Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter one: Interpretations of Abu Bakr and his followers

The day of saqeefa

When Abu Bakr stretched his hand to be paid homage as the caliph after the Prophet (s), some people paid him homage willingly and others-later on-paid homage unwillingly although they knew well that the Prophet (s) had entrusted his brother and cousin Ali bin Abu Talib (s) with the caliphate after him. They had seen the Prophet (s) and heard him mentioning this matter many times since the beginning of his prophethood until the end of his blessed life. The Prophet (s) had mentioned this tradition in different ways and all of them were clear in declaring that Ali (s) would be the caliph after him. Whoever wants to know more details about this subject, let him refer to our book “al-Muraja’at”, in which we have mentioned a full research on these traditions and all what have been said about them by the two sects; the Shia and the Sunni. We have exchanged deliberations with the sheikh of Islam and the teacher of the ulama Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri al-Maliki, the sheikh of al-Jami’ al-Azhar (al-Azhar University) at that time when I have been studying there.[90]He was then the sheikh (dean) of al-Azhar University. He took much care of me as he always did to his students. Arguments and written deliberations began between us about the caliphate after the Prophet (s) and the traditions concerning it. We tried our best to go deep in research and to be fair to the truth and because of the good soul of Sheikh al-Bishri, the result was the useful book “al-Muraja’at”, in which guidance shone in its brightest signs. Praise be to Allah for this success.[91]

I hope that you scrutinize into the aims and the intents of the Prophet’s sayings and doings, which are the point of deliberation between us (the Shia) and the Sunni. Let passion not overcome your minds like those, who have dealt with the clear texts like their dealing with general or ambiguous sayings without caring for their (the texts’) rightness and clearness. Allah says:(Most surely it is the Word of an honored messenger. The processor of strength, having an honorable place with the Lord of the Dominion. One (to be) obeyed and faithful in trust. And your companion is not gone mad) then whereto do you go, O you the Muslims!(It is naught but revelation that is revealed. The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him) .

I have not seen clear and recurrent traditions more than the traditions talking about the caliphate but they have been confiscated by the most of the umma while the wound has not recovered yet and the Prophet (s) has not been buried yet.

The life of the Prophet (s) after his prophethood was full of traditions that had talked about the caliphate of Imam Ali (s) clearly since the (day of the warning)[92]in Abu Talib’s house and throughout the days after that until he had lain in the bed of death whereas his room was crowded with people when he said: “O people, I am about to die and to be taken hastily. I have informed you. I have left among you the Book of Allah and my progeny”. Then he raised Ali’s hand and said: “This is Ali. He is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with him. They will never separate until they will come to me at the pond (in Paradise)”. The traditions of thaqalayn (two weighty things) are enough to be the judge between the two sects; the Shia and the Sunni.(Most surely there is a reminder in this for him who has a heart or he gives ear with full intelligence) .[93]

They (the companions) had appropriate the matter (the caliphate) to themselves on the day of Saqeefa[94]interpreting some prophetic traditions according to their own opinions without caring for anything else. They had determined their matter among them without informing anyone of the Hashemites[95]nor any of their followers; the Hashemites, who were the family of the Prophet (s), the place of the divine mission, the descendance of the angels and the descendance of Gabriel and revelation. As if they had forgotten that the Hashemites were the weighty thing the Prophet (s) had left, the equal of the Book of Allah,[96]the protection of the umma from separation,[97]the ship of rescue for the umma from deviation[98]and the gate of repentance for the umma.[99]As if they had forgotten that the Prophet’s family was to the umma as the head to the body and as the two eyes to the head.[100]In fact they were as they had been meant by the saying of the poet:

The matter is determined when Taym[101]is absent

And they[102]are not asked permission when they are present.

Yes! The matter had been determined in the Saqeefa[103]while the Prophet (s) was lying between his family and his close companions for three days. They were around him mourning bitterly and their hearts were about to be cut into pieces with sorrow that might tear the livers and with fear that might move the mountains. The world, with all its wideness, had become too narrow before them.

And those people were away from the ordeal for three days being busy preparing their determinations to seize his (the Prophet’s) authority and to plunder his rule. They did not pay any attention to any affair of him until they had determined their matter without caring for anything else.

As soon as they finished burying him, they surprised his guardians and lovers with asking them either to pay homage or to be burned with their houses.[104]

The poet of the Nile, Hafidh Ibraheem had said in a famous poem:

And a saying to Ali said by Umar,

Honored is the listener and great is the sayer

I burn your house and let you not alive longer in it

If you do not pay homage

Even if the daughter of al-Mustafa[105]is in it.

No one save Abu Hafs[106]that has said it

Before the knight and protector of Adnan[107]

If it has been supposed that there was no clear tradition showing that the caliphate was to be for one of the Prophet’s family and if it has been supposed that no one of them had good ancestry, rank, morals, knowledge, favors, jihad, faith, sincerity or excellent virtue but they were just like the rest of the Prophet’s companions, then was there any legal, rational or traditional excuse that prevented the companions from putting off their homage until the funerals of the Prophet (s) would finish??? Even if they would have ordered the army to control the situation temporarily until the matter of the caliphate would be settled???

Would it be not better for them to be somehow kind to the Prophet’s family, who were distressed with the great loss, if they had waited a little? The Prophet’s family was his deposit and his leftover among the Muslims. Allah has said:(Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate) .[108]Had this Prophet, who became so grievous when his umma fell in distress, who strove for its prosperity and who was so kind to his people, not had a right on them that his family would not be constrained or surprised with what it had faced while the wound was not yet healed and the Prophet (s) was not yet buried?!

It was enough for his progeny, then, to worry, to pillow on insomnia, to suffer griefs, to chat with the stars, to bear pangs and to struggle against agonies. Waiting a little would have been worthier to console the Prophet’s progeny, to regard the Prophet’s dignity, to unite the umma and would have been nearer to wisdom. But the people had determined to turn the caliphate away from the Prophet’s family at any cost. They feared that waiting a little might lead them to other than what they had determined because if Muhammad’s family had attended the deliberations, their evidences and proofs would prevail; therefore they had hastened to carry out the homage and seized the opportunity when the Hashemites were busy with their ordeal and with the ceremonies of the funeral. What helped those people in achieving their plan was the astonishment of the Muslims and their fear and confusion besides the meeting of the most of the Ansar[109]in the Saqeefa to nominate Sa’d bin Obada, the chief of al-Khazraj,[110]for the caliphate but his cousin Basheer bin Sa’d bin Tha’laba and Osayd bin al-Khudhayr, the chief of al-Owss,[111]competed with him for the rule. They envied him and feared that he might be the caliph. They agreed among themselves to turn the caliphate away from him with all means. Owaym bin Sa’ida al-Owssi and Ma’an bin Adiy, who were from the Ansar, agreed with them on that. These two men had been planned secretly with Abu Bakr and Umar and their party to act so. They had been from among the followers of Abu Bakr during the time of the Prophet (s) besides that they had had grudge against Sa’d bin Obada. Owaym hastened towards Abu Bakr and Umar inciting them to oppose Sa’d. He hastened with them, Abu Obayda, Salim the freed slave of Hudhayfa and then followed by others from their party of the Muhajireen[112]to the Saqeefa.

The dispute flared up between the Muhajireen and the Ansar. The quarrel became serious and their shouts loudened until sedition was about to happen. Abu Bakr made a speech, in which he praised the Ansar and acknowledged their favors softly and leniently. Then he protested against them saying that the Muhajireen were the people of the Prophet (s) and the result of his efforts. He told them that they would be the viziers if the Muhajireen became the rulers. Then he held Umar and Abu Obayda’s hands and ordered the attendants to pay homage to one of them. As soon as he said so, Umar and Basheer hastened to pay homage to Abu Bakr himself. Then he was paid homage by Osayd bin al-Khudhayr, Owaym bin Sa’ida, Ma’an bin Adiy, Abu Obayda bin al-Jarrah, Salim and Khalid bin al-Waleed and then these men tried their best to force the people to pay homage. The extremist among them was Umar and then Usayd, Khalid and Qunfith bin Umayr bin Jad’an at-Tameemi.[113]As soon as Abu Bakr was paid homage, the group that paid him homage came escorting him towards the Prophet’s mosque as in a wedding procession[114]whereas the Prophet (s) was still lain down among his pure lovers. Imam Ali (s) then could not but to recite this verse of one of the poets:

Some people began saying whatever they like

And tyrannized when Zayd was afflicted with calamities[115] 

Imam Ali (s) knew well that people had determined to turn the caliphate away from him and that if he had asked for his right (the caliphate) they would have disputed against him and if he had fought them they would have fought him and that would lead to a sedition in the religion and would bring dangers over the umma; therefore he chose to retire preferring the general welfare and preferring the most important thing to the important thing in order to keep Islam safe from any danger. It was a covenant from the Prophet (s). Ameerul Mo’mineen[116]became patient unwillingly and restrained himself from carrying out the covenant.[117]Yes! He remained at home. He was discontented with what they had done until they took him out by force.[118]

He protested against those, who had extorted his right, and how eloquent his protest was when he said to Abu Bakr:

If you protested against your opponents with kinship,

The others were worthier of the Prophet and closer than you

And if you ruled them by the shura,

How is that while the people of the shura were absent?[119]

Their homage was a slip that Allah had saved the Muslims from its evil as they had pretended but its cost was on the expense of Ameerul Mo’mineen when he became patient before harm, silent before injustice and when he sacrificed his right for the sake of Islam. Allah may reward him for his favors on Islam and the Muslims with the best of His reward.

The second situation

When Abu Bakr was about to die, he entrusted Umar with the caliphate! How odd! (How wonder! As he has extorted it in his life, he has entrusted it to another one after his death. How much they have participated in its two udders!).[120]How wonder! As if the man has given the other a piece of his own properties! He has entrusted it to whoever he wished without fearing any punishment, blaming or criticizing. How wonder! As if he has forgotten or pretended that he has forgotten the covenant of the caliphate the Prophet (s) had given to Ali and then after him to the infallible imams of his progeny, who were one of the two weighty things that whoever kept to would never deviate and whoever turned away from their path would never be guided to the path of the truth. They were equal to the Qur'an. They (the Qur'an and the Prophet’s progeny) would never separate until they would come to him at the pond in Paradise. They were like the Ark of Noah (s). Whoever rode on it would be rescued and whoever lagged behind it would drown. They were like the gate of repentance. Whoever entered through it would be forgiven. They were the security for the people of the earth from being tortured and they were the security of the umma from separation (in religion). If a tribe opposed them, its people would disagreed among themselves and become the party of Iblis…etc. to the rest of the clear traditions that had declared their right of the caliphate and made that compulsory on the whole peoples. We have mentioned many of such traditions in our book al-Muraja’at.[121]

the third situation

The battle of Mu’ta: it took place in Jumada al-Oola, the eighth year of hijra, in which the Prophet (s) had appointed Zayd bin Haritha as the leader of the army. The Prophet (s) said: “If Zayd is struck, then Ja’far bin Abu Talib will be the leader and if he is struck then Abdullah bin Rawaha will be the leader”. This has been said by all the Sunni whereas the Shia say that the first leader, according to the Prophet’s tradition, is Ja’far, the second is Zayd and the third is Abdullah bin Rawaha. Our traditions on this subject are true and recurrent from the pure infallible imams (s).

Muhammad bin Iss~haq has confirmed this in his Maghazi when mentioning the poems of Hassaan bin Thabit and Ka’b bin Malik on praising and elegizing Ja’far when he has been martyred.[122]

However the order of these three leaders was, the fact was that the Prophet (s) had appointed Zayd as a leader whether he was the first or the second one. The army and the rest of the companions had heard the Prophet (s) appointing Zayd as the leader. After that there was no any excuse for those who had objected to this order unless it was possible for non-infallible one to interpret (change), according to his own opinion, a tradition said by an infallible one!!!

The reason of this battle was that the Prophet (s) had sent his companion al-Harth bin Umayr to the king of Busra[123]inviting him to be a Muslim. When he was on his way, Shurahbeel bin Amr stopped him and asked him: “Where are you going to?” Al-Harth said: “To Sham”. He said: “Are you one of Muhammad’s messengers?” Al-Harth said: “Yes, I am.” Shurahbeel ordered his mates to tie al-Harth and then he killed him. No one of the Prophet’s messengers had been killed except this one. When the Prophet (s) had been informed of this, he ordered the army to march and appointed these three leaders according to the order we have mentioned before.

The Prophet (s) sent this army and another army under the leadership of Ussama bin Zayd to conquer Sham. Their hearts were full of the dignity of Islam and the Muslims and the hearts of the Romans were filled with fear and regard when they saw the seriousness, steadfastness, devotedness and competing towards martyrdom among the two armies.

How brave Ja’far bin Abu Talib was with his three thousand soldiers when they attacked bravely Hercules and his two hundred thousand soldiers.[124]Ja’far recited:

How nice Paradise is and its becoming near!

How good it is with its cold drinks

And the Romans are waiting for their near torment

They are unbelievers and strangers for me

I will strike them in the meeting

When the fighting became so violent, Ja’far broke into on his horse. He slaughtered his horse and attacked the enemy. His hands were cut and then he was killed. Ja’far was the first one, who had slaughtered his horse in Islam. More than eighty wounds were found on his body.

It was narrated that the Prophet (s) had said: “Last night (in dream) Ja’far and some angels passed by me. He had two wings. His primaries were dyed with blood”.[125]

How great the situation of Zayd bin Haritha was when he broke through the spears of the enemy! May Allah high his position as he has been honored in this life.

And how great the situation of Abdullah bin Rawaha was when he encouraged himself to face an army of two hundred thousand soldiers! He recited:

O my soul, if you are not killed, you will die

This is the death you are in now

Whatever you have wished, you have been given

If you do one of them, you will be guided then

He also recited:

O my soul, I swear that you must submit to death

Willingly or you will be forced to it

As people have got ready to meet the hope

So why you hate Paradise

How long you have been reassured

Then he got off his horse. One of his cousins came to him with a piece of meat and said: “Support yourself with this for you have got much tiredness.” He ate a bit and then he heard a clamor coming from a side of the army. He said to himself: “Do hear this and you are still alive?” He threw the piece of meat and approached to fight until he was martyred.

Some Muslims of this army, after founding that the enemy army was about two hundred thousands, thought to inform the Prophet (s) about that but Abdullah bin Rawaha encouraged them to keep on by saying: “By Allah, we do not fight by equipments, powers or numbers. We fight by this religion, with which Allah has honored us. Go on! It is not but one of two good things; either victory or martyrdom”. The people said: “By Allah, he is right”. They went on without feeling weak or submissive. By Allah, it is the honor that goes high on the wing of the eagle and competes with the Gemini. Yes! It is the real faith in Allah and His messenger. I wish I were with them to get the great victory!

The army of Ussama bin Zayd

  The Prophet (s) had cared much for this army. He ordered his companions to get ready and incited them too much to join this army. He himself mobilized them in order to sharpen their determinations and to awaken their ardors. He let no one of the Muhajireen and Ansar, like Abu Bakr, Umar,[126]Abu Ubayda, Sa’d and their likes, unless he mobilized him for the army.[127]This was in Safar, the eleventh year of hijra. The next day the Prophet (s) sent for Ussama and said to him: “Go (with the army) to the place where your father has been killed. Let your horses tread on them (the Romans and the people of Sham). I have appointed you as the emir of this army. Attack the people of Ubna[128]in the morning. Set fire to them. Hasten to precede the news. If Allah makes you defeat them, do not stay long there. Take some guides with you and send spies and pioneers before you”.

On the twenty-eighth of Safar, the Prophet (s) began to feel ill. He got fever and headache. In the morning of the twenty-ninth he found that his companions (the army) were sluggish. He went to them and urged them to move. He himself gave the banner to Ussama with his honored hand in order to motivate their zeal and to awaken their determination. Then he said: “Move in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah! Fight those who have disbelieved in Allah!” Ussama moved with the army. He gave the banner to Burayda. They camped in al-Jurf and they became sluggish there. They did not leave there in spite of the clear orders they had heard from the Prophet (s) ordering them to hasten like his saying “Attack the people of Ubna in the morning…” and “Hasten to precede the news…” and many other orders that they did not obey.

Some of them rejected the leadership of Ussama as they had rejected the leadership of his father before. They criticized him too much and argued too much although they saw that the Prophet (s) himself had appointed him as the leader and had given him the banner of the emirate while he was ill. All that did not prevent them from rejected the leadership of Ussama until the Prophet (s) became very angry. He went out wrapped with his plush and his head was bandaged suffering from fever and headache.[129]It was Saturday, the tenth of Rabee’ul Awwal, two days before his death (according to the date mentioned by the Sunni). He ascended the minbar, praised Allah and said (as mentioned by the Sunni and the Shia and by all the Historians): “O people, what is this saying, which I have been informed of, said by some of you criticizing my appointing Ussama as the emir of the army? As you criticize my appointing Ussama as the emir, you have criticized my appointing his father as the emir before. By Allah, he (Ussama’s father) was well-qualified for the emirate and his son after him is well-qualified for it too”. He urged the people to progress as quickly as they could. They began to farewell him and they went to the camping in al-Jurf. His case (illness) became worse. He kept on saying: “Prepare the army of Ussama…let the army of Ussama move…send the army of Ussama…” He repeated that while they were still inactive. On Sunday, the twelfth of Rabee’ul Awwal Ussama came from his camp to the Prophet (s). The Prophet (s) ordered him by saying: “Move in the morning with the blessing of Allah”.  Ussama farewelled the Prophet (s) and left to his camp and then he returned with Umar and Abu Ubayda. They came to the Prophet (s) while he was about to die. He died on that same day. The army came back to Medina. They determined to cancel sending the army this time. They talked with Abu Bakr about that and insisted on him too much in spite of that they had seen the Prophet (s) caring much for this army and insisting on sending it. They decided to cancel sending the army but the Caliph Abu Bakr was determined and he insisted on sending the army. Then Umar came to Abu Bakr requesting him to depose Ussama and to appoint another one instead of him.

It was not a long time after the anger of the Prophet (s) when they rejected his appointing Ussama as the emir and his going out of his house angrily while he was too ill and his legs were about to fail him and it was not a long time after he had confirmed his orders by swearing, when they decided to turn over everything but the caliph Abu Bakr refused to respond to them to depose Ussama and he refused to cancel sending the army. He got up, caught the beard of Umar[130]and said: “Your mother may lose you O you ibn al-Khattab! The Prophet (s) has appointed him and you want me to depose him!”

When they sent the army-and they were about not to do-Ussama moved with three thousand warriors, among whom there were one thousand knights.[131]Some people, whom the Prophet (s) had ordered to join the army, did not join the army. The Prophet (s) had said: “Prepare the army of Ussama! Allah may curse whoever does not join this army!”[132]

They lagged behind the army at the first and refused to join it finally in order to firm the bases of their policy and to establish its pillars preferring their benefits to obeying the clear orders of the Prophet (s). They thought that their doing would be better to be carried out and worthier to be cared for because the army would not stop if they lagged behind or if they did not join it whereas the caliphate would be turned away from them to others if they went to the battle before the death of the Prophet (s).

The Prophet (s) wanted the capital to be empty of them so that the situation would be clear and safe for Ameerul Mo'mineen Ali bin Abu Talib (s). If they came back after the covenant of the caliphate would have been determined to Ali, they would have no good chance to dispute or disagree then.

The Prophet (s) had appointed Ussama, who was seventeen years old,[133]as the emir over them in order to degrade the haughty ones, to control the fancy of others and to be safe in the future from the disputing of the competitors if he had appointed one of them as the emir but they realized what the Prophet (s) had planned to, so they rejected the emirate of Ussama and refused to go with him to fight. They did not leave their camping in al-Jurf until the Prophet (s) went to the better world and then they intended to cancel the battle one time and to depose Ussama in another time. At last they did not join the army of Ussama and at the head of them were Abu Bakr and Umar.[134]

These were five things in the matter of the army of Ussama, which they (the companions) had not obeyed whereas they (these things) were declared clearly by the prophetic sayings, preferring their fancies and their own ijtihads to the clear traditions of the Prophet (s).

Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri justified the companions’ doing in some of our arguments (muraja’at). He said: “Yes, the Prophet (s) urged them to hasten with the army of Ussama and ordered them many times until he said to Ussama: “Attack the people of Ubna in the morning…” and he did not give him time even to the evening and he said to him: “Hasten…” He did not accept from him except hastening but immediately after that the Prophet (s) became so ill until it was feared for him. Their selves did not allow them to leave him while he was in such a case. They remained in al-Jurf waiting to see how he would become. This was because of their pity for him and their love to him. The aim behind their sluggishness was just waiting for one of two things; either to be delighted if he would restore his health or to win the honor of carrying out his funerals and to establish the affairs of the one, who would rule over them after him. They were excused and would not be blamed for that.

As for rejecting the emirate of Ussama before the death of the Prophet (s) in spite of the clear sayings and orders of the Prophet (s), it was just because Ussama was too young while they were middle-aged and old men and the souls of the middle-aged and old men would refuse-in their natures-to be led by the young and hate to submit to the orders of the youth so their rejecting his emirate was not a heresy but it was due to the human nature”.

And as for their request to depose Ussama after the death of the Prophet (s), some of the ulama justified that in a way that the companions might think it would be permissible if the caliph Abu Bakr would have preferred to depose him due to the general welfare according to their own opinions.

Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri added: “Indeed I do not know any justification that mind may accepts concerning their request to depose Ussama especially after the Prophet (s) has become so angry when they have rejected his appointing Ussama as the emir and he has come out, although he was seriously ill, wrapped with his plush and his head was bandaged because of fever and headache and he has reproached them in his speech from above the minbar. It was one of the famous historical events, that has spread everywhere. Justifying their doing, after all that, is something unknown save by Allah.

As for their intention to cancel sending the army after they have seen the Prophet (s) caring too much to send it and insisting on hastening to send it and his many traditions about this matter, it was because of their precautions that the capital of Islam might be overcome by the polytheists after it would be empty of the forces. After the death of the Prophet (s) hypocrisy appeared, the Jews and the Christians became powerful, many tribes apostatized and other tribes refused to pay the zakat. The companions asked our master Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq to prevent Ussama from moving with the army but he refused and said: “By Allah, if I am snatched away by birds, is better to me than to change anything before carrying out the order of the messenger of Allah (s)”. This is what has been mentioned by our ulama about the situation of Abu Bakr but as for the others, they are excused because they have had no intention save their fearing for Islam.

As for when Abu Bakr, Umar and others had abstained from joining the army of Ussama, when it went to fight, it was just to establish the Islamic rule and the Muhammadan state and to save the caliphate, which the religion and its people would not be saved then except with.

We found what you have quoted from ash-Shahristani in his book al-Milal wen-Nihal as mursal and not musnad.[135]Al-Halabi and ad-Dahlani said in their Seeras: “No tradition has been narrated about the subject at all”. If you, may Allah assist you, have a tradition narrated by the Sunni, please guide me to it and thanks be to you”.

We said when replying to the sheikh: “You have-may Allah keep you safe-acknowledged that those companions have been sluggish in al-Jurf and then they have not joined the army when moving to fight although they have been ordered by the Prophet (s) to hasten in doing that.

You have acknowledged too that they rejected the emirate of Ussama in spite of the clear sayings and orders of the Prophet (s).

You have acknowledged that they have requested Abu Bakr to depose Ussama after the Prophet (s) has been so angry for that and that he has come out wrapped and bandaged because of illness. And then he has reproached them in his speech he made on the minbar that you have said it was a famous historical event. It was the speech, in which the Prophet (s) had declared that Ussama and his father, before him, were well-qualified for the emirate.

You have acknowledged their requesting the caliph to cancel sending the army, which the Prophet (s) has ordered to be sent, although they have seen the Prophet (s) insisting on that and inciting his companions to hasten moving toward Sham and his sayings were too clear and firm.

You have acknowledged that some companions, whom the Prophet (s) has ordered to join the army, had not joined the army.

You have acknowledged all these things, which have been mentioned by all the historians, and you have said they (those companions) were excused for doing that. The conclusion of what you have mentioned as a justification for their doings was that they have just preferred the welfare of Islam as they have thought and not according to the sayings and orders of the Prophet (s). We have not said, in this concern, more than this.

In another word, we want to ask: have they offered their worships according to all of the prophetic traditions or not? You have chosen the first and we have chosen the second. Your acknowledgment, now, that they have not acted in these matters according to the prophetic traditions confirms what we have chosen and whether they were excused or not, certainly has nothing to do with the subject of the research.

Since it has been proved that they have preferred the benefit of Islam, concerning the matter of the army of Ussama, by acting according to their own opinions rather than to act according to the Prophet’s orders, then why do you not say that they have preferred, in the matter of the caliphate after the Prophet (s), the benefit of Islam according to their own opinions too rather than to follow the prophetic traditions of al-Ghadeer and their likes?!

You have justified the doing of those companions, who have rejected the emirate of Ussama, by saying that they have rejected his emirate because he was too young and they were middle-aged and old men and you have said that the souls of the middle-aged and old men would refuse in their nature to be led by a young man. Then why have you not said the same about those who have not carried out the prophetic traditions of al-Ghadeer that have determined the caliphate of Ali, who was a young man then, over the middle-aged and old men of the companions for they-in the same way-have considered him as too young as they have considered Ussama when the Prophet (s) has appointed him a leader over them in that army? What difference between the emirate of an army and the caliphate is! If their souls-according to their human nature-refused to be led by a young man in an army for a short period of time, they would, no doubt, refuse to be ruled by a young caliph throughout his lifetime and in all the worldly and afterlife affairs!

You have mentioned that “the souls of the middle-aged and old me refuse-according to their human natures-to be led by the young”. It is not probable that you have meant to generalize this criterion because the faithful souls of the sincere old men will never refrain from obeying Allah and His messenger in being led by the young or in anything else. Allah says:(But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission) [136]and(…and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back) [137]and(And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying). [138]

As for the word of ash-Shahristani concerning those, who had refused to join the army of Ussama, it has come in a musnad tradition mentioned by Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari in his book Kitab as-Saqeefa. Here I quote the tradition as it has been mentioned:

“Ahmad bin Iss~haq bin Salih narrated from Ahmad bin Yasaar from Sa’eed bin Katheer al-Ansari from his companions that Abdullah bin Abdurrahman had said: “The Prophet (s), during his illness that led to his death, appointed Ussama as the leader of an army, which consisted the most of the Muhajireen and the Ansar, among whom were Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubayda bin al-Jarrah, Abdurrahman bin Owf, Talha and az-Zubayr. He ordered him to attack Mu’ta where his father Zayd had been killed and to invade the valley of Palestine. Ussama lagged and all the army lagged with him. The Prophet’s health changed between a day and another but he still insisted on carrying out the task of the army of Ussama until Ussama said to him: “O messenger of Allah, may my father and mother die for you! Would you please allow me to stay some days until Allah restores your health?” The Prophet (s) said to him: “Go and set out with the blessing of Allah!” Ussama said: “O messenger of Allah, if I leave while you are still in this case, I will leave and my heart will be full of pain”. The Prophet (s) said: “Set out with victory and good will!” He said: “O messenger of Allah, I hate to ask the travelers about you”. The Prophet (s) said: “Do what I have ordered you!” Then the Prophet (s) fainted and Ussama left and got ready to set out. When the Prophet (s) regained his consciousness, he asked about Ussama and his army. It was said to him that Ussama and his army had been preparing to move. The Prophet (s) said: “Let the army of Ussama set out. Allah may curse whoever does not join Ussama.” He repeated that many times. Ussama set out with the banner fluttering over his head and the companions around him until he arrived at al-Jurf. He camped there and with him there were Abu Bakr, Umar and most of the Muhajireen and from the Ansar there were Usayd bin Khudhayr, Basheer bin Sa’d and many other notable personalities. Then the messenger of Umm Aymen[139]came saying to Ussama: “Come back to Medina! The messenger of Allah is dying”. Ussama immediately came back to Medina and the banner was with him. He came and fixed the banner at the door of the Prophet’s house where the Prophet (s) had died then”.

This tradition has been mentioned by several historians like ibn Abul Hadeed al-Mu’tazili in Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 2 p.20, Egypt Edition.

The share of those whose hearts are made to incline (to the truth)

Allah, in His holy Book, has assigned a share from the zakat for a certain group of people when saying:(The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise) .[140]

The Prophet (s) used to give those people, whose hearts had been reconciled (to the Truth) this share from the zakat. They were different kinds of people. Among them there were notable men of the Arab tribes, whom the Prophet (s) gifted to become Muslims in order to be safe from their dangers and others who had become Muslims but their determinations were weak; therefore the Prophet (s) attracted them by gifting them profusely like Abu Sufyan and his son Mo’awiyya, Uyayna bin Hissn, al-Aqra’ bin Habis and Abbas bin Mirdass, and among them there were those people, who were waiting for their equals of the Arab personalities to become Muslims so that they themselves, then, would become Muslims. The first kind of those people might be those people, whom the Prophet (s) gifted from the sixth of the khums[141](fifth), which was his own pure share, and he had prepared some of those people, by gifting them with a part of the zakat, to fight the unbelievers.

Thus was the conduct of the Prophet (s) towards those, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, since this verse had been revealed to him until he left to the better world. He had never ordered anyone to annul it after him at all. All the umma has agreed unanimously upon this.

When Abu Bakr became the caliph, those people came to receive their shares as it was usual during the time of the Prophet (s). Abu Bakr wrote them a book confirming their right. They took the book to Umar to be signed by him. Umar tore the book and said to them: “We are not in need of you. Allah has strengthen Islam and made us no longer need you. Either you become Muslims or the sword will be between us and you.” They went back to Abu Bakr and said to him: “Are you the caliph or he?” Abu Bakr said: “It is he inshallah” and he agreed to what Umar had done.[142]

The matter had been settled by the two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, and those, who had adopted their opinion, and they determined to deprive those people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, of their share and turned it from them to the other classes mentioned in the Qur'anic verse.

Some virtuous ulama have talked about this subject that it would be better to quote their speech and to test it because it has some advantages.

Professor ad-Dawaleebi[143]said in his book Usool al-Fiqh:[144]“The ijtihad of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) on stopping the gift that the Holy Qur'an had determined for the people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, might have been the first of the verdicts that Umar had done according to “the change of benefits due to the change of time” although the Qur’anic text about the subject was still valid and had not been annulled just because he had preferred his own opinion, which had led to his ijtihad.” Let you ponder on what he has said and scrutinize his following speech.

He added: “Allah, the Almighty has assigned, at the beginning of the advent of Islam and when the Muslims were still weak somehow, a gift to be given to some people, whose dangers against the Muslims were feared and whose goodness was expected, to reconcile their hearts to Islam. They were among the groups, whom the Qur'an had mentioned to be gifted from the charities of the treasury. Allah said:(The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer). Thus the Holy Qur'an had put those people, whose hearts were reconciled, among the groups of people, who received their shares of the charities, and had assigned for them certain allowances as some countries do nowadays when assigning some expenses from their budgets for the political propaganda.”[145]He added: “But when Islam became strong and its rule became firm, Umar determined to deprive those people of their gifts, which the Qur'an had assigned for them”.

I say: The professor has repeated his saying that Umar had stopped the gift of those people that the Qur'an had determined as a fixed right in a clear verse just to prefer his own opinion and then the professor has justified the doing of the caliph Umar by saying:

“…That did not mean that Umar had annulled a Qur'anic verdict but he had noticed the cause of the text (verse) and not its apparent form and he considered gifting those people as was related to temporary circumstances when Islam was weak yet and to be safe from their evils but when Islam became strong and the circumstances requiring to gift those people were changed then it became obligatory to act according to the cause[146]of the verse and to stop that gift”.

I say: there is no doubt that the verse talking about gifting those people is absolute and not limited and this is clear in the Qur'an without any disagreement or ambiguity. We are not to limit it to some conditions or to justify it according to something unless there is an authority from Allah or His messenger. It is certain that there is no authority on this concern.[147]

Then how could we consider gifting those people as being justified according to temporary circumstances of a certain time, when it was to reconcile their hearts to Islam when Islam was still weak and not in other times?

If the Muslims became safe from the evils of those people, whose hearts would be reconciled, in a certain time, their becoming Muslims because of gifting them would not stop. In fact this might increase due to the powerful authority of Islam and this hope would be sufficient to reconcile their hearts by gifting them. The Prophet (s) reconciled many classes of people by giving them gifts; some to be Muslims and consequently their peoples would be Muslims, some had become Muslims but their faith was somehow weak and so the Prophet (s) wanted to strengthen their faith by gifting them and some were gifted in order that the Muslims would be safe from their evils. Let us suppose that we were safe from the dangers of the evil ones; nevertheless this gift should be given to those, whose followers would be Muslims when they themselves became Muslims, or to those, whose weak faith would be strengthen and fixed, imitating, by that, the Prophet (s) and whoever imitated his prophet, surely would be the most beloved one to Allah among His people.

The power of Islam that had defeated the enemies of the Muslims and made them safe from their dangers changed into the opposite situation. The foreigners conquered the Muslims and forced them to flatter the foreigners and to attract their pity by paying them gifts or by other things as it is seen nowadays or it has been seen some time ago. Hence it became clear that annulling the share of those people, whose hearts had been attracted to Islam by being gifted, when Islam had become strong was just due to their being deceived by their state at that time but the Holy Qur'an is from Allah, the Knowing, the Wise.

Now we come back to our research on the absolute text and limiting it to the benefit that changes according to the changes of the different ages and due to that a legal verdict changes. We research on this principle according to its conditions.

We, the Shia, all in all and unanimously do not pay any attention to the benefit in specializing a general verdict or limiting an absolute verdict except if the Sharia has a clear text confirming this regard. If there is no source in the Sharia confirming this matter (specializing a general verdict or limiting an absolute verdict) whether positively or negatively it will have no any value near us. If there is a benefit or not it will be the same for us.[148]This opinion is adopted too by the two sects; the Shafiites and the Hanafites.

As for the Hanbalites, although they have taken in their consideration the benefits that have no source in the Sharia, they do not make the benefits stand against the clear texts of the Sharia but they put the benefits after the texts.[149]Thus they do not limit the clear verse talking about the people, whose hearts have been attracted to Islam by gifts. Then they may be added to the Shia, the Shafiites and the Hanafites in this concern.

The opinion of the Malikites towards the text talking about the people, whose hearts have been reconciled to Islam, is also like the others’, although they have taken the benefits in their consideration and made them oppose the text but they oppose with that the traditions narrated by single narrators (not proved by others) and the traditions that have not been proved definitely and they also oppose, with the benefits, the general verse of the Qur'an, which have not had definite meanings. But as for the texts that have been proved to be true and the ones that have assigned definite meanings like the verse talking about the people, whose hearts have been attracted to Islam by gifts, they do never make the benefits stand against such texts at all[150]because they are definite in being true and definite in meaning as well.

After all, the principles of jurisprudence according to all these sects do not permit to justify depriving those people of their shares as Professor ad-Dawaleebi has justified it.

If the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) had not annulled-after the Prophet’s death-the share of that class of people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, and stopped their right, which had been determined by the Holy Qur'an, we could have said that the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) had not contradicted the Qur'anic verse even if they had not given those people their shares then because Allah had made those eight classes of people, mentioned in the verse, as the only ones, on whom the charities were to be spent just to limit the spending of the charities to them and not to other than them. The verse had not made it compulsory to spread the charities among all the eight classes mentioned. That is to say: if someone gives all his charity to only one class from among these eight classes, he will act correctly and will not be blamed exactly as if he has spread the charity among the eight classes. This has been agreed upon unanimously by all the Muslims and such they have done after the Prophet (s). So the doing of Abu Bakr and Umar would have been accepted if they had not annulled this right and invalidated it in spite of the clear Qur'anic text, which has been still fixed and not annulled.

Before we end this research, we think that we have to draw the attention of Professor ad-Dawaleebi to review what he has quoted about the Shia[151]that they believe in the benefits and prefer them to the definite texts. This is no true and no one of the Shia has ever said it. Sulayman at-Touffi was one of the fanatic people, who had been ascribed unjustly to the Shia by the opponents.

The opinion of the Shia in this concern is as what we have mentioned previously. All the Shia have agreed upon this unanimously. Their books are available everywhere. Let the professor refer to them and quote from them directly instead of quoting from the books of Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah forgive him).

The share of the relatives

  It is the share that has been mentioned by this verse:(And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth [152]of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near relatives and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if you believe in Allah [153]and in that which We revealed to Our servant, on the day of distinction, the day on which the two parties met; and Allah has power over all things) .[154]

The Muslims have agreed unanimously that the Prophet (s) has taken a share of the khums for himself and given another share to his near relatives and he has never changed this matter nor has he ordered any one to change it until he has been invited by Allah to be in the better world.

When Abu Bakr became the caliph, he interpreted the verse according to his own thinking and he omitted the share of the Prophet (s) and the share of his relatives after his death.[155]He prevented the Hashemites from getting their right of the khums and he considered them as same as the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the other Muslims.

Fatima (s) sent a messenger to Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance of what her father (s) had left in Medina and Fadak and what had remained of the khums of Khaybar but Abu Bakr refused to give her anything of that. She became very angry with him. She deserted him and did not talk to him until she died. She lived for six months after the death of the Prophet (s). When she died, her husband Ali (s) buried her at night without letting Abu Bakr know or attend the funerals….[156]

Muslim mentioned in his Sahih a tradition narrated by Yazeed bin Hurmuz saying: “Najda bin Aamir al-Harawri the Kharijite wrote a letter to ibn Abbas. I was there when ibn Abbas read the letter and when he wrote his reply. Ibn Abbas said: “By Allah, I want just to prevent him from being in error; otherwise I will not write to him even one word.” He wrote to him: “You have asked about the share of the relatives that Allah has mentioned in His Book… and who they are! We have seen that we are the relatives of the Prophet (s) but our people denied that…”[157]

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal mentioned this tradition in his Musnad, vol.1 p.294. The tradition has been mentioned in many books of Hadith in true ways and by reliable narrators. What has been mentioned in the tradition expresses the real opinion of Ahlul Bayt (s).

But most of the Sunni imams have adopted the opinion of the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) without assigning a special share from the khums to the relatives (of the Prophet (s)).

Malik bin Anass had determined that all the khums would be spent according to the opinion of the imam, who would spend it on the benefits of the Muslims as he liked, and there was no shares for the relatives (of the Prophet (s)), the orphans, the poor or the wayfarers at all.

Abu Haneefa and his followers had omitted the share of the Prophet (s) and the share of his relatives and divided them among the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the rest of the Muslims where there was no difference, according to their opinion, between the Hashemites and the other Muslims.

Ash-Shafi’iy had made it five shares; a share for the Prophet (s) to be spent in the same ways that the Prophet (s) had been used to spend on the benefits of the Muslims like supplying the army with horses (equipments), weapons and the likes and a share for the relatives from bani Hashem and bani Abdul Muttalib and not bani Abd Shams and bani Nawfal to be divided in a way that a male would get as double as the share of a female. The rest of the khums was to be divided among the other three classes; the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers.

We , the Shia, divide the khums into six shares;[158]two for Allah and His messenger, and these two shares besides the share of the relatives (the Prophet’s progeny) are for the (disappeared) imam, who represents the Prophet (s), and the rest three shares are to be given to the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the Prophet’s progeny especially where no one of the common people has a right to be given from the khums because Allah has made charities impermissible for the Prophet (s) and his progeny and so He has compensated them for that by giving them the khums. This has been mentioned by at-Tabari when talking about Imam Ali bin al-Husayn as-Sajjad (s) and his son Imam Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir (s).

Our ulama have agreed unanimously that the khums is obligatory to be deducted from every benefit one gets from business, trade, crafts, agricultural products, cattle and others. It is also obligatory on found (by chance) treasures, minerals, precious things got from the bottom of the sea by diving and other sources of wealth. This is mentioned in our jurisprudence and traditions narrated from the Prophet (s) and the infallible imams. Our evidence in that is he Qur’anic verse(And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near relatives and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer). “Gain” includes all that man can make use of. The lexicons have shown this meaning clearly and the point of discussion here is the ijtihad to omit the share of the relatives (of the Prophet) although the verse has confirmed it so clearly.

Bequeathing by the Prophets

Allah has said:(Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether there is little or much of it; a stated portion) [159] and(Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females) .[160]These verses are general in concerning the Prophet (s) and the rest of the peoples equally. They are like the other general verses such as(O you who believe! fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you…) [161]and(but whoever among you is sick or on a journey, then (he shall fast) a (like) number of other days) [162] and(Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter…) [163] and many other verses that concern the legal verdicts, which includes the Prophet (s) and the rest of the peoples with no difference but the orders are addressed to the Prophet (s) to act according to them and to inform the others of them to act according to them too. In this case the verses just show that the Prophet (s) is worthier than the others in keeping to the verdicts.

Allah has said:(…and those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah) .[164]In this verse Allah has determined that the right of inheritance is for the relatives of the bequeather. Before the revelation of this verse, bequeathing was among the rights of wilayah (guardianship) in religion, but when Islam and the Muslims became powerful and prevailing, the rights of those, who were among the inheritors previously, were annulled by this verse. The right of inheritance became limited to the relatives of the bequeather; the nearest, the nearer and so on, whether the bequeather was the Prophet (s) or any of the other people according to the apparent meaning of the verse.

Besides these verses, Allah has said when talking about Zachariah:(When he called upon his Lord in secret; he said: My Lord! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, my Lord! I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee, and surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren; therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased) .[165]

Fatima az-Zahra’ (s) and the infallible imams of her progeny have protested with this verse when asking about their extorted inheritance. Definitely this verse shows that the prophets bequeath wealth and properties and the word “inherit” mentioned here refers to inheriting properties and not inheriting knowledge or prophethood. All the Shia ulama have adopted this opinion and said that the word “inheritance” in the language and the Sharia does not refer except to movable wealth and properties and it is not used to refer to other than properties except figuratively and metaphor does never change a certain fact into a metaphor without a clear evidence.

Zachariah has said in his invocation:(and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased) . This means: O my Lord, make the one, who will inherit me, pleased near You and make him obedient to Your orders. So if we interpret “inheritance” as inheriting prophethood, then the saying of Zachariah will be nonsense and vain. Do you not think that it is nonsense when someone invokes Allah by saying: “O Allah, send us a prophet and make him sane and well-mannered”? Definitely all the prophets, whom Allah has sent to guide His people, are the highest examples of morals.

What evidences our opinion is that Zachariah (s) has declared that he feared that his cousins might extort his properties after his death when saying:(I fear my cousins after me) so he has invoked Allah to grant him a child to inherit him. Surely he feared his cousins for his properties and not knowledge and prophethood because Prophet Zachariah (s) was aware and did not fear a bit that Allah might entrust someone, who was not qualified, with prophethood nor would Allah make bad people inherit His knowledge and wisdom.

Someone may say that this argument ascribes stinginess to Prophet Zachariah (s).

God forbid! We do never believe so. Wealth is granted (by Allah) to a believer and to a disbeliever, to a good man and to a bad man. Prophet Zachariah (s), because his cousins were bad, feared that they would spend his wealth on corruption. This was the wisdom of Prophet Zachariah (s) because supporting corrupt people and assisting them to keep on their bad doings is prohibited by religion and reason. He, who considers this as stinginess, will be unfair.

His saying(I fear my cousins after me) means that he fears their immorality and bad doings. So he fears that his cousins may inherit his wealth and spend it on disobedience; therefore he invokes Allah to grant him a good child to spend his wealth on what will please Allah.

In short, we are to interpret “inheritance” in this verse to mean wealth and not prophethood or other things according to the real meaning of the word, which comes to mind, without supposing other meanings for there is no any context referring to prophethood or other things. In fact all the evidences in the verse lead to the real meaning of the word “inherit” and not a figurative meaning.

This is the opinion of the infallible imams (s) about this Qur’anic verse and no doubt that the infallible imams (s) are equal to the Qur'an and they both, the Qur'an and the infallible imams, will not separate until the Day of Resurrection. All people have known what there was between Fatima az-Zahra’ (s), the head lady of the worlds’ women, and Abu Bakr. She had sent a messenger to Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance of her father’s properties. Abu Bakr said: “The messenger of Allah said: “We (the prophets) do not bequeath. What we leave is to be considered as charity”.[166]Aa’isha said: “Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima anything of her inheritance and he appropriated all the Prophet’s properties to the treasury; therefore Fatima became very angry with Abu Bakr. She turned away from him and did never talk to him until she died. She lived after the Prophet (s) for six months and when she died, her husband Ali buried her in the night according to her own will[167]…and Abu Bakr did not attend the funerals…”[168]

Yes! She became very angry…she put on her veil and gown and came, with her maids and some of her fellow-women walking exactly like her father’s gait, to Abu Bakr, who was among a crowd of the Muhajireen, the Ansar and other people. A curtain was put between her and the people. She moaned in a way that all the people began to cry and the meeting shook. She waited until they stopped crying and became quiet. She began her speech with praising Allah and then her eloquence streamed…

She preached the people in the best of speeches

As if she talked with the tongue of al-Mustafa[169]

The sights submitted and the souls surrendered. If politics was not prevailing over the minds at those days, she would turn back the strayed tendencies and bridle the worldly greed, but it was politics that had gone too far with its tendencies without caring for anything.

He, who reads her speech on that day,[170]will find what there was between her and those people[171](the caliph Abu Bakr and his followers). She quoted many clear verses to evidence her inheritance. They were irrefutable evidences that could never be denied. Among what she had said on that day was this passage: “Have you intendedly turned away from the Book of Allah and left it behind your backs? Allah says in His Book:(And Solomon was David's heir) [172]and He says when talking about Prophet Zachariah: (therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased). He also says:(…and those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah) and(Allah enjoins you concerning your children; the male shall have the equal of the portion of two females) and(It is prescribed for you, when death approacheth one of you, if he leave wealth, that he bequeath unto parents and near relatives in kindness. (This is) a duty for all those who ward off (evil)) .[173]Has Allah distinguished you with a verse that He has excluded my father from? Or are you more aware of the special and general verdicts of the Qur'an than my father and my cousin (Ali)? Or do you say: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”?

She protested against the caliph and evidenced her protest by quoting the clear Qur’anic verses (of Zachariah and Solomon) that had confirmed bequeathing by the prophets. By Allah, she is more aware of the meaning of the Qur'an than those, who have come a long time after the revelation of the Qur'an and who have distorted the real meaning of inheritance into inheriting wisdom and prophethood instead of wealth and properties. They have just preferred the figurative meaning to the real meaning without any evidence at all to drive the real meaning to another one. This is impermissible. If it was probable, then Abu Bakr or any one of that crowd of the Muhajireen and the Ansar would refute Fatima’s claim on that day.[174]

She also protested against the caliph, when asking for her inheritance, by referring to the general verses concerning inheritance and especially this general verse(Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females…” [175]  She denied his limiting the general verdicts without any legal evidence from the Qur'an or the Sunna. She said denyingly: “Has Allah distinguished you with a verse that He has excluded my father from?” She confirmed by this saying that there was no any evidence in the Qur'an that might limit these general verdicts. Then she said: “Or are you more aware of the special and general verdicts of the Qur'an than my father and my cousin (Ali)?” By this saying she confirmed too that there was no any evidence in the Sunna that might limit these general verdicts. In fact she denied any kind of limitation at all because if there was something of that, then the Prophet (s) or his guardian Ali (s), would declare it to her and they would not let her unaware of it because that would be a kind of negligence in informing of the Sharia, dilatoriness in warning, hiding the truth, encouraging ignorance, inciting to ask for the untruth, injuring her dignity and would make her argue and confront and would expose her to enmity and hatred without having the right of what she would ask for. Definitely this is impossible for the prophets and for their guardians.

In short, the Prophet’s love and kindness to his daughter was over any love of the kind fathers towards their dutiful children. He covered her with the shadow of his great mercy, sacrificed himself for her[176]and delighted greatly when being with her. He tried whatever he could to educate her and to honor her to the utmost. He taught her the knowledge of Allah and the knowledge of His laws. He didn’t spare any effort in that until he made her at the top of every virtue and honor. After that, was it possible for him to conceal such a verdict without letting her know her legal obligation? God forbid! Would he expose her, by this concealment, to all of the troubles she had got after his death because of her inheritance? In fact all the umma faced a bad sedition, which was the consequence of depriving her of her inheritance.

And was her husband, the Prophet’s guardian and spiritual brother, in spite of his abundant knowledge, wisdom, precedence in Islam, kinship to the Prophet (s), honor, high position and guardianship, unaware, too, of this tradition “We, the prophets, do not bequeath”? And why the Prophet (s) had concealed that from his spiritual brother, his guardian, the guard of his secrets, the gate of the city of his knowledge, the best judge among his umma; the gate of repentance, the ship of rescue and the safety of the umma from being separated? And why had his uncle al-Abbas and the rest of the Hashemites not heard of this tradition until they were surprised with it after the death of the Prophet (s)? And why had the Prophet’s wives not known about it so that they sent Othman to ask for their inheritance after the Prophet’s death? How had the Prophet (s) dared not to inform his wives of this legal verdict? Definitely the Prophet (s) was not indifferent a bit at all! He used to announce the verdicts of Allah openly. His morals were not so towards his relatives. He was so kind and mindful as he had been ordered by Allah:(And warn your nearest relatives) .[177]

One word remained for Fatima (s), by which she provoked the zeal of people and excited their anger to the utmost. She said: “Or do you say: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”? She meant that the general verdicts of inheritance were not to be limited according to those people’s own pretenses. The Prophet (s) had said: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”. She wanted to say to them: “You deprive me of my inheritance to say that I am not on my father’s religion and so you will have a legal evidence on that!” We are Allah’s and to Him we shall return!

The donation of Fatima

When Allah the Almighty assisted the Prophet (s) to conquer Khaybar and cast horror into the hearts of the people of Fadak, they submitted to the Prophet (s) servilely. They made peace with him by giving him a half of their land[178]and the Prophet (s) accepted that from them and so a half of Fadak became a pure property for him where(whatever Allah restored to His Messenger from them you did not press forward against it any horse or a riding camel but Allah gives authority to His messengers against whom He pleases) [179] and upon this all the umma had agreed unanimously with no any objection by anyone.

When Allah revealed(And give to the near of kin his due) , the Prophet (s) donated Fadak to his daughter Fatima (s). It was still in her hand[180]until it had been extorted from her to be added to the treasury.

This was what Fatima (s) had claimed after the death of the Prophet (s) and because of this she had been subjected to trial.

Al-Fakhr ar-Razi said: “When the messenger of Allah died, Fatima (s) claimed that the Prophet (s) had donated Fadak to her. Abu Bakr said to her: “It hurts me to see you needy and it delights me to see you needless but I do not know whether your saying is true or not;[181]therefore I can not judge for you.” Umm Aymen and another mawla (follower) of the messenger of Allah[182]witnessed for Fatima but Abu Bakr wanted a witness, whose witnessing would be accepted according to the Sharia”.[183]

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami in his book as-Sawa’iq said: “Fatima, in her claim that the Prophet (s) had donated Fadak to her, did not bring except Ali and Umm Aymen as witnesses and so the quorum was not complete…”[184]

The same has been said by Ibn Taymiyya, ibnul Qayyim and other Sunni ulama concerning this case.

May Allah forgive them and us and may He be pleased with Abu Bakr and make Fatima, her father, her husband and her son forgive him! Would he have preferred a suitable decision in order not to put Fatima (s), the prophet’s trust, who had recently lost her father, in those bad situations; once because of her inheritance, another time because of her donation of Fadak, a third time, a fourth time…worries and griefs…would he have not let her go angry and disappointed and then to die on her anger and to recommend in her will what she had recommended!

Glory be to Allah! Where was the deliberateness of the caliph (Abu Bakr)? Where was his patience? Where was his insight about the ends of the affairs and where was his caring for the benefits of the Muslims?

Would he have avoided the fail of Fatima (s) in her situations as possible as he could with all wisdom he had! Had he done so, it would have been much better for him and it would have kept him away from regretting and being blamed and it would have been better to unite the umma!

He could have protected the trust of the Prophet (s) and the only daughter of him, Fatima (s), from being disappointed and then to go back upset stumbling with her garment. What would he have lost, where he had occupied the position of her father, if he had given Fadak to Fatima (s) without a trial? An imam could do that due to his general guardianship and what the value of Fadak was before the general advantage of the Muslims and before avoiding evils!

This is what many earlier and later scholars have wished that Abu Bakr had done.

Here we quote a word concerning this subject said by Professor Mahmood Abu Riyya, the Egyptian coeval scholar: “There is a matter that we have to say a frank word about; it is the situation of Abu Bakr towards Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her), the daughter of the messenger of Allah, and what he has done to her concerning the inheritance of her father. Let us suppose that we submit to the traditions narrated by a single narrator and submit that they may limit the general verdicts of the Qur’an and that the Prophet (s) has said: “We, the Prophets, do not bequeath”; nevertheless Abu Bakr could give Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) some of her father’s inheritance and that Fadak might be considered as a part of that inheritance. This would be his right that no one could refute because he was the caliph and the caliph could give whatever he liked to whomever he liked. The caliph himself had donated some of the Prophet’s inheritance to az-Zubayr bin al-Awwam,[185]Muhammad bin Maslama and others.[186]This very Fadak itself had been donated to Marwan by the caliph Othman after a short time!”[187]

Ibn Abul Hadeed mentioned in his book Sharh Nahjol Balagha some speech of some earlier scholars, who had criticized the two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, due to their situations toward Fatima az-Zahra’ (s) after her father’s death: “It would be better for them to be more generous, besides their faith, than to commit what they had committed toward the daughter of the messenger of Allah”. Ibn Abul Hadeed commented: “This speech has no answer!”[188]

Let us away from generosity and let us discuss the matter of the trial. The legal evidences were sufficient to make it obligatory to judge for Fatima (s) in order to get her donation back. These evidences, besides that they were sufficient, were numerous. This was clear to the fair people of understanding.

It was enough that the ruler (the caliph), at that time, had already been certain that the claimer (Fatima), with her holiness, was equal to the Virgin Mary[189]or better than her[190]and that she and Mary, Khadeeja (the Prophet’s wife) and Asiya (the Pharaoh’s wife) were the best of the women of Paradise[191]and that she and these three women were the best of the women of the worlds[192]and it was she, to whom the Prophet (s) had said: “O Fatima, are you not satisfied to be the head lady of the believing women or the head lady of the women of this umma?”[193]

All the Muslims have known well that Allah the Almighty has chosen Fatima (s) from among the women of the umma, chosen her two sons from among all the sons and chosen her husband from among the near people to be the elite with the Prophet (s) on the day of Mubahala (supplication) where Allah has revealed:(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 near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars) .[194]

Ar-Razi said in his book at-Tafseer al-Kabeer when interpreting this Verse: “The Prophet (s) came out wearing a black garment of wool while he was embracing al-Husayn and leading al-Hasan with his hand. Fatima was walking behind him and behind her was Ali. He said to them: “If I invoke Allah, you say Amen”. The bishop of Najran[195]said: “O Christian people, I see faces, which if ask Allah to remove a mountain, He will remove it for them. Do not defy them; otherwise you will perish and no Christian will remain on the earth until the Day of Resurrection”.[196]

Also the Muslims have agreed unanimously that Fatima (s) was one of those, about whom Allah has revealed this Verse:(Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying) [197]and she was one of those, whom Allah has ordered the Muslims to love as a reward for (informing of) the mission when revealing this Verse:(Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives) [198] and she was one of those, whom Allah has imposed upon His people to pray for in their prayers as He has imposed upon them shahada.

Imam ash-Shafi’iy said, as mentioned in as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa:

“O people of the Prophet’s family,

loving you is an obligation imposed by Allah in His Qur'an.

It suffices you, with your high position,

that whoever dose not pray for you (in his prayer)

his prayer will be not accepted”.

Sheikh ibnul Arabi said, as in as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa:

“I find my allegiance to the progeny of Taha[199]an obligation

that, in spite of my farness, will make me near to Allah.

The Beneficent has not asked for a reward in return to         informing of guidance

except to love the relatives (of the Prophet (s))”.

Allama an-Nabhani said in his book ash-Sharaf al-Mu’abbad: “O progeny of Taha, you are a progeny of the best of the Prophets.

Your grandfather is elite and you are elite.

Allah has purified you from uncleanness, O you Ahlul Bayt, since long before, so you are the purest.

Your grandfather has not asked for reward, when informing the mission, save loving and kindness to his relatives”.

And also Fatima (s) is the best of the righteous, about whom Allah has said:(Surely the righteous shall drink of a cup the admixture of which is camphor. A fountain from, which the servants of Allah shall drink; they make it to flow a (goodly) flowing forth. They fulfill vows and fear a day the evil of which shall be spreading far and wide. And they give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive. We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks) .[200]

In short, Fatima (s) was so holy near Allah, near the Prophet (s) and near the believers that would impose upon the all to trust in whatever she said. She would not need a witness to prove what she claimed. Her tongue was too far above every untruth. She would never say but the truth. Her very claim showed her definite truthfulness without a bit of doubt. No one of those, who had known her, would doubt this at all. Abu Bakr had known her very well and believed in whatever she said but the fact was as Ali bin al-Fariqi, who was one of the famous scholars of Baghdad, a teacher in the western school (in Baghdad) and one of the teachers of ibn Abul Hadeed (the author of Sharh Nahjul Balagha), had said when being asked by ibn Abul Hadeed if Fatima (s) had been truthful in her claim about her donation of Fadak: “Yes”. Ibn Abul Hadeed said to him: “Then why did Abu Bakr not give her Fadak while he knew well she was truthful?” He smiled and said nice words and then he added: “If he had given her Fadak that day just according to her claim, she would ask him the next day for the caliphate to be given to her husband (Imam Ali) and she would move him away from his position and then he would not find any excuse for that because he would have confirmed that she had been truthful in all what she had claimed without any need for witnesses”.

Hence Abu Bakr has allowed himself to deny the witness of Ali bin Abu Talib (s), when witnessing for Fatima (s) concerning her donation, whereas the Jews of Khaybar, in spite of their meanness and in spite of that Imam Ali (s) has destroyed them, have considered him (Ali) too exalted for committing a false testimony. And so the matters were mixed together that Abu Bakr considered Fatima (s), in whose possession Fadak was, as a claimer, who had to have evidences to prove her possession. It was clear that this matter had been planned under darkness!

If we forgot many things, we would not forget Abu Bakr’s saying to Fatima (s) “I do not know whether your saying is true or not” whereas her saying was merely the truth and the clearest evidence, due to which he had to judge for her as she had claimed.

If we gave up all that and we admitted that Fatima (s) was like any other good believing woman, who had to prove her claim with a true evidence, then what about Imam Ali (s), who had witnessed to her? It was Ali (s), who was the Prophet’s spiritual brother and who was to the Prophet (s) as was Aaron to Moses. Imam Ali (s) was the lofty witness of the truth, with whose witnessing the lights of certainty shone. Was there anything beyond certainty that a judge would seek in his judgments? Therefore the Prophet (s) had considered the witness of Khuzayma bin Thabit as a witness of two truthful persons. By Allah, Imam Ali (s) was worthier of such a witness than Khuzayma and the others and he was worthier of every virtue than the rest of the Muslims.

If we gave up this too and admitted that the testimony of Imam Ali (s) was like the testimony of one man of the fair Muslims, then was it not possible for Abu Bakr to ask Fatima (s) to swear to be as the second witness? If she swore, he would accept her claim and if she did not, he would reject her claim. But he did not do that! He rejected the claim disregarding the testimony of Imam Ali (s) and Umm Aymen.[201]

Imam Ali (s) was the equivalent of the Qur'an. He was with the Qur'an and the Qur'an was with him. They would not separate.[202]In the Verse of Mubahala he was considered as the very self of the Prophet (s). But alas! In spite of all that, his testimony in this trial was considered as null! What a misfortune in Islam we have received that we cannot but say: we are Allah’s and to Him we shall return!

HurtingFatima (s)

Rejecting Fatima’s claim about her inheritance was against the clear traditions rather than its reasons and environments.[203]

Among those traditions is the one that has been mentioned by ibn Abu Aasim (as in al-Issaba-Fatima’s biography). He mentioned that the Prophet (s) had said to his daughter Fatima (s): “Allah becomes angry when you become angry and He becomes pleased when you become pleased”. It has also been mentioned by at-Tabarani and others as in ash-Sharaf al-Mu’abbad by an-Nabhani al-Beiruti.

Al-Bukhari and Muslim mentioned-as in al-Issaba and other books when talking about Fatima’s biography-a tradition that al-Musawwir had said: “I have heard the messenger of Allah saying from above the minbar: Fatima is a piece of me. Whatever hurts her hurts me and whatever distresses her distresses me”. Sheikh Yousuf an-Nabhani mentioned in his book ash-Sharaf al-Mu’abbad a tradition quoted from al-Bukhari that the Prophet (s) had said: “Fatima is a piece of me. Whatever makes her angry makes me angry”. In al-Jami’ul Sagheer it is mentioned that the Prophet (s) has said: “Fatima is a piece of me. Whatever depresses her depresses me and whatever pleases her pleases me”.

She has said to Abu Bakr and Umar: “I adjure you by Allah, have you not heard the messenger of Allah saying: “The contentment of Fatima is my contentment and her discontentment is my discontentment. Whoever loves my daughter Fatima loves me, whoever pleases Fatima pleases me and whoever discontents Fatima discontents me”? They said: “Yes, we have heard this from the messenger of Allah”.[204]

He, who ponders on these traditions and who appreciates the Prophet (s), will find that these traditions refer to the infallibility of Fatima (s) because they show that depressing her, discontenting her, pleasing her, displeasing her, her contentment or her anger do not occur inexcusably. It is as same as depressing, discontenting, pleasing or displeasing the Prophet (s) himself and this is the essence and reality of infallibility.

Some Sunni scholars, like Ahmad bin Hanbal, have mentioned a tradition narrated by Abu Hurayra saying: “Once the Prophet (s) looked at Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and Fatima and said: I am a war against whoever fights you and peace to whoever makes peace with you”.[205]

At-Tarmithi has mentioned a tradition narrated by Zayd bin Arqam-as in al-Issaba, Fatima’s biography-that once the Prophet (s) mentioned Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn and said: “I am a war against whoever fights them and peace to whoever makes peace with them”.[206]

Abu Bakr said: “Once I saw the messenger of Allah (s) erecting a tent.[207]He was leaning on an Arabic bow while inside the tent there were Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn. The messenger of Allah said: “O people, I am peace to whoever makes peace with the people in the tent, a war against whoever fights them and a guardian to whoever follows them. He, who loves them, is lucky and of a good origin and he, who hates them, is wretched and of a bad origin”.

Professor Abbas Mahmood al-Aqqad has mentioned this tradition in his book Abqariyyatu Muhammad under chapt. “The Prophet, the Imam and the companions”.

Ahmad bin Hanbal mentioned a tradition narrated by Abdurrahman al-Azraq that Imam Ali (s) had said: “Once the messenger of Allah (s) came to me while I was sleeping. Al-Hasan or al-Husayn asked for some water (or some milk). The Prophet (s) went to our ewe, which had no milk. He milked it and it gave much milk. Then al-Hasan came to the Prophet (s) but the Prophet (s) put him aside. Fatima said: O messenger of Allah, I think he is the most beloved one to you. He said: But he (al-Husayn) asked for some milk before him. Then the Prophet (s) added: I, you, these two boys and that sleeping one will be in one place on the Day of Resurrection”.[208] 

Among their (the Prophet’s progeny’s) rights on the umma and especially the men of authority was that they should not be surprised by extorting their position in the umma after the Prophet (s) and doing without them even in consultation besides being so severe to them in the matter of the caliphate and denying their rights, khums, inheritance and donation as well as considering them as the rest of the ordinary people while the wound had not yet recovered and the Prophet (s) had not yet buried!

The seizers of the umma and their assistants at that time had arranged their affairs in a way that they had not left any chance to any one to opposite them otherwise that one would separate the umma and so they had become safe from the opposition of Imam Ali (s) and his followers. For full details about this matter, please refer to al-Muraja’at.

Among the principles of the rulers at that time was to be strict in carrying out the verdicts without differentiating between this and that or between the noble and the low. They controlled the treasury and enriched it with wealth and monies and they equalized between the recidivists and the others in the judgments.

What assisted them in carrying out their principles was their satisfaction and being away from greediness and transient pleasures of this worldly life besides their asceticism and so they satisfied the public and therefore they ruled with no troubles. But when the matter became serious on the trial of Fatima (s), they considered Fatima, the Prophet’s piece, as any other woman, who was not purified from fabricating and lying.[209]

The Prophet (s) orders Abu Bakr and Umar

The Prophet (s) had ordered Abu Bakr and Umar to kill Thu ath-Thadiyya but they did not kill him.

Thu ath-Thadiyya was al-Khusayra at-Tameemi Harqoos bin Zuhayr,[210]who was the head of the apostates. The Prophet (s) wanted to uproot the ravage and corruption of this apostate man when he ordered to kill him but the hypocrisy of this man and his false reverence in his praying deceived Abu Bakr and Umar and so they hated to kill him and they let him alive.

This has been mentioned by the scholars, the historians and the authors of the books of Hadith.

Abu Ya’la has said in his Musnad-as mentioned in al-Issaba by ibn Hajar, Thu ath-Thadiyya’s biography: “At the age of the messenger of Allah (s) there was a man, whose worship and loyalty we had admired too much. We mentioned his name to the Prophet (s) but the Prophet (s) did not know him. We described him to the Prophet (s) and he did not know him. After a little the man came towards us. We said to the Prophet (s): “It is him.” The Prophet (s) said: “You have told me about a man, in whose face there is a scorch of the Satan.” He came until he stopped before us but he did not greet us. The Prophet (s) said to him: “I adjure you by Allah, did you say, when you stopped before the people: there is no one among this people better than me?” He said: “Yes, I did.” Then he went in to offer prayer. The Prophet (s) said: “Who kills him?” Abu Bakr said: “I do.” Abu Bakr went to him and he found him offering prayer. He said: “Glory be to Allah, shall I kill a praying one whereas the messenger of Allah has prohibited killing a praying one?” He came back. The Prophet (s) said: “What did you do?” Abu Bakr said: “I hated to kill him while he was praying and you have prohibited killing praying people.” The Prophet (s) said: “Who kills him?” Umar said: “I do.” He went to him and found him lying prostrate and his forehead touching the ground. Umar said to himself: “Abu Bakr is better than me” and he came back. The Prophet (s) said to him: “What did you do?” He said: “I found him prostrate before Allah and I disliked killing him.” The Prophet (s) said: “Who kills him?” Ali said: “I do.” The Prophet (s) said: “Yes, you do if you find him.” Ali went to him and found that he had gone. The Prophet (s) said: “If he was killed, then no two men of my umma would ever disagree.”

Al-Hafidh (memorizer) Muhammad bin Musa ash-Shirazi has mentioned this tradition in his book, which he had written according to the tafseers (interpretations) of Ya’qoob bin Sulayman, Yousuf al-Qattan, al-Qassim bin Salam, Muqatil bin Hiyad, Ali bin Harb, as-Sadiy, Qatada, Waqee’, ibn Jurayh and others.

Some scholars have mentioned this tradition and considered it as true like ibn Abd Rabbih al-Andalusi in his book al-Iqd al-Fareed. He mentioned at the end of the tradition that the Prophet (s) had said: “This is the first horn that appears in my umma. If you kill him, no two men will disagree after him. The Israelites have separated into seventy-two groups and this umma will separate into seventy-three groups, all of which will be in Hell except one group.”

11. The Prophet (s) orders Abu Bakr and Umar for the second time

The Prophet (s) ordered Abu Bakr and Umar to kill this apostate for the second time but they did as they had done in the first time.

A friend of mine, whom I trust in his virtue, piety and knowledge, told me that once Abu Bakr passed by this apostate (Thu ath-Thadiyya), after he had been ordered to kill him but he disliked to kill him, and he found him offering prayer in one of the valleys where no one could see him save Allah. He admired his devotedness and supplication. He thanked Allah that he did not kill him. He came to the Prophet (s) interceding for that man. He mentioned to the Prophet (s) the sincerity and submissiveness of that man while offering his prayer where no one could see him save Allah. The Prophet (s) did not accept Abu Bakr’s intercession and he ordered him immediately to kill that apostate man. When Abu Bakr did not kill the man, the Prophet (s) ordered Umar and then ordered Imam Ali (s) and stressed on killing him and his companions. This is what I have been told by the one, whom I know well and know about his deep research and careful study.[211]He has confirmed it to me but I forgot to ask him about the source of the tradition. I began to research by myself until I found the tradition, and all thanks be to Allah, in Ahmad bin Hannibal’s Musnad, vol.3 that Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri had said: “Once Abu Bakr came to the Prophet (s) and said to him: “O messenger of Allah, I passed through the valley of so and so and I saw a good looking man offering prayer reverently.” The Prophet (s) said to him: “Go and kill him!” Abu Bakr went to him and when he saw him in that state, he disliked killing him and then he came back to the Prophet (s). Then the Prophet (s) said to Umar: “Go and kill him!” Umar went to him and he saw him in that state, which Abu Bakr had seen him in. he disliked to kill him and he returned to the Prophet (s). He said to the Prophet (s): “O messenger of Allah, I found him offering prayer reverently and I disliked killing him.” The Prophet (s) said to Ali: “Go and kill him!” Ali went but he did not find the man. He came back to the Prophet (s) and said: “O messenger of Allah, I did not find him.” The Prophet (s) said: “This man and his companions[212]recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an does not go past their clavicles. They get out of religion as an arrow that slips away from a hunted animal. Kill them for they are the worst of people.”

He, who ponders on these two traditions concerning this apostate man; the tradition mentioned by Abu Ya’la and narrated by Anass and the tradition mentioned by Ahmad bin Hanbal and narrated by Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri, will know that the Prophet (s) has ordered to kill this man two times in different events. The first tradition narrated by Anass shows that the Prophet (s) has not known this apostate man before. The Prophet’s companions mentioned and described the man to the Prophet (s) but he did not know him until he saw him and knew him because of the scorch in his face and because of his self-conceit and then the Prophet (s) ordered his companions to kill him. The prayer of that apostate, which pleased Abu Bakr and Umar on that day, was in the mosque whereas the second tradition mentioned by Ahmad and narrated by Abu Sa’eed showed that Abu Bakr had seen this apostate offering his prayer in one of the valleys and not in the mosque where Abu Bakr had admired this apostate’s devotion and reverence where no one saw him save Allah the Almighty. Abu Bakr told the Prophet (s) about that and the Prophet (s) immediately ordered him to kill that man without seeing the man. This was because the Prophet (s) had already ordered before to kill that man so the traditions talked about two events with a period of time between them. Here the clear orders of the Prophet (s) were opposed by Abu Bakr and Umar due to their own ijtihad.

The Kharijites

The Kharijites were the Muslims, who apostatized from religion when they rebelled against Imam Ali (s). They denied the arbitration (between Imam Ali (s) and Mo’awiya), which they themselves had forced Imam Ali (s) to accept. They were about eighty thousands or more. Imam Ali (s) sent for them to remind them of Allah and the hereafter and to show them their faults and mistakes in what they had thought and kept to(and most surely the frailest of the houses is the spider's house if they but knew) [213]but they refused to come to him and they asked him to acknowledge that he had become unbeliever and he had to repent. When they did not come to him, Imam Ali (s) sent to them Abdullah bin Abbas, who tried his best to refute their opinions with clear evidences but they insisted on their deviation as if there was deafness in their ears and there were veils on their hearts.

They agreed unanimously on considering every Muslim, who did not adopt their opinions, as unbeliever and that he and his family were to be killed and his properties were to be appropriated. They rebelled against the Muslims and they killed whoever passed by them. Among those, whom they had killed, was Abdullah bin al-Khabbab bin al-Arth at-Tameemi. They cut open his wife’s abdomen while she was pregnant. Their evils spread everywhere. Imam Ali (s) came to them preaching them and showing them that they had mistaken when they rebelled against him. He refuted their excuses and warned them that if they insisted on their deviation, they would be killed and in the hereafter they would be in Hell.

They insisted on their transgression without intending to repent and they became like the people of Noah when(they put their fingers in their ears, cover themselves with their garments, and persist and are puffed up with pride) [214] and then Imam Ali (s) fought them and killed them.[215]Only ten of them escaped death and only ten of Imam Ali’s companions were killed. This was exactly what Imam Ali (s) had predicted when warning them but they did not desist from doing evil.

Then some deviate people, who believed in the opinions of the Kharijites concerning the arbitration and rebelling against the walis, joined the few Kharijites, who had not been killed. When Abdullah bin az-Zubayr became the wali, some of those people appeared with Nafi’ bin al-Azraq in Iraq and some appeared with Najda bin Aamir al-Harawri in Yamama (in the Arabia). Najda went too far in his opinions and he even exceeded the doctrine of the Kharijites themselves. He considered every one, who did not join him and his followers to fight the Muslims, as unbeliever. They annulled the verdict of stoning a married adulterer. They made it obligatory to cut a thief’s arm from the armpit. They made it obligatory on a woman to offer prayers during the period of menstruation and many other heresies that there was no need to mention here.

Until now there is a remainder of them spread here and there. The explorer ibn Batota has met some of them in Oman during his travel in the eighth century of hijra. He has mentioned them in his book Rihlat ibn Batota (ibn Batota’s travel)[216]and said: “They are Ibadhite in doctrine. They offer Friday prayer in four rak’as and when they finish it, their imam recites some verses of the Qur'an and then he praises Abu Bakr and Umar but he does not mention Othman and Ali. If they want to mention Ali, they nickname him by saying “the man”. They praise the cursed Abdurrahman bin Muljam (Imam Ali’s killer) and call him as “the good servant of Allah” in spite of the great sedition he has caused. Their women commit adultery too much and their men do not deny that nor have they jealousy. One day I was with their chief Abu Muhammad bin Nabhan, who was from the tribe of al-Azd. A young beautiful woman came and said to him: “O Abu Muhammad, the Satan has played with my mind (her sexual lust was provoked)”. He said to her: “Go and drive the Satan away from your mind!” She said: “I cannot do unless you protect me.” He said: “Go and do whatever you like.” When she left, he said to me: “This one, and whoever does like her, will be under my protection. She goes to commit adultery and neither her father nor any of her relatives will be able to show their jealousy. If they kill her they will be killed in return because she is under my protection”.

The messenger of Allah (s) has informed of the truth when he has said: “O Ali, no one hates you but a bastard, a child of menstruation[217]or a hypocrite”.

Killing the Kharijites

Many traditions have been narrated about killing the Kharijites especially from the infallible imams (s). Here we mention some of those traditions, which have been mentioned by the Sunni scholars. The Prophet (s) said describing the Kharijites: “They recite the Qur'an but it does not go past their clavicles. They kill the Muslims and set the idolaters free. They apostate from Islam like an arrow slipping out of a game animal. If I live until they appear, I shall kill them like the killing of the people of Aad.”[218]

In another tradition the Prophet (s) said: “If I live until they appear, I shall kill them.”[219]

In a third tradition the Prophet (s) said describing them: “They are young and foolish. They repeat the best of saying. They recite the Qur'an but it does not go past their clavicles. They apostate from religion like an arrow that slips away from a hunted animal. If you find them, you are to kill them. Whoever kills them will be rewarded by Allah on the Day of Resurrection.”[220]There are many other traditions like this mentioned in the books of Hadith. These traditions show that these people are unbeliever for killing them is like killing the people of Aad and Thamood.

They are the worst of people

The tradition narrated from the infallible imams (s) and showing that the Kharijites are the worst of people are clear and recurrent but here we mentioned the traditions mentioned by the Sunni scholars. Muslim mentioned in his Sahih a tradition narrated by Abu Tharr and Rafi’ bin Umar al-Ghifari that the Prophet (s) had said: “After me there will be some people of my umma who recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an does not go past their throats.[221]They get out of religion as an arrow that slips away from a hunted animal and then they do not go back to it (religion). They are the worst of people.”[222]

Muslim mentioned in his Sahih another tradition narrated by Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri that the Prophet (s) had mentioned some people, who would appear from among his umma, and said: “…They are the worst of people. They will be killed by the righteous people.” And then the Prophet (s) gave an example when saying: “…like a man, who shots his arrow at an animal and then he looks at the arrowhead but he does not see anything and he looks at the bowstring and he does not see anything.”[223]

Ahmad mentioned in his Musnad a tradition narrated by Abu Barza in two ways that the Prophet (s) had described the Kharijites and said: “…They recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an does not go past their clavicles. They get out of religion as an arrow that slips away from an animal and they do not go back to religion. They will still appear until the last of them will be killed with ad-Dajjal (the fraud). If you meet them, you are to kill them for they are the worst of people and the worst in nature. They are the worst of people and the worst in nature. They are the worst of people and the worst in nature.”[224]

If they were the worst of people and the worst in nature, then the idolaters and the unbelievers would not be worse than them and this would be a clear evidence showing their unbelief.

The Kharijites’ apostasy

There have been many clear prophetic traditions talking about the apostasy of the Kharijites. Here are some of them besides the ones we have mentioned above. Al-Bukhari and Muslim have mentioned in their Sahihs a tradition narrated by Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri saying: “While we were with the Prophet (s), who was taking an oath, Thul Khuwaysira, who was a man from the tribe of Tameem, said: “O messenger of Allah, be just!” The messenger of Allah said: “Woe unto you! And who is just if I am not? Surely I shall fail and lose if I do not do right.” Umar said (to the Prophet (s)): “Would you allow me to kill him?”[225]The messenger of Allah (s) said: “Let him alone! He has companions, who exaggerate in offering prayers and in fasting. They recite the Qur'an but it does not go past their clavicles. They apostatize from religion as an arrow that slips away from a game animal…their sign is a black man whose upper arm is like a woman’s breast or like a dangling piece of flesh…they will appear at the time of a good group of people.”[226]Abu Sa’eed said: “I witness that I have heard this tradition from the messenger of Allah and I witness that Imam Ali (s) has fought them and I was with him. Imam Ali (s) ordered that man to be brought. When he was brought, I looked at him and I saw that he was as the Prophet (s) had described him.”[227] 

The prophetic traditions talking about the evil doings and aspects of the Kharijites are true and recurrent whether have been narrated from the infallible imams (s) or the Sunni. These traditions were among the signs of the Prophet (s) and Islam due to the unseen that appeared like the light of morning to people after the death of the Prophet (s). People saw clearly the apostasy of that group (the Kharijites) from religion when they revolted against Imam Ali (s), who was the legal caliph.[228]Their rising was when people had separated into two groups.[229]They were killed and their killer was the imam of the truth.[230]They, as the Prophet (s) had predicted, killed the faithful people and let the idolaters free. They became too strict in religion where there was no necessity for strictness. They recited the Qur'an but it did not go past their clavicles because their hearts were covered with their apostasy. Nothing of the light of the Qur'an got into their hearts. They exaggerated in offering prayer and fasting but they ignored the rights of Islam by apostatizing and being away from its guidance. Their sign, as the Prophet (s) had predicted, appeared to the people. It was a black man whose upper arm was like a woman’s breast or like a dangling piece of flesh as the Prophet (s) had said. The Prophet (s) had confirmed, through his sayings about this apostate group, that the umma would remain prevailing unlike what the fabricators had fabricated. It was the unseen that Allah had revealed to the Prophet (s). Allah said:(The Knower of the unseen! So He does not reveal His secrets to any except to him whom He chooses as a messenger; for surely He makes a guard to march before him and after him) .[231]

Let us finish our speech about this apostate group with a tradition narrated by Jundub[232]and mentioned by at-Tabarani in his book al-Awsat. Jundub said: “When the Kharijites parted with Ali, he decided to pursue them and we joined him. We moved until we reached their camp. There were noises like those of bees. They were busy reciting the Qur'an and among them there were notable and respected persons. When I saw them, I hesitated to fight them. I stepped aside, fixed my spear in the ground, got down of my horse, put off my burnoose, spread my armor on me, held the halter of my horse and began praying. I said in my prayer: “O Allah, if fighting these people is obedience to You, allow me to fight them and if it is disobedience to You, show me the truth.” As I was doing so, Ali bin Abu Talib came near to me and said: “O Jundub, ask Allah to protect you from His wrath!” I beseeched him. He began praying. Then a man came to him saying: “O Ameerul Mo’mineen, have you anything to do with the people?” He said: “What is there?” The man said: “They (the Kharijites) crossed the river and went away.” Ali said: “They have never crossed the river.” The man said: “Glory be to Allah!” Another man came and said to him: “They have crossed the river and went away.” Ali said: “They have not crossed the river and they will never cross it. They will be killed before it. It is a promise from Allah and His messenger.” Then he rode on his horse and said to me: “O Jundub, I will send to them a man to invite them to the Book of their god and the Sunna of their prophet but when he will come to them, they will shoot at him with arrows. O Jundub, less than ten persons from us will be killed and less than ten persons from them will escape death.” Then he said: “Who will take this Qur'an and go to the people (the Kharijites) to invite them to the Book of Allah and to the Sunna of His messenger but he will be killed and will go to Paradise?” A young man from bani[233]Aamir bin Sa’sa’a responded to him. The young man, holding the Qur'an, went towards the Kharijites. As soon as he became near to them, they began shooting at him with arrows. Then Ali said: “Attack them!” I (Jundub) myself had killed eight persons of them before I offered Dhuhr[234]Prayer. Less than ten persons from us were killed and less than ten from them escaped death as Ali had predicted. Praise be to Allah.”[235]

Fighting innocent people

Abu Bakr ordered to fight the people who had hesitated to pay him the zakat. They did so because they had doubted whether Abu Bakr was the legal guardian after the Prophet (s) or not.

Abu Bakr had gathered the companions to consult with them about fighting those people. Umar and many other Muslims thought that they were not to fight faithful people, who had believed in Allah and His messenger, and instead they were to make use of them to fight the enemy.[236]Those, who had adopted this opinion, were the most of the attendants whereas those, who had thought to fight against those people, were few. The debate about this serious matter might have taken a long time until Abu Bakr himself interfered supporting the opinion of the few companions. He insisted on this opinion and this was clear out of his saying: “By Allah, if they refused to give me even a headband that they were used to give to the messenger of Allah (s), I would fight them for that.” This saying did not deter Umar from seeing that such a fight would expose the Muslims to dangers and bad ends. Umar said sharply: “How do you fight these Muslims whereas the messenger of Allah (s) has said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight people until they say “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”. Whoever says that his life and monies will be safe except their due. It is Allah, Who will punish people.”

But Abu Bakr did not hesitate to answer Umar by saying: “By Allah, I will fight whoever separate between offering prayers and paying zakat. Zakat is the due on properties and he (the Prophet (s)) said: “except their due”.

I say: may Allah forgive Abu Bakr! He brushed aside this clear tradition and interpreted it as he liked according to his policy of fighting. No one of the believers, who had been fought and killed on that day, separated between prayer and zakat but they just hesitated to submit to Abu Bakr because they doubted (the legality of) his replacement for the Prophet (s)[237]and they were excused for that and in fact they would be rewarded for that.

They had the right not to obey except the orders of Allah and His messenger or the orders of the one, whose guardianship was determined by Allah and His messenger (s).

If Abu Bakr perceived those people’s excuse, he would consider it as an evidence against him but how would those oppressed people be treated fairly by Abu Bakr on that day!

The Sihah and books of Hadith are full of true traditions that show the impermissibility of shedding the bloods of those faithful people and their likes and there is no tradition that annuls this verdict; nevertheless their bloods were shed by the order of the caliph, who interpreted the prophetic traditions according to his own tendency.

As for the zakat that Abu Bakr had talked about it was just an obligation on the Muslims. The guardian, who replaced the Prophet (s), was to ask the Muslims for the zakat and he was to take it from them. If they refused to pay it obeyingly, he then had to force them to pay it unwillingly by using his power but without fighting or killing them.

Fighting them just to take the zakat from them contradicted the verdicts that had determined to protect their bloods and monies.

Here are some of these traditions that have been mentioned by Muslim in his Sahih[238]under the chapter of “Ali’s virtues”. The messenger of Allah (s) said to Ali when he gave him the banner on the day (the battle of) Khaybar: “Move and do not turn.” Imam Ali walked a little and then he stopped but did not turn. He cried: “O messenger of Allah, what for shall I fight the people?” The messenger of Allah (s) said: “fight them until they witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. If they do, they will spare their bloods and monies except for their due and they will be answerable before Allah.”

In al-Bukhari and Muslim’s Sahihs there is a tradition narrated by Usama bin Zayd saying: “The messenger of Allah (s) sent us (among an army) to al-Mahraqa. In the morning we reached there. We defeated the people. I and another man from the Ansar followed after a man from those people. When we caught him, he said: “There is no god but Allah.” My companion abstained from killing him but I stabbed him with my spear. When we came back, the Prophet (s) knew about what we had done. He said to me: “O Usama, did you kill him after he had said “there is no god but Allah”?” I said: “He just wanted to save his life.” The Prophet (s) kept on repeating this question until I wished I had not become a Muslim before that day.”

He did not wish that unless he thought that all what he had offered of faith, prayers, zakat, fasting, companionship (with the Prophet (s)), jihad and other things before that day would not compensate for this sin and that all his good doings had come to nothing because of this sin. His saying showed clearly that he feared that Allah would not forgive him for ever after that sin and so he wished he had not become a Muslim before that day in order to be included by the Prophet’s saying: “(Believing in) Islam forgives all the sins committed before.”

It is a sufficient evidence that shows the dignity of the people of “there is no god but Allah” and the protection of their bloods.

Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Sahih that a man had said to the Prophet (s): “O messenger of Allah, fear Allah!” The Prophet (s) said: “Woe unto you! Am I not the worthiest among all the people of the earth of fearing Allah?” Khalid (bin al-Waleed) said: “O messenger of Allah, do you allow me to kill him?” The Prophet (s) said: “No, he may offer prayers.”[239]

In al-Bukhari and Muslim’s Sahihs there is a tradition narrated by ibn Umar that the Prophet (s) has said in Mina while he was pointing at the Kaaba: “Do you know what country is this?” His companions said: “Allah and His messenger are more aware.” He said: “This is a prohibited country.” Then he said: “Do you know what day is this?” They said: “Allah and His messenger are more aware.” He said: “It is a prohibited day. Do you know what month is this?” They said: “Allah and His messenger are more aware.” He said: “It is a prohibited month. Allah has prohibited your bloods, your monies and your honors like the prohibition of this day in this month in this country.”

The Sihah and books of Hadith are full of such traditions, whose contents are clear to the Muslims. According to these traditions fighting a Muslim just because he has hesitated in paying the zakat to the imam is prohibited especially if his hesitation is due to his doubting about the real imam as what has happened among some tribes when the Prophet (s) has left to the better world. A great Sedition has happened at that time and its evils spread everywhere. Many Muslims apostatized. The Muhajireen and the Ansar disagreed about the matter of the caliphate. Each of them had two opinions and the Ansar might have three opinions. During this sedition and evils Abu Bakr was paid homage as the caliph and his homage was as a slip that Allah had protected the Muslims from its evil as Umar had said! It was naturally at that time that people might doubt about the legality of such homage and the unanimous agreement on it while people were in disagreement. In fact the state at that time was much worse than what had been mentioned. So there was no blame on those, who had doubted the caliphate of Abu Bakr, when they did not submitted to him concerning the matter of zakat and other things until they would become certain that he was the legal caliph after the Prophet (s).

The day of al-Bitah

  It was the day of al-Bitah or the day of Malik bin Nuwayra and his people and what they had got from Khalid bin al-Waleed. Khalid was the absolute leader of the armies at that time so he ordered as he liked and he judged as he wished. He was satisfied with killing the believers but he exceeded in mutilation, capturing women and violating what Allah had prohibited of monies, honors and legal verdicts. He committed sins and evils that had never happened even in the pre-Islamic times.

Who was Malik?

Malik bin Nuwayra bin Hamza bin Shaddad bin Abd bin Tha’laba bin Yarboo’ at-Tameemi al-Yarboo’iy was the top of honor for bani Tameem and the peak of glory for bani Yarboo’. He was one of the famous notables among the Arabs and an example of magnanimity, generosity, courage and valor in all their meanings. He was like the kings. When he became a Muslim, all the people of his tribe became Muslims. The Prophet (s) had entrusted him with the charities of his people because he had great confidence and trust in him.

What was the guilt of Malik?

Malik’s guilt, according to Abu Bakr’s thought, was his situation concerning the matter of zakat and other religious obligations. Malik was looking for his legal duty according what Allah and His messenger had legislated.

He did not intend, out of his situation, to cause a separation among the Muslims, to cause a sedition or to cause a fight. He was surprised by the raid led by Khalid bin al-Waleed at the beginning of Abu Bakr’s caliphate where disagreement was still burning about the caliphate. Ahlul Bayt (s) and their followers had their own opinion and Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubayda, Salim and their followers had their own opinion. The Ansar, who had protected and supported the Prophet (s), were defeated especially their chief Sa’d bin Ubada, who had sworn if he had assistants, he would fight against Abu Bakr and his party but he withdrew from the political life and he did not participate in those people’s occasions until he died lonely in Hawran. Add to that the disasters that were caused (by the ruling party) around the houses, about which Allah had said:(O you who believe! do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you) [240]and the distresses that were caused to the Prophet’s daughter Fatima (s) just because she asked for her inheritance, donation and khums although she faced them with clear evidences, besides many other matters that the Qur'an had warned of. Hence it was naturally for a man like Malik, who had a high position among his people, to look for the one, who would carry out the will of Allah and who would lead the people to the truth. Malik waited in order to see the true man, who was qualified to replace the Prophet (s), and then he would pay him the zakat so that he would achieve his covenant with Allah. The ruling party had to give him enough time to look for the ambiguous truth at that confused time. They had not to surprise him with those disasters for he was not among those, who had denied the zakat, nor was he among those, who had separated between the prayer and zakat, nor was he among those who had permitted fighting Abu Bakr or other Muslims.

This was the truth of the situation of Malik and his companions; leading to it his advise to his people to keep to Islam and not to stand against Khalid. He ordered his people to separate in order not to clash with the army of Khalid and he forbade them from gathering in one place so that Khalid and his army might think that they were camping to be ready to fight.[241]

Khalid’s advance towards al-Bitah

   When Khalid finished his fights against bani Asad and Ghatafan, he decided to move towards al-Bitah to meet Malik and his people but Malik had withdrawn from al-Bitah and had ordered his people to separate here and there-as we have said before-for he was looking forward to peace in order to protect Islam at that critical time. When the Ansar knew that Khalid would go to fight Malik and his people, they refused to go with him and they said: “This is not the order of the caliph. The caliph has ordered that when we finish fighting al-Buzakha we are to camp until he will write to us again.” Khalid said: “The caliph has not entrusted you with anything. He has ordered me to go on. I am the emir and the orders come to me. If no book or order comes to me, I will find any opportunity to seize and then I will inform the caliph. If we face something that the caliph has not sent his order about, we will decide the best to do. Malik bin Nuwayra is in view of us and I will go to face him with my men.”[242]Then he went with his men towards al-Bitah but when they arrived there, they did not find anyone.[243]

Killing Malik and his people

When they did not find any one of Malik’s people in al-Bitah, Khalid sent his brigades to follow after them. They came back with Malik and some of his people. They were put in prison and then they were killed in a bad way which we will detail later on.

At-Tabari mentioned a tradition narrated by Abu Qatada al-Ansari, who was one of the leaders of the brigades of Khalid’s army. He said: “When we found Malik and his companions and it was night, they took their weapons and got ready. We said: “We are Muslims.” They said: “We are Muslims too.” We said: “Then why have you got your weapons ready?” They said to us: “And why have you got your weapons ready?” We said: “If you are as you say then put your weapons down.” Then we offered prayer and they offered prayer.”

But after the prayer they (Khalid’s soldiers) hastened to seize the weapons of Malik and his companions and then they tied Malik and his companions and drove them as captives to Khalid. Among them was Malik’s wife Layla bint al-Minhal Umm Tameem, who was (as Professor Abbas Mahmood al-Aqqad said in his book Abqariyatu Umar according to the historians) one of the most beautiful women among the Arabs especially her eyes and legs. It was said that no one had seen more beautiful than her eyes and legs.

Therefore Khalid was attracted by her beauty while he was debating with Malik where she was beside him.

Khalid said to Malik: “I will kill you.” Malik said: “Has your master (Abu Bakr) ordered you of this?” Khalid said: “By Allah, I will kill you.”

Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatada al-Ansari were present then. They talked with Khalid about this matter but he rejected their talks. Then Malik said: “O Khalid, send us to Abu Bakr and he will decide what to do to us. You have sent to him other than us whose guilt is greater than ours.” Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatada insisted on Khalid to send Malik and his companions to the caliph but Khalid refused and said: “Let Allah not forgive me if I do not kill him.” Khalid asked Dhirar bin al-Azwar al-Asadi to kill Malik. Malik turned towards his wife and said to Khalid: “It is she who has killed me!” Khalid said: “It is Allah Who has killed you because you have apostatized from Islam.” Malik said: “I am still on Islam.” Khalid said to Dhirar: “Kill him!” Dhirar killed Malik. Khalid arrested Malik’s wife and married her in that very night.

Khalid ordered his companions to put the captives (Malik’s people) in prison. It was very cold. In a dark night Khalid’s caller called out: “Warm your prisoners!” According to the dialect of Kinana this was a metonymy to mean killing and so all the prisoners were killed.

Khalid had ordered the executioners of his men to kill the prisoners when they heard this call. This was a trick used by Khalid to show that he was not responsible for this crime but it was obvious to Abu Qatada and his likes of the acute people. It was unknown just for the ordinary people, who had been deceived by the powerful rulers and their prevailing policies.

This is the truth behind the event that has happened between Khalid and Malik. Whoever studies carefully what has been mentioned by the historians about the event of al-Bitah, will find this truth clearly.

Let not the contradicting sayings scattering here and there keep you away from the truth; those sayings which have been woven by the personal tendencies and the flattery to the caliph and to the general leader of his armies in order to justify their mistakes.

We studied this event carefully and we did not find except a clear evidence showing that the caliph tried to distort the truth due to his loyalty in his love to Khalid and in defending him. Allah is the witness over the all!

The anger of Abu Qatada and Umar

Professor Haykal says in his book as-Siddeeq Abu Bakr:[244]“Abu Qatada al-Ansari became too angry at the crime of Khalid when he killed Malik and married his wife. Abu Qatada left Khalid and went to Medina deciding that he would never be under the leadership of Khalid at all. Mutammim bin Nuwayra, Malik’s brother, went with him. When they arrived at Medina, Abu Qatada, who was still too angry, went to Abu Bakr and told him of what Khalid had done to Malik and his wife. He added that he had sworn by Allah not to be under the leadership of Khalid at all. But Abu Bakr was too pleased with Khalid and his victories and he became displeased with Abu Qatada. In fact he denied all what Abu Qatada said about the sword of Islam (Khalid)!”

Professor Haykal adds: “Do you think that Abu Bakr’s anger frightened Abu Qatada and made him keep silent? Certainly not! His revolt against Khalid was too violent; therefore he went to Umar bin al-Khattab and told him all the story and showed him Khalid as the man, whose tendencies prevailed over his duties and who ignored the orders of Allah in order to satisfy himself. Umar confirmed Abu Qatada’s opinion and participated with him in criticizing Khalid. Umar went to Abu Bakr and he was too angry at what Khalid had done. He asked Abu Bakr to depose Khalid. Umar said to Abu Bakr that Khalid’s sword had committed a sin and the caliph had to punish Khalid. But Abu Bakr would not have punished any of his officials![245]Therefore Abu Bakr said when Umar insisted on him many times to punish Khalid: “O Umar, let him alone. He interpreted but he mistook. Do not blame him any more!” But Umar was not satisfied with this answer and he did not refrain from asking to punish Khalid. When Abu Bakr became unable to bear the insistence of Umar, he said to him: “O Umar, no! I would not have to sheathe a sword that Allah has unsheathed against the unbelievers.”

Professor Haykal adds: “But Umar found that Khalid’s doing was abominable and so his conscience was displeased. How, then, would he keep silent and let Khalid at ease feeling as if he had not committed any sin or crime? Umar had to repeat his request to Abu Bakr and to mention to him frankly that the enemy of Allah had killed a Muslim man transgressively and committed adultery with his wife and it was not fair at all not to be punished for his crime. Before the fiery anger of Umar, Abu Bakr could not but to send for Khalid and ask about what he had done. Khalid came to Medina. He came into the mosque with his war materiel wearing a garment, whose iron parts were rusty, and inserting some arrows into his turban. When Umar saw him coming into the mosque, he hastened to him, pulled the arrows out of his turban, destroyed them and said to him: “You have killed a Muslim man and committed adultery with his wife. By Allah, I will stone you until you die.” Khalid kept silent and did not apologize. He came to Abu Bakr and told him the story of Malik and his hesitation (in paying the zakat). Khalid justified his doing with some excuses and Abu Bakr excused him and forgave him but he blamed him for marrying a woman, whose husband’s blood had not dried yet. The Arabs hated sleeping with women during the wars and considered that as disgrace.”

I say: Islam prohibits marrying a woman, whose husband has died, until she finishes her iddah.[246]If a man gets married to a woman during her iddah, she will be prohibited for him forever. If we suppose that Khalid has considered Malik’s wife as a captive, also getting married to a captive woman is not permissible except after the legal absolution[247]whereas Khalid has killed Malik and married his wife in the same night.

Professor Haykal adds: “Umar did not change his opinion a bit about what Khalid had committed. When Abu Bakr died and Umar became the caliph, the first thing he did was sending a letter to Sham announcing the death of Abu Bakr and with it there was a book having a decree of deposing Khalid from the emirate of the army.”

Professor Haykal says: “The historians agreed unanimously that Umar had remained on his situation towards Khalid concerning the matter of killing Malik and marrying his wife and this situation had had its effect on the caliph when he had deposed Khalid.”

How wonder it is!

How wonder and odd it was that during the reign of Abu Bakr all those bloods, honors and properties were wasted in vain! Allah’s sacred rites were violated and His penalties were annulled. Khalid was not deposed in spite of all what he had committed! He kept on his extravagancy until the caliph died but when Umar became the caliph, he deposed him immediately.

Abu Bakr’s opinion about the criminals on the day of al-Bitah was the first of the opinions that contradicted the Qur'an and the Sunna. He preferred benefit to obeying Allah.

Showing the opinion

Professor Haykal says in his book as-Siddeeq Abu Bakr when talking about Abu Bakr’s opinion and excuse: “Abu Bakr thought that the situation was more dangerous than to regard such things.[248]Was there any importance of killing a man or a group of men due to a mistake in interpretation or even without a mistake where dangers surrounded all the state and the revolts had broken out throughout the Arab countries?[249]

This leader, who was accused of being mistaken,[250]was one of the greatest powers, with which disasters and dangers were repelled.[251]

What was the problem in marrying a woman unlike the traditions of the Arabs if it was done by a conqueror, who had conquered countries and consequently had captive women who would be his possession?”[252]

Professor Haykal adds: “If we apply the Sharia, then we have not to criticize the great personalities like Khalid[253]especially if that will harm the state and expose it to dangers.[254]

The Muslims were in need to the sword of Khalid. They were in need to Khalid on the day when Abu Bakr sent for him and scolded him more than their need to him before. Musaylama the Liar with forty thousand men revolted in Yamama near al-Bitah and their revolt was the worst against Islam and the Muslims.[255]Was it possible to let the Muslim armies be defeated by Musaylama and the religion of Allah be struck with many dangers just for the murder of Malik bin Nuwayra or for the sake of beautiful Layla who had captivated Khalid?[256]Khalid was the sign of Allah and his sword was the sword of Allah. It was the policy of Abu Bakr when he sent for Khalid to be satisfied with scolding[257]him and to order him at the same time to move with his army towards al-Yamama to meet Musaylama and his men.

When Abu Bakr ordered Khalid at that time to go to fight Musaylama, he might want to show the people of Medina, especially those who had adopted Umar’s opinion, that Khalid was the qualified man who would defeat the difficulties and that he (Abu Bakr) had thrown him into a hell which would swallow him and that would be the punishment for what he had committed with Layla and her husband Malik[258]or victory would purify him and then he would come back to the Muslims as triumphant and so he would calm their fears and then his doing committed in al-Bitah would be unmentionable thing beside his victory.

Yamama has tested and purified Khalid[259]even no long after that he married a young girl as he had done with Layla while the Muslims’ bloods were not dried yet nor were the bloods of Musaylama’s followers. Abu Bakr scolded him for this doing more than he had scolded him for his doing with Layla before.[260]”[261]

Professor Haykal has showed clearly that Abu Bakr had preferred the benefits to the acting according to the verdicts of Allah and His messenger. Such was the opinion of many of the virtuous scholars of al-Azhar University about Abu Bakr. They themselves told me of that when I had met them in al-Azhar University in 1392 A.H. and later.

But Umar, even he himself had gone too far in interpreting the divine verdicts according to his own opinion, did not agree with Abu Bakr when he had forgiven Khalid. Professor Haykal declares Umar’s opinion in details when saying: “Umar was the exact example of Justice. He thought that Khalid had killed a man transgressively and committed adultery with his wife before she had finished her iddah and so Khalid could never remain as the leader of the army lest he would commit another sin like that and then he would defame the Muslims and dishonor their position among the Arabs. Khalid could never be left without punishment for what he had committed with Layla. If it was as Abu Bakr said that Khalid interpreted the verdict but he mistook in his interpretation when he killed Malik, which Umar did not accept at all, then Khalid would be punished for the sin he had committed with Layla. Even if Khalid was the sword of Allah and he was the victorious leader, this would not be an excuse to protect him from being punished or to justify his crimes. If it was so, then Khalid and every one like Khalid would be free to commit any crime and sin as they liked without being punished and this would be the worst example of the Muslims who had to submit to the Book of Allah absolutely. Therefore Umar insisted on Abu Bakr to punish Khalid until Abu Bakr sent for Khalid and scolded him.”

This is the very speech of Professor Haykal about Umar’s opinion and evidence about the matter of Khalid quoted from his book As-Siddeeq Abu Bakr, p.151.

Some fairness

Professor al-Aqqad, after mentioning the contradicted sayings about the murder of Malik to defend Khalid, says: “Out of all these sayings we have to consider the true and indisputable one among them. It was not clear or decisive that Malik bin Nuwayra had to be killed.[262]Malik was worthier to be sent to the caliph than the chiefs of Fazara tribe and others, whom Khalid had sent to Abu Bakr to judge how to deal with, after the battle of al-Buzakha. Khalid got married to Malik’s wife and took her with him to Yamama after meeting the caliph.[263]

After these facts, the truth imposed on us to say that the event of al-Bitah was a page in Khalid’s history. It would be better for him if this page would have been omitted and not mentioned with any of the justifications at all.”[264]

Conclusion

We end our speech about this subject with reference to those who have written about Malik concerning his position among the Arabs and among the Muslims and concerning the calamity that has afflicted Malik and his people on the day of al-Bitah. Here are some of the books that have detailed the matter of Malik; Tareekh al-Umam wel Mulook by Muhammad bin Jareer at-Tabari, Jamharat an-Nasab by ibnul Kalbi, al-Kamil by ibnul Atheer, Kitab ar-Riddah wel Futooh by Sayf bin Umar, al-Muwaffaqiyyat by az-Zubayr bin Bakar, al-Aghani by Abu Faraj al-Isfahani, ad-Dala’il by Thabit bin Qassim, Nuzhat al-Manadhir by ibn Shuhna, al-Mukhtasar by Abul Fida’, Sharh Nahjol Balagha by ibn Abul Hadeed and other books of history and biographies.

The judge ibn Khillikan said in his book Wafiyyatul A’yan when mentioning the biography of Wuthayma bin Musa bin al-Furat al-Washsha’ al-Farisi: “Malik bin Nuwayra was a noble man who accompanied the kings. Malik was mentioned in the proverbs; it was said: “No pasture like sa’dan,[265]no water like (that of) Sada’[266]and no youth like Malik.” He was a knight, a poet and an obeyed notable man among his people. He was somehow proud. He had a great group of companions. He was called al-Jafool.[267]He came to the Prophet (s) among the Arabs who had come to declare their faith in Islam. He became a Muslim and the Prophet (s) entrusted him with the zakat of his tribe…his situation with Khalid bin al-Waleed on the day of al-Bitah had been detailed. There had been a long argument between them. Khalid said to Malik: “I am going to kill you.” Malik said: “Has your friend (Abu Bakr) ordered you to do that?” Khalid said: “By Allah, I will kill you.” Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatada were present then. They mediated to solve the problem but Khalid paid no attention to their speech. Malik said to Khalid: “Send us to Abu Bakr and he will decide what to do with us for you have sent other than us whose guilt was greater than ours.” Khalid said: “Let Allah not forgive me if I do not kill you.” He asked Dhirar bin al-Azwar to behead Malik. Malik turned to his wife Umm Tameem and then said to Khaild: “It is she who has killed me!” Malik’s wife was very beautiful. Khalid said to Malik: “Allah has killed you because you have apostatized from Islam.” Malik said: “I am still on Islam.” Khalid said to Dhirar: “Behead him!” He cut his head and made it as an andiron under a pot.” Ibnul Kalbi said in his book Jamharat an-Nasab: “Malik was killed on the day of al-Bitah and Khalid captured his (Malik’s) wife and married her. About this matter the poet Abu Zuhayr as-Sa’di had composed a poem.”

After that ibn Khillikan mentioned Umar’s revolt against Khalid and his saying to Abu Bakr: “Khalid has committed adultery and you have to stone him.” Abu Bakr said: “I do not stone him. He interpreted (the verdict) but he mistook.” Umar said: “He has killed a Muslim man and you have to kill him for that killed one.” Abu Bakr said: “I do not kill him for that one because he interpreted but he mistook.” Umar said: “Then depose him!” Abu Bakr said: “I will not sheathe a sword that Allah has unsheathed against them.” Ibn Khillikan mentioned more details about the matter. He said that Mutammim bin Nuwayra, Malik’s brother, stood beside Abu Bakr leaning on his bow and began reciting his poem:

“The best one you have killed O you son of al-Azwar,

When the wind wept behind the houses.

Have you invited him by Allah and then you betrayed him?

If he has invited you with a pact,

He will never betray you.”

He made a sign to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr said: “by Allah, I have neither invited him nor have I betrayed him.”

Then Mutammim bin Nywayra recited the rest of his poem. He wept and collapsed from his bow to the ground.

Ibn Khillikan talked too much about Malik’s qualities such as his courage, generosity, zeal and high position among his people.

Among the historians, who had talked about Malik in their books, was Abul Fadhl Ahmad bin Ali famous as ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. He said in the first part of his book al-Isaba fee Tamyeez as-Sahaba[268]: “His name was Malik bin Nuwayra bin Hamza bin Shaddad bin Abd Tha’laba bin Yarboo’ at-Tameemi al-Yarboo’iy. He was surnamed as al-Jafool. Al-Marzabani said that Malik was a noble poet, a great knight and one of the honored notables among his people in the pre-Islamic period. He was a companion of the kings. The Prophet (s) had entrusted him with the zakat of his people. When the Prophet (s) died, he stopped taking the zakat[269]and he spread (the zakat that had been already in his hand) among his people.[270]He recited:

“I said: Take back your monies.

I am not afraid nor expecting what tomorrow will bring.[271]

If a right one will undertake the religion,

We will obey[272]and say: the religion is that of Muhammad.”

Malik and his companions were killed. He was mutilated. His wife was raped. The verdicts of Allah were annulled. His sanctity was violated. The cause behind all that was that they (Abu Bakr, Khalid and their likes) had interpreted the divine verdicts according to their own opinion and they had mistaken. We are Allah’s and to Him we shall return!