Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Lesson 7: Irresponsible Attitudes of the Companions

Here the following question arises. Given the fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, proclaimed 'Ali to be his legatee (wasiyy) and successor (khalifah), emphatically designation him as the leader of the Muslims both at Ghadir Khumm and on other appropriate occasions, how did it happen that after the death of the Most Noble Messenger his Companions (sahabah) ignored God's command and abandoned 'Ali, that noble and precious personage, decided not to obey him, chose someone else to be leader in his place, and entrusted the reins of rule to him?

Was there any ambiguity in the words of the Prophet, or were all those different phrases and expressions establishing 'Ali's rank and designating him leader not enough?

A clear answer to this question can be found by examining the events that took place in the age of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. We see that there existed among his Companions elements who, whenever his commands ran contrary to their wishes and inclinations, pressed him to change his mind in the hope of preventing him, by whatever means possible, from carrying out his plans. When they despaired of reaching their goal, they would start complaining.

The Qur'an warns these people not to oppose the commands of the Prophet in the verse that reads: “Let those who oppose the commands of the Prophet fear disaster and a painful torment.”(24:63)

During the last days of his blessed life, the Messenger of God prepared an army to do battle with the Byzantines and he appointed Usamah b. Zayd to be its commander. This appointment of a young man, despite the availability of older and more experienced men, proved displeasing to some of the Companions, and led to an argument among them. Those who were strongly oppossed to Usamah b. Zayd asked the Prophet to dismiss him, but he paid no attention to their request and commanded Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman to join the ranks of the Muslim army as it departed from Madinah. However, they not only disregarded military discipline but also disobeyed the categorical command of the Prophet. Instead of proceeding to the front with the army, they split off and returned to Madinah.1

The disrespectful mumblings of some of the Companions greatly vexed the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and with a heart full of pain and concern for his people, he came forth from his house and addressed the people as follows:

“O people, what are these words of yours concerning the appointment of Usamah that have come to my ears? Just as you are criticizing him now, you once objected to the appointment of his father Zayd b. al-Harithah as commander. I answer by God that just as he was worthy of command, so too is his son.”2

Even after the death of the Prophet, 'Umar came to Abu Bakr and demanded that he should dismiss Usamah. The caliph replied: “The Messenger of God appointed him, and you wish me to dismiss him?”3

The Prophet's wish and desire during the final days of his life was to empty Madinah of the leaders of both the Emigrants and the Helpers. He therefore has Usamah's army prepared for battle and gave the command for jihad, ordering the army to advance in the direction of the Syrian border. Insistently he asked the foremost of the Companions to leave Madinah and fight under the banner of Usamah, retaining only 'Ali to stay at his bedside. This remarkable act on the part of the Prophet was very significant. However, those Companions failed to comply with his instructions, and they withdrew from the army commanded by Usamah.

Throughout his life, the Prophet never appointed anyone as commander over the head of 'Ali, peace be upon him; it was always he who was the standard bearer and commander.4 By contrast, Abu Bakr and 'Umar were to be simple soldiers in the army of Usamah, and the Prophet personally ordered them to serve under him when he appointed him commander at the battle of Mu'ta. Historians are unanimously agreed on this point. Likewise, at the Battle of Dhat al-Salasil, when the army was commanded by Ibn al-'As, Abu Bakr and 'Umar again served as simple soldiers. This contrasts with the case of 'Ali b. Abi Talib, whom the Prophet, from the beginning of his mission until his death, never made subordinate to anyone, an extremely significant point.

History will never forget the time when the Most Noble Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was on his deathbed, his state becoming progressively more grave. He felt that the last strands of his life were being plucked apart. He therefore decided without further delay to put his final plan into effect and said: “Bring me paper so that I can write for you a document to prevent you from ever going astray.”5

Just as he had clarified the question of leadership in numerous speeches and utterances, he wished now, one final time, to address this weighty matter, described by the Qur'an as the completion of religion, by enshrining it in an authoritative written document to remain among the Muslims after his death. Thereby the door would be closed on any future deviations from his orders. But those same people who in defiance of his orders had refrained from going to the front were now watching the situation carefully with the intention of implementing their plans at the first possible opportunity. They therefore refused to permit writing utensils to be brought to the Prophet.6

Jabir b. Abdullah says:

“When the Messenger of God fell sick with the illness that was to end in his death, he asked for paper in order to write down for his ummah instructions that would prevent them from ever going astray or accusing each other of having gone astray. Words were exchanged among those present in the Prophet's house and an argument ensued in the course of which 'Umar uttered words that caused the Prophet to order him to leave the house.”7

'Ubaydullah b. Abdullah b. 'Utbah relates Ibn Abbas to have said:

“During the final moments of the life of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, a number of people were present in this house, including 'Umar b. al-Khattab, The Prophet said: 'Come, let me write for you a document that will prevent you from ever going astray after me.' 'Umar said: 'Sickness has overcome the Prophet; we have the Qur'an, which is enough for us.'

“Then disagreement arose among those present. They began to argue with each other, some saying, 'Quick, have the Prophet write a document for you so that you will never go astray after him,' and others repeating the words of 'Umar.

“When the arguing and nonsensical talk reached its pitch, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, told them all to leave.”

Thus it was that, as Ibn Abbas says: “The great misfortune arose when their noisy disputing prevented the Messenger of God from writing his testamentary document.”8 He then adds sorrowfully. “The tribulations of the Muslims began on that very day.”9

In the discussion that took place between Ibn Abbas and the second caliph concerning the caliphate of 'Ali, the caliph said: “The Prophet wanted to declare 'Ali as his successor, but I did not allow it to happen.”10

Some Sunni historians and hadith scholars have written that when the Prophet decided to write a document that would prevent the Muslims from going astray 'Umar said: “The Messenger of God has become delirious.” Others, however, in order to soften the offensiveness of his words, maintain that he said: “Sickness has overcome the Prophet; you have the Book of God at your disposal, which is enough for us.”11

It seems that the Most Noble Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was unaware of the importance of the Book of God and they were better informed than him on this point! Was it necessary to accuse him of mental derangement if he wished to draw up a written document specifying who was to lead the ummah after his death? If indeed the Prophet's decision could be attributed to the failing of his mental powers as a result of illness, why did the second caliph not prevent Abu Bakr from drawing up a comparable document during the last moments of his life, or accuse him of being deranged? 'Umar was present at the side of Abu Bakr and he knew that Abu Bakr intended to designate him as ruler in his testament, so naturally he wanted the document to be signed.

If 'Umar truly thought the Book of God to suffice for the solution of all problems, why did he immediately hasten to the Saqifah after the death of the Prophet, together with Abu Bakr to ensure that the question of the caliphate should be resolved in accordance with their ideas? Why did they not at that point refer exclusively to the Book of God and make no mention of the Qur'an, even though the Qur'an had already settled the matter?

al-Tabari writes the following in his history:

“When Shadid, the emancipated slave of Abu Bakr took into his hand the command Abu Bakr had written for 'Umar to become his successor, 'Umar said to the people, “People, pay heed, and obey the command of the caliph. The caliph says, 'I have not failed you in providing for your welfare.'“12

The expression of personal opinions running counter to the orders of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, continued after his death, culminating in the changing of certain divine decrees in the time of the second caliph and on his orders. Instances of this are to be found in reputable books by Sunni authors.13

For example, the second caliph said: “Let them never bring before me a man who has married a woman for a set period, for it they do I will stone him.”14 The fact that he prohibited temporary marriage (mut'ah) proves that this type of union was common among the Companions and other Muslims at the time, for otherwise it would not have been necessary for him to order them to desist. Now if the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, had forbidden this form of marriage, the Companions would never have had recourse to it and there would have no need for 'Umar to threaten people with stoning.

The second caliph himself admitted: “There were three things that were permissible in the time of the Prophet which I have forbidden and for which I exact punishment: temporary marriage, the mut'ah pilgrimage, and reciting 'Hasten to the best of deeds' (hayya 'ala khayri 'l-'amal) in the call to prayer.”15

It was also he ordered that in the call to prayer (adhan) at dawn the phrase, “prayer is better than sleep” (as 'salatu khayrun mina 'n-nawm) should be recited.16

According to the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi someone from Syria once asked 'Abdullah b. 'Umar about the mut'ah pilgrimage. He replied that it was permissible. When the man remarked that Abdullah's father had prohibited it, he answered, “If my father has forbidden something which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, permitted, should we abandon the Sunnah of the Prophet and follow my father?”17

Ibn Kathir similarly records in his history: “Abdullah b. 'Umar was told that his father had prohibited the mut'ah pilgrimage. He said in reply: 'I fear that a stone will fall on you from the heavens. Are we to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet or the Sunnah of 'Umar b. al-Khattab?'“18

During the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, as well as the caliphate of Abu Bakr and the first three years of the caliphate of 'Umar, if anyone were to divorce his wife three times on a single occasion, it counted as a single repudiation, and was not therefore final. However, 'Umar said: “If such a repudiation is made, I will count it as a threefold (and therefore final) repudiation.”19

The Shi'ah believe that such a repudiation (talaq) counts only as a single repudiation, and Shaykh Mahmud al-Shaltut, erstwhile rector of the Azhar, regarded Shi'i jurisprudence (fiqh) superior in this respect as well as many others.20

No one has the right to tamper with revealed ordinances, for they are divine and immutable, not even the Prophet himself. The Qur'an says:

Were Muhammad to attribute lies to Us, with Our powerful hand We would seize him and cut his jugular vein.(69:44)

However, we see that unfortunately some of the Companions awarded themselves the right of exercising independent judgement (ijtihad) with respect to certain ordinances, changing and modifying divine law in accordance with their own notions.

The second caliph introduced class differences into Islamic society during the time of his rule, increasing racial tensions between the Arabs and the Persians.21 He established a discriminatory system of distributing public monies, awarding more to those who accepted Islam early on than to those who embraced it later; more to Qurayshite Migrants than to non-Qurayshite Migrants; more to the Migrants than to the Helpers; more to the Arabs than to the non-Arabs; and more to masters than to their clients.22

Toward the end of his life 'Umar himself came to recognize the negative effects of his policy and he said: “If I remain alive this year, I will establish equality in Islamic society and abolish discrimination. I will act in the way the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and Abu Bakr both acted.”23

The foregoing indicates the arbitrary attitude that some of the Companions assumed with respect to the commands of the Prophet. In certain cases where those commands did not correspond to their personal inclinations, they tried either to avoid implementing them or to change them completely. The fact that they ignored the unmistakably authoritative utterances of the Prophet on the day of Ghadir Khumm or that they behaved similarly with respect to other matters after his death, should not be regarded as either surprising or unprecedented, for they had already given an indication of their attitudes during his lifetime.

In addition, it should not be forgotten that in every society most people tend to remain indifferent to political and social matters, choosing to follow their leaders and those who seize the initiative. This is a clear and undeniable fact.

However, there were respectable and independent minded people who did not change their position after the death of the Prophet. They did not approve of the election that took place at the Saqifah, and they separated themselves from the majority in protest against the introduction of the consultative concept into Islamic government. Although they were more or less compelled to remain silent, they remained loyal to 'Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be upon him, as leader. Among the outstanding personalities belonging to this group were Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Khuzaymah b. Thabit, Miqdad b. al-Aswad, al-Kindi, 'Ammar b. yasir, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Khalid b. Sa'id, Bilal, Qays b. Sa'd, Aban, Buraydah al-Ashami, Abu 'l-Haytham b. al-Tayyihan, as well as many others whose names are recorded in Islamic history. Some scholars have listed two hundred and fifty Companions of the Prophet, complete with names and descriptions, as belonging to this class.24

al-Ya'qubi mentions in his history Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farisi, Miqdad b. al-Aswad, Khalid b. Sa'id, Zubayr, 'Abbas, Bara' b. Azib, Ubayy b. Ka'b, and Fadh b. al-'Abbas as being among those who remained loyal to the cause of 'Ali, peace be upon him.25 Qays b. Sa'd even went so far as to argue with his father over the question of the caliphate and he swore never to speak to him again because of this views.26

These are some of the earliest Shi'is; they supported 'Ali's right to the leadership because of the clear injunctions in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. They remained unswerving in their views until the end. During the period of the first three caliphs the number of Shi'is in fact rose, all of them being outstanding and virtuous personalities, their names being linked to piety and purity in the books of history and biography where they are mentioned. Among them were men such as Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, Sa'sa'ah b. Suhan, Zayd b. Suhan, Hisham b.'Utbah, Abdullah b. Budayl al-Khuza'i, Maytham al-Tammar,' Adiyy b. Hatim, Hujr b. Adiyy, Asbagh b. Nubatah, al-Harith al-A'war al-Hamdani, Amr b. al-Humq al-Khaza'i, Malik al-Ashtar, and Abdullah b. Hashim.

Notes

1. Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV p. 338; al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p.92; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, Vol. II, pp. 120-21.

2. Ibn Sa'd,al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p.249.

3. al-Halabi, al-Sirah, Vol. III, p.336.

4. Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. III, p. 25; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, Vol. III, p. 1.

5. Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. I, p.346; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. V, p. 76; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 436; Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p.242.

6. al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Vol. I, p. 22; al-Tabari, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 436; Muslim, al-Sahih ., Vol. V, p. 76; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. III, p.346.

7. Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p. 243.

8. Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p.242; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. XI, p. 95; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. I, p. 336.

9. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. V, pp. 227-28; al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam, Vol. I, p. 311; al-Diyar Bakri, Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol. I, p. 182; al-Bid'wa al-Tarikh, Vol. V, p. 95; Taysir al-Wusul, Vol. IV, p. 194.

10. Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh ., Vol. III, p.97.

11. Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. III, p. 1259; al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Vol. IV , p. 5; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, hadith no. 2992.,

12. al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. IV, p. 51.

13. Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV, p. 237; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. IV, pp. 37-8, 46; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 401; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. III, pp. 304, 380.

14. Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. VIII, p. 169.

15. al-Amini, al-Ghadir, Vol. VI, p.23.

16. Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. III, p. 408; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. III, p. 183; al-Halabi, al-Sirah, Vol. II, p. 105; Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, p.23.

17. al-Tirmidhi, Jami' al-Sahih, Vol. IV, p.38.

18. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. V, p. 141.

19. Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. IV, pp. 183-4.

20. Risalat al-Islam, Vol. XI, no, 1.

21. al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 107.

22. Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. VIII, p. 11; Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. III, pp. 296-7.

23. Taha Husayn, al-Fitnat al-Kubra, Vol. I, p. 108.

24. al-Sayyid Sharaf al-Din, Fusul al-Muhimmah, pp. 177-92.

25. al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 103.

26. Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. II, p. 18.

Lesson 8: Does the Qur'an Provide an Unconditional Guarantee for the Companions?

The praise to be found in the Qur'an for acts of the Companions that had already taken place can in no way be taken as proof for the justice of their conduct or their freedom from corruption and deviation throughout the entirety of their lives, It cannot be imagined that their deeds would always and under all circumstances be synonymous with justice and truth, for the pleasure of God Almighty and man's resulting attainment of eternal bliss are contingent on the maintenance of faith and consistently righteous behavior for the whole of one's life. If these two attributes are forfeited, the inevitable result will be deviation and corruption, with regard to both belief and action, and however brilliant be one's past, it will be utterly unable to secure one's eternal felicity.

The Most Noble Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, who instructed the whole of mankind in piety and the qualities of true humanity, who was the supreme monotheist and exemplar of moral virtues, who was never polluted with polytheism or sin even he was addressed thus in the Qur'an:

“If you assign partners to Almighty God, all your deeds will count for nothing and you will be among the losers” (39:65)

It is obvious that the Beloved Messenger, possessing as he did the quality of inerrancy, was not separated from God for even an instant. The purpose of this Qur'anic warning must then be to prevent the Muslims from falling prey to arrogance and their intentions from being polluted by hypocrisy. Every individual must exert himself to the utmost, drawing on all his powers and capacities, to the very last moment of his life, in order to earn the pleasure of his Lord, remaining firm and steadfast in his commitment.

The Qur'an says concerning that great prophet Ibrahim and his progeny:

“If they tended to polytheism, their deeds would lose all validity.” (6:88)

Likewise, the Qur'an also says:

“God does not love the oppressors” (3:57) and “God is displeased with the wrongdoers.” (9:96)

History makes it plain that by no means all of those who are known as Companions were in fact pious and righteous people. This can be deduced, for example, from a tradition of the Most Noble Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, recorded in the Sahih of al-Bukhari:

“On the Day of Resurrection I will be standing beside the pool of Kawthar, waiting for those who will come to me. I will see some of them separating and moving away from me, and I will ask, Are they not from among my Companions?' I will be told, 'Yes, but you do not know how they turned back to their previous ways after your death.'1

There is a comparable hadith in the Sahih of Muslim:

“People will come up to me beside the pool, in a manner visible to me. When they are brought before me, they will be ashamed. I will then say, 'O God, are these my Companions?' I will be told, 'You do not know what they did after your death.'“2

al-Taftazani, the well-known Shafi'i scholar, writes:

“The clashes, disagreements and battles that took place among the Companions have been recorded in books of history, and narrated by trustworthy authorities. It can therefore be deduced that some of the Companions must have deviated from the path of justice and truth and become polluted with oppression and wrongdoing. The reason for their deviation, wrongdoing, and oppression, was the feelings of hatred, obstinacy, and envy they nurtured, their hunger for leadership and rule, their addiction to pleasure and lust. It cannot be assumed that all the Companions were free of sin and impurity.”3

If the followers of certain schools of thought in Islam do not have high regard for some of the Companions (ashab) or the followers (tabi'in) and criticize them in a number of respects, this cannot justify cursing them or calling their Islam into doubt. Competing views on this subject must not be allowed to degenerate into mutual hostile wrangling, and there is no justification for condemning as unbelievers any of the followers of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, for even some of the Companions themselves did argue with each other most vehemently.

Thus at the Saqifah some called out for Sa'd b. 'Ubadah to be killed; Qays b. Sa' d b. 'Ubadah came to blows with 'Umar; and Zubayr declared that he would not return his sword to his sheath until everyone had sworn allegiance to 'Ali, whereupon 'Umar insulted him and called out for him to be seized, resulting in Zubayr's beating.

'Umar's behavior to Miqdad at the Saqifah, the way in which 'Uthman dealt with Ibn Mas'ud, Ammar b. Yasir and Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, as well as many other incidents, are all examples of the strife and disputation that took place. Differing views concerning certain of the Prophet's Companions cannot therefore serve as justification for cursing any Muslim or declaring him an unbeliever, nor can they be allowed to damage the unity of all Muslims.

In any event, the Sunnis themselves do not in practice regard all the Companions and Followers as worthy of respect. After all, those who killed 'Uthman were either from the Companions or from the Followers, and Khalid b. al-Walid killed Malik b. Nuwayrah, who was a Companion.

Among the Companions there were exalted personages who attained the utmost degree of faith, piety, and devotion, over whose hearts and souls God Almighty ruled; their whole beings resonated with purity and truthfulness. However, there were others in the corners of whose spirit still lurked the traces of Jahili customs and modes of thought; they remained attached to the customs of the past. There were even elements whose acceptance of Islam after the conquest of Makkah was based on the calculation of personal interest. However, the powerful influence and awe inspiring presence of the Prophet forced them to conceal their inner desires and inclinations, and it was only after his death that they were able to return to the habits and customs of the Jahiliyyah.

To approve undiscriminatingly the mode of conduct of all the Companions, to deny that any of them was guilty of evil deeds, and to assert that they were without exception persons of righteousness, is incompatible with the Sunnah of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family.

One cannot therefore seek salvation among the Migrants and the Helpers or claim that he may gain eternal felicity by means of attachment to either of these groups. The attainment of that goal depends on the maintenance of certain conditions until one departs through death's gate.

Sunni scholars nonetheless maintain that all the Companions of the Prophet were entitled to exercize independent judgement (ijtihad) and are thus to be excused for whatever errors they may have committed, or even rewarded for them. Whatever offense they may have committed is thus justified. The triumph of this mode of thought made it impossible for any objection to be raised and emboldened certain egoistic and ambitious people to commit any crime they desired people like Mu'awiyah Amr b. al-'As, Khalid b. al-Walid, al-Mughirah, Sa'id al-'As, and Busr b. Abi Artat. Matters reached a point that Mu'awiyah had the temerity to proclaim: “All property belongs to God, and I am the representative of God; I will therefore dispose of it in whatever way I see fit.” No one spoke out against him with the exception of Sa'sa'ah b. Suhan, one of the great figures of the Shi'ah; he refuted his claim.4

If to be numbered among the Companions of the Messenger of God was a guarantee of righteousness and salvation why did some of them even in his lifetime abandon their beliefs and join the ranks of the misguided, thereby earning condemnation and punishment by the Prophet?

Harqus. b. Zuhayr, the leader of the Kharijites at the battle of Nahrawan, was one of the Companions of the Messenger of God, and no one could imagine that toward the end of his life he would suddenly turn and fall prey to misguidance. Yet that is precisely what he did, a miserable ending that had been foreseen by the Prophet in these words: “He will abandon his religion just like an arrow drawn forth from the quiver.” Not only did he join the Kharijites; at the battle of Nahrawan he was the standard bearer in rebellion against 'Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be upon him, by whose hand he was ultimately killed.

Abdullah b. Jahsh was another Companion who left behind the light of Islam. When he migrated to Abyssinia, it might have been expected that like the other Muslims who sought refuge in that land he would remain firm and steadfast in his beliefs and the defense of God's religion. Soon, however, darkness overtook his heart; he abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity.

We conclude then that God's expression of satisfaction with the Companions was conditional on their remaining within the bounds of faith and piety and maintaining their link with God to the very end of their life. If they changed direction and went astray, all of their good deeds were voided, and God Almighty's satisfaction became transformed into anger and wrath. Not only was no unconditional guarantee of God's permanent pleasure not given to the Companions or the common believers of later generations; it was not given even to the Prophets or the Imams, despite their whole beings overflowing with virtue and blessings for mankind.

Notes

1. al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, “Kitab al-Fitan”.

2. Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. XV, p. 64.

3. al-Taftazani, Sharh al-Maqasid, p.46.

4. al-Mas'udi, Muruj al-Dhahab.

Lesson 9: The Formation of the Caliphate System at the Saqifah

The blessed and fruitful life of the Most Noble Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, each moment of which had been filled with resplendent deeds, had come to an end. The great founder of Islam, the soul of the world, the savior of mankind, had bid farewell to life and departed for the eternal realm. With his departure the link of revelation with this world was severed, and the heavenly manifestations of that blessed being, to describe which is beyond human power, faded away forever. May God's peace and blessings be upon him and his family.

His immaculate body had not yet been interred. 'Ali, peace be upon him, some members of the Bani Hashim, and a few Companions were busy washing and enshrouding the body in preparation for burial; they, and they alone, were fully preoccupied with the great blow that had descended and the urgent duty they had to perform.1

At the very same time, a group of the Helpers had convened a meeting at a pavilion nearby known as the Saqifah of the Bani Sa'idah in order to settle the matter of succession to the Prophet in conformity with their own wishes. 'Umar immediately sent a message to Abu Bakr, who at that time was in the house of the Prophet, telling him to join him immediately. Abu Bakr realized that something significant was about to happen, so he left the house and hurried together with 'Umar to the meeting place where the Helpers were meeting, being joined on the way by Abu 'Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah.2

Ahmad Amin, a well-known Sunni and Egyptian writer whose stance toward the Shi'ah is negative to the point of fanaticism, writes as follows:

“The Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, were at odds over the question of the succession. It was a sign of their unworthiness that they began arguing over it before the Prophet had even been buried. It was only 'Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be upon him, who did not behave in this fashion, busying himself instead with the washing, enshrouding and burial of the Prophet The foremost among the Companions were all intriguing over the succession; they had abandoned the body of the Prophet, and no one was present at the burial save 'Ali and his family, or showed any respect for the one who had guided them and brought them forth from the darkness of ignorance. They did not even wait for the burial to take place before they started fighting with each over his legacy.”3

Different groups were advancing arguments on their own behalf at the Saqifah. The Helpers claimed to be exceptionally privileged in that they had preceded others in Islam, had enjoyed the respect of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and had struggled hard for the sake of Islam; this, they claimed, entitled them to the leadership. They suggested that the reins of power be entrusted to Sa'd b. 'Ubadah, and had him brought to the Saqifah even though he was ill.

Similarly, the Migrants claimed that they were the most deserving of the leadership, given the fact that they were from the same city as the Prophet and had abandoned everything for the sake of Islam and the Prophet.

The logic of both groups derived from an essentially tribal spirit, for they were determined to obtain a monopoly on power for themselves, excluding their rivals and condemning them as less deserving.4

The discussions wore on and turned into a bitter dispute. The group headed by 'Umar supported the claims of Abu Bakr, urging everyone to grant him allegiance and threatening anyone who opposed him.

Abu Bakr then rose and began to expound the virtues of the Migrants and the services they had performed:

“The Migrants were the first group to embrace Islam. They despite the arduous circumstances they persevered and refused to abandon monotheism despite the pressures exerted on them by the polytheists. Naturally it should not be forgotten that you, O Helpers, also have rendered great service to Islam and that after the Companions you have primacy over all others.” He then added: “We must be the rulers (umara'), and you, our deputies (wuzara').”

Hubab b. al-Mundhir then rose and said: “O Helpers, you must seize the reins of power so firmly that none dare oppose you. If you permit disagreement among yourselves, you will be defeated, with the result that if we choose a leader for ourselves, they will also choose a leader for themselves.”

To this 'Umar responded: “There can never be two rulers in one realm. I swear by God that the Arabs will never agree to be ruled by you, for their Prophet was not from among you. Our argument is strong and clear: we are the Companions of the Messenger of God, so who can oppose us, other than those who choose the wrong path or wish to cast themselves into the whirlpool of perdition?”

Hubab b. al-Mundhir stood up again and said: “Pay no heed to what this man says. They want to usurp your rights and to deny you your claims. Take the reins of power into your own hands and banish your opponents, for you are the most worthy to rule. If anyone opposes my proposal, I will rub his nose in the dirt with my sword.” Thereupon 'Umar began to tussle with him and kicked him hard in the stomach.5

Bashir b. Sa'd, the cousin of Sa'd b. 'Ubadah rose to support what 'Umar had said. Addressing the Helpers, he proclaimed: “It is true that our record of fighting in God's way and spreading Islam is superior. However, we never had any aim other than God's pleasure and the satisfaction of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and it is therefore unfitting that we should boast of precedence over others, for we have no worldly goal. The Prophet was from among the Quraysh, and it is therefore appropriate that his heirs should also be from among them. Fear God, and do not oppose or argue with them.”

After a further series of discussions and arguments, Abu Bakr addressed the people as follows:

“Shun dispute and disunity. I desire nothing but your good and your welfare, It is best that you give your allegiance either to 'Umar or to Abu 'Ubaydah.”

To this, however, 'Umar countered: “You are more worthy of ruling than either of us, for you preceded us all in following the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. In addition to this, your financial resources are greater than those of the rest of us. You were at the side of the Prophet in the cave of Thawr and you led the prayers in his stead. Given all this, who could imagine himself more fitted than you to rule over us?”

As for Abd al-Rahman b. Awf, he expressed himself as follows: “O Helpers, you have indeed many virtuous qualities, which none can deny. We must nonetheless admit that there is none among you comparable to Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Ali.”

Mundhir b. al-Arqam supported his view: “No one can deny the virtues of those three, and there is in particular one among them whom none will oppose if he assumes the leadership of the Islamic community.” By this he meant 'Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be upon him, and a group of the Helpers accordingly began exclaiming in unison: “We will give our allegiance (bay'ah) to none but 'Ali.”6

'Umar recalls that this outcry caused him to fear the emergence of serious dissension. “So I told Abu Bakr to give me his hand for me to swear him allegiance.”7 Without delay Abu Bakr extended his hand. First Bashir b. Sa'd came forward and grasped his hand as a token of allegiance, and he was followed in this by 'Umar. Then the others rushed forward and gave Abu Bakr their allegiance.8 While this was proceeding an argument broke out between 'Umar and Sa'd b. 'Ubadah, with the result that Abu Bakr found it necessary to instruct 'Umar to calm himself. Sa'd told his friends to remove him from the scene, so they carried him home on their shoulders.9

The crowd that had given allegiance to Abu Bakr accompanied him to the mosque so that others might also pledge him their allegiance. 'Ali, peace be upon him, and Abbas were still engaged in washing the body of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, when they heard cries of Allahu akbar coming from the mosque. 'Ali asked: “What is this uproar?” Abbas replied: “Something quite unprecedented,” and then added, looking at 'Ali, “Did I not tell you that this would happen?”10

Abu Bakr mounted the Prophet's pulpit and continued receiving the allegiance of the people until nightfall, without paying any attention to the task of preparing the body of the Prophet for burial. This process continued the following day, and it was not until Tuesday, one day after the death of the Prophet and the pledging of allegiance to Abu Bakr, that the people went to the house of the Prophet to perform the funerary prayers.11 “Neither Abu Bakr nor 'Umar participated in the burial of the Prophet.”12

Zubayr b. Bakkar writes: “After the pledging of allegiance to Abu Bakr was all over, a large number of the Helpers regretted what they had done and began blaming each other and mentioning the claims of 'Ali.”13

The celebrated historian al-Mas'udi writes: “After the events at the Saqifah, 'Ali told Abu Bakr, “You have trampled on my rights, refused to consult with me, and ignored my claims.” Abu Bakr's only answer was to say, “Yes, but I was fearful of chaos and disorde14

The meeting that took place at the Saqifah was not attended by such prominent personalities as 'Ali, peace be upon him, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, Salman, Talhah, al-Zubayr, 'Ubayy b. Ka'b, and Hudhayfah, and only three of the Migrants were present.

Should not all the principal Muslims have been invited to express their views on what was to be done? Was a brief and disorderly meeting, attended by only three of the Migrants, enough to decide on a question on which the future destinies of Islam depended? Did not the gravity of the issue necessitate that it be put before a gathering of the leading Muslims for a final decision to be reached in accordance with their freely expressed views?

What right had those who considered themselves entitled to make a decision have to deprive others of the same opportunity and to disregard them completely? If a certain group citing public opinion as its justification choose a leader or ruler for their society, but does so out of the sight of thoughtful and respected individuals, does their choice truly reflect the wishes of the people? When Sa'd b. 'Ubadah refused to pledge his allegiance, was it necessary to issue an order for his execution?15

Historians record that when some of the Bani Hashim as well as the Migrants and the Helpers refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, they took refuge in the house of Fatimah in order to swear allegiance to 'Ali.16 A crowd then attacked the house and even entered it in order to disperse the dissidents and if possible, compel their allegiance to Abu Bakr.17

The election of Abu Bakr was so unexpected, hasty and careless that 'Umar remarked later: “It was an accident that Abu Bakr became leader. No consultation or exchange of views took place. If anyone in future invites you to do the same again, kill him.”18

In addition to this, the fact that the first caliph designated his own successor itself demonstrates that the notion of a consultative government having come into being after the death of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, is entirely baseless. The Prophet issued no directive for such a government to be established; if he had, different groups of people would not have proposed to the first caliph that he designate his own successor to prevent the chaos and disorder that would have engulfed Muslim society because of the lack of a leader.19

The caliph responded to this request of the people by saying that if Abu 'Ubaydah were alive, he would have appointed him, for the Prophet had called him “the trustee of the ummah.” Likewise, if Salim the client of Abu Hudhayfah had been alive, he too would have been worthy of the leadership, because he had heard the Prophet describing him as “the friend of God.”20

Considering the measures taken by Abu Bakr, how can anyone say that the Messenger of God did not choose a successor before he died?

Likewise, the selection of a successor to 'Umar by a committee he himself appointed was in conformity neither with divine precept nor with the principle of consulting public opinion. If the caliph is meant to appoint his own successor, why turn the matter over to a six-man committee? If, on the other hand, the choice of leader is a prerogative of the people, why did 'Umar deprive people of this right and assign it exclusively to a committee of his own choosing? He also acted restrictively in that he spoke of certain members of the committee in terms that completely disqualified them for the caliphate.

When the Qur'an expounds the principle of consultation, it orders the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, to consult the people in matters affecting them. (3:159) It proclaims, on another occasion: “The affairs of the believers are to be settled by means of consultation.” (42:38) What is at issue is consultation concerning social matters, matters that affect the people, not the Imamate which is a divine covenant. Something that is a divine covenant and pertains to the guidance of mankind cannot be a subject for consultation.

The adoption of the caliphal system in the fashion we have described led necessarily to the exclusion of the Imams from the realm of rule and leadership.

Notes

1. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. V, p.260; al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 94; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. IV, p. 104; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 451; Ibn al-Athir, Usud al-Ghabah, Vol. I, p.34; Ibn 'Abd Rabbih, al-'Iqd al-Farid, Vol. 111, p.61.

2. al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 456

3. Yawm al-Islam, quoted in al-Amini in A'yan al-Shi'ah, (Persian translation), Vol. 1, p.262.

4. al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. V, p.31; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, Vol. III, p. 3.

5. Ibn Abi '1-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. VI, p. 391.

6. al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 103; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. III, p. 108.

7. Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV, p.336; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. V, p.246.

8. Ibn Qutaybah, al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, Vol. II, p. 9.

9. al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, pp. 455-59.

10. Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. I, p. 133; Ibn Abd Rabbih, al-'Iqd al-Farid, Vol. III, p. 63.

11. Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV, p. 343; al-Muhibb al-Tabari, Riyad al-Nadirah, Vol. I, p. 164.

12. al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-'Ummal, Vol. III, p. 140.

13. Ibn Bakkar, al-Muwaffaqiyat, p. 583.

14. al-Mas'udi, Muruj al-Dhahab, Vol. I, p. 441; Ibn Qutaybah, al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, Vol. I, pp. 12-14.

15. al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 124; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. IV, p.843.

16. Abu al-Fida', al-Tarikh, Vol. I, p. 156; al-Diyar Bakri, Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol. I, p. 188; Ibn Abd Rabbih, al-'Iqd al-Farid, Vol. III, p. 63; al-Muhibb al-Tabari, Riyad al-Nadirah, Vol. I, p. 167. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. I, pp. 130-34;

17. al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 105; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, pp. 443-46; al-Muhibb al-Tabari, Riyad al-Nadirah, p. 167. al-Diyar Bakri Tarikh, al-Khamis, Vol. I, p. 188; al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-'Ummal, Vol. III, p. 128; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, Sharh ., Vol. I, pp. 122, 132-34.

18. Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV, p.308.

19. Ibn Qutaybah, al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, p. 19.

20. al-Tabari, Tarikh; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil.