Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Alhassanain (p) Network for Islamic Heritage and Thought

The Emergence of Shi'ism and the Shi'ites

The relation between the ideological and the theological realms in Islam. Theories of the Caliphate and the Imamate in Islam and the historical development of Shi'ism as a distinct school of Islamic thought.

Author(s): Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir As-Sadr

www.alhassanain.org/english

Table of Contents

Preface 3

Foreword 4

The Author and the Book 4

Concerning the Present Edition 5

Notes 6

Introduction 7

Notes 8

Part 1:The Emergence of Shi'ism 9

Preliminary Remarks 9

Notes 9

The First Discussion: Denial, Neglecting the Question of Succession 10

First Issue 10

Second Issue 11

Notes 12

The Second Discussion: The Affirmative Path Represented by the Consultative Order 15

First Issue 15

Second Issue 19

Third Issue 25

Notes 26

The Third Discussion: Affirmation Represents Choice and Designation 31

Notes 33

Part 2: The Emergence of the Shi'ites 35

Preliminary Remarks 35

The First Discussion: The Genesis of Two Main Currents during the Prophet's Lifetime 36

Notes 38

The Second Discussion 41

Notes 43

The Third Discussion: Spiritual Shi'ism and Political Shi'ism 45

Notes 47

Appendix: The Moral and Intellectual Preparation for 'Ali's Guardianship and Succession 48

Introduction 49

The First Discussion 50

Notes 53

The Second Discussion: The Preparation and Adaptation of the Ummah to 'Ali's Succession 55

Notes 60

The Third Discussion: The Pertinence of 'Ali's Proficient Knowledge of the Qur'an to His Preparation for Succession 62

Notes 66

Bibliography 68

Preface

In The Name of Allah the All Merciful

Imam Ali Foundation has published books and book translations of high quality concerning many subjects, especially regarding a wider understanding of Islam both in its dogmatic and legal aspects.

Dear Reader, the book which you have in your hands treats a most important topic regarding the relation between the ideological and the theological realms in Islam. It concerns theories of the Caliphate and the Imamate in Islam and especially the historical development of Shi'ism, which insists upon a strict observance of Koranic and prophetic texts in everyday life.

The first text represents the inspired thought of the martyr Sayyed Mohammad Baqir As-Sadr, who was highly reputed for the intellectual quality, scientific value and objectivity of his works. Dr. Abdul Jabbar Chararah has been given the great distinction, and privilege, to annotate this work and to present it here, in order to facilitate its access to the public.

Imam Ali Foundation

Foreword

The Author and the Book

Imam Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, the author of this study, was a reverent scholar and one of the most eminent jurists of our time. He struggled diligently in the way of God; his devotion to Islam was complete to the point of martyrdom, which he finally attained in 1979.

An endless source of learnedness, his genuine gift, he was unrivaled in the study of legal principles and jurisprudence. Imam al­ Sadr was a rare mind in the area of logic and the logic of inquiry, and sought to renew Islamic thought in the face of contemporary intellectual challenges in philosophy, economy and sociology. By setting forth his theses, observations and positions, he helped to establish firmly the Islamic School. He refurbished theological studies, enriched knowledge of the Qur'an and secured the pillars of a sober scientific method in every subject he took up through his pen.

In the probing study of Shi'ism before us, Imam al-Sadr brought to bear a sedate, scholarly method supported by that impeccable logic for which he is so well known. At every step, he has the depth of a skilled expert who knows from the very outset how to take the reader wherever true logic dictates. He handled this weighty subject with concision in a way unmatched by anyone, thanks to his strength of argument, compactness, evenness and subtlety of expression, to say nothing of the sheer elegance of his presentation.

This, despite the number of points and allusions made. These may be perfectly comprehensible to cultured or attained persons, but less so to those inexperienced in this kind of extended theological inquiry. The allusions are not easily understood by those uninitiated in the area of debate and argumentation, or who have never before had to deal with either Prophetic traditions (hadi`ths) or historical events.

In view of the significance of the subject matter, style and treatment, it is regrettable that this study has not received the attention it deserves. Nor has it been properly edited and commented on, for proper guidance through all the evidence invoked. We have yet to be enlightened on its references or the context of its arguments - which should reveal to the reader the soundness of the logic and leave him or her reassured, in turn, as to the logic of their soundness.

This study was originally written in Baghdad in 1970 AD/1390 AH as a preface to a book by Dr. `Abdullah Fayyad entitled History of the Imamites and Their Shi'ite Predecessors, and published in Baghdad by Matba`at As`ad. The first independent edition was published in Cairo in 1977 AD/1397 AH, under the supervision of Mr. Talib al-Husaym al-Rifai.1 In the same year, but just earlier, it was also published in Beirut by Dar al-Ta`aruf lil-Matbu`at.

These two editions, however, have failed to measure up to their goal, since there was little effort to edit or accurately to determine the text. Neither are the Prophetic traditions expounded nor the texts properly supported, to say nothing of the many printing errors.

Nevertheless, the Cairo edition is provided with Mr. al-Rifais helpful comments; it is also the more precise of the two, having fewer errors. The two editions have different titles - the Cairo going by Shi'ism, an Authentic Phenomenon Within the Call of Islam,2 the Beirut by A Study Concerning Guardianship.3

The result was that there arose a need for this study to be given the attention it rightly deserved in terms of textual editing, exactness and commentary. I have made every effort to determine the precise expressions by benefiting from the editions just mentioned, with a view to the necessary corrections. As to the title, I have heeded the view of the eminent Ayatullah al-Sayyid Mahmud al-Hashimi, who suggested to me that it be The Emergence of Shi'ism and the Shi'ites. It was the most appropriate one.

Finally, I have seen it fit to append another scholarly study, adhering to the very same sober method he used, to this solid research by the late Imam al-Sadr. I hope to analyze something to which he pointed without much elaboration, instead relying on its obvious sense on the assumption that it has been related by several transmitters and handed down through many biographical works: namely, the intellectual and moral preparation for Imam `Ali's spiritual leadership (imamah) and political succession (khilafah) to the Prophet.

Concerning the Present Edition

First of all, only printed copies, together with the preface in the introductory section of Dr. `Abdullah Fayyad's History of the Imamites and Their Shi'ite Predecessors, have been available to me. But since the Cairo copy that came out under Mr. Talib al-Husayni al-Rifai's supervision is the better and more accurate one, I have basically relied on it. In order to determine the text and to rectify the errors and whatever seems doubtful, I have referred to the other two editions, that of Beirut and that of Baghdad (the one included in the introduction to Dr. Fayyad's book).

Secondly, I have devised a new layout for the study; it is now divided into an introduction and two chapters. The first chapter is entitled “What is the origin of Shi'ism?” -exactly as the author wished by way of presentation. I broke it up into three discussions. The firstdeals with what the title it carries says , “The First Path - Denial,” that is, “Neglecting the Succession.” This title appears in the Cairo edition. The Second Discussion deals with the path of affirmation, epitomized by the consultative system. The Third Discussion presents the affirmative path, exemplified by the preparation and investiture of whomever was to lead the Ummah, or the community. The second chapter is called “How did the Shiites become Shiite?” It, too, is divided into three discussions. The first is concerned with the two principal trends that accompanied the development of the Ummah; the second with intellectual authority and guidance; and the third with the issue of spiritual and political Shi`ism.

Thirdly, I have consulted those references given by Imam al-Sadr, and have been able to establish the specific texts he relied on. I have, therefore, indicated the volume of the Tradition source left out, along with the page numbers. All told, twenty-three references were given. I have attached the word “Imam” to them, thereby retaining the original text written in the notes and distinguishing them from my own comments.

Fourthly, with respect to those texts which Imam al-Sadr does quote or refer to, I have sought to provide the source, based on the information he gives. I have also made available the references to the ayat of the Qur'an and to the Prophetic hadiths.

Fifthly, wherever needed, I have documented the views and ideas evoked by the Imam.

Sixthly, in order to clarify the objects of discussion, or to reinforce through evidence and proof, I have in many cases made the appropriate comments.

I implore God to render pure this work before Him. Praisebe to God, Lord of the World.

Editor

Dr. Abd al Jabbar Sharrarah

Notes

1. By Dar Ahl al-Bayt, Matabi` al-Dajawi, Abidin.

2. Al-Tashayyu zahirah tabi'iyyah fi itar al-da'wah al-islamiyyah

3. Bahth hawl al-walayah.

Introduction

Some scholars who study Shi`ism describe it as a phenomenon that is incidental to Islamic society. They observe the Shi segment within the body of the Islamic community precisely in its quality of a segment, one that first came into being, through the passage of time, as a result of specific societal events and developments, leading to the intellectual and doctrinal formation of one part only within the larger body; a part which gradually broadened later.1 Beyond this assumption, these scholars differ as to the particular events and developments that led to the rise of such a phenomenon.

Some assume that `Abd Allah b. Saba'2 and his alleged political activity were at the origin of the rise of the Shi`ite bloc. Others trace the phenomenon of Shi`ism back to the era of Imam `Ali's Caliphate and whatever political and social circumstances had taken shape within the pale of events of the time. Still others claim that, within the historical sequence of the Islamic community, the appearance of the Shi`ites occurred through still later events than these.3

As far as I can tell, what has prompted many of these scholars to believe that Shi`ism was a phenomenon merely incidental to Islamic society is precisely that the Shiites of early Islam represented but a tiny portion of the Ummah. This fact may have inspired the feeling that what was not Shi`i must have then been the predominant pattern in Islamic society, and that Shi'ism was the exception, an accidental phenomenon whose causes can be discovered through developments relating to the opposition to the dominant order.

But to consider either numerical majority or relative minority as grounds enough for distinguishing the dominant order from the exception, or the original root from the schism, lacks logical rigour. It is incorrect to describe “non-Shi'ism” as dominant simply on the basis of a numerical majority; and, based on numerical inferiority, to relegate “Shi'ism” to an incidental phenomenon and the idea of schism.

That would not agree with the nature of creedal divisions, since many divisions can remain within the fold of a single message and arise only through the differences attending the process of defining certain of the message's features. No two credal divisions ever have numerical equivalence, although both sides may at bottom be seeking to express the same message on whose nature they disagree.

Hence, under no circumstances can we build our conception upon a creedal division between Shi'ism and other currents within the Islamic Mission4 based on numbers alone; just as we may not link the birth of the Shi'i thesis, as it occurs within the framework of the Islamic Mission, with the advent of the word “Shi'ites” or “Shi'ism” taken as a technical term or proper noun for a clearly defined group among the Muslims. This is because the advent of names and technical terms is one thing, and the development of the content, the actual current and the thesis are another. If we cannot find the word “Shiites”5 in current usage at the time of God's Messenger, or immediately following his death, this does not mean that the Shiite current and thesis did not exist.

With this frame of mind, then, let us turn to the issue of “Shi`ism” and “Shi`ites” in order to answer the following two questions:

What is the origin of Shi'ism?

How did the Shi'ites emerge?

Notes

1. See Dr. Kamil Mustafa al-Shaybi, al-Silah bayna al-tasawwuf wal-tashajyu; I:11 -14, where he presents the views of many ancient and contemporary investigators into the origin and evolution of Shi'ism. He also states that some of them differentiate between political and spiritual (i.e. doctrinal) Shi`ism.See Dr. Mustafa al-Shak`ah, Islam bila madhahib, p. 153; and Dr. Diya' al-Din al-Rayyis, al-Nazariyyat al-siyasiyyah al­ islamiyyah, p. 69.

2. See Dr. Mahmud Jabir `Abd al-`Al, Harakat al-Shi`ah al-mutatarrafin ma atharuhum fi al-hayat al-ijtimiyyah, p. 19. This claim is ascribed to some Muslim historians.However, al-`Al points out that this was rejected by Bernard Lewis, the well-known Orientalist. Wellhausen and Friedlander, two of the biggest scholars in the field, are quoted as saying, “Ibn Saba' was fabricated by those who came later in time.” Dr. Taha Husayn, in his al-Fitnah al-kubra, II:327 , says: “The Shiites' opponents exaggerated the issue of Ibn Saba' in order to defame Ali and his followers.” He added that `We find no mention of Ibn Saba' in any of the important sources ...He is not mentioned in Baladhuris Ansab al-ashraf, but is in Tabari's Tarikh, as reported by Sayf b. `Umar al-Tamimi About this Sayf, though, Ibn Hayyan said that “He related forgeries and was said to fabricate hadiths himself.” Al-Hakim stated that he was accused of heresy, and that his hadiths were omitted. See Ibn Hajar, Tadhhib al-tadhbib IV:260 .Concerning the legend of `Abd Allah b. Saba, see `Allamah Murtadha al­`Askari's book, `Abd Allah b. Saba'.

3. See al-Shaybi al-Silah bayna al-tasawwuf wal-tashayyu; Dr. `Abd Allah Fayyad, Ta'rikh al-Imamiyyah wa aslafihim min al-Shi'ah; Dr. Mustafa al-Shakah, Islam bila madhahib, p. 152ff; Dr. Diya' al-Din al-Rayyis, al Nazarijyat al-siyasiyyah al-islamiyyah, p. 72ff.

4. Indeed, it is consistent neither with ordinary logic nor with the logic of the Holy Qur'an. In numerous places, the Qur'an mostly, if not always, censures the majority, and praises the few in as many places. For instance, God says: “And yet most are not wont to be thankful...”(Qur'an 27:73 “al-Naml”). God also says: “... but a few of my servants are grateful” (34:13 “al-Saba”); “...and many people are sinful” (5:52 “al ­Maidah”)...Those are they who are brought near in the Gardens of Delight, a party from those of old and a few from those who have come later” (56:11-4 “al-waqiah”). This is one aspect. The other is that the Holy Qur'an informs us in many places that those who adhere to Truth and to God's Messengers, and are directed by Divine teachings, are always fewer in comparison to those who headstrongly resist the truth. God says: “Most of them dislike the truth...” (23:70 “al-Mu'minun”); “Yet no faith will the greater part of mankind have, however ardently thou dost desire it” (12:103 “Yusuf”). In every case, there is allusion to the invalidity of relying on the standards of the majority in order to evaluate the correctness of a trend or an opinion. See Muhammad Fuad `Abd al-Baqi, al-Mujam al-mufahris li-alfaz al-Qur'an, p. 597ff.

5. It appears that the Imam is proffering this by way of humbleness and tolerance; otherwise there are prophetic hadiths which utter the word “Shi'ism” in connection with `Ali. It is said in Ibn Manzur's Mukhtasar Tar'ikh Ibn Asaki'r (XVII:384 ) that `Ali uttered: “The Prophet told me [May God bless him and his Household [you and your followers [shiatuka] are in the Garden of Paradise.” But there is another account by Jabir (XVIII:14 ). Cf. Ibn al-Athir, al-Nihayah IV:106 (“Madat qamh”): “You and your followers [shiatuka] will be pleased and pleasing...” - addressed to `Ali.

Part 1:The Emergence of Shi'ism

Preliminary Remarks

With respect to the first question - “What is the origin of Shi`ism?” -one may safely regard Shi'ism as a consequence that is natural to Islam, representing a thesis whose realization is imperative for the Call (or Mission of Islam1 ) if the latter's sound progress is to be assured.

It is possible for us logically to infer this thesis from the Call of Islam, led by the Prophet, because its formation was natural and due to particular circumstances. The Prophet had put into practice a revolutionary leadership, and drove for a comprehensive change of society, its conventions, structures and ideas. But the road to such a change was not to be a short one. It was long, extending the length of that deep spiritual chasm separating pre-Islam from Islam. The calling pursued by the Prophet had to begin with the man of pre-Islam in order to create a new being out of him; it was from the pre-Islamic world that the man of Islam would issue, carrying the new light to the rest of the world. This Mission had to extirpate every last root and vestige in him of pre-Islam.2

Within a short period of time, this remarkable leader was able to make quite amazing progress in the drive for change. But this drive had also to continue its lengthy path even after his death. The Prophet had known for some time that his term was nearing an end. He openly announced it at the “Farewell Pilgrimage.”3 Death hardly took him by surprise. That means that he had ample opportunity to ponder the fate of the Mission beyond his lifetime, even if we disregard the element of a liaison with the hidden world, or for that matter the direct Grace of God evinced by the Message revealed to him.4

In the light of this, we may note that the Prophet had before him three possible paths to choose from with respect to the future. First, the path of denial; second, the affirmative path (for example, consultation); third, appointment.5 These will constitute the three discussions to be taken up below.

Notes

1. These two terms, “Call” and “Mission” of Islam, are used interchangeably in this translation - Translator.

2. The Qur'an affirms that “He is the one who sends down to His servants the clear signs, that He may bring ye out of the veils of darkness and unto the Light” (57:9 “al­Had”).

3. This was done at the formal address of the Farewell Pilgrimage, where he declared: “I am about to be summoned forth, and am about to reply.” And in another account: “It is as if I am being summoned forth and am answering. Verily, I leave thee two weighty things...”(Sahih Muslim, IV4:1874). `Abd Allah b. Mas`ud, is reported as saying, `We were with the Prophet [May God Bless him and his household] one night, when he sighed. So, I asked him, `What ails you, O Messenger of God?' He said: `My death has been announced to me”' (Mukhtasar Ta'r'ikh Ibn Asakir XVIII:32 ).

4. That is, if we suppose the Prophet to have been so keen to have his blessed calling go the full length set for it - as indeed it was his nature to be - and to have striven to take it to the rest of the world, it could only be that he took it upon himself to reckon the future.

5. That is, of a successor - Translator.

The First Discussion: Denial, Neglecting the Question of Succession

1

Based on such an attitude, the Prophet would have assumed a stance of denial with respect to the Mission of Islam, being content to pursue his own leadership role and to direct the Mission only while he lived. He would thus have abandoned it to circumstance and chance. But such a position of denial cannot be assumed for the Prophet, because it would have to arise from one of two issues that fail to apply to him.

First Issue

This consists of the belief denial and neglect cannot affect the fate of the Mission, and that the Ummah that would soon inherit the Call of Islam was capable enough to assume the responsibility of protecting it and ensuring against its distortion.

In fact, this belief has absolutely no basis. Rather, the pattern of events was such as to point to something else. This is because the Call - being from the outset a mission for revolutionary change aimed at constructing an Ummah and at eradicating every root of pre-Islam from it - would become exposed to the worst dangers if the stage were suddenly voided of its leader, or abandoned by him without any pre-arrangements.

Firstly, there are the inherent dangers engendered by trying to confront this vacuum without any advance planning, and by the urgent need to take a makeshift position while still under the massive shock of having lost the Prophet.

If the Messenger had abandoned the stage without planning the course of the Islamic Mission, the Ummah would for the first time have faced the responsibility of managing the most serious problems of its mission without a leader but brandishing not the slightest prescription. The situation called for immediate and swift application - despite the gravity of the underlying problem - because a vacuum cannot persist.2

Indeed, a hasty measure was taken at a moment of shock for the Ummah, reeling as it was from the loss of its leader. This was the shock which, by its very nature, was to upset the course of thinking in Islam, leaving it in such disarray that its effects induced a well-known Companion to announce that the Prophet neither has nor will die.3 But such a measure could not but entail danger, with the most undesirable consequences.

Second are the dangers emanating from a message that is not consummated at a level that could allow the Prophet to be certain of anticipating the actual procedures soon to be taken, and to keep within the fold of the IslamicCall. That would not have enabled him to prevail over latent dissensions that continued to survive in crevices deep inside the hearts of the Muslims, which dissensions were based on the divisions between the Muhajirun (those who migrated to the City of Medina) and the Ansar (native Medinans); the Quraysh and the rest of the Arab tribes; Mecca and Medina.4

Third, there axe dangers arising from that segment of society which passes under the cover of Islam; but against which it used to conspire during the Prophet's lifetime. This is the group that the Qur'an collectively calls the “Hypocrites.”5

If we add to them a good number of those who embraced Islam after the taking of Mecca, who were more resigned to the new order of things than open to truth as such, we can then assess the threat posed as all these elements seized their opportunity for a broad initiative, doing so just when - the stage being cleared of the leader as the custodian - a large vacuum had existed.6 Hence, the gravity of the situation after his departure was not something that could have been hidden from any leader seasoned in doctrinal matters, let alone the Seal of the Prophets.7

It might well be true that Abu Bakr, moreover, had no intention of leaving the scene without a positive intervention ensuring the future of political authority, on the argument that there was need of precaution under the circumstances.8 It may also be true that people rushed to `Umar, when he was wounded, imploring him: “O Commander of the Faithful, if you would only nominate someone.”9

This was done out of fear of the vacuum that the Caliph would soon leave behind, notwithstanding the political and social solidity which the Islamic Mission had attained a decade after the passing away of the Prophet. Also, `Umar may well have named six persons10 in his will in deference to the latter's presentiment of danger. He must have seen the depth of this perilous situation on the Day of the Saqifah and what Abu Bakr's Caliphate would bring in its train, in view of its doubly improvised appearance, since he declared that “Abu Bakr's oath-taking was an oversight from whose evil God has shielded us.”11

Abu Bakr himself regretted his hasty acceptance to become the sovereign as he bore the heavy responsibility that went with it, in that he became aware of the seriousness of the situation and the need to venture some quick solution. When he was censured for accepting to be sovereign, his words were: “God's Messenger has died, and the people only recently were in a state of faithless ignorance. I took alarm that they might be beguiled, but my companions charged me with the task.”12

If all of the above is valid,13 at any rate, it stands to reason that the Prophet and exemplar of the Call to Islam would have been the most aware of the danger of denial,14 most perceptive and farsighted in his understanding of the nature of the situation and the exigencies of the change he pursued in an Ummah newly emerging from faithless ignorance, in the words of Abu Bakr.15

Second Issue

The second issue which could explain why the leader would have disavowed the fate of the Mission, or its progress, after his death goes as follows. Despite his awareness of the danger of the situation, he did not attempt to fortify the Mission of Islam against this danger, supposedly because he was mindful of the advantages. And so, his only concern was to protect the Mission while he lived in order to benefit from it and to enjoy the gains, caring little to secure its fate beyond his own lifetime.

This explanation cannot hold true for the Prophet, even if we should refuse to describe him as a Prophet dedicated to God through everything connected to the Message, making him out instead to be a leader with a message no different from any other. Yet, in the entire history of message-bearing leaders no one matches Muhammad in his earnestness toward the Call or, to his last breath, in his devoted sacrifice for its furtherance. His whole life proves it. Even as he lay on his deathbed, his illness worsening, he was concerned about a battle he had earlier planned. Preparing to deploy Usamah's forces, he repeated: “Make ready the army of Usamah, send it forth,send off Usamah!” as he fainted now and then.16

If the Prophet's attentiveness toward a single problem of military interest relating to the Call could go to that length, as he slowly expired on his deathbed; if knowing that he will die before plucking the fruit of victory did not prevent him from tending to the battle; in short, if he could maintain active interest while drawing his last few breaths of life - how, then, could one possibly think that the Prophet did not lived through moments of anxiety over the fate of the Call? How could he not have planned for its welfare in the face of anticipated dangers?

Finally, there is one record in the Prophet's life, during his last illness, which is sufficient to refute the entire case for the “first path.” It shows that nothing was more remote for such an outstanding leader as our Prophet Muhammad than to assume the position of denial with respect to the future of the Call, simply because of a lack of sensitivity to the dangers or to a disinterest in its nature.

This record, upon whose line of transmission all fair-minded Muslims - whether Sunni or Shi'i -without exception agree upon, is as follows. With certain men present in the house where he was about to face death, including `Umar b. al ­Khattab, the Prophet made a request: “Bring me the inkwell and tablet17 that I may write you an epistle. After this you shall never stray.”18

This attempt by the leader - the soundness and authoritative transmission of whose account, once again, is roundly accepted - points unequivocally to the fact that he did reflect on the future. He saw clearly the necessity to provide a plan by which the Ummah can be fortified against deviation and the Mission of Islam protected from dissolution or ruin.

Hence, it is not possible to presuppose a position of denial19 for the Prophet.

Notes

1. The titles given to the three discussions in both the first and the second chapters were construed from Imam Sadr's own statements, but are not part of the original text.

2. It is well recognized that a head of state's empty seat engendered countless perils and dangers, particularly in the absence of clearly stipulated constitutional provisions for quickly filling the vacancy. See Dr. al-Rayyis, al Nazarijyat al-siyasiyyah al-islamiyyah, p. 134.

3. See al-Shahrastani, al-Milal wal-nihal I:15 , where he states: `Umar b. al-Khattab: 'Whosever says that Muhammad has died I shall slay with this mine own sword. He has ascended to Heaven.”' Cf. Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Ta'rikh al-Tabari II:233 : “He said that Muhammad indeed did not die and that he would go over to the one spread rumour of his death and cut off his hands and smite him at the neck...”

4. On this state of affairs, there is no lack of evidence. For example, al-Bukhari, Muslim and al-Tirmidhi (in Kitab al-tafsir) recount, on the authority of Jabir b.` Abdullah: “We were on an expedition, when a Muhajir struck someone from the Ansar. The Ansari called out, `O Ansar [help me]!' while the Muhajirun called out, `O Muhajirin [help me]!' The Prophet heard all this and said `What pagan cry is this?' Ibn Sallul was also heard saying. `They have done it. By God if we return to Medina the stronger will drive out the weaker”' (al-Shaykh al-Nasif, al Tajj -aljami li1-usul 1V:263).

5. During the Prophet's lifetime, the “Hypocrites” as a group sought to play a menacing role through plots against Islam, the Messenger of God himself and the Muslims. See the previous note, for instance, for the statement by Ibn Sallul, who headed the “Hypocrites.” They happened to stir up all manner of falsehoods and to disseminate disruptive rumours, as in the Battles of Uhud and Ahzab. Consequently, God revealed the “Surah of the Hypocrites” in the Qur'an, in which He exposed this malicious group, informing His Messenger of their designs and whatever they sought to hide. See, for example, al-Fakhr al-Razi's Tafsi'r First ed.VIII:157 (Cairo: al­ Khayriyyah,1308 AH); al-Zamakhshari al-Kahshaf IV:811

6. During the Prophet's lifetime, the “Hypocrites” as a group sought to play a menacing role through plots against Islam, the Messenger of God himself and the Muslims. See the previous note, for instance, for the statement by Ibn Sallul, who headed the “Hypocrites.” They happened to stir up all manner of falsehoods and to disseminate disruptive rumours, as in the Battles of Uhud and Ahzab. Consequently, God revealed the “Surah of the Hypocrites” in the Qur'an, in which He exposed this malicious group, informing His Messenger of their designs and whatever they sought to hide. See, for example, al-Fakhr al-Razi's Tafsi'r First ed.VIII:157 (Cairo: al­ Khayriyyah,1308 AH); al-Zamakhshari al-Kahshaf IV:811

7. Ibid.

8. Regarding the story of Abu Bakr's appointment of `Umar b. al-Khattab as his successor, there are the following words uttered by Abu Bakr: “If you have accepted my command while I live, it would be unbecoming that you should differ after me...” (Mukhtasar Ta'rikh Ibn Asakir XVIII:308 -09); Ta'rikh al-Tabari II:245, 280.

9. Ta'rikh al-Tabari II:580 - Imam. Ibn Manzur, Mukhtasar Tarikh Ibn Asakir XVIII:312 .

10. Tarikh al-Tabari II:581 - Imam

11. Tarikh al-Tabari, ed Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim II:205 ; ibid, II:581.

12. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-balaghah, ed. Abu al-Fadl Ibrahirn II:42 - Imam. Tarikh al-Tabari II:353 . Abu Bakr said: “Would that I had not accepted it...”

13. `Umar wished the deliberations would have ended and a Caliph selected before his wounding, so that he might die a tranquil death knowing that Islam would progress after him...” (Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, al-Faruq `Umar II:313 -314).

14. The Prophet Muhammad, during his blessed calling, earnestly desired for the unity of the Ummah and the progress of Islam, no doubtless more intensely than any of his Companions. For God has declared: “...a beloved friend taking to heart that ye should suffer adversity, ardently concerned for you, and to the, faithful most kind, compassionate” (Qur'aan, 9:128 “al-Tawbah”). What is important is that his concern for the Ummah, his teaching of the Companions the necessary avoidance of discord, and his practical experience in this hardly need proof, especially as the Qur'an is replete with tens of ayat calling for the repudiation of all dissension, its causes and motives. How can one then imagine that this compassionate Prophet could have passed over the chief cause of strife (namely, the question of leadership) without setting up what is likely to obstruct and to bar its baleful effects; the more so that this same perception impelled the first and second Caliphs themselves to appoint successors, as is clear. Cf. Tarikh al-Tabari II:580 .

15. Ibid.

16. Ibn al-Athir, Ta'rikh al-Kamil II:318 - Imam. See also Ibn Sad, al-Tabaqat al ­kubra II:249 .

17. Literally, a “shoulder blade,” on which important documents used to be written. It must be recalled that this was the period just before the Muslims had introduced a new paper substance as a mass commodity, for the first time in history - Translator.

18. Sahih al-Bukhari I:37 ; Kitab al-`ilm 8:161; Kitab al-i'tisam. See also Sahih Muslim V:76 (Ch. “al-Wasiyyah”) (Cairo: Matba`at Muhammad 'Ali Sabih); Musnad al-Imam Ahmad I:355; cf Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat al-kubra II:242-44 - Imam.

19. Every Muslim believes in the preeminence of the Messenger's personality as a leader, let alone as a Prophet-Messenger, which discounts unconditionally the presupposition stated above. Indeed, the Muslim usually holds such a presupposition to be illegitimate with respect to the Prophet for at least two reasons. One, it would be contrary to the Prophet's familiar life-conduct unanimously acknowledged by the entire community. His noble life abounds with goodly works and continuous struggle for change, construction and salvation of the Ummah. Second, the presupposition runs contrary both to those hadiths which have numerous, uninterrupted lines of transmission and to what he taught the Ummah with respect to diligence - indeed, to the point of declaring: “Whosever wakes without a care for the affairs of the Muslims is not one of them” (Usul al-kafi II:131). His disinterest in the fate of the Call and of the Ummah would have actuallymake him derelict in his obligations and trustworthiness.