet’s death, while he was with him in the cave. Shah Waliullah agrees that the weeping of Abu Bakr was due to fear and fear is rooted in a weak heart.

Thus, this action of Abu Bakr is not deserving of any praise. In such a delicate moment, though it was indeed harmful for the Holy Prophet (S) if one wept loudly, but it was also against wisdom to weep quietly. In such a situation, it is the duty of every companion to reassure each other, rather than creating nervousness. But this incident shows that the Holy Prophet (S) was a very stable minded and a valiant person. That he kept his emotions intact in such perilous circumstances and even comforted Abu Bakr. In brief, what merit does this verse shows of Abu Bakr? Except for Ahlul Sunnat, no one has become cognizant of any such points.

Fourthly: From the words ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (Allah sent down His tranquility upon him) Ahlul Sunnat show that the Almighty sent peace on Abu Bakr and this informs us of the high status of Abu Bakr. Imamites say that peace was sent by Allah on His respected Prophet. That in such a serious situation, when his companion had started weeping due to fear, it was necessary for the companion to console his counterpart.

The Almighty Allah sent peace on the Prophet (S) and helped Him with armies invisible to the human eye. People of justice may see whether the relation of this peace is with the Prophet or Abu Bakr. It is well-known that the verse refers to peace on the Holy Prophet (S). It seems from the life history of Abu Bakr that apart from that cave he never had peace of mind. It seems irrational that one should be given peace of Allah and that he should leave the Prophet and flee from the battlefield, or when he goes for Jihad, he could not face the infidels due to the weakness of heart.

In such a situation, he should always have trusted Allah and he should have faced the enemies of Allah in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn. But when he had never got that peace of heart, how he could be considered recipient of Allah’s peace in the cave or anywhere else? Truth-loving people may weigh this reply of Shias in the balance of justice and the writer does not wish to express any opinion.

It should be clear that some Ahlul Sunnat people turn the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards Abu Bakr. Nawab Maulavi Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan, the writer of Ayate Bayyinat, and some other non-famous scholars also do it. But the greatest exegesists of Ahlul Sunnat clearly apply the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards the Messenger of Allah (S), from which the Holy Prophet (S) becomes the recipient of the peace of Allah.

Indeed, the Almighty also intended this, but priesthood is a strange thing! They always try to use the play of words in debates and discussions, even though the incident may be murdered at the altar of argumentation, but they will not change their stance. Debate means that two groups take part in a discussion and arrive at a conclusion regarding something. When it is so, what is achieved by useless contests? Now, people of justice should see that if the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) is turned towards, Abu Bakr, what sort of grammatical blunder is committed.

All the pronouns in this verse are applicable to the Holy Prophet (S), in between, one pronoun is construed to be for Abu Bakr. Then the pronoun after this, that is ‘Ayyadahoo’ (strengthened him) is for the Holy Prophet (S). Is there any sense in it? No, but priesthood is always indulging in such nonsense. We should see that by turning the pronoun to Abu Bakr, the beauty of the language of the Quran is lost. In brief, the verse of the cave is not related to the Caliphate or rulership of Abu Bakr or anyone else, and it is not in praise of anyone.

The meaning of the verse is just that Allah says: “O enemies of Islam! If you don’t help My Prophet, Allah helps him. He was even helped when infidels expelled him from his home and he took refuge in a cave. At that time, there were two people; he himself and his companion who was weeping and wailing.

In such a condition, the Prophet comforted him that Allah was with them. Then Allah sent peace on His Prophet and helped him with an army of angels.” This is all there is to it. But the interpretations that have deformed this verse, do not require a mention. The people of justice may themselves compare truth with untruth. We also present two additional points that are found in this incident:

First of all, even if we agree that Abu Bakr bravely accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, even then when this companionship is compared to the action of Ali (a.s.) for sleeping on the bed of the Prophet, we realize that Ali’s action was more a feat of bravery than the companionship of Abu Bakr, because Ali (a.s.) slept fearlessly on the bed of the Holy Prophet (S). The natural bravery of Ali has no equal. He was a stable and a brave personality. It was the job of a loyal, Allah-knowing and religious person that Ali (a.s.) performed. Such a thing cannot be thought about Abu Bakr’s presence in the cave.

Despite this, Abu Bakr is given precedence over Ali (a.s.) and is said to be deserving of the Prophet’s successorship. It is a strange world where there is no justice! If there is justice, it is with Allah or it would be Judgment Day. In my view, it behoves a Muslim not to forgo justice. How can a bigot be a Muslim? The presence of Abu Bakr in no way makes him superior to Ali (a.s.).

But what would the people of justice say to that the Prophet said ‘La Tahzan’ (do not grieve): That clearly shows the dissatisfaction of Prophet (S) over an action of Abu Bakr. In such a situation, is Abu Bakr not proved to be inferior? Then to prefer Abu Bakr because of this, is very far from justice. Only Allah knows what this blind love for Abu Bakr will earn for Ahlul Sunnat in the hereafter? It is a strange unjust love that Quran, tradition, reason and understanding, all are murdered for it.

(2) Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes that Abu Bakr was the bravest companion. If Suyuti had just referred to Abu Bakr, it would have been something else, but to say that he was the bravest companion is an astonishing statement. Over and above, he relates a tradition of Ali (a.s.) to say that Abu Bakr was the bravest of men. That is Abu Bakr was not only braver than Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet, he was the bravest among all the people. The action of Suyuti to call Abu Bakr the bravest of the people in the words of Ali has brought out two evils: one is that Abu Bakr, who was not even an ordinary brave, is said to be the bravest.

Secondly, Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S) who were brave in their own right, were rendered inferior. It is clear from the incident of cave that of the Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Bakr, who was braver? In the same way, it is crystal clear from the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn, how brave Abu Bakr was. Who deserves to be called braver, Abu Bakr or Ali? Till now the writer has not come to know from Quran, tradition, history, etc. how Abu Bakr was the bravest of the companions or bravest of the people. The incident of cave tells of no kind of bravery.

In fact, Abu Bakr had no experience of battles or war. But he had good experience of business. He used to go to the markets of Medina everyday and make a lot of money. It is not necessary that everyone must be a soldier. Providence neither made Abu Bakr a soldier nor Umar; both these gentlemen had different qualities. Just as Abu Bakr had business acumen, Umar was having a political mind. That is why, in the battles of the Prophet, these two gentlemen had no achievements worthy of mention. Those who fought in these battles were Ali (a.s.), other Bani Hashim and the Helpers (Ansar) of Medina. The sword of Ali (a.s.) performed great feats that are mentioned in the books of poetry and history.

If Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would not have been established in Medina. The fact is that though anyone could be considered bravest, the quality of bravery was perfect only in Ali (a.s.). It is surprising that a scholar like Suyuti should also write such baseless things that are absolutely impossible.

Another inappropriate statement of Suyuti is that Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of the companions and the most pure. Indeed, this is only applicable to Ali (a.s.) and none else. But there is no doubt that Abu Bakr was more knowledgeable than Umar and cleaner. In brief, we could say that bigotry is the enemy of faith. May Allah give good sense to people to speak and love the truth. Without recognizing the truth, man cannot achieve salvation in the world and the hereafter.

Notes

1. Surah Taubah 9:40

2. Surah Yusuf 12:39