The Reasons Behind the Enlightment
The reasons behind my enlightenment are many, but I shall only mention a few of them here:
1. The text regarding the succession to the Caliphate
I have committed myself, before embarking on this study, to never depending on any reference unless it is considered authentic by the two parties, and to discarding those references that are solely referred to by only one of the parties.
Thus, I shall investigate the idea regarding the preference between Abu Bakr and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, and that the succession of the caliphate was by written text (Dictate) for ‘Ali, as the Shiites claim, and not by election and Shura (consultation) as the Sunnis claim.
Any researcher in this subject, if he considers nothing but the truth, will find that the text in support of ‘Ali is very clear, like the following saying by the Messenger of Allah: Whoever considers me his master, then ‘Ali is his master. He said it at the end of the Farewell Pilgrimage, when it was confirmed that ‘Ali would succeed, and many people congratulated him on that, including Abu Bakr and Umar who were among the well-wishers, and who were quoted as having said to the Imam, Well done, Ibn Abi Talib, overnight you have become a master of all the believers."
This text has been agreed on by both Shiites and Sunnis, and in fact I have only referred in this study to some Sunni references and not to all of them, for they are so many.
If the reader wants more information, he may read "al-Ghadir" by al-Amini (thirteen Volumes) in which the writer classifies the sayings of the Prophet according to the Sunnis.
As for the alleged popular election of Abu Bakr on "The Day of al-Saqifah" and his subsequent acclamation in the mosque; it seems that it was just an allegation without foundation. How could it be by popular agreement when so many people were absent during the acclamation? People like: ‘Ali, al-Abbas, most of the house of Bani Hashim, Usama ibn Zayd, al-Zubayr, Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Ammar ibn Yasir, Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman, Khuzayma ibn Thabit, Abu Burayd al-Aslami, al-Bura ibn Azib, Abu Ka'b, Sahl ibn Hanif, Saad ibn Ubada, Qays ibn Saad, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Jabir ibn Saad, Khalid ibn Saad, and many others.
So where was the alleged popular agreement? The absence of ‘Ali alone from the acclamation is sufficient to criticize that meeting because he was the only candidate for the caliphate, nominated by the Messenger of Allah, on the assumption that there was no direct text regarding such a nomination.
The acclamation of Abu Bakr was without consultation; in fact it took the people by surprise, especially when the men in charge of the Muslim affairs were busy preparing for the funeral of the Messenger of Allah. The citizens of al-Medinah were shocked by the death of their Prophet, and then they forced the acclamation
on the people, and even threatened to burn the house of Fatima if those who were absent from the acclamation refused to leave it. So how could we say that the acclamation was implemented through consultation and popular agreement?
Umar ibn al-Khattab himself testified that that acclamation was a mistake - may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil -, and that whoever repeated it should be killed, or he might have said that if someone called for a similar action there would be no acclamation for him or for those who acclaimed him.
Imam ‘Ali said about that acclamation: By Allah, Ibn Abi Quhafa has got it! And he knows that my position (regarding the caliphate) is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone! The torrent flows from me, and the bird will never reach me!
Saad ibn Ubada, a prominent man from al-Ansar, attacked Abu Bakr and Umar on the day of "al-Saqifah,” and tried hard to keep them away from the caliphate, but could not sustain his efforts, for he was ill and unable to stand, and after al-Ansar paid homage to Abu Bakr, Saad said: "By Allah I shall never pay homage to you until I cast my last arrow at you, and pierce you with my lance, and attack you with my sword, with all the power in my hand, and fight you with all the members of my family and clan.
By Allah, even if all the Jinns (invisible beings) and the human beings gathered to support you, I will never acclaim you, until I meet my God." He never prayed with them, he never sat in their company, he never performed the pilgrimage with them, and if he found a group of people willing to fight them, he would give them all his support, and if somebody acclaimed him to fight them, he would have fought them. He remained thus until he died in Syria during the caliphate of Umar.
If that was a mistake (may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil) as Umar put it (and he was one of its architects, and knew what happened to the Muslims as a result of it), and if that succession to the caliphate was illegal (as Imam ‘Ali described it when he said that he was the lawful nominee for it), and if that acclamation was unjust (as according to Saad ibn Ubada the leader of al-Ansar who left al-Jamaah because of it), and if that acclamation was unlawful due to the absence of the leading figures of the Companions, including al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, so what is the evidence and proof which supports the legality of the Abu Bakr's succession to the caliphate?
The answer is that there is no evidence or proof with the Sunnis and al-Jamaah.
Therefore, what the Shiites say regarding this issue is right, because it has been established that the Sunnis have the text which proves the succession of ‘Ali to the caliphate, but they deliberately misinterpret it to maintain the Companion's honor. Thus, the just and fair person has no choice but to accept the text, especially if he knows the circumstances that surrounded the case.
2. The disagreement between Fatimah and Abu Bakr
The subject is agreed upon by the two parties, and the fair and sensible person has no choice but to judge Abu Bakr as being wrong, that is if he did not admit his injustice and bad treatment of the leading lady.
Anyone who cares to follow the events of that tragedy and studies its various facts will recognize that Abu Bakr deliberately hurt al-Zahra and denied her argument so that she could not protest against him - supported by the texts of al-Ghadir and others - regarding the lawful right for her husband and cousin to the succession of the caliphate. There are many indications that have been mentioned by historians which lead us to believe in accounts of these events, this is one of them:
Al-Zahra, may Allah's peace be upon her, went around the meeting places of al-Ansar, asking for support for her cousin and husband and they said, "O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, we have already acclaimed that man, and if your husband and cousin had approached us before him, we would have supported him." ‘Ali, may Allah honor his face, said, "Would I leave the Messenger of Allah (saw) in his house unburied and go to argue with people about his authority?" Fatimah said, "Abu al-Hasan did what was expected from him, and for what they did Allah will hold them responsible and accountable."
If Abu Bakr was wrong, either unintentionally or through good-will, Fatimah al-Zahara would have persuaded him; but she was angry with him, because he refused to accept her argument and rejected her testimony and the testimony of her husband. She became so angry; she even prevented him in her will from being present at her funeral. When she died, her husband buried her secretly during the night.
As for her secret burial (as) during the night, it is worth mentioning here, that during my years of research and investigation, I went to al-Medinah to check for myself certain points, then I discovered the following:
Firstly, the grave of al-Zahra is unknown and nobody knows exactly where it is; some say it is in the Prophet's chamber, others say it is in her house opposite the Prophet's chamber, and there are people who think that it might be in al-Baqi', in the midst of Ahl al-Bayt's graves.
This is the first fact that I deduced: al-Zahra (as) wanted the Muslims, through generations to come, to know why she asked her husband to bury her secretly during the night, and that not one of them attend her funeral! Thus, every Muslim could reach certain interesting facts when researching into historical events.
Secondly, I discovered that the visitor who wants to visit Uthman ibn Affan's grave has to go a long way until he reaches the end of al-Baqi', and there he finds it by a wall. By contrast, he will find the burial places of most of the Companions at the beginning of al-Baqi', near the entry. Even Malik ibn Anas, the famous jurist, who was a follower of the Followers, is buried near the burial places of the Messenger's wives.
It became clear to me what the historians meant when they said that he was buried in "Hash Kawkab" which was Jewish land, because the Muslims refused to bury him in the Baqi' of the Messenger of Allah. When Muawiya seized power, he bought that land from the Jews and included it in al-Baqi', so that it contains the grave of his cousin Uthman. He who visits al-Baqi' today will see this fact very clearly.
It is astonishing to know that Fatimah al-Zahra (as) was the first of the Prophet's children to die after him, and at the most there were six months between the departure of the father and his daughter, and despite that, she was not buried beside her father.
Fatimah al-Zahra, as I mentioned earlier, stated in her will that she should be buried secretly; therefore, she was not buried beside her father. But what about her son, al-Hasan, why was he not buried beside his grandfather? Aisha (Umm al-Mumineen) prevented that. When al-Husayn brought his brother to bury him by his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, Aisha rode a mule and went around saying, "Do not bury someone I do not love in my house."
Then, the houses of Bani Umayya and Hashim stood opposite each other ready to fight, but al-Husayn told her that he would only take the coffin of his brother around the grave of their grandfather then he would bury him in al-Baqi'. That was because Imam al-Hasan requested from his brother, that no blood should be shed for his sake. Ibn Abbas said a few verses regarding this event:
"She rode a camel,
she rode a mule,
if she had lived longer, she would have ridden an elephant, you have the ninth of the eighth, and you took everything."
This is another interesting fact: How could Aisha inherit everything, when the Prophet had nine wives? Ibn Abbas transmitted to us: If the Prophet was not to leave any inheritance, and Abu Bakr bore witness to that and prevented al-Zahra from inheriting anything from her father, how then could Aisha? Is there any text which states that the wife could inherit, but not the daughter? Or was it perhaps politics that changed everything, so it denied the daughter everything, and gave the wife everything?
It is worth mentioning here a story related to the subject of inheritance that has been cited by many historians:
Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mutazili said in his commentary on Nahj al-Balagha: “Aisha and Hafsa came to see Uthman, during his caliphate, and asked him to give them their shares of what they had inherited from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Uthman was stretched on the sofa, so he sat up and said to Aisha: You and that woman sitting next to you brought a man who cleansed himself with his urine and testified that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "We, the prophets, do not leave an inheritance." If the Prophet truly did not leave any inheritance, why do you ask for it now, and if he left an inheritance, why did you deprive Fatimah of her legal share? After that, she left him feeling very angry and said: Kill Na'thal, for he has become an unbeliever.”
3. ‘‘Ali was more entitled to the leadership
One of the reasons which led to my enlightenment and ultimately made me leave the tradition (Sunna) of my forefathers was the comparison between the positions of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and that of Abu Bakr, based on logical deductions and historical references.
As I started in earlier parts of this book, I only included in my research the references which have been agreed on by both, the Shiites and the Sunnis.
I searched in the books of both parties and found that only ‘Ali received total support, and both Shiites and Sunnis agreed on his leadership in accordance with the texts they approved of. However there is neither support nor agreement on the leadership of Abu Bakr except by a small group of Muslims, and we have mentioned what Umar said about his succession to the caliphate.
Furthermore, there are many virtues and good deeds attributed to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib by the Shiites and cited as authentic references in the Sunni books. The sayings are full of the virtues of ‘Ali, more than any other Companion ever received, and even Ahmed ibn Hanbal said: “No one among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) had more virtues than ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
Qadi Ismail, al-Nasa'i and Abu ‘Ali al-Naisaburi said: “No Companion had as many virtues attributed to him as ‘Ali.”
We notice that the Umayyads tried hard to force people to curse him and insult him and not to mention any of his virtues, and even they prevented anybody from being named after him, but despite all that hatred, his virtues and good deeds (as) continued to spread.
Regarding that Imam al-Shafi'i says: “I am surprised about a man, whose virtues were kept secret by his enemies, out of envy, and were kept secret by his followers, out of fear, but nevertheless, an enormous amount of them spread."
As for Abu Bakr, I searched in the books of the two parties, and found that the virtues attributed to him by the Sunnis were much less than that attributed to ‘Ali. The virtues of Abu Bakr that have been mentioned in historical books were narrated either by his daughter Aisha, whose position vies-a-vies ‘Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings, or by Abdullah ibn Umar, who was never close to ‘Ali, and he was one of those who refused to pay homage to ‘Ali despite the popular support he had received. Abdullah ibn Umar used to say that the best people after the Prophet were Abu Bakr then Uthman, and after that everybody was equal.
Thus, he made Imam ‘Ali like any other ordinary person, without preferences or virtues.
What was Abdullah ibn Umar's attitude towards the facts that had been mentioned by the leading personalities of the nation that "No companion had as many virtues attributed to him as ‘Ali". Had Abdullah ibn Umar not heard about even one of ‘Ali's virtues? Yes, by Allah, he had heard and understood, but political intrigues tend to distort the facts.
The virtues of Abu Bakr were also mentioned by Amr ibn al-'As, Abu Hurayrah, Urwa and Ikrima, and all of them hated ‘Ali and fought him either with arms or by plotting against him and attributing virtues to his enemies.
Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, "‘Ali had many enemies who searched hard to find a fault attributable to him, but they could not, so they brought a man whom ‘Ali had-fought and battled with, and praised him because of their hatred towards ‘Ali.".
But Allah said:
"Surely they will make a scheme, and I too will make a scheme so glad the unbelievers a respite: let them alone for a while." (Holy Qur'an 86:15-17)
It is a miracle from Allah, praise be to Him, that the virtues of Imam ‘Ali spread after six centuries of oppression and injustice against him and Ahl al-Bayt, and the Abbasids were not less evil than their predecessor the Umayyads in their treatment of Ahl al-Bayt. The poet Abu Firas al-Hamdani wrote the following verses:
“What Banu Harb have done to them is nothing in comparison to what you did to them,
How many times have you clearly violated the Religion?
And how much of the Prophet's (family's) blood has been spilt by you?
You pretend to be his followers, but on your hands is the blood of his purified sons.”
After having finished with all these sayings, and having came out from the darkness, I leave the last judgment to Allah, and there will be no more excuses from the people after all that.
Despite the fact that Abu Bakr was the first caliph, and had all the power and authority, despite the bribes and gifts that the Umayyads gave to everyone who praised Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and despite all the alleged virtues and good deeds that they invented for Abu Bakr, which filled many books despite all that, they did not amount to a fraction of the true virtues of Imam ‘Ali.
Furthermore, if we analyze the alleged sayings that were in favor of Abu Bakr, we find them incompatible with the historical facts, and no sensible man or creed could accept them. Earlier on we explained the saying attributed to the Prophet: "If the faith of Abu Bakr and the faith of my nation is put on the balance, the faith of Abu Bakr will be heavier.”
If the Messenger of Allah was aware of this high degree of faith in Abu Bakr, he would not have appointed Usama to command the army; nor would he have refused to bear witness for him as he did for the martyrs of Uhud, and then said to him that he did not know what he was going to do after him", so that Abu Bakr
cried. In addition to that, the Prophet would not have sent ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to take "Surat Bara'a" from him and prevented him from transmitting it.
Nor would the Prophet have said in Khayber while presenting the flag: "Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith", then he gave it to ‘Ali and no one else.
If Allah knew that Abu Bakr had such a high degree of faith, and that his faith exceeded the faith of all Muslims, Allah, praise be upon Him, would not have had to threaten him that He would spoil his work when he raised his voice above the Prophet's voice.
If ‘Ali and the Companions who followed him knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, they would not have hesitated to pay homage to him. If Fatimah al-Zahra, the leading lady, knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, she would not have been angry with him, nor would she have refused to talk to him or return his greetings, or cursed him in her prayers,
and even banned him - according to her will - from attending her funeral.
He who had such a degree of faith, and whose faith was greater than the faith of all Muslims would not have regretted, in the last moments of his life, his attitude towards Fatimah, and his burning of al-Fuja'ah al-Salami and his succession to the caliphate.
Also, he would not have wished not to be a human being but to be a hair or animal droppings. Is this man's faith equal to, or even greater than the faith of the entire Islamic nation?
Let us consider the saying: “If I was taking a close companion, I would have chosen Abu Bakr.” This saying is like the previous one. “Where was Abu Bakr on the day of the small Brotherhood" in Mecca before the Hijra, and on the day of the great Brotherhood in Medinah after the Hijra; when in both of them the Messenger of Allah (saw) chose ‘Ali as his brother then said to him, You are my brother in this life and in the Hereafter"
and did not turn to Abu Bakr, thus depriving him of the brotherhood in the Hereafter and from the close companionship. I do not wish to go on about this subject, and it is sufficient to bring the above mentioned examples which I have found in the Sunni books. As for the Shiites, they do not recognize these sayings at all, and they have their own clear proof that they were invented sometime after the death of Abu Bakr.
If we leave the virtues aside and concentrate on the sins, we will never find a single sin committed by ‘Ali that has been mentioned in historical books (both Shiite and Sunni), whereas we find that many other people have committed sins and were mentioned in the Sunni books such as al-Sihah, the various books Sirah and annals.
Thus, we find total agreement from both parties regarding ‘Ali alone, also historical facts point out that the correct acclamation was for ‘Ali alone.
He abstained, but the MuHajjireen and Ansar insisted on his acclamation; then when he was finally nominated, some people refused to pay homage to him, but he never forced them to change their minds.
On the other hand we find that the acclamation of Abu Bakr was a "mistake", as Umar ibn al-Khattab put it, "may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil." The acclamation of Umar was based on a promise given to him by Abu Bakr. The acclamation of Uthman was a historical comedy: Umar nominated six people for the caliphate and told them to choose one candidate, and said if four agreed and two disagreed, then the two should be killed, however, if the six were divided into two equal camps, then the camp which was supported by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf should be considered but if after a certain time passed and no agreement had been reached, the whole six should be killed.
The story is long and rather strange, but the important thing is that Abdul Rahman ibn Awf chose ‘Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Book of Allah (the Qur'an) and the tradition of His Messenger and the tradition of the two Shaykhs: Abu Bakr and Umar. ‘Ali refused these conditions but Uthman accepted them, so he became caliph. ‘Ali came out from the conference of the acclamation and knew in advance the result, and talked about it in his famous speech known as al-Shaqshaqiyya.
After ‘Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination (from the previous caliph) or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation
except that for the Commander of the Believers ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
4. The Prophetic traditions which indicate that ‘Ali should be followed
The prophetic traditions which persuaded me to follow Imam ‘Ali were those I have read in the Sihahs of the Sunnis and were approved by the Shiites, and they have many more. But as usual I only referred to the prophetic traditions that have been agreed on by both parties, and here are some of them:
A. The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate."
This tradition
alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to be followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.
Allah - the Most High - said:
“Say: ‘Are those who know and those who do not know alike?’ (Holy Quran 39:9)
He also said:
"Is He then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (Holy Quran 10:35)
History has recorded many facts telling us that ‘Ali was the most knowledgeable man among all the Companions and they used to consult him on every important matter, and we do not know of any event in which he declined to give his advice.
Abu Bakr said, "May Allah never put me in a predicament that Abu al-Hasan cannot solve." And Umar said, "If it was not for ‘Ali, Umar would have perished."
And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with ‘Ali's knowledge."
And this is what Imam ‘Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no (Qur'anic) verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain."
Abu Bakr was once asked about the meaning of the word "Abb" (herbage) in the words of Allah, the Most High:
"And fruits and herbage, A provision for you and for your cattle." (Holy Quran 80:31-32)
Abu Bakr replied, "Which sky would give me shade, and which land would carry me if I say something I do not know about the Book of Allah." And this is Umar saying. "All people are more knowledgeable than I am, even women." He was once asked about the meaning of a Qur'anic verse, and his reaction was to rebuke the man and beat him until he bled, then he said, "Do not ask about matters which may appear bad to you."
Also he was asked about "al-Kalalah" but he did not know what it meant.
In his "commentary", al-Tabari stated that Umar once said the following, "My knowledge of al-Kalalah is more valuable to me than owning a palace similar to those in Syria."
In one of his books, Ibn Maja quoted Umar as saying "There are three things, if they were explained by the Messenger of Allah, I would have loved them more dearly than anything in the world: Al-Kalalah, usury and the caliphate." God forbid that the Messenger of Allah stayed silent on these subjects!
B. The Prophetic tradition: “O ‘Ali! You hold in relation to me the same position as Haroon held in relation to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me.”B. The Prophetic tradition: “O ‘Ali! You hold in relation to me the same position as Haroon held in relation to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me.”
This tradition, as should be apparent to every sensible person, shows the special quality of the Commander of the Believers, ‘Ali, which made him the right person to be the supporter, the guardian and the deputy (or successor) of the Messenger of Allah as Haroon was the supporter, guardian and deputy of Moses when he went to meet his God. There is also the position of ‘Ali vies-a-vies the Prophet which is absolutely equal to the relation between Haroon and Moses, except for the prophethood, which was excluded in the same tradition.
Furthermore, we find in the tradition the fact that Imam ‘Ali was the best Companion, who only came second after the Messenger of Allah (saw).
C. The Prophetic tradition: “‘Ali is the master of all those of whom I am master. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him, help him who helps him, forsake him who forsakes him, and turn justice with him wherever he turns.”
This tradition alone is sufficient to reply to the allegations concerning the seniority of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman to ‘Ali, who was appointed by the Messenger of Allah as the guardian after him of all the faithful. It is of no consequence for whoever tried to interpret the saying as the friend or the support in order to divert it from its original meaning so that the integrity of the Companions may be kept intact.
The Messenger of Allah stood up in the terrible heat addressing the people, saying, "Do you witness that I have a prior right to and superior authority over all the faithful?" They replied, "Yes, O Messenger of Allah." Thereupon he said, "‘Ali is the master of all those whom I am a master etc." This is a clear text indicating that the Messenger of Allah had appointed ‘Ali as his successor to lead the nation (of Islam), and the fair and sensible person could not but accept this interpretation and refuse that of the others, thus preserving the integrity of the Messenger of Allah before preserving the integrity of the Companions.
Those who give an alternative interpretation to the saying are in fact ridiculing the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah, who gathered the multitude of people, in that unbearable heat, to tell them that ‘Ali was the friend and supporter of the faithful. And what do those, who misinterpret the text in order to preserve the integrity of their masters, say about the procession of congratulation that the Messenger of Allah organized for ‘Ali? It started with the wives of the Messenger, the mothers of the faithful, and then Abu Bakr and Umar came and said to him, "Well done Ibn Abi Talib, Overnight you became the guardian (master) of all the faithful."
In fact all the historical evidence gives clear indications that those who misinterpret the above tradition are liars. Woe to those who wrote what they wrote, and woe to them for what they are writing. Allah, the Most High, said.
"...a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know it." (Holy Qur'an 2:146)
D. The Prophetic tradition: “‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali and no one can discharge my duty except myself or ‘Ali.”D. The Prophetic tradition: “‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali and no one can discharge my duty except myself or ‘Ali.”
This honorable tradition
is another clear indication that Imam ‘Ali was only one whom the Messenger authorized to discharge his duties. The Messenger said it on the day of the great pilgrimage when he sent ‘Ali with Surat Bara'a instead of Abu Bakr, who came crying and asked, "O Messenger of Allah! Reveal something for me." The Messenger answered, "My Lord ordered me that nobody can discharge my duty except myself or ‘Ali."
There is another supporting tradition that the Messenger of Allah, said on another occasion in honor of ‘Ali, "O ‘Ali! You will show them the right path when there will be dissension among them after me."
If nobody could discharge the Messenger of Allah's duty except ‘Ali, and if he was the one who would show them the right path after dissension appeared among them after him; then how could a person who did not know the meaning of "al-Abb" and "Kalalah" be more senior to ‘Ali?
This is sadly one of the tragedies that have been inflicted on our nation and prevented it from doing the duties that Allah has chosen for it. We could not blame Allah or the Messenger of Allah or the Commander of the Believers ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib for that, but the blame falls squarely on those who rebelled and changed, and Allah, the most High, said:
"And when it is said to them, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger.’ They say, ‘That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us.’ What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way." (Holy Qur'an 5:104)
E. The Prophetic tradition of the House on the day of Warning.
The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, indicating ‘Ali: “This is my brother, my trustee and my deputy (caliph) after me, so listen to him and obey him."
This is yet another correct tradition cited by many historians at the beginning of the prophetic mission, and considered as one of the Prophet's miracles. However, political intrigues distorted the facts. Then there is no wonder that the oppression which took place then is coming back again in our lifetime. For example, Muhammad Husayn Haykal reproduced the saying in its entirety in his book "The Life of Muhammad", (Page 104, First Edition 1334 Hijri). From the Second Edition onward, the part of the tradition where the Prophet says, "He is my trustee, my deputy (caliph) after me" has been removed.
Also, in al-Tabari's commentary (Tafsir) Volume 19, page 121, when the Prophet says: "My trustee and my deputy (caliph)" was changed to "This is my brother etc. etc", but they failed to recognize that al-Tabari had cited the tradition in its entirety in his Annals Volume 2, Page 319. Look how they change the words and distort the facts...they want to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah is spreading His light.
During my investigation I wanted to see the truth, so I searched for the first edition of "The Life of Muhammad", and after some hard work, praise be to Allah, found it, although it cost me considerably. The important thing is that I looked at the distortion and became convinced that the evil people are trying the best they can do to remove the facts because there is strong evidence in the hands of their "enemies".
When the fair investigator comes across such a blatant distortion, he will no doubt begin to keep away from them and become convinced that they have no evidence except lies and distorted facts.
They hire writers to whom they give money, titles and false university degrees in order to write for them books and articles through which they insult the Shiites and accuse them of blasphemy, while at the same time they defend the position, even if it is unjust, of some of the Companions who turned on their heels and exchanged right for wrong after the departure of the Messenger of Allah. Allah says:
"Even thus said those before them, the like of what they say; their hearts are all alike. Indeed We have made the verses clear for a people who are sure." (Holy Quran 2:118)
Notes
0%
Author: Dr. Muhammad at-Tijani as-Sammawi
