[1] Shia school stands for the same teachings of Quran and Prophet’s progeny. It does necessarily include all the views of Shia thinkers. achievement is yet unsettled, to enter into another theory; that is activities of revivalism, seems out of place and to no end. In this criticism and analysis, the standard of truth is the wholesome and absolute application of thoughts without least leniency or a bent towards Shiaism or beliefs contained therein though this school is absolute truth. The smallest slip or an overlook in application of thoughts of unity with fundamentals of Ja’fari Shiaism of twelve Imams has brought forward the ground that renders short the standard of originality and sincerity. This has further rendered the thought irreligious and without backing of Islam. No saying goes if there had been any deliberate amendment or departure from the basis of this school. Although we have great respect for those who possess opinion and have moral duty towards critics and analysts, we never give sanction to ourselves to overlook truth or ignore the right being trespassed. In no condition and in no case we shall fall short. We have no right to do so. It does not serve as a platform to reach agreements thereupon for the sake of our or others’ interests. The absolute truth belongs to Ahle Bayt of Prophet. It is found in their persons and rests with them. Therefore if we entertain any kind of thought or conjecture in the name of religion, which is not in accordance with this school, it is as though we have trampled truth and rightfulness, which is their concern and tribute, belonging to them alone. Shias are after originality and sincerity of thought when they confront Muslim revivalism. They are also after the ability or strength in this regard. They believe if they sacrifice one for the sake of other, it will certainly result in shortage. One will lack the other. It will be an incomplete and unconsummated thought. In other words, we are taking refuge in an irreligious conjecture. Ability or strength alone is not the concern of Shias. Sincerity in religious intention too is necessary. The excessive desire, on the part of newcomers to this thought, to exhibit strength could spoil sincerity and diminish its originality. Likewise, to create strength they might commit some additions to religion, which the true Islam is pure and purged of. As such, the brushstrokes they would apply could reduce elegance of real Islam or effect unwanted and undesired additions thereon making ugly the beautiful. Wrong feeding in a long run will result in the school losing its very entity. Such will be the consequence of revivalism taking to itself the twists and turns of deviation of belief. Creating ability without sincerity and pristine originality shall result into a constant fear – not only in issue of Islamic unity but throughout the varieties of revivalism. The output of revivalists must be a faith. Under pretext of revivalism, faith or religion should not be substituted by some other thought or conjecture. First and foremost, sincerity and originality must be safeguarded in revivalism. Therefore the basic difficulty in confronting any type of revivalist thought is the religion to support these thoughts. Without purity and originality there will be confusion. This will be the case with all aspects of revivalism beyond Islamic unity. To what extent these outlooks have been able to protect the real pillars of religion, remains to be seen. Further, originality of religion must be in association with it so that Shias could take it in account of religious values and call it Religious Thought. Contemporary revivalists have taken great steps from the position of strength. The originality and purity of religious thought remains uncertain. There are great many questions, which still need to be answered reasonably. Islamic unity too is not exempted from this rule.

p: 4

Through discussion on Imamate we can gain following things: “Difference of beliefs can be repudiated. Muslims can know one another. And unity, which is fatal to enemy, can be achieved.”[17] “To mend these defects it is necessary that Muslim people from Shia and Sunni community should come forward to form associations and programs where debates, discussions and teaching should take place. The light of Islam and Quran should be projected into depths of Muslim entity. We must know that Imamate is an important and fundamental issue. Muslims must discuss this subject since it is a cornerstone; because leadership is one of the pillars in Islam.”[18] “If Muslims are acquainted with real and original face of Islam, all sects will come closer to one another – resulting in unity. Such a unity that comes into being on the basis of knowledge and learning shall be powerful and lasting. This unity can withstand foreign influences. Knowledge can be attained through classes and debating societies.”[19] Ustad Ja’far Subhani in his analysis about the root of this type of tendency writes: “Sometimes it is seen that simple-minded youths have a misunderstanding concerning unity which serves a good pretext in their hands. They try to criticize the truth-seekers. Their claim is that discussion about Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and Ali as to whose right it was, neither has a need nor is it fruitful…”[20] Those who harbor such opinion have neglected the bright consequences of this discussion, and therefore they think that it is useless and a hurdle for Islamic unity. But in our opinion it is nothing but ignorance about philosophy of recognizing the Imam. It has no other root except in ‘Sunni obduracy’ or ‘Wahabi tendency’. This objection can bear meaning only in the event our belief about Imamate or Caliphate in Islam is same as that of Sunni scholars. In other words, to consider it a worldly office or position when its function will be to guard Islamic frontiers and strengthen defenses. However from Shia viewpoint Imamate is constancy of Message and continuation of divine bounty through the Prophet. Therefore the discussion becomes not only necessary but obligatory about duties of Imam and it cannot be briefed in the foregone ones. He should expound and explain important divine regulations, the prohibited, the sanctioned; besides giving explanatory notes on Quranic data. Imam is the only source and oracle immediately after passing away of Prophet… Here we see that intellectual succession of Prophet is something that demands a thorough discussion because the relative issue is alive and it takes to itself importance of utmost nature. It must be clarified that the Imam is Ummah’s leader in knowledge, principles, divine commandments and its branches. Such a station and position as that of Imam if not completely understood, will yield no required or desired result. …So much so if we[21] set aside the issue of Caliphate and overlook issue of leadership after the Prophet that goes to an infallible person; the issue that remains worth arguing is that of religion. Authority as to who it is or who must it be in matters of faith or religion after the Prophet’s passing away. This matter has an immediate bearing on prosperity and future of Muslims as a whole.”[22] The Ustad proceeds: “There are some groups among extremists who aspire very much to establish a united government all over Islamic territories. They have prohibited any speech or discourse over issues of difference. They consider it as the cause of difference. They have even gone farther because they treat it as a factor that takes us backwards to the ages of battles of Ottoman Caliphs and Sultans of Iran.[23] We must point out to this group that the matter is not as hot as they consider. There are debates and discussions – one differs with other. There are discussions, which open the way to see facts. Such discussions are far from blind bigotry. They depend only on documents, which both parties consider authentic. Through such discussions alone is possible to illuminate the dark spots in Islam concerning belief, traditions and jurisprudence, etc. Does Quran not itself invite towards contemplation and consideration on its verses? Groups that have prohibited discussion of issues (having differences) regard the writers of such matters as provokers and instigators. They must know as to what would be the consequences of such a theory of theirs. A great part of Quran, the Prophet’s traditions and Islamic history will vanish little by little into forgetfulness. No one will recall the events nor will lift the veil to see what has happened. Therefore matters of great importance will thus be missed and lost. How much better it would be if we dwell upon reformation instead of prohibiting this and that or assassination of thought. The writers should be reminded of existing chaos of Muslims. They should perform their job towards betterment of their position with utmost impartiality and neutrality. They should take care not to hurt feelings of others while they write on any of these critical issues. They should know that their writings will be judged on the Day of Judgment and it will constitute a part of the record of their deeds. Briefly: Issues of belief that form the foundation of thought in every religion carry two views, which should be explained: 1- Unity cannot last long without knowing the branch matters or issues of difference. Unity founded on blind bigotry and without knowledge of branches will be feeble and shaky and of short duration. 2 – Our sons should be acquainted with this school by learning and reason because we are sure of the truth of this school – They must refrain from imitation in matters of belief. However it becomes necessary that these issues must be studied and taught. It is obligatory that our school must be transferred to our successors. Otherwise all will go by the winds and in days to come nothing will remain. Every type of argument if handled with the method mentioned in foregone pages it will neither be harmful nor create differences. Rather it will be good and useful for unity. If scholars of each sect explain these difference-bearing issues openly, honestly, and without any cheating, most accusations, misconceptions and misunderstandings will fade away. Only truth will remain as it is. …We have witnessed in our life that any book if written through conscience and based on truth and Quran without any trick or malicious motive; has served in bringing two opposite groups closer. And the tree of integration has borne fruits at the earliest. …Such a book has never produced any difference.[24] It is remarkable to point out here that the work so far done in this respect is the effect of the cause. It is towards defending truth, logic and the reason of Shia sect about its belief, principles and branches of its regulations. If pretext of Islamic unity goes as far as overrunning Shia school then no truth, no reality would have survived. Nor honor and prestige remained for Shia. The argument based on reason and sense with correct Islamic outlook, purged of bigotry and foul language cannot be objected or blamed. It brings closer the two disparate groups.”[25] Therefore any discussion or argument cannot be restricted by some or other pretext or a superfluous excuse. Islamic unity generally has become an excuse only. Allamah Askari writes about this in his article: “If in the past writing the sayings of the Prophet were prohibited under excuse of remembering Quran by heart. Today also the same is repeated under pretext of protecting Islamic unity. They want to close the door of learning and research. The policy is the same. However religion demands keeping the door of learning and research open. Don’t argue! How strange it is! How dreadful and dangerous this sentence is. See the hurt and harm hidden therein. Is it not tantamount to say: Don’t go after knowledge? Do not speak about the conduct of the Prophet. In other words, do not learn these sciences. It is harmful what they are saying under pretext of religion that one should not hold any discussions! Why at all should we give up argumentation and research? For the sake of Islamic unity? Whether all these differences among Muslims, in opinions, thoughts, religious commandments, will subside by just giving up argumentation? How should a discussion be given up when so many made-up traditions and altered history exists? In the face of so many controversies in Islamic belief, Prophet’s behavior, commandments of Quran and Islamic history that exist, argument should be set aside or it is the need of the day? The fact is that arguments have become a persisting essentiality to invite debate or to publish reality for public scrutiny. After Infallible Imams, our (Shia) scholars have followed this path. They have sacrificed their life. They put themselves to danger and risk. However they did not give up disseminating true Islamic knowledge.”[26]

p: 10

“The fact is that schools are having common principles.”![2] “Islamic sects are common in jurisprudence, principle, speech, conduct, tradition and Islamic culture.”![3] “Principle and approximately total absolute beliefs are common and final among schools. The branch issues mostly are causes of difference because each aims at a particular view.”![4] “…followers of schools since the second century have a record. They have jurisprudence and speech. They are bound to a divine legislation. They do not differ from one another as far as principle is concerned. They differ only in branch issues.”![5] “We Muslims also have the same story. All have one God, one Prophet, one Book and one prayer direction. Other mandates such as prayers, fasting, Hajj and so forth run the same in all sects. Since we have no knowledge of others we become the butt of wrong allegations about one another.”![6] “One thousand three hundred and ninety odd years have elapsed since the initial call of Islam. Six hundred and fifty million Muslims exist among three milliard people over this globe. Although elements of difference in belief have separated them from one another, yet we do not see any basic difference in faith or religion among them. A Chinese Muslim, an Indonesian one, or a Muslim from Tatar or an Arab or an Irani – all are together under a belt of one faith and one religion.”![7] “If Sunnis get acquainted with their Shia brothers and likewise Shias with their Sunni brothers, it will dawn upon them that the difference between them is not a basic one. The conjecture that exists in one’s mentality regarding the other is nothing but a product of false assumptions.”![8] “Islamic legislation is not a product of any fanciful imagination. It stands on a fixed principle. There does not exist any Muslim from any sect of Islam who might differ with another Muslim. If there is a difference, it is in the branch of the principle not in the very principle itself…”![9] “Those who are in agreement with regard to God, religion, Prophet, prayer direction and Quran, which are foundation stones of faith, must be mindful of principle that is the pillar of their own faith. They should regard it as an unshakable factor of unity, solidarity and integration.”![10] Dissemination of such foul and fake thoughts in the first place will harm and hit the body of Shiaism and the base of its belief. Consequently, the original and real face of this school will fade into oblivion. In this way the monopoly of guidance that lies in following Ahle Bayt of infallibility and purity (a.s.) will be defeated and the most important pillar of Shia school will be demolished. Today we ignore Imamate of Infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet while we dwell on belief of two schools. This we do to protect or seek unity. It is quite clear where we will end. The propagation of such thoughts will carry us to an undesired and unwanted wilderness.[11] As for Imamate and its position in Islam, we would like to dwell upon it since it has been criticized. We refer here to views of scholars who themselves are fast pro-Islamic unity in its true sense. One will realize, after a scrutiny of this analysis, that Imamate is a great difference between two schools. This difference has become a cause for differences in all discussions of belief entailing there to difference between teachings of two schools.

p: 17

A school that believes in Imamate of Prophet’s Ahle Bayt will naturally grasp all elements and factors of belief and its data or literature from them – the infallible one. Similarly a school which has no belief in their Imamate has nothing to do with them. To gain Islamic information the school will refer to sources other than them. Difference in belief in Imamate itself can be like a lighthouse that guides the way in dreadful oceans. In all subjects such as conduct, jurisprudence and belief between the School of Caliphs and that of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) through the scale of Imamate, truth and facts can well be sketched.

O, People! Whatever religious issues you want to know, when I am no more, you ask my successor and successors. As a matter of fact, here Imamate becomes something like an expertise of Islam. Expertise from the divine side; and the Imams means those who know Islam and are experts therein. In other words, they are persons who have attained all sciences of Islam from the Prophet. The method they learnt from the Prophet is so concealed, unseen and a secret one that it is unknown to us. Islamic knowledge was first transferred from the Prophet to Ali. And from Ali it sought the bosoms of subsequent Imams one after the other. As such in all periods of the Imams, Islamic knowledge or source was one and the same – infallible, without any deviation or error.”[5] “In Imamate in the first place is the issue of succession to the Prophet.[6] This naturally entails the office of explanation of faith or religion excluding revelation. It was the person of the Prophet to whom revelation used to descend. Message and revelation ended after Prophet’s passing away. The content or gist of Imamate runs thus: Divine instructions or teachings are such that none can insert therein his personal opinion nor can he build up on his own taste. These instructions and teachings were vested in the person of the Prophet. People were convinced that whatever of religious problems they ask; the answer is true as they used to receive from the Prophet. They knew that the answer was not based on personal opinion of the Prophet. Therefore there was not at all possibility of any error or mistake. Therefore the teachings remain the same without any change, addition or reduction. It never happened that the instructions might have been amended or corrected on the next day because the previous day the Prophet had forgotten to tell something or told erroneously. Indeed we do not say such a thing about the person of the Prophet. We told this by way of explanation. The Prophet passed away. The question that arises is: Whether after the Prophet there existed a person like him to perform the office of absolute point of reference to comment, explain and expound divine religious commandments? Indeed, there did exist one to take over this office and perform the duty the Prophet used to discharge. But there is only one difference. What the Prophet conveyed and expounded, his source was Divine Revelation. And when the Imam or Imams discharged the same job, their source was the Prophet himself. The the Prophet. The Prophet taught them. How the Prophet did so we cannot understand. A glimpse of it appears in the words of Imam Ali (a.s.) when he says: ‘The Prophet opened a door of knowledge to me. At the opening of that door one thousand doors got opened.’ We cannot explain how the Prophet received knowledge from God nor can we understand the type of spiritual relation between Prophet and Ali. The Prophet taught the facts only to Ali and not to others.”[7] “Islam is a wholesome, consummate and magnificent religion and Imamate is its spirit. How can we say whether it reaches the extent Quran narrates about its principle and perfection? Or to the extent of the Prophet’s words while explaining it and which the Sunnis too have referred? Whatever was Islam, whether is it the same? Indeed, the call of Islam was completed to the Prophet. However the question is whether Islam was wholly conveyed? Is there not such a probability that Islam might have descended after the Prophet? As such, there could be many issues, which were not told because of lack of need or lack of demand of time. They might have been held in reserve to be told at a proper time. Therefore the stock of such issues could have been in the custody of knowledge of Ali. And Ali should have been supposed to convey to the masses.”[8] “The Sunni sect does not acknowledge such a position to any. They do not accept such a type of Imamate at all nor do they accept existence of Imam. It is not such that they refuse Ali as an Imam and accept Abu Bakr instead. No. They do not accept the office of Imam. Sunnis refuse such a status to all – Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and other companions of Prophet. The theme of the argument runs in this sense that revelation descended on the person of the Prophet only and nobody else. We too do not say that revelation descended on Imams. It was the Prophet who conveyed Islam to humanity. God told the Prophet what He wanted to be told of Islam. There is nothing either partly or little or more that remains untold. Sunnis further go to say that whatever the Prophet said, constitutes Islam. There are issues about which the Prophet has not spoken even to his companions. About such issues, they (Sunnis) are confused and entangled in a puzzle. A thing not spoken is a quandary to them. They depend on Prophet was based on revelation and the Imams, on precedent. They judge or decide upon comparing a similar case if it occurred in the past. Imam Ali (a.s.) has criticized this practice of comparison. In Nahjul Balagha, he says that such a practice means that God has sent an incomplete religion that you have to substitute by the system of comparison. Shia logic is: Whatever God revealed to the Prophet was full and complete. He did not keep anything short. The Prophet too conveyed the same in the same measure to the people. He too did not keep anything less or short. Besides delivering the message to the people he told all the commandments and instructions to his special pupil and enjoined him to convey it to the people.”[9] “It is here that we differentiate the duty of Shias and Sunnis in matter of explaining and understanding religion.”[10] In accordance with this fundamental Shia belief in Imamate, Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi has written: “We differ with them in all things – in principle of religion and in its branches as well, that is right from monotheism down to the branches. In two issues we have a deep and salient difference with Sunni sect. One runs in principles of religion and the other in its branches. As far as principles of faith are concerned our difference is in Imamate, which is a fundamental item to us. We believe that Imamate holds in its fold foundation of all religious recognition and information. Therefore the difference with Sunni sect is that of sky from earth. We deem that belief in monotheism, prophethood and Day of Judgment will be of no avail if there is no belief in Imamate. In other words, Imamate is a pillar and foundation of religion. If this item be deleted, our faith will be incomplete and our religious bases will be in want and will result in no good to us. Without Imamate, branches of faith will be wrong and principles will be of no worth; neither will its recognition be of any value.”[11]

p: 20

“Sunnis claim that Imamate has no role in faith; and that Ali too had no part in religious issues. Faith consists of monotheism, prophethood and Resurrection day. This is what the Prophet introduced to humankind. Finally, the matters are vested to the Ummah. The aspect of government is upto the Ummah to decide or to handle as deems fit. They consider Imamate as rulership and social leadership, which the people themselves can manage or run. Thus Ali has no role in Faith. This belief stands quite opposite to our point of belief. We say that Ali has the real and main role in Faith. The message of prophethood depends on Ali’s Imamate. Had there not been Imamate of Ali, the message would not have progressed. As such, distance between them and us is to the extent of the sky from the earth. We say that without Ali, Islam would be no more. They say Islam exists without Ali also. What is a shell to its kernel such is the relation of Ali with Islam. Islam loses its spirit if there not be Ali. But they say the opposite; that is Islam exists with its spirit without Ali. So the gulf between us and them is too wide and large.”[12] Even though for the sake of creating unity it may be claimed: “To know the Imam is not a subject but it is an adherence. It is the way to get acquainted with religious commandments. It is not like belief in God and resurrection so as to be subjective.”[13]

p: 21

[12] Ibid. Pgs. 12-13

[13] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pg. 176

religions concurrence that has resulted in a standard to distinguish the principles and decide its absoluteness? What is a reason or a proof for it?!!] Now according to faith one who gives testimony of God being one (i.e. monotheism) and prophethood, is a Muslim. And he is obliged to obey the commandments of Islam and enjoy the rights thereby. As such, there is no need for a Muslim to know followers of all Islamic faiths and to claim wrongly: “Justice and Imamate are principles of faith not principles of religion. Why they say so? Because Shias considers them Muslims who do not believe in this issue. Yes, they are Muslims though they may not believe in the said issue.”[17] Because to consider followers of other Islamic sects Muslims has a root in fundamentals of other than Ja’fari (Shia) jurisprudence.

[8] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat,, Pg. 26

[9] [Religious acts (Laws)]

[10] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Essay quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 210

[11] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 235

[Of course, this question remains unanswered: How agreement among Muslims equals religions concurrence that has resulted in a standard to distinguish the principles and decide its absoluteness? What is a reason or a proof for it?!!]

[12] Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 228

[This claim includes all matters of belief in which there are differences in side and common principles.]

[13] We shall deal in the following pages about the claim that the Ummah is excused in Usool (beliefs) and Furu (Laws).

[14] Regarding the difference between Islam and (Imaan) Faith, please refer to the book, Marefat-e-Imam-e-Asr (a.t.f.s.), (Knowing the Imam of the Age) by Dr. Bani Hashimi.

[15] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 207-208

[16] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issue 9 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 13

[17] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 155

[2] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 2, Pg. 205 quoted from Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami, Pg. 46

Every Muslim while discharging his religious conduct in accordance with his belief in faith will see himself at a crossroad, taken by his jurisprudence and that is be excused or attain a reward. “Religion itself has suggested that jurisprudents in such cases must proceed according to their personal conclusions. Difference that occurs therefrom is already acknowledged. A jurisprudent who derives God’s commandment by his own correct conclusion will have two wages. If a jurisprudent happens to make a mistake in his conclusion he will be eligible for only one wage.”![4] As though religion has not drawn any framework or formula for jurisprudents’ conclusions.[5] Therefore in every case a view of an individual is respected and valid. It cannot be viewed as real difference. It is enough for one to be sincere in jurisprudence. He will be a subject to the formula. It does not make a difference what method he chooses or which source he refers to. In any case, his judgments or conclusions should not be influenced by personal inclinations or selfish motives. This base embraces all Islamic sects, particularly Sunni sect. It is said: “If the difference originates purely from thought and variety of conclusions not influenced by political motives, self lust, arrogance or self centeredness, religion tolerates such a difference. This is the principle much desired and favorable on tongues of Muslim clerics whether Sunnis or Shias. It is said that a successful jurisprudent has two wages from God. On the other hand a jurisprudent not reached to reality will have only one wage. As such, both categories will be paid. Religion does not reject difference thereby and reasons such as political, self-interests, transgression into others’ rights so on. Individuals might not have attained due results. But their sincerity in pursuit of truth and earnestness of efforts towards comprehension of faith is enough to gain a desirable position to them.”![6] As can be seen the only thing in this viewpoint is that attention is not paid to fundamentals and fixed standards of jurisprudence. Sources of information are also of utmost importance. As for validity and authenticity of sources, it is already prescribed by religious regulations. Therefore the formula of exception (i.e. being excused) and wages or reward has bearing only on one who exercises and acts within framework of divine religion. A jurisprudent must derive his conclusions from traditions of trustworthy and reputed sources. In other words, traditions narrated by weak sources, such as Ayesha or Abu Huraira do not bear any weight against renowned sources. As we said if one acts on feeble base he cannot be liable to exception or excuse and wage or reward. Consequence of such policy could be seen in the words of Ibne Hazm touching the standards of deriving conclusions in jurisprudence. Ibne Hazm was a scholar of School of Caliphate. He has commented about Muawiyah and Amr Aas: “These two climbed to make out things for themselves at the ladder of jurisprudence as far as the issue of bloodshed goes. They acted after the method of those who issue decrees in domain of jurisprudence. For instance, one allows killing a magician while the other prohibits it. Then what is the difference between jurisprudence of Muawiyah and Amr Aas and others? It is nothing but ignorance, blindness of sight and heart, lack of information and a wrong argument.”![7] In view of unity-seekers they propose to make them live in brotherhood. Each one must let his brother live in freedom with regard to his opinion and outlook. This wrong standard or base that a jurisprudent enjoys excuse or exception and wages or rewards opens the way for all sects of Islam to differ from each other and also enjoy a reward, or wage and right to be at excuse according to occasion under umbrella of jurisprudence. In fact, no attention is paid to conditions prescribed by Islam to qualify a jurisprudent. So under such a chaos how all sects will be at home with each other? It is thus said: “The difference among faiths of Islam mostly is attributed to difference among jurisprudents.”![8] “It is jurisprudence that has been the reason for appearance of sects in Islam. In the beginning, the difference among Muslims was based on political ground only. Later, ultimately and gradually it took to itself a trend and a tincture of faith which continues to this day. In fact, jurisprudence was originator of differences. We come across this fact in history of faith that a new faith has come into being by a cleric as he acted upon conclusion he reached in his jurisprudence. His followers too followed him. In the first half of second century when faiths took shape, each one according to his belief concluded something from his jurisprudence. Then he demonstrated his opinion to others. And others too followed his track. This is a reality. We must admit the facts. In the beginning each faith rested on proof and opinion concluded by jurisprudents. This is fundamental. We should argue thereon accordingly. I do not say that their knowledge was correct and coherent with facts. When we say jurisprudence, it does not mean that the grasp or conclusion of jurisprudents has been correct and crisp. A jurisprudent sometimes is also liable to mistakes. But on the ground of jurisprudence he enjoys excuse and is absolved. So in the background of each faith there is care, attention, a kind of grasping and concluding of opinions.”![9] “The subject that faiths among Sunni sect has sprung on basis of jurisprudents’ conclusion of opinion needs to be dwelled extensively.”![10] Consequently: “With regard to branches of Islam[11] all can debate and argue therein without preferring a faith over another. The door of jurisprudence is open for all. They can make a choice of a proper one among several opinions. As every faith has support of proof, we must respect it. If it is found reasonable, one should acknowledge it without a grudge.”![12] On the basis of majority thought, it is befitting and desirable that a jurisprudent must refrain from voicing his opinion if that happens to cause a rift in the Ummah or its affairs. He should pay attention to the interests of Ummah and safeguard unity. Although his opinion might be right; yet, the wider interests[13] (although erroneous) should be overlooked. His right belief and view must be set aside due to the reason of its being single while the majority (though wrong) must be respected. Any ground that could cause division among Muslims must be waived off.

p: 35

It is said thus: “One of the greatest virtues of Imam Ali (a.s.) is holy war against his opinion and feelings at the time of difference. All Muslims must follow him in similar cases as he is a model. The greatest of the holy wars he performed was immediately after the demise of the Prophet. He could have fought to regain his right. He could have created parties or groups in this regard. He could have withdrawn himself from Muslim gatherings. But he did not do any of those things. He pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. He thus rescued and saved Muslims from divisions. He kept his own opinion and right apart from the scene. He kept common interest above his own. He is a model in this respect for all leaders to be followed...”![14] It could be concluded from what preceded that unity-seekers think that if personal opinion of followers of schools could be known, it will help in preserving unity. No matter if their opinion be wrong, since opinion springs from jurisprudence, adversaries could be maintained! We witness endeavors towards lifting and waiving aside differences in belief and in religious legislation among sects of Islam, though it is based on a wrong foundation. Some examples are: “Whether a Sunni, whatever, acts thinking it correct, has he any wages and excuses with God; though his performance could be against true divine command? Our answer to this question is positive.”![15] “All sects of Islam are bound into one Ummah. They all are liable to enjoy excuse and a wage with God because of the difference being a jurisprudential one.”![16] “Discussions of belief and worldly differences in branches originate from principles. And they do not differ from dispute of jurisprudence in

p: 36

practical side and rules of worship acts. Such different viewpoints will never end in enmity, row and quarrel. But it is similar to a difference between two experts and specialists in sciences and arts etc.”![17] “Difference between Shia and Sunni is difference between two jurisprudents of one faith in their conclusions in deriving a command.”![18] “Contradictory discussions are not divine descended revelations. They are all from category of jurisprudents conclusions.”![19] “Muslims should not show any sensitiveness against beliefs relating to adversaries. Each Muslim should know that others too are human beings like him. They too think and meditate as he does. They too are free in their choice of religion. As he regards his faith right and true according to reasons and proofs he argues, he too believes his faith correct and true. He too has his own reasoning and arguments.”![20] “We, in this secondary matter[21] must take it for granted that some or other issue we understand is in a form particular to us. Likewise, others too understand issues in a manner of their own. Furthermore, it is quite likely that they could be right.”![22] “Shia might be at this belief in his heart that a Sunni could be dear to God and even liable to wages for his actions according to his own jurisprudence.”![23] As it could be noted from foregone quotations, differences first sprung from jurisprudence issues; then extended to arguments of belief taking support from principles of deriving conclusions in the domain of jurisprudence. It further gained ground that a jurisprudent has benefit of excuse and wages as well from God in his efforts to derive truth. In the meantime, real standards for reaching truth by means of jurisprudence fixed by Islam are ignored and conditions framed by faith for jurisprudence are yet to be distinguished. It is pitiable that differences between Shia and Sunni are reflected as though they exist only in matters of belief and regulations having bearing on outcome of personal conclusions of jurisprudents. Further, the ways of jurisprudence in both sects are correct and are justified. But in fact, it is not so as we shall point out in the course of discussion. “There is a basic difference in Shia and Sunni jurisprudence.” Therefore it is wrong reasoning that a jurisprudent has benefit of excuse and wage from God in his intellectual efforts. A jurisprudent’s effort must be based on a correct principle prescribed by faith, which is to follow School of Infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet. It is mentioned in Mutawatir (widely narrated) traditions. True and correct jurisprudence can only be attained by following the way shown by Ahle Bayt of Prophet. Therefore every mental assumption or following a conjecture cannot be called jurisprudence. Likewise, the terms ‘excuse’ and ‘wage’ cannot be justified to give a religious covering to personal made-up conclusions for personal gains. Before we could pass any judgment, let us first sketch a clear picture of principles and fundamentals of jurisprudence in Shia and Sunni schools.

p: 37

(Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issue 9 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 12

[22] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issue 9 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 24

[23] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat, Pg. 168

The evidence for this type of Ijtihaad in the early days of Islam is as quoted here: When Ibne Abbas was asked any question and if that existed in Quran, he used to answer accordingly. Or if the Prophet told anything in that concern he answered too. If not, he gave his own opinion. This served a ground for Sunni sect. Their jurisprudence books abound with such opinions, which have no worth in Shia view and all are taken from this source.”[9] “They depend on these invalid and inauthentic bases. Therefore Islamic jurisprudence took to itself a shape of school and that too into several ones in past centuries. Then, schools were formed and Imams were erected so plenty that Sunni scholars saw rescue only in shutting down Ijtihaad upon themselves. By so doing, they confined religion into four faiths.”[10] “These events reflect that Islamic legislation did not attain its goal in Prophet’s time. Such a ground necessitates legislation to chase the errand by some other way and extend the office of prophethood. No one can occupy this office unless he is like the Prophet in all respects and possesses extensive knowledge; he must be Infallible and able to expound divine commandments to the masses. A man of such qualifications alone can attain such a great goal. Where is such a man? Who is such a man? The Ummah can neither spot nor find one for itself. God alone can introduce such a man to the people. God alone can appoint one because the office is divine and the choice too is His.”[11] Now the question that arises is: Inspite of introductions that took place from day one right up to Ghadeer Khumm, in between this span such an introduction has taken place several times, whether there remains any excuse? Does there exist any hurdle to justify their act in turning away from Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.)? Is their attitude justifiable in not believing in Imamate and Wilayat of Infallible Ahle Bayt?[12]

p: 40

It is natural if we have an attitude other than what we have now towards followers of School of Caliphs; in fact it would have meant that we ignored the textual specification (Nass) about Imamate. We have turned our back on belief in Imamate. Our excuse is Ijtihaad. A jurisprudent’s conclusion is justification for such an act. All this is not weighty enough to face the trend of truth and current of reality. So it is said: “Shia and Sunni have differences in application of Caliphate. As such, their differences originate from comprehension of text, verses or intellectual arguments. Therefore Muslims in such branches must give justification to each other in having different conclusions.”![13] “Ijtihaad and regulation in faith is acknowledged by all. It has no specialty particularly to legislation (religious) and commandments. If there is difference either. If we witness somewhere the outlook with its accessories is differing with principles, then should we justify that too? Shia perhaps may not tolerate if we say that Caliphate is also from this category. It means it was uncertain. Therefore the issue (of Caliphate) changed to an issue of a branch and that of Ijtihaad.”![14] While the fact is that: “Research for knowing the Imam is an obligatory duty due to reason that anyone at least might expect that God has appointed one to lead people after the Prophet.[15] And He has commanded us to follow and obey him. So this expectation persuades reason to push towards research about finding the Imam and if found to know him. It is a duty upon us. If we are deficient in this regard and there be a person – Imam – and we failed to know him, then there will be no excuse for us…”[16] Therefore to reflect the difference as that of jurisprudents’ kind between two schools in the field of belief particularly in Imamate and Wilayat of Infallible Imams is unjustifiable. It means that text or verses in this regard are violated. The excuse for it is Ijtihaad. This causes a great part of Prophet’s instructions in this respect, which are commandments descended from God, to be forgotten and left unheeded. So one can campaign or openly reject this basis against every obvious commandment of God and a clear text received from the holy legislator – all under pretext and excuse of Ijtihaad. And no blame can be attributed to him.[17] Ijtihaad and difference in understanding serves as an excuse to Sunni school for turning away from religious teachings that entail beliefs and divine commandments. If we justify this today, it will push generation after generation backward. Can it be so? And thereby, each and every conduct and action of Caliphs and those who confiscated right of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) is considered as Ijtihaad of jurisprudents, i.e. the personal conclusion of opinion reached according to need or necessity. Can it be considered so? Today, if we give covering of Ijtihaad to differences in jurisprudence and beliefs, particularly rescinding and rejecting divine text (Nass) regarding Imamate, it can certainly justify formation of Saqifah Bani Saada and hijacking the rightful Caliphate – the succession of Ali to the Prophet. And the later actions of Caliphs that created innovations in religion. It is said: “Events in early Islamic days can be seen from a different angle too. Ibne Abbas was secretary to Second Caliph. Ibne Abbas says: I told the Caliph that Prophet has said regarding Ali certain matters. The Caliph replied: Yes, but that is not final. People did not understand what the Prophet meant.”![18] “Difference among faiths of Islam is like difference among the Sunni sect and like difference among Shia clerics and jurisprudents. Different views exist among Shia jurisprudents.[19] The difference between Shia and Sunni too from my viewpoint is of the same kind. In fact, it was only a difference in conclusions among companions of Prophet after his demise. Imam Ali (a.s.) and his companions were of the belief according to proofs including occasion of Ghadeer that to succeed the Prophet was the right of Ali: on the other hand people of Saqifah, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their supporters formed the government. Ali too co-operated with them to the last[20] although he had difference with them.”![21] The reality, which we agree, is this: It was a real and grave difference that took place over Caliphate after the Prophet. So we believe in immediate succession (i.e. Caliphate) of Ali without any gap. Our brothers, Sunnis, believe what happened at Saqifah was right. This difference in views between Shia and Sunni is a difference between a Muslim warrior a jurisprudent[22] and a brother.”![23] As a matter of fact: - The obvious and clear divine text (Nass) of Ghadeer Khumm based on Guardianship of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) binding all Muslims to follow it. Is it Ijtihaad? - Or is it Ijtihaad to go against Prophet’s orders to provide him with pen and ink so that he could put into writing that which could save the Ummah from going astray?[24] - How is it possible to claim that the Prophet was uttering nonsense while Quran testifies his word as well as himself to be infallible? Indeed, by the courageous and brave Ijtihaad!?! - Opposition to Prophet’s command to join Usamah’s army, is that too Ijtihaad while Quran enjoins absolute and unconditional obedience to Prophet?

p: 41

- Is it also Ijtihaad to break sanctity and transgress the sacred offspring of Prophet and attack the house of his only daughter, Fatima? Is it not disobedience to the Quranic verse that makes it obligatory to love relatives of Prophet (Ahle Bayt)? - Confiscation of Fadak which openly goes against Quranic order and Prophet’s instructions; can it be named Ijtihaad?[25] Let us not forget that difference in belief among the sects of Islam about Imamate is fruit of same attitude undertaken by Caliphs. Today some claim Shiaism has named it Ijtihaad. They call it a difference between brothers. Possibly a question could arise here. There should not be any difference in order to obtain Islamic unity. On the other hand the last discussion relates to differences of jurisprudents. In other words, how can it be possible to set aside differences of jurisprudents and obtain unity? The answer that group of unity-seekers gives is: “Ali’s action was to preserve the school and unity. He was so great that he could not entertain any rancor against any for trifle worldly positions. For this reason he paid allegiance to Caliphs and at the same time reserved his own viewpoint. But as for Muawiyah, Ali took him to account because his rebellion had gone beyond difference. For Ali life was a symbol of forgiveness and he was too pacifying at the clash of views.”![26] We discussed about wrong method of arguments of difference under umbrella of Ijtihaad between Shia and Sunni. That Ijtihaad too is free from any conditions fixed by faith. As a result, in early days of Islam difference between leaders of two sides is to be acknowledged as that of jurisprudents. Now we would like to discuss conduct of forgiveness in dealing with differences of views which end to benefit of Sunnis from Shia side. This is for sake of protecting unity. Imam is infallible. He is absolutely obedient to commands of God. He believes that Imamate and Wilayat (of Imam) are decrees of God. The result of Saqifah is clear and obvious contradiction with divine instructions and trampling upon divine texts (Nass), which descended in Quran’s verse on Ghadeer Day. How can it be accepted that Imam with such qualities could agree with result of Saqifah under excuse of Ijtihaad and difference in views and personal opinions? There cannot be any forgiveness in God’s decrees. With regard to Imamate and Guardianship, God’s decrees cannot be ignored. The right of succession (Caliphate) cannot be overlooked under pretext of misunderstanding. The right of succession is already stolen and hijacked. So how can Imam come to terms with them in this regard? However perhaps such expressions can reflect good ability towards attracting followers of all sects. But they are bereft of sincerity and honesty. These thoughts do not have any originality and religious source. Besides, they are factors of deviation in Shiaism. Furthermore, they hinder movements of knowledge towards inviting people to School of Ahle Bayt and towards correcting belief of all Muslims. Otherwise it paves way to followers of all sects to give up their efforts to research or undertake intellectual endeavors to know Imamate under pretext of Ijtihaad. As such, they will see themselves under no obligation in this respect at all. This trend in the end shall push coming generations to this wrong belief which is: “Perhaps this could serve a point here. Right from the start of Islam various tendencies of jurisprudence and scholastic theology were named religion. It is a fact that all of them are headed to one destination.”![27] “Each of those ways is a faith and path to Islam. The Sunni’s path is tradition. Through path of tradition, they reach to truth. Shia’s path is that of Family and Infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet. They receive light of Islamic truth through them.”![28] “The real religion is Islam. All believe in it. Madhab (i.e. religion) in Ma’rif means ‘Way, ‘Path’ (and the place of going) towards religion. Thus Islamic faiths are paths to Islam. Their origin is mostly Ijtihaad. Difference in outlook with regard to Quran and tradition originates from understanding of persons and the Ijtihaad of persons.”![29] “We understand like this. They understand like that. We should look upon each other by tolerance or giving the margin of excuse.”![30] “Islamic society must pace in track of real unity that could patch hearts. First of all we should overrun the thought that Sunni thinks Shia and Shia thinks Sunni is a hell dweller. Then alone can we attain the goal.”![31]

p: 42

[18] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 10, Spring Summer 80, Pg. 37

[19] Establishment of link between difference of Islamic faiths with difference of Shia clergies in arguments of knowledge has been sketched in the following way:

The differences among Muslims are in unnecessary matters and unimportant Issues. This does not harm unity of Islamic nation, even a bit. Even among scholars of every sect there exist differences in viewpoints of knowledge and jurisprudence. For instance, in Shia faith amidst jurisprudents there is difference in unimportant and side matters. (Message of Unity, Pg. 242)

[20] [We shall reply to this objection.]

[21] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pgs. 61-62

[22] [His conjecture about Ijtihaad and jurisprudence of companions is in accordance with outlook of School of Caliphs regarding sources of Islamic legislation.]

[23] Ibid. Interview quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pgs. 61-62

[24] Refer: Ghulam Husain Zain Ali: A Letter left Unwritten (Analysis regarding the case of pen and ink-pot)

[25] Refer: Reza Ustadi: Article: ‘Fadak’ quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali, Vol. 8, Pgs. 345-402

[26] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 22, 30 31

[27] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Hindrances’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 227

[28] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 177

[29] Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 53-54

[30] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 10, Spring Summer 80, Pg. 14

p: 44

[31] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pg. 167

Type A) Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the sense of setting aside Caliphate and considering it out of argument.

Type B) Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the sense of Caliphate being independent of Imamate.

Type C) Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the frame of ‘Great Imamate’ and ‘Great Caliphate’. Second batch: to show rulership in little value or worth before Imamate.

Type B) Separation of Imamate from Rulership in the sense of Caliphate being independent of Imamate: “Imamate and Caliphate are two separate entities quite different from each other but coherent. The best way of peace is: to recognize or acknowledge the Caliph as a trustee and a guard over treasures of earth and Imam over treasures of divine knowledge through the Prophet.”![9] In this outlook deviation with regard to link between Imamate and Caliphate starts thus: “As a matter of fact, there is no difference between the two. These two offices since the beginning until the end are at congruity with each other. Therefore in Shia dictionary, Imamate has never been against Caliphate.

(93) As such, an understanding or co-ordination is possible between the two to the extent to acknowledge one (Caliphate) as a trustee of earthly treasures and the other (Imam) as a trustee of divine and Prophet’s knowledge.”![10] Because: “Caliphate of righteous Caliphs is a position other than Imamate.”![11] As a result: “The issue of Caliphate and Imamate are two issues separate from each other but with a caliber of co-ordination with each other.”![12] In fact it could be summed up as: The outcome of this claim to separate Imamate and Caliphate from each other. Imamate is considered at a station other than Caliphate and Caliphate occupies a place other than Imamate. Thus it is said: “The subject of Imamate from the outlook of the strong verses of Quran is separate from rulership.”![13] “The late Allamah Simnani[14] writes in Islam magazine: ‘Imamate and Caliphate are actually two issues. Caliphs had accepted and acknowledged Imamate of Imam Ali (a.s.). Ali too had accepted their Caliphate. He used to say: You rule but I will solve the difficulties. They had agreed to this. Particularly the Second Caliph had sincerely accepted this proposal of Ali.[15] These are the ways we can follow.”![16]

p: 48

(94) At this wrong belief it is said: “Imam Ali (a.s.), with the high spirit he had, went far and far, beyond and beyond Caliphate.”![17] “Imam Ali (a.s.), in fact, was far beyond above elected Caliphate.”[18] “Imam Ali (a.s.) has openly and frankly stated: I have no rivalry with you in an elected Caliphate. He enjoyed a far more important spiritual position and distinction; that is Guardianship of Muslims. Besides, he was an Imam and father of Imams. Imamate was his lot. Besides, the most close and intimate relation and link he enjoyed with the Prophet.”![19] “There is another duty among duties of Imamate and Guardianship which is far important than Caliphate. That duty is to preserve and safeguard treasures of knowledge of the Prophet and to transfer it honestly and correctly to scholars, people and clerics.”![20] “Another example of the activity of the office of Wilayat and Imamate of Ali in the era of Caliphs, we clearly see how high and important it is than the elected office.”![21] “The Guardianship and heritage of divine information vested with him by God goes far beyond elected Caliphate.”![22]

[6] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 19

[7] [Inner guardianship.]

[8] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 20

[9] Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 217; Narrators of his outlook: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 23; Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi [Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism] (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 76, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.

[10] Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pgs. 218-223

[11] Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 219

[12] Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi [Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism] (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 75, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.

[13] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 158

[14] [Shaykh Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani]

[15] [The above analysis is also explained as follows: The authority in learning and knowledge of Imam Ali was already known and recognized by Caliphs and they had accepted it. (Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 16)]

[16] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 20

[17] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Preface to the 2nd Edition), Pg. 10

[18] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 20

[19] Ibid. Vol. 5, Pg. 22

p: 50

[20] Ibid. Vol. 6, Pg. 16

[21] Ibid. Vol. 7, Pg. 14

[22] Ibid. Vol. 7, Pg. 18

Second Wrong Result After Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani[11] for the first time dwelled on such a type of thought in his article in a magazine of Egypt, Message of Islam, published by Darul Taqreeb[12] Muhammad Madani, principal of Islamic law college of Azhar and director of the said magazine, depending on contents of the article wrote an essay titled: ‘A great change in Al-Azhar University.’ He writes: “This discourse clearly conveys that accusation of usurpation of Caliphate and that those who took the reins of power were usurpers, is baseless. It is far from Shia principles of faith. They too, like all Muslims, consider the basis rests at the satisfaction of masses.”![13] The wrong result is not drawn directly from conjecture of separation between Imamate and rulership. But it is drawn on the basis of first result of this category of conjectures. It is thus said: “Satisfaction and Bay’at of Ali with Caliphs established that Ali did not regard their government illegitimate.”![14] Creation of such a picture of Shia belief in the minds of followers of Caliph’s school could possibly be an effective step towards unity. But it must not be ignored that a right will have to be sacrificed for sake of unity. Unity cannot be turned into a slaughterhouse of reality. Negligence in facts and figures can only result in imaginative unity. Our next generation shall take this wrong belief: “It is quite possible for Shias as they follow Ali and his sons to admit authenticity of Caliphate with a simultaneous belief in the position of Imamate.”![15] On the basis of this separation comfort can be drawn that Ali occupied a befitting position. Although the office of Caliphate is separate from that of their Imamate but there is no reason for any anxiety because: “Imam Ali (a.s.) practically enjoyed the office of Guardianship and Imamate among masses. The people brought to him their complaints against Caliphs. Caliphs too often used to consult him in matters which were difficult for them to solve. Ali was a supervisor over their actions and at the same time a guide to them…[16]”![17] So we must be happy that his Imamate is not denied to him or any tyranny done against him and no right of his is usurped. Similarly we should accept that Caliphs were never deviated because their government was run under his supervision. Fatima’s house was attacked and set on fire. Consequently, Fatima met her martyrdom and Mohsin was miscarried. All this happened in order to make Ali accept this high position to supervise duties of Caliphs and to guide them. Caliphs wanted to protect Islam! Thus it is said: “If people at consultation of Imam make a man of their choice manage their affairs and administer Islamic government their guardian choose Islamic government, the things will go better under his watch and control at his divine authority.”![18]

p: 52

Third Wrong Result Does there remain any room for difference, dispute or a distance between Imam and Caliphs on the ground of what passed? So, is there any reason for quarrel between their followers? The cardinal result that these unity-seekers are after is to show otherwise the relations between Imam and usurpers of his right of Caliphate. On a false basis, they try to establish that there lasted peace and understanding between them. The thought of unity is turned into a real belief. The standard of real foundation and unity is ignored. According to this sort of thought, difference between Ali and Caliphs, in addition to contrast between beliefs of Shia and Sunni about Imamate and Caliphate is commented and changed ‘as if there existed understanding between the two.’[19] The readers will conclude the mistaken result. For instance: “What crime is greater than one that creates difference among Muslim Ummah while the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms.”![20]

Type C) Separation of Imamate from rulership in a frame of Great Imamate and Great Caliphate:[21] As it must have been observed so far, separation of Imamate from rulership (Caliphate) means complete independence from Wilayat (of infallible Imam). This is a wrong dimension, an erroneous angle, a mistaken outlook of some unity-seekers under a pretext of a suitable way to resolve.[22] About these two offices, the vested or bestowed Guardianship and elected or selected Caliphate, much is said from this mistaken conjecture. Relations between these two offices and its heads is illustrated like this: 1 – These two offices: affairs and duties they have are totally different from each other. Therefore they are separate. There are not many common elements between them. They are independent of each other. 2 – There is a parallel link between these two positions independent of each other regardless of duties and obligations of each. As such, an understanding and comprehension exists between the two. The office holders (of these two positions) have no differences beyond mutual complaints. Thus it is said: “If opinions are exchanged in this regard it was baseless and not in a position of these two offices. In my opinion it is better not to call it a difference. It was only a complaint.”![23] 3 – The position of Wilayat with regard to status, dignity, responsibility, duties and obligations make the holder of this office very much important and far higher and more sacred than office of Caliphate. This theory is applied to

p: 53

(101) position of Caliphate. So consequently, coming down to position of an elected Caliphate one who holds the status of Guardianship it is too low and too little for him and his dignity. Considering the higher status of Guardianship than Caliphate and taking in view Imam’s carelessness and paying no importance to government’s position it can be said that nothing was taken away from him by Caliphs! 4 – The position of Imam’s Guardianship was active throughout the period of three Caliphs. The responsibility that entailed this office for Ali was acceptable to Caliphs, so none of his rights was usurped. Caliphs’ government was also not a government formed by force. Caliphs had acknowledged and even depended on authority of Ali, of his knowledge in which he was the final point of reference. If one looks at these criticisms made by deviated outlook this much will be concluded that the difficulties of such outlooks are the wrong and perverted conclusions about Imamate and Caliphate. In short, Caliphate, which is a reality by divine decree, has been deleted from Shia belief and an elected Caliphate is inserted instead. The corrupted ones’ claim is that the Imam was not the head of Caliphate. They tried their best to show Caliphate (i.e. rulership) of less value and importance. However this outlook is never accepted by Shia. These unity-seekers have their own opinion about Caliphate of Infallible Imams. They have tried here to lift the handicaps towards acceptance. They want to consummate their earlier theory. If it is revised, the office of Caliphate, which was completely a separate entity from office of Guardianship, now is divided into two branches: Part A) The great Caliphate: They have brought it to the level or grade of great Guardianship of Ali. Part B) The open Caliphate: (Caliphate in public view): This is the same elected Caliphate. As said earlier, in this conjecture this is the only branch of Caliphate separated from Imamate. To describe these two branches, it is said: “Depending on this theory, it can be said that Imam Ali (a.s.) like Joseph, the Prophet, during the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet in affairs of politics, law and economics had great Caliphate in addition to great Imamate. But someone else was clad in the cloak of Caliphate.”![24]

p: 54

[13] Muhammad Madani: Article quoted in book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 90

[14] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 176

[15] Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 222

[16] [We shall answer this objection separately.]

[17] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 25

[18] Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18

[19] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Translation of article, ‘Imamate and Caliphate’ by Shaykh Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Pg. 218

[20] Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 219

[21] Refer: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 63-78

[22] Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 255 onwards.

[23] Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 257-258

[24] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, (1st Edition 1380) Vol. 1, Pg. 63

guards of moral heritage were sidelined.[1] They had no say in affairs. Those at the helm of affairs were strangers to spirit of Islam.[2] They could only run the legislature apparent to the eyes. From this one can understand the fatal hit that hurt the body of Islam. It started the day politics were separated from faith.[3] This was the greatest danger to Islamic world and to those who aspire expansion and advancement of Islam should rely on unification of politics and faith. These two are like spirit and body. The spirit and body, this pulp and shell should get together with each other. Islam has paid much care with regard to politics, rulership, holy war, political laws and preserving the heritage of Islam. If this is separated from this pulp, the pulp will rot while the shell will dry up…”[4]

case, it does not mean that Ali overlooked the crime of usurpation of his right or forgave the usurper, finally, there did not last peace between him and transgressors of his right.[4] It is an obvious fact that such a type of outlook towards rulership will result once more in wrong conclusions. Such as, he willingly paid allegiance to Caliphs! A) Caliphs are shown as if they were not transgressors of Ali’s right, or they did not usurp Ali’s right to Caliphate. B) Ali too did not carry any rancor against them. C) He further says that peace and good terms lasted between the Imam and Caliphs. “He wanted rulership to serve religion and establish justice. Otherwise he regarded rulership far lesser than the worth of his old worn-out shoes.”![5]

[1] To get acquainted with other Islamic faiths refer to the book The lost Truth by Shaykh Mostasim Sayyid Ahmad. He has written this (above named) book after having been guided to the right faith of Shia 12 Imami.

[2] The essential branches of faith are – on which all Islamic faiths agree – obligation for performing prayers, fasting, Hajj and illegality of marriage with mother, sister and so on. (Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects).)

[3] [With reference to discussion about principles of faith and Islam it cannot be used to justify marginalization of Imamate]

[4] Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ (Essentialities of faith and religion) quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects). This translation is quoted from the article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Obstacles’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat (Pgs. 224-225)

[5] Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi [Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism] (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 75, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias by Shaykh Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ (Essentialities of faith and religion) quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects). In one comprehensive glance it can be said: After the last commentary on separation of Imamate and Caliphate: “Commentary of second kind towards co-ordination and nearness in the most important matter of difference Imamate; Muhammad Jawad Mughnia has written an essay on it. He says Imamate is not from principles of Islam. It is the base of Shia faith and its essentiality, which returns to principles.”![7]

p: 66

B – To show differences between Ali and Caliphs as friendly They say: “Whatever passed in the early of days of Islam and whatever passed after passing away of Prophet between Ali and reputed companions (of the Prophet) it was certainly kind of friendly differences…”[5] “What I oppose is …changing in a statement, friendly differences that existed between Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and companions of Prophet into inimical differences.”![6]

C – Denial of Enmity in a sense of blame, to show relations were intimate between Ali and Caliph Thus it is said: “If be it compelling that our outer and inner phases should be different and our account in relation to early days of Islam is not clear before ourselves and God and we wish to stress on unity for the sake of interests and we think as if there existed enmity between Ali and Caliphs, we achieve nothing…”![7] “As far as it concerns Ali and the three Caliphs particularly to Ali, he never behaved with his competitors inimically.”![8] “Our elders and leaders, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not enemies of each other.”![9]

D – To Show Rulership Worthless from Ali’s Viewpoint They say: “Ali regarded power (executive) far below a worn-out shoe; on this score he cannot harbor avarice against Muslims.”![10] “Ali was so high that he could not entertain hatred against any on account of an unworthy matter.”![11] “The spirit of Ali was so high that he could not yield to hate a Muslim on ground of a worldly position.”![12]

E – Mending the Method of Shia Propaganda They say: “Our difficulty is in the method of our propaganda. The method that we have to describe Shiaism is in the first place a curse to Caliphs and companions. Therefore we can never make any progress”![13]

p: 70

How to utilize these Conjectures to Create Deviation in the Meaning of Divinely-given Caliphate of Ali So far we came to know how unity-seekers borrowed the thought from Sunni school and how they exerted efforts toward dissipating Sunni outlook about Imamate, Guardianship and Caliphate. We also came to know their basic idea, which runs as follows: “To bring down the high station of Imamate to the level of social status of rulership and to believe it to be electoral.”! It is obvious that this outlook is useful for creating Islamic unity and to create a sort of coherence between the two. This idea avoids the contrast as it overruns the right of Ali to Caliphate. From one side we witness deviation in the sense of Caliphate, which by the Quranic text is attributed to Ali; a deviation, which has found a place among Shias besides giving a covering to wrong and impure idea. This deviation has started from two conjectures, which are:

Conjecture A: Deviation in the Sense of Guardianship by Separating Imamate and Rulership They say: “We in very foundation consider infallible Imams as authority of God. We believe them as a guide to the people. We believe them as true narrators of God’s commandments and orders. We have faith in them as protectors of religion from any deviation or perversion. Besides, we trust them as true and correct interpreters of divine decrees and Quranic text and traditions of Prophet. As such, this position is far higher than Imamate in the sense of rulership. Of course in their presence it becomes obligatory on the Ummah to regard them as Caliphs and rulers and to obey them. If they did not attain place or position of Imamate the high office (of Imamate) is reserved and saved for them.”![18] “The position of leadership and guidance with the position of rulership and Guardianship are two.”![19] “This matter has no relation to issue of rulership.”![20] “Prophethood and Guardianship differ from each other in their sense and sum. Between Guardianship and Prophethood, difference is from earth to the sky. Prophethood is in the climes of the angelic domain while Guardianship is a social and democratic matter.”![21]

p: 74

Conjecture B: Deviation in the Sense of Text following Deviation in the Meaning of Imamate They say: “The manifest religion of Islam has specified certain conditions for Imam. These conditions are necessary for guidance of people and executing divine rules by the ruler who in the religious terms is called Imam. The Islamic ruler should possess these conditions. Knowledge, piety, decorum, courage, bravery and generosity are main conditions. The Prophet, from the very start, wanted that his religion should be established on a foundation, which could last as long the world exists. Ali whom friends and foes acknowledged as a perfect and most befitting person in the Ummah was introduced by the Prophet as Imam, ruler and a model. The Prophet asked Muslims to obey him. There are many tributes. A few can be referred here. The last of them is Ghadeer Khumm. The Prophet declared him (Ali) as his successor and Caliph after his death.”![22] “The biggest issue related to passing away of Prophet is his succession as a leader of Muslims like the Prophet. This matter is very much important particularly for people of thought and contemplation. Also it comes much in discussion. But more than people the Prophet himself, the great leader of Muslims, attaches much importance to it. To him it is a matter of life and death. In the matter of Caliphate, there are two very important things. One: Whose personality could be suitable and befitting to occupy the place of the Prophet? The leader of Islam (the Prophet) has witnessed in the spirit of his cousin greatness and seraphic decorum. This quality he did not see in any of his companions whether related to him or otherwise. The genius and extraordinary capability and the holy wars fought sincerely became the ground for the Prophet to express his admiration for Ali in most brilliant words and appreciating language on many occasions. He praised Ali and showed his position to the people more magnified.”![23] “Although after passing away of Prophet, Muslims had a right to form a consulting council. However it was also a demanding matter to give consideration to his will in principle. If the purpose of forming a consulting council was to fulfill God’s decree who could be other than the Prophet himself who founded the school and brought the Message. He had named the candidate nominated by God. The consulting body is to execute the will. When an issue is recommended by Prophet the task of consulting body becomes easy. The way too is shown to the body.”![24]

p: 75

Result of this Manipulation The divine Caliphate and the right of Ali according to the text of Quran and rightful belief of Shia in this respect is so interpreted, on the basis of opinion, that the right is overridden by wrong. The truth vanished in elected Caliphate. It is reduced to a rulership fabricated by wrong conclusions. They say: “There are several kinds of peoples’ governments. The leader loved by people is the tongue of the people. Whatever he says is the word of the heart of people and deserves to be appointed for succession. In such a case, the will of the people is acted upon. The pleasure and satisfaction of the people is gained. Such a selection secures peoples’ desire. The appointment of Ali in Ghadeer was such.”![25]

[9] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 129

[10] Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 77

[11] Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 128

[12] Sayyid Asadullah Meer Islami Kharqani: Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 38

[13] Ibid. Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 290

[14] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Article quoted in the book Deen-O-Hukumat (Religion and Rulership), Pg. 547

[15] Husain Ali Montazeri: Mubaani-e-Fiqhi Hukumat-e-Islami (Translated by Mahmood Salawati) (Sources of Islamic jurisprudence in Islamic Government), Vol. 2, Section 4. Proof of occurrence of Caliphate by selection by people, Pg. 299

[16] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 77

[17] Ibid. Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 201

[18] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 92

[19] Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 156

[20] Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 159

[21] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 141

[22] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 123

[23] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pgs. 106-110

[24] Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 82-83

[25] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 137

[2] Roots of this perverted outlook can be found in the conjecture of ‘Obtained Imamate’ in writings of people like Dr. Ali Shariati.

[3] Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 97

[4] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 124

[5] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381

[6] Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 146

(143) Here one should ask whether tyranny and atrocity could have a brotherly or friendly nature and characteristic? Can we say such a difference was a family issue or a brotherly one? Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet has had been complaining too often. Were her complaints brotherly? Did she complain of friendly atrocities? Can a tyranny be friendly? If it was friendly, why Zahra kept complaining to God about the tyranny?[3] Another point is: If Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) after these oppressions, tyrannies and usurpation of Caliphate from the aspect of protecting Islam and responsibilities the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) had given him from Allah, does this reflect that Ali was happy or indifferent in his heart about tyrannies and atrocities done to him and his wife, Zahra? Does this mean that Ali treated the tyrannies committed to him as brotherly and friendly? Ali was under a mandate from the Prophet to tolerate tyranny for the sake of preserving Islam[4] although his Caliphate was taken away from him. He refrained from taking back his right by an armed uprising because his motive and aim was greater and nobler. He had to remain honest to Prophet’s recommendations to him. Can Ali be sympathetic and have normal behavior and ordinary conduct against a tyrant, usurper and murderer? He himself has referred to this.[5] If he remained silent to avoid war and bloodshed to protect Quran from being destroyed totally and likewise the family of the Prophet; does this mean that it was a brotherly difference? On many occasions Ali interfered in the dealings of Caliphs. This shows his sympathy towards Islamic Ummah and its interests. It was his intention to protect religion from being destroyed. Such is the conduct of men of God against biggest enemies of faith, or God or themselves. Men of God have always behaved as such. They show endurance and tolerance in most pressing conditions. They have always invited to good and a straight way. However this cannot mean that they were looking eye to eye with the tyrants. It does not reflect that they did not have differences or that they were friendly with them.

p: 83

(144) This particularity also displays their (the enemies’) conduct towards the Imam. It has been said: “Our elders and leaders, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not enemies with each other though they had differences with each other – very serious differences. But they were not one another’s enemy.”![6] The calamity that happened after Saqifah; what was it, if not sign of enmity? Certainly, they will say: “Differences between companions of Prophet were internal but friendly.”![7] It is pitiable that designers of this outlook have forgotten important principles of belief and authenticity of word and deed of Infallible. Instead of going after origin of this difference, which is to turn away from God’s authority, they should have paid attention to the fact that it is all to give shape to their design. It is an effort to justify differences. Shia logic is that an infallible Imam is a pivot of truth. Whoever is not in its circle or in its rotation has strayed and lost in darkness of vice and wrong. The Quran says: “So what is after the truth but going astray?”[8] Well, has not the Prophet said this about Ali? “Ali is with truth and the truth with Ali.”[9] Still can we consider the difference a justified one? Can we classify it? The base on which the difference rests is wrong. Disobedience and going treacherous in orders and instructions give rise to differences. Whether differences are friendly or do not make any difference. To be at a difference with an infallible Imam is itself going astray. It is by root wrong and a sin though it may be named friendly.

p: 84

(145) The base of differences is tyranny, atrocity and usurping God-bestowed right of Ahle Bayt of Prophet. To deny their authority to lift the differences is to deny God’s decree. These differences are on the ruins of religion. Calling them friendly cannot change the reality. Whatever the trend and attitude, contact and conduct of a party to differences was towards safeguarding God’s religion, Quran and family of the Prophet. However vast the differences it cannot be a proof for existence of friendship or facing of the Imam in friendly terms against those who had usurped his right of Caliphate. It cannot be a proof for non-existence of implacabilities and rancor on the other side of dispute. In fact, if they had not turned their backs upon the pivot of truth no difference would have come into being. Because Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) had divine mandate for his responsibility and a mission from God, he adopted a special attitude in his relations with Caliphs. He avoided armed uprising. On no occasion did he give up his right to demand what was taken away from him. He kept his demand alive.[10] Caliphs also had to cover their scandal and ignorance of Islam and administration; so occasionally they were in consultation with Ali.[11] In itself, it

(146) is a proof of their ignorance and not knowing the job. They had occupied the Prophet’s position they did not deserve. There was no sign to show either side was on good terms with the other. Although there was no open dispute or a row between them, yet the terms took most awkward trend. In the early days of usurpation of Caliphate there occurred a harsh entanglement and ended by attack on Zahra’s house. (147) In spite of all this we still see them claiming: “As soon as Ali paid allegiance to Caliph he became intimate with him.”![12] “Ali paid allegiance to Caliphs. Since he had a high spirit, he did not take anybody’s rancor to heart. But he behaved sincerely with them.”![13] “Although Ali was aware that he was more suitable and deserving to be Caliph, yet he behaved gently with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. He extended help to them without any hesitation.”![14] “There is no crime more serious than that even though there was peace between the Imam and Caliphs people fell into differences among themselves.”![15] Such comments and statements, injecting ideas that the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms entail wrong consequences. For instance: The rule of Abu Bakr and Umar has come out of the circle of usurpation. The logic of people of Saqifah has taken legitimacy. More pitiable is that they frame various arguments to prove that Ali had confirmed legitimacy of their government while it was his right. How can this be possible? Furthermore, they say: “Acceptance and acknowledgement of Ali shows from his own (Ali’s) outlook that their government was a legal and legitimate one.”![16] Regretfully, such types of statements and comments go a long way to justify Caliphs’ government. The deviations, perversions, crimes and innovations in religion are thus either forgotten or hidden in an umbrella of such false claims. Their atrocities and enmity with infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet are ignored. It is claimed: (148) “Seeking distance from enemies of Ahle Bayt of Prophet (i.e. Baraat) is applied on only three Caliphs.”![17] “Rude historical portrayal of the three Caliphs must be looked at anew.”![18] Ali did not campaign. It is true. But it does not mean he was a friend of them. He had a greater aim. He avoided people going back to their recent position; that is idol worship, to the days prior to Islam.[19] He wanted to protect the land of revelation from foreign enemies. He had to save the life of the Prophet’s family from hypocrites. This attitude is attributed to silence and silence construed as acceptance and co-operation with Caliphs.[20] Likewise, they try to establish friendship between Imam and Caliphs. The long rankling enmity of Caliphs with Ahle Bayt (a.s.) is over-ridden. Consequently it will entail legitimacy to Caliphs’ government. Such a movement goes beyond necessary limits for protecting political unity and laying a lid over dispute and differences.

p: 85

In order to be acquainted with the limited number of cases wherein the caliph consulted the Imam, refer to the list in the Second Volume of this book.

The important point, which must not be ignored, is:

Claim A: The Second Caliph gave priority to opinion of Ali over opinions of all companions. He had gone so far as to give orders to the effect that no one had a right to give his judgment or opinion as long as Ali was in the mosque. Sometimes in the consulting committee, Umar treated Ali’s opinion as final. On many occasions, he had acknowledged that Ali was superior to all in knowledge. (Abdul Kareem Biazar Shirazi, Keyhan Farhangi, No 184, Bahman 8, Pg. 16)

Claim B: Umar has too often and too repeatedly said: “This judgment of Ali is better than all our judgments.”

When he reached to the Caliphate, he took refuge in God from the situation when he is entangled in a difficult issue and Ali too is not present. Before him Abu Bakr and after him Uthman also sought his help in their difficulties. (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious, Vol. 2, Pg. 7)

The root goes back to the acknowledgement of Caliphs. They have tried to cover their usurping the government which was a God-bestowed right of Ali.

Umar during his Caliphate told Ibne Abbas: “Ali was more suitable and befitting to the post of ruler than me and Abu Bakr. Ibne Abbas said then why he was sidelined? Umar immediately replied: “We do not take decisions without consulting Ali.”

p: 87

(Ali Muhammad Mir Khalili: Imam Ali and the Rulers, Pg. 167)

Caliphs’ attitude towards attaining consultation of companions can be regarded as their diplomacy to make them feel they also have a share in affairs of government. Besides, it minimized their objections to a certain extent.

This method seemed necessary throughout the long period. The causes of Uthman’s assassination can be found in this very ground because he had abolished to take advice, which was in contrast to his two predecessors. One of the complaints of those who had surrounded his house was that he did not take their advice. Those who surrounded his house complained addressing Uthman. There are points worth noting:

“During your caliphate you have thrashed the companions of Prophet for guiding the people and inviting you back to the right path and be just in your doings. So now it is your turn to pay the cost of your wrong doings.”

(Allamah Askari: Role of Ayesha in Islamic History, Vol. 1, Pg. 251)

Caliphs were always anxious to give legitimacy to their rule. They tried to gain the attention of Ali in whatever way it was possible. They tried to show to the people that Ali was pleased with them. Therefore they were very much serious in their endeavors. [12] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 22

[13] Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition), Pg. 11

[14] Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition) Pg. 207

[15] Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition) Pg. 217

p: 88

[16] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 176

[17] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381

[18] Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381

[19] Silence for the sake of unity does not mean approval to usurpation of his divine right of Caliphate and an effort of protecting this usurped rulership!

[20] Many such statements are present in the Section One of the book, Strategy of Unity (Section of the biographies of Imams)!

[3] Ustad Murtuza Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 20-21

[4] When the curtain is lifted from Saqifah the events come to light. The assault on Fatima’s house, usurping the caliphate and confiscation of Fadak in all these bad and criminal intentions of Caliphs are obvious. It bars the way for dividing God-bestowed positions and makes clear that Members of Prophet’s House took no step of friendship towards them.

[5] Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), translation Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Pg. 222

(151) expected him to take up his sword in way of strengthening their rulership and to fight with their adversaries. But Imam rejected this request from them. So it was quite normal that they belittle him against such an attitude of his.[2] This policy pushed the Imam into further isolation.”[3] “Relations of the Imam with Abu Bakr were too cold as though there were no good memories at all. But in his relations with Umar, there are many memories most of them are Imam’s assistance to him in judicial matters. Besides, his help in answering the questions is another factor.[4] Umar used to apparently behave gently with the Imam. He tried not to be obviously harsh towards him. Likewise, Imam too maintained same reciprocation. But Uthman was not like this. He did not tolerate Imam’s opinions…”[5] (152) “To oppose the government was very difficult for the Imam. In the early days the Imam tried to avoid facing the government by isolating himself. Saad bin Ubadah was rather a good experience.[6] He did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. All of a sudden news reached that Jinns had murdered him.”[7] “Of course whenever an opportunity arose he did claim his right. In the early days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, he did not pay allegiance for a few months. It was still initial stage of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate that Ali used to take his wife and sons and go from door to door of the Ansaar to remind them about Prophet’s words and demand the right snatched from him by intrigue. His insistence was to the extent that he was accused of greed for Caliphate.”[8] “Regarding evaluation of Imam about the three Caliphs this much can be said: In each of the periods, Imam was not free to express his evaluation about the two Caliphs. But during the period of Uthman, whenever an occasion or an opportunity arose he expressed his conclusions and opinions. The reason was that his soldiers in Kufa were such that except for a few all had accepted two Caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar). So the Imam could not speak his mind in their presence or in their gathering. Once he availed an opportunity, he started exposing his agonies caused by them. Then all of a sudden he turned the trend of his speech and did not continue the subject.”[9] “Inspite of his alertness and care he did not accept the condition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf in the days of Shura committee. The condition was that the Imam should follow Abu Bakr and Umar’s practice in his Caliphate. Imam refused and said he will act according to his own Ijtihaad. This refusal clearly shows Imam’s attitude to the two Caliphs. This shows that their conduct in most cases was against Prophet’s conduct and God’s pleasure.

p: 92

(153) Imam’s speeches and proceeds during his government reflect his displeasure about dealings of the past two Caliphs.”[10]

[2] Umar respected Ibn Abbas more and gave priority to belittle Ali. This was a policy so that Ibn Abbas narrate traditions. Allamah Askari: Saqifah, Pg. 73

[3] Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 53

[4] In matters of utmost importance when Umar was not able to take a decision he used to consult Ali.

[5] Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 57

[6] Refer: Allamah Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pgs. 143-147

[7] Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 57

[8] Ibid. Pg. 58

[9] Ibid. Pg. 59

[10] Ibid. Pg. 59

A Note We have specified all aspects and dimensions of this discussion regarding extremist unity-seekers in second volume of this book. We suffice with this much in this volume. We invite your attention to the analysis of Ustad Ja’far Murtuza Amili in his book Analysis of the political life of Imam Hasan Mujtaba (2nd Edition, Pgs. 88-125): He commences his analysis under the heading: ‘A Surprising Role’ and writes: “Events took place which are known and recorded in history. Ali was sidelined from Islamic Caliphate and isolated in his house. Politics of the system that ruled and those who came to power treated Imamate with two aims. adversaries; even to Ali himself. They regarded Ali as most powerful and stronger of all besides seeing him as a strong rival and competitor. They started erasing out all signs of aspirations and intentions to reach to Caliphate….” Ustad Ja’far Murtuza in continuation of his analysis derives the following results through documents and proofs, which he produces in this respect: “Government authorities were trying that Ali might forget the issue of Caliphate and Imamate and lose heart in reaching it.” Then the Ustad writes in his analysis about the second aim of Caliphs: 2 – They prepared ground to confirm and establish Caliphate in favor of those whom they held in their view and choice. They tried to create such conditions and circumstances, which could keep out Ali and any member of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) of the Prophet from getting Caliphate. The Ustad dwells on political calculations of Caliphs towards attaining these aims. He produces historical documents. He counts ten attitudes in this respect and deals each of them individually.

p: 96

(159) “It will certainly be so because it crawls and creeps on a belief that by doing so we are following Ali’s practice.”![4] Is it reasonable that the conduct of Imam which must be a model, will praise, that too on several occasions, those who enacted Saqifah to deprive him of God-bestowed right of Caliphate? Besides, they attacked Zahra’s house. Beyond this they set fire to its door. As a result, his wife miscarried and she herself later died – a death of martyrdom.

[1] Ibid. Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 29, Khordad 1379

Historical evidences indicate that the very first person who founded this formula is Abu Bakr bin Abi Qahafa. About the criminal conduct of Khalid towards Malik bin Nuwairah and his family members he said: ‘He did Ijtihaad and made a mistake’ or ‘He concluded and erred.’[4] This belief took hold among Sunni scholars and entailed the following: Ibne Hazm (456 year) introduced Abul Ghadia who had killed Ammar Yasir as a jurisprudent and one deserving reward from God. Ibne Turkamani Hanafi (750 Year) became a follower of Ibne Hazm. Both of them (Ibne Hazm and Ibne Turkamani) extolled Ibne Muljim Muradi for Imam Ali’s (a.s.) assassination and introduced him as a jurisprudent. Ibne Hajar (852 year) considers all opponents, adversaries and enemies of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) in battles of Siffeen, Jamal and Nahrawan as men of jurisprudence and described them as jurisprudents who erred and ones who have one reward from God.[5] Similarly, Ibne Hajar believes with regard to Muawiyah and Amr Aas about the bloodshed that they were jurisprudents. As Muftis reach their personal conclusion (i.e. Ijtihaad) and sometimes two Muftis differ in their judgments – one says a magician must be killed while the other does not accept it. The deeds of Muawiyah and Amr Aas were also like this.[6] If it is so the Sunni sect must look upon Shia in their judgment and belief regarding justice of some companions and Baraat under formula of Ijtihaad; at least they maybe regarded as erring jurisprudents that are excused and rewarded. Anyway, an advantage must be drawn to the benefit of avoiding reaction and creating calm. This formula must be used towards creating nearness. There remains no need to create a change in principles of Shia belief and in fundamentals of Shia thought.

p: 105

As long as Sunnis are committed to their belief about excuse of a jurisprudent they should not act otherwise. This will not create any distance in Islamic unity. Therefore as long as the Sunni sect, as a party in the differences, believes discussions about Imamate and Caliphate as branch matters and their belief in a jurisprudent being excused one, they accept the mistake in jurisprudence. We must not witness their impoliteness about treating Shia beliefs. On the other hand Ja’fari jurisprudence is acted upon only by Shias and it respects the sanctity of life and property of everyone who acknowledges the oneness of God and Muhammad’s Prophethood. He is supposed to enjoy all rights by Islam. It honors even an outward appearance of Islam. So this peace cannot be shattered. In Ja’fari jurisprudence, the outward appearance of Islam has validity. It embraces all faiths of Islam under its own ruling: Respect to life, property and conjugal ties of every Muslim though he may be only so outwardly, are guaranteed. The meat he has slaughtered is allowed to be eaten. Marriage with him or her is permitted. Transactions are permitted with him. All civil rights are reserved to him such as applying to court of law or carrying out sentence for or against him. Details of all such ruling are present in books of religious laws. Shias regard his judgments with respect for safety of unity.

[3] Refer: Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat (Call for Unity), Pgs. 178- 180 Pgs. 3, 27, 28, 101

[4] Refer: Allamah Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 199 onwards

[5] Refer: Ibid. Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pg. 92

[6] Refer: Ibid. Pg. 105

Acknowledgement

The Ansariyan Publications would like to express acknowledgement to Syed Athar Rizvi and Dr. Hasan Najafi for their contributions to the translation of this work into English. Acknowledgement

The Ansariyan Publications would like to express acknowledgement to Syed Athar Rizvi and Dr. Hasan Najafi for their contributions to the translation of this work into English.

Sometimes according to them, the office of Imamate is a separate entity independent from Caliphate. Sometime in principles of belief also they have created a base and a branch. They introduce belief in Imamate as a branch, as a subsidiary thing liable to personal jurisprudence. As such, it does not constitute any obligation on the part of the person in event of his denial.

Sometimes the words and deeds of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.), in his dealings with Caliphs is a ground to them to justify their allegation that Ali was totally in agreement with their Caliphate.

It seems that they have not heard the painful cries of that oppressed Imam that used to come out of his aching heart as he says:

“When Allah took the Prophet (to himself) a group of men went back on their tracks. The ways (of misguidance) ruined them and they placed trust in deceitful intriguers, showed consideration to other than kinsmen, abandoned the kin whom they had been ordered to love and shifted the building from its strong foundation and built it in other than its (proper) place. They are the source of every shortcoming and the door of gropers in the dark. They were moving to and fro in amazement and lay intoxicated in the way of the people of the Pharaohs. They were either bent on this world and taking support on it or away from faith and removed from it.”

(Nahjul Balagha, Faid, Sermon 150 End of Part Two)

p: 3

Attention to it is a matter of absolute necessity. Research about a true religion is the most essential element of life for Islamic society. A tangible proof of its salubrity and originality of being from divine should be brought home to people. The minds of young generation should be enlightened with regard to its principles and fundamentals as well as to defend the precincts of its sanctity. This does not mean sedition among groups or creating differences in thoughts of people. It is a matter of regret that there are individuals who refrain from discussing facts about religion and analyzing issues pertaining to beliefs and its literature. Their excuse is to preserve unity. Those who discuss and debate such matters perhaps are accused of sedition causing disunity and creating crevices in a concrete block of unity. It seems that this fact has escaped their sight. Unity appreciated by reason and religion – and at the same time a sacred one – is unity that should be framed over the pivot of truth rotating around truth. Otherwise it will be a unity at wrong (supposing if it comes into being). It will be unholy unity resulting in nothing but loss, havoc and emptiness.

It is natural first to know the truth. Then people should be invited towards unity based on truth. This needs to undergo a discussion and all-sided research in religion to find out what is there after truth except losing the way and going astray.[1]

Now the present collection which is an output of a year-long labor of a group of learned, believer youths and committed persons; to do justice to it, one should say honestly that it has originated from faith and a staunch love towards the most sacred position of divinely authorized Guardianship (Wilayat) of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) and Ahle Bayt of Prophet. Peace be upon them all.

p: 4

Those who are acquainted with the task of writing books know that constancy in discourses and in scattered writings of speculators is not easy. Grouping and collecting the doubted data from spoken words and writings and then their orderly arrangement and classification, then to make it coherent is not an easy job. Obvious it is as to what could be the corrupt aftermaths begotten by a doubtful belief. They have not allowed this to escape without replying. In this regard, they have made full use of books of great scholars of religion and faith. Considering all this, one should honestly acknowledge the difficulty and labor involved in it. One cannot undergo this burden unless one is blessed with moral impetus and love to defend the true faith.

Therefore all who love Shia faith, particularly the youths, will read this collection with interest in order to know how conjectures and allegations are spread which should not go without answering.

In the end, I beseech the Lord to bless the author and his colleagues with prosperity in both the worlds and bestow upon him bounty of service to religion in future also.

1-10-80 (9th Shawwal 1422)

Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

By the Grace of the Almighty, this valuable book: A Victim Lost in Saqifah[2] is being published for the second time, revised and with additional data on some parts of original text. After reading the additional matter, I realized that it was necessary for the original text as it completes it.

p: 5

I hope for continuation of such a service to religion on the part of the author by the grace of God.

12-8-83 (18th Ramadan al-Mubarak 1425)

Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

Style of criticizing the third category of conjectures Absurd claims of ‘Refusal of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from plan of the right of Caliphate and his remaining silent from explaining the School of Imamate’ can be criticized on the basis of ‘debates of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.)’ with support of ‘statements of His Eminence (a.s.) in the matter of his severe struggle of having his claim recorded in History’.[4]

mouth and his nose was broken Saad bin Ubadah was kicked until he reached the frontiers of death. If anyone raised his voice, immediately his mouth was filled with dust. On the return route of Muhajireen to Mosque, associates of Umar stopped everyone and pulled each them and touched his hand to Abu Bakr’s as a token of paying allegiance to him and then left him. In that scuffle Bani Aslam tribe of desert-dwellers entered Medina as the chief of Muhajireen had promised to give plenty of provision to them if they helped. They started beating the people with canes, sticks and lances without a pretext or a warning unless they paid allegiance to the new Caliph. Umar often used to say: I became sure of our victory only on arrival of Bani Aslam in Medina. They were in a pact with Emigrants. They were so many that lanes and streets of Medina were blocked.”[5] “The fact is that their efforts imbued with tyranny and torture had gone so far as to prepare the old category of Prophet’s companions to discard Ahle Bayt of Prophet including the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, from government. Such was their determination. Imam Ali (a.s.) was not ignorant of this reality. This too was among the reasons that discouraged Ali to take a practical step towards taking back what was usurped from him.”[6] On the basis of this: “His Eminence keeping in view the political realities of that Muslim society considered it better to remain patient because every action needed power and he believed that at that time he was not having such a power.”[7] “His Eminence, Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) had told Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) about such circumstances and said that…the people after his passing away would cheat him. ‘If you get supporters you stage an uprising and if

p: 13

not you remain silent.’”[8] “In our view silence of the Imam denotes refraining from armed uprising. And if not, His Eminence never refrained from raising his claim throughout period of Caliphs and after that also he always referred to it.”[9] “There is no doubt that if the son of Abu Talib before he did that called people to help him his opponents would have tried more to trample his rights and the rights of the family of the Prophet.”[10] Under conditions that developed, any kind of armed uprising would only have resulted in bloodshed of His Eminence (a.s.). It is natural that such a thing would have served as an excellent opportunity for fulfillment of the wishes of senior righteous persons! For which they had spent years around the Prophet put on a show of piety in a hypocritical manner. Following the martyrdom of the son of Abu Talib – which would also have been accompanied by the martyrdom of his few loyal companions – the Emigrant hypocrites would have removed their veil of piety that had concealed their real faces. Not only were they capable of bloodshed of the Imam by ‘public deception’ they would have got a free hand to uproot the faith of Islam. The stages of deviation would have been crossed more swiftly and in a short time no trace of real teachings of Islam would have remained. On the other hand the Umayyad party under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, seeing the field empty from the real supporter of religion of Islam (Ali Ibne Abi Talib) and his loyal Shias, would have again resumed their struggle to regain power and they would have gradually taken the Muslim society to idol worship and apostasy. In other words, within a short period of martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) the religion of Islam would have been completely destroyed. Therefore with one glance of impartiality without any historical emotionality we will realize that the safety of Islam from being destroyed was directly linked to the security of the life of Amirul Momineen (a.s.). The proof of abstinence of Imam (a.s.) from Jihad that required martyrdom, the secret of bloodied supports and defenses of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) for the life of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and also initiatives of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) in the period of confrontation with the tyrant ruler should also be searched in this same point.

p: 14

“Following Ali’s oppositions, he and his companions gathered in Fatima’s house. Umar who followed the policy of force, advised Abu Bakr to make haste in getting Ali’s allegiance lest things take a turn. Therefore he surrounded the house with armed men and threatened to burn the house if they do not come out and pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. This shows how much Ali’s disapproval to the new regime was critical. Umar in order to fulfill his threat got ready with the elementary things. Fuel wood was gathered. He was about to set fire when he was told that Fatima was inside. He said: So what? But nothing of this compelled Ali to come out for paying allegiance. This shows Ali’s obstinacy against usurpation of rulership. Umar once more recommended Abu Bakr to get Ali’s pledge of allegiance at any rate. Therefore Abu Bakr once again summoned Ali (a.s.) but Ali (a.s.) in reply to the message that the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) is calling you said: How soon you have attributed falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.). But Umar did not give up. Again he insisted on Abu Bakr that he must not give any respite to Ali (a.s.) and Abu Bakr again sent Ali the request to give allegiance but Ali once more rejected it absolutely and said: You are claiming something which is not yours. Umar could not bear this. Therefore taking support of the political situation of that time and with drawn sword he surrounded the house of Ali (a.s.) and demanded that he pay allegiance and warned that if he desisted he would be killed and ultimately Ali was forced to come out and was taken to the mosque. This event nicely proves how strongly Ali opposed them and the usurpation of Caliphate.”[14] Inspite of this they claim: “He surrendered Caliphate to Abu Bakr and Umar for the sake of Muslim unity.”![15] “He surrendered Caliphate to Abu Bakr for the well being of Muslims, for religious solution of the problem and to attract the hearts of common Muslims.”![16]

p: 16

No. 15, Autumn 82, Pg. 11 Ali, with his own will and not submitting to the circumstances remained at the side of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate; gave his complete assistance! And always kept himself at the disposal of the Caliph to solve difficulties.”![17] If such was the case why he was so obstinate? Why he was so much restive? On the other hand why he was threatened? Why Fatima’s house was set on fire? The door was opened by force under flames. Fatima was behind the door. The hurt resulted in the martyrdom of Mohsin and then her martyrdom later. What does it all show? Do these claims not aim to exonerate the Caliphs from crimes they committed against Ahle Bayt (a.s.) of Prophet where Divine Revelations descended with the Archangel? Obviously it is only this; because inspite of evidences that History has recorded it is still claimed that: “Ali by his silence of some years put a stamp of approval on Caliphate of all three Caliphs.”![18]

On reading these traditions we derive an important point: Amirul Momineen (a.s.) sees only himself deserving for Caliphate and considers rulership as a right vested by God to him. It is a distinction particular to him. When others come in between, they are usurpers. No one is chosen for succession to Prophet except Ali. So if others come in they are transgressors on the right which is not theirs. Its origin is divine. Therefore Imam Ali (a.s.) regards himself the only deserving candidate by divine choice. Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in some other statements introduced himself as ‘most fit’ and ‘foremost’ for Caliphate. Thus it is mentioned in Nahjul Balagha that: ‘I am more eligible for it than others’[37] or he said: ‘You are more liable to pay allegiance to me’.[38] The important point to understand in this statement is that the two qualities of ‘most eligible’ and ‘liable’ have two meanings in the dictionary. In the book, Misbah al-Muneer this meaning is indicated: ‘His statement is more truthful than such and such.’ It is used in two ways. One is to particularize a thing with another without their being any commonality in it; like the statement: ‘Zaid is most eligible for his money’. It means that except for Zaid no has the right to his money. And the second is in the meaning of commonality with the other and it is proved in the sense of precedence among others.[39] On the basis of this terms of ‘most eligible’ and ‘liable’ are common and their special connotation must be seen in the style of the sentence. When we see the style of the statements of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) we find that he is talking of ‘truth’ against ‘falsehood’. There are so many statements of His Eminence (a.s.) of these type in his debates and speeches advocating the supremacy of his divine appointment and the declaration of Ghadeer. In addition to other divine texts (Nass) in his favor and his other steps in reminding about his appointment as successor and Caliph, that we can say that: “Steps of Imam Ali (a.s.) himself, for propagation of ‘divine Imamate’ was the best proof of propagation of Shiaism in the period of Caliphate of His Eminence and later.”[40] (200) “It is notable that in the beginning Amirul Momineen (a.s.) based his eligibility on divine text (Nass) as this went on to prove the following: - It passed that when the followers of Imam (a.s.) protested on the basis of divine text (Nass); Abu Bakr was not able to reply and his men threatened people on the point of the sword so that no one else could utter these words and this threat was effective. On the other hand, Amirul Momineen (a.s.) was also threatened with death many a times… - The period between Ghadeer and Saqifah was only two months. The divine text (Nass) is reminded when it is not heard by the people or buried in oblivion due to length of time. But the text was still alive in memories of the people because being recent enough people themselves had heard the text from Prophet and witnessed the whole event of Ghadeer. Therefore the Imam less reminded about the holy text and spoke more of his eligibility. But after some years and death of many eye-witnesses we see that His Eminence again stressed on the holy text. - The best style of argument is to follow the exigency of debate. That is to debate with something a part of which had already been accepted. Claimants of Caliphate argued with the Ansaar saying that they were more eligible because of their relationship with the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) and they mentioned their excellences. Imam (a.s.) also argued in the same style. - Sometimes mention of ones excellences is necessary…it was because someone asked the Imam: How did they sideline you when you were most eligible?”[41] It is interesting that the manner of Imam Ali (a.s.) was to remain silent and not to go into religious discourses about Imamate and Wilayat as we have seen: The attention of Imam towards Shiite Imamate was so much that: “In a detailed letter, which Imam wrote to Muawiyah, he has explained this issue in detail. The letter contains interesting points with respect to Imam’s share in dissemination of Shiite Wilayat…”[42] [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 134 (201) Anyway, the severity of emphasis done from the side of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) regarding his right of Caliphate and Imamate can be gauged from the fact that those who create such conjectures are pushed a step backward and they are compelled to confess that such steps of Imam (a.s.) is a struggle to correct the deviated beliefs of the people and the meaning of Imam’s statements is to establish his particular personal right which was based on divine text (Nass) and which had been usurped by particular persons. And in one matter they are absolutely silent that who is the owner of this right and who are the usurpers. In such a way that in this interpretation of unity-seekers Imam (a.s.) has spoken that Islam is having rulership and Caliphate (subject to special conditions and rules). But he never mentioned that the owner of that post was he himself and that Caliphate was a right related to him alone. So how can it be said that he talked of the usurpation of Caliphate and about the usurpers. Thus they falsely claim: “Did Ali (a.s.) while overlooking the demanding of his personal rights for the sake of Muslim unity and protection of Islam awaited to explain the great pillar of Islam which is the surety of Islam and he resorted to silence?”![43] “These statements should not be borne as personal defense and chance historical narration, it would be better to consider them as having a divine message and revelation of a wasted right till it remains in History.”![44] “Ali (a.s.) according to the divine responsibility wanted to propagate one of the pillars of Islam which was very good for the future of Islam and Muslims and it was one of the divine rights that had been trespassed and forgotten…and he wanted to accomplish this without creating disunity among the rows of Muslims.”![45] These conjectures are so complicated and confusing that one who reads them wonders whether those who have coined them have forgotten what they had claimed previously?!

p: 20

2, Pgs. 195-204

But it must be said: These types of expressions were also propagated directly with the previous conjectures and only for concealing numerous historical evidences (all of which show discussions of guardianship and Imamate and plan of usurped right of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from His Eminence (a.s.) himself). Such plans put the readers into such confusion that it is not understood Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in fact was reviving which subjects?! A Caliphate absolute and ambiguous that is not understood… Or a personal right and specified that itself has an application that is introduced and also its usurpers are exposed… Although it must be understood that showing such unlikely analyses from the biography of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) from the previous beliefs based on the separation of ‘rulership in Islam’ from ‘eligibility of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) as a rightful Caliph, immediately after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.)’. Thus it is said: “In my view one who says today that there is no politics and rulership, his deviation from Islam is more than one who says for example that Ali was not the immediate Caliph due to the fact that this issue in relation to that one is branch issue and they have separated the principles of religion from politics which is a very dangerous thing and his deviation is also more; that is it can be said that they have denied a necessary matter, but with regard to the deniers of immediate Caliphate Ali (a.s.) it cannot be said that they have denied a necessary matter of Islam…”![46] It is interesting that in the way of attributing separation between the position of Caliphate and Imamate and also in concealing all the debates of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) they still claim: “Imam instead of stressing on the Caliphate of Ahle Bayt, he has emphasized on their knowledge, intelligence and their scientific and spiritual centrality.”![47] It is in the circumstances that the makers of these statements themselves have exhibited a contradiction in speech when they claimed that: “Imam severely prohibited the people excess regarding himself which(203) may in contradiction to what perception the general public holds about him.”![48] Not only this is contradicting their own statements, it is also against their publicized claim regarding the attitude of His Eminence (a.s.); because firstly: Statements of His Eminence (a.s.) regarding the moral positions of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) are opposed to what the general public thinks! Because they have themselves confessed that after the Prophet (s.a.w.s.), “The majority chose the method of selection and the Imam and his supporters stressed on divine text (Nass).”![49] On the basis of this confession most of the people had not accepted the special status of Imam (a.s.) and in fact it must be said that they even denied and ignored his recognized position; on the basis of explanation of essay writers, stressing on knowledge and intellect and scientific and spiritual centrality of the Imam (a.s.) in such conditions would be accepting of a position and status opposed to public perception about the His Eminence (a.s.)! Secondly it must be noted that: “Actions of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reviving the knowledge centrality of Ahle Bayt (a.s.)[50] in emphatic way should be considered to be a right contained in his Caliphate and not viewed as aimed to dispense with public perception about Alawi Caliphate. These steps, themselves are proofs that the eligibility for Caliphate was restricted to His Eminence (a.s.); So that it may become clear to all that: “Their sciences and divine knowledge were from a divine source and all the other people are not fit to be compared with them. Therefore others must follow Ahle Bayt. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) has introduced Ahle Bayt as follows: They are the trustees of His secrets, shelter for His affairs, source of knowledge about Him, centre of His wisdom, valleys for His books and mountains of His religion. With them Allah straightened the bend of religion’s back and removed the trembling of its limbs. None in the Islamic community can be taken at par with the Progeny of the Prophet. One who was under their obligation cannot be matched with them. They are the foundation of religion and pillar of Belief. The forward runner has to turn back to them while the follower has to overtake them. They possess the chief characteristics for vicegerency. In their favor exists the will and succession (of the Prophet). When the Imam (a.s.) got the seat of Caliphate he said: This is the time when right has returned to its owner and diverted to its centre of return.”[51]

p: 21

[13] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue

[14] Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pgs. 46-47

[15] Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 82

[16] Ibid. Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 82

[17] Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379], Pg. 37

[18] Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 80

[19] Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 18

[20] Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [Research on political stands of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)], Pg. 127

[21] Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 29; quoted from Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 5, Pg. 76

[22] Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379], Pg. 44

[23] [Ali (a.s.) and Umar]

[24] Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379], Pg. 41 [25] Surah Taubah 9:12

[26] Najmuddin Askari: Ali wal Khulafa, Pg. 120; quoted from Manaqib Khwarizmi, Pg.

p: 23

[27] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 21 [This article is also quoted with many additional parts in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali 1st Edition 1381, Vol. 2

[28] Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [Research on political stands of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)], Pg. 82

[29] Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 8, Pg. 457

[30] Refer: Muhammad Baqir Ansari: Chaharda Qarn Ba Ghadeer (Fourteen centuries with Ghadeer) (Itmaam-e-Hujjatha Bahashai Ilmi Munaziraat…), Pgs. 39-61 [31] [In the book Chaharda Qarn Ba Ghadeer (Fourteen centuries with Ghadeer) 31 proofs of Ghadeer Tradition are mentioned.]

[32] [The Right of the Imam to Caliphate was his self-right that had originated from divine text (Nass). It was not a right by qualification. So to take back the right is to revive divine text (Nass). So in the society it denotes his position that comes next to the Prophet.]

[33] Sayyid Razi: Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 6

[34] Ibid. Sermon 172

[35] Ibid. Sermon 100

[36] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 83-87

[37] Sayyid Razi: Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 74

[38] Ibne Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Pg. 206

[39] Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 5, Pg. 162; quoted from: Maqri Fiyumi: Al-Misbah al-Muneer, Pg. 198

[40] Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)

[41] Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 8, Pgs. 459-460

p: 24

[42] Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 135; quoted from: Al-Ghaaraat, Vol.

[43] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pgs. 20-21

[44] Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 21

[45] Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 23 [46] Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 10, Spring Summer 80, Pg. 15

[47] Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 22

[48] Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 13

[49] Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 10

[50] When people had doubts about Sunnah of Prophet, instead of Ali (a.s.) they used to go to Ayesha and accept whatever she said whether it was right or wrong. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 281

[51] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Rulers), Pgs. 87-88; quoting from Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 2

determined to destroy his opponents who were Ahle Bayt of Prophet and was waiting for an opportunity. Further, Madelung stresses on existence of a pre-planned and well-decided design of Abu Bakr for obtaining Caliphate. However he thinks it was fortuitous, a matter of chance that the plot took shape in Saqifah. Besides, he considers the help of a few from the people of Quraish was very much efficacious which led to public allegiance…”[6] The Second caliph has admitted most confidential matters quoted in Sulaym’s Book: “During journey to Syria, when Umar reached the district of Shura he was informed of an epidemic in Damascus. Umar said: If I die and Abu Ubaidah were left alive, I would have appointed him to Caliphate. If he (Abu Ubaidah) is dead I will make Maaz bin Jabal[7] a caliph. If we keep this statement in line with episode of Saqifah it appears too congruous with its very spirit. Because the most important persons who supported candidacy of Abu Bakr were themselves: Umar, Abu Ubaidah Jarrah, Salim and Maaz bin Jabal.”[8] “Not only Maaz he also preferred Salim for leadership and he said: If Salim[9] were alive, I would have appointed him.”[10] On the basis of this except for the issues specified by Ja’fari jurisprudence every topic that in the view of unity-seekers is to be kept secret must be propagated if those things are mentioned in Sunni sources or they can be traced in Sunni books. Unity-seekers cannot prohibit making them public. All these matters, that is about Caliphs, their identities, intentions etc. that exist only in Shia books and records are such that their refutation is nowhere to be seen in Sunni books and according to the authority of these books they are not disproved. Now we should see as to where dissimulation stands in our days: In every sense, silence of Ali in having intellectual discussions based on proofs was not to create differences nor did it carry any motive to foment disunity. Still they say: “Imam Sadiq recommends unity. He advises dissimulation against tyrants in order to avoid divisions. It is especially for Shia and Sunni brothers that they should say that Muslims must have piety, they must practice dissimulation and refrain from creating any type of difference.”![11] Anyway, analysis of events of early Islamic days is an urgent need for Islamic society and our present young generation. It is also a valid foundation of creating unity.

p: 26

Legal 1. Referring to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the verdict of digging graves 352

Legal 2. Referring to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the verdict of one who found a man … and killed him 352

Legal 3. Referring to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the verdict of two men having dispute about the cloth 354

Legal 4. Referring to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the verdict of who marries a girl and later marries her to another 354 Scientific query – religious 5. Referring to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply to question of Ibnal Asfar 355

Scientific query – religious 6. Referring to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply to question of the Roman King 357

Scientific query – religious 7. Another referral to him in reply to question of the Roman King 358 On investigation it does not remain concealed that relationship of Muawiyah with Amirul Momineen (a.s.) was in no sense cordial and these referrals and consultations in no way prove good relations between them. Except that we want to be careful in passing off as good straining of relations of the Imam (a.s.) with Muawiyah and for the aspect of protecting Muslim unity suffice to say: “But he took Muawiyah to task because his act had gone beyond the limits of difference in opinion…”![4]

News reached Imam (a.s.) and he replied Scientific inquiry – Religious 11 Question of Abu Bakr regarding meaning of Quranic word: Abaa 88

News reached Imam (a.s.) and he replied Scientific inquiry – Religious 12 Question of Abu Bakr regarding meaning of Kalaala 93

The questioner addressed the Imam (a.s.) directly Scientific inquiry – Religious 13 Question of Abu Bakr regarding place of Allah 94

Mode of referral not mentioned. Apparently Imam (a.s.) was present and he gave the reply Laws of Shariah 14 Ref. Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the verdict of one who says to a man… 97 Mode of Referral Topic No. (Third Type) some instances of Umar bin Khattab consulting Amirul Momineen (a.s.)

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 1 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about a man who is shrouded in cloth spun with gold threads 101

In the beginning Imam (a.s.) mentioned the issue and then Umar who was present there posed the question to him Laws of Shariah 2 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about marrying the mother of the young man… 102

In the beginning Imam (a.s.) mentioned the issue and then Umar who was present there posed the question to him Laws of Shariah 3 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about wife of Uqbah’s slave … 102 First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) was asked about his view Monetary affairs 4 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about Baitul Maal … 103

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) was asked about his view Monetary affairs 5 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the amount that can be taken from Baitul Maal 106 Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Monetary affairs 6 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about sale of Kaaba cloth… 107

p: 32

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) expressed his view Laws of Shariah 7 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about punishment of drinking wine 109 First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) expressed his view Laws of Shariah 8 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about one who drinks wine under a pretext 110

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) was asked about his view Laws of Shariah 9 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the group of people who imbibed wine in Syria 113

News reached Imam (a.s.) and he interfered Laws of Shariah 10 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about Khamr… 115

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) expressed his view Laws of Shariah 11 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the Imam who sees a man and his wife on… 119

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) expressed his view Laws of Shariah 12 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about one who does not turn the people to ignorance 120

At the request of both sides the Imam was referred to Laws of Shariah 13 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about two men… 121 First the Companions were asked and then Imam (a.s.) was asked about his view Laws of Shariah 14 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about marrying slaves 123

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 15 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about divorce 124

Referred both parties to the Imam directly Laws of Shariah 16 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about two men disputing 127

p: 33

Referred both parties to the Imam directly Laws of Shariah 17 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the Bedouin who sold his camel 128

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 18 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about one who killed the camel of someone… 129

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 19 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about necessity of Ghusl for… 130

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Scientific inquiry – Religious 20 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about Hajar Aswad 133

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 21 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the in Ihram eating… 139

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 22 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about killed in the Kaaba… 141 Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 23 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about fixing of the time of Mischief 146 By chance Imam (a.s.) was present and he interfered in the matter Scientific inquiry – Religious 24 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about a man from the companions whi said that he liked mischief 147

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) expressed his view Administrative affairs 25 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in victory of Baitul Maqdas 155

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) was asked about his view Laws of Shariah 26 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the incident of Maan Ibne Zaida 159

In the beginning Imam (a.s.) mentioned the issue and then Umar who was present there posed the question to him Laws of Shariah 27

p: 34

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the man whom Amirul Momineen (a.s.) told to abstain from his wife 161

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 28 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to fulfill the request of slave of a Jew 161

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 29 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply of Caesar of Rome 168

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Scientific inquiry – Religious 30 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply to the questions of Roman King 175

News reached Imam (a.s.) and he gave the reply Scientific inquiry – Religious 31 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply to Rabbis 179

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 32 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply of Kaab al-Ahbaar 189 Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 33 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply of Asqaf Najran 197

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 34 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about in reply to Jews… 201

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 35 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply of some Jew people 203

Chance presence of the Imam (a.s.) and reply of His Eminence (a.s.) in the matter Scientific inquiry – Religious 36 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply of Kaab al-Ashraaf and Malik bin Saifi 205 Referring the questioner directly to Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 37 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply of 40 women… 206

p: 35

News reached Imam (a.s.) and he gave the reply Laws of Shariah 38 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the verdict of the woman who… 211

From the narration it seems that the Imam was not referred to directly Laws of Shariah 39 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the woman who delivers in six months 214 First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) mentioned his view Laws of Shariah 40 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the woman.. while she was forced 221

By chance Imam (a.s.) was present and he interfered in the matter Laws of Shariah 41 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the woman…insane 224

By chance Imam (a.s.) was present and he interfered in the matter Laws of Shariah 42 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the who is pregnant and confesses… 230

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 43 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about not punishing Abu Bakra 235 First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 44 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the woman who gave birth to… 240

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 45 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the free woman and a slave woman disputing about a male child 242

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 46 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the pregnant woman who had a miscarriage in fear of Umar 247 First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 47 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the one… and he was fasting 250

p: 36

Referred both parties to the Imam directly Laws of Shariah 48 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the man who divorces his wife without uttering the word of ‘divorce’ 251

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 49 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about selling the daughters of kings 261

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 50 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about taking Jizyah 262

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 51 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about Meeqaat… 264 Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 52 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the meaning of Alhamdulillaah 265

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 53 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the incident of Qataf 265

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 54 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about distribution of Kufa lands 267 First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) mentioned his view Scientific inquiry – Religious 55 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about fixing the beginning of Hijra calendar 268

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (a.s.) expressed his view Administrative affairs 56 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about mounted attack 270

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 57 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about inheritance of grandfather 275

By chance Imam (a.s.) was present and he interfered in the matter Laws of Shariah 58 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the woman who denied her son 277

p: 37

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 59 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the woman who delivered a red-skinned child while she was herself black 282 Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Scientific inquiry – Religious 60 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the woman accused by the Ansaari 283

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 61 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the thief whose one hand and leg has been cut off 286

In two narrations the referral was indirect Laws of Shariah 62 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the man who hit the killer of his brother till he thought that he was dead; so he fled. But he came back to kill him again 287

By chance Imam (a.s.) was present and he interfered in the matter Laws of Shariah 63 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the woman who marries an old man and that man dies 289 Referred directly to the Imam Laws of Shariah 64 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about th woman who resembles the mother of man 291 First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 65 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the man… 291

Referred directly to the Imam Laws of Shariah 66 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the orphan… 292

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 67 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about two men disputing about eight dirhams 295

p: 38

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 68 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the man in ladies clothes 299

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 69 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about two women disputing about a male child 307

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 70 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the youth… 307

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 71 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the man who told his wife… 312 Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 72 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about five arrested for… 313

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (a.s.) was asked Laws of Shariah 73 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the newborn child… 314

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 74 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the amount of blood money of one who attacks another cutting off a part of his tongue 320

In two narrations the referral was indirect Laws of Shariah 75 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the man who planned to kill the killer of his brother a second time 320 Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 76 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the slave who killed his mistress and master 323

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 77 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the man who divorced his wife when he was a non-Muslim and again when he became a Muslim 324

p: 39

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 78 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the man… 325

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 79 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in reply to women… 326 By chance Imam (a.s.) was present and he interfered in the matter Laws of Shariah 80 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about inheritance… 327 Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 81 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the woman… 328

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 82 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about a woman whose husband is missing 328

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 83 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict whether the Magians are Ahle Kitab or disbelievers 328

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Scientific inquiry – Religious 84 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the three things Umar forgot to ask the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) 329 Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Scientific inquiry – Religious 85 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about fixing a place for Allah about which he was asked 333

Mode of Referral Topic No. (Fourth Type) some instances of Uthman consulting Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 335

Imam (a.s.) received the news and he interfered Laws of Shariah 1 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the woman who delivers a child in six months 337 Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 2 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the old man who married… 338

p: 40

Referred both parties to the Imam directly Laws of Shariah 3 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about the man who… 339

Mode of referring is varied in narrations Laws of Shariah 4 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the woman of Ansaar whose husband died 340

Imam (a.s.) received the news and he interfered Laws of Shariah 5 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the hunter… 342

Imam (a.s.) was present there and he interfered Laws of Shariah 6 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) for verdict about the man… 344

Directly asked Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 7 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about correspondence… 344

Both parties told to refer to the Imam (a.s.) Laws of Shariah 8 Ref. to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) about a slave who… 345

Pay attention to the following historical document: Umar, during his Caliphate, said to Ibne Abbas: “Ali was more suitable for rulership than me and Abu Bakr.” Ibne Abbas at once asked: In spite of saying this why did you sideline him? Umar answered him immediately: “We do not take decisions without his permission and consultation.”[32] By this he avoided the censure for usurping Caliphate from Ali. Such proceedings can be termed as political attitude. This went a great deal to satisfy companions of Prophet as they thought that they were in the scene and having a share in running affairs. This minimized their censure. This same attitude Abu Bakr adopted against Ansaar at Saqifah. Umar wanted to utilize the presence of the Prophet’s companions but he was afraid to give them government posts and considered it unwise. So he limited it to extent of advice and consultation. “On one hand the Caliph wanted to profit by family of Abbas in matters of governance but on the other he did not want them to be in power all the time. So he refrained from it. When the Governor of Humis[33] died Umar came to Abdullah Ibne Abbas and asked him if he would like to take governorship of Humis. But before everything he revealed his view to him…[34] Ibne Abbas also replied to the Caliph: I don’t want to be your governor... Umar at last said to Abdullah Ibne Abbas: Then at least give me advice.”[35] It seems Umar learned this from Ibne Abi Qahafa Abu Bakr in Saqifah Bani Saada; because as we said it was only through this that Abu Bakr was able to pacify the Ansaar: “In the end Abu Bakr assured them that in case they accept rulership of Muhajireen they would be their counsels and nothing would be done without consulting them.”[36] The same policy was used with Ali also so that they can tell others – even today – that: “Imamate and scientific expertise of Ali (a.s.) was already known to Caliphs and they had acknowledged this.”[37] On the other hand the Caliphs were always anxious to obtain legitimacy for their rule and their becoming Caliphs. In this respect, they were willing to lay hand on any opportunity useful to them. So they wanted to draw Imam’s attention to them. They at least wanted people to believe they were on good terms and good relations lasted between them and Imam. These oral confessions and praises came into being for this purpose. Through these tactics they wanted to deceive the people at the same also putting a lid on their own deficiencies. Because whenever Amirul Momineen (a.s.) interfered and solved difficult problems or replied to complicated religious questions a question arose in the minds of the people that: “Why should a man so learned not become the holder of an important post like Islamic Caliphate? Instead the responsibility had gone to one who is bereft of all this knowledge.” In reply to this Umar appeared side-by-side one of the most learned man of his time among the people. So they say: “According to narrations of both sects, the Second Caliph said: If Ali had not been there, Umar would have perished and he addressed His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) saying: You are my Master. Thus showing that good relations existed between him and Imam Ali (a.s.).”![38] As if the Imam was their minister and consultant?!! As if the presence of Imam furnished credibility to Caliphs and a justification of their weaknesses and defects.!! It is thus claimed: “The Caliphs in numerous matters asked the Imam for his opinion and consulted him and the Imam supervised the acts of the rulers and guided and advised them.”![39] During his Caliphate time and again Umar sought Ali’s advice or without his asking Ali (a.s.) mentioned his opinion and Umar accepted it.”![40] “Umar asked for co-operation of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in the most difficult situations and through the guidance of Imam solved his problems.”![41] It was that the revolution of Islam was a religious and cultural revolution. More than armed confrontation it required scientific and cultural weapons. After the passing away of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) Ali (a.s.) took up these important functions.”![42] “In this way the Imam acted like a minister and guide of the rulers and was like a reliable point of reference for the Muslims and believers in behavior and practice of Islam as the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) was.”![43] “Imam Ali (a.s.) in that same condition did not refrain from dispensing consultation to the Righteous Caliphs.”![44] “Imam Ali (a.s.) after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) during the period of all the three Caliphs with his divinely bestowed ministership and foresight was the pivot and axis of Islamic revolution and he bore the responsibility of cultural revolution. He maintained Muslim unity and guided the people and the Caliphs.”![45] The notable point in the explanation and analysis of scientific, religious and jurisprudential activities of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) is that the steps that the Imam took regarding his judgments on various topics, it became apparent how much the Caliphs would have distorted Islam had the Imam not been present. For example during the period of the Second Caliph: “The number of judgments from Ali (a.s.) that in this period remained in force are astonishing. All these were after the time when the Caliph had issued contrary orders and Ali (a.s.) had corrected them.”[46] It was in this manner that all the attitudes of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) were aimed at removing the dust of deviation and ruin from the face of teachings of real Islam and prevention of innovations and illegalities to enter jurisprudential issues and to finally propagate and explain sources of Islamic faith; it had nothing to do with friendly relations, co-operation and cultural support of the rulers who had usurped his Caliphate! Yet they go on making claims like: “Attitude of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) during 25 years of rule of the three Caliphs is that of co-operation and support, guidance and advice, restraining from deviations and removal of the doubts of the Caliphs and prohibition of anything that could destabilize their position. Is all this enmity?”![247 “Among the other instances of co-operation! And unity-seeking of Ali (a.s.) in the matter of support! And unity of thought! And consultation and counseling the Caliphs was before it, whether in complicated political and military matters or in complex and difficult social and jurisprudential issues, even in personal affairs,”![48] “During Umar’s reign also His Eminence remained as the most active and greatest force of social awakening in Islamic society leaving his footprints of helpfulness on the sands of time. He provided consultation and guidance to the Caliph of the time and Umar during his Caliphate referred to him many times or even without his request His Eminence gave his opinion[49] and he (Umar) agreed,”![50] “From this angle can be remembered instances of co-operation between our lord, Ali and our lord, Umar and can be described as a relation of sincere friendship and amity beyond description! They continued to work for achieving the aims of Caliphate together in a co-operative manner! And for its well being.”![51] “Ali Murtuza was the best advisor and sincere well wisher of our lord Umar…”![52] “His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)…always throughout the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was his sincere friend and intimate advisor.”![53]

p: 46

[15] Ibid. Pgs. 264-269

[16] Ibid. Pg. 269

[17] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 26, Khordad 1379

[18] Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 51

[19] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 8

[20] Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 6, Pg. 6

[21] Ibid. Interview in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 16

[22] Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 2, Pg. 7

[23] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 62

[24] Abdur Raheem Mahmoodi: Maqaam-e-Sahaaba wa Zindagi-e-Khulafa-e-Raashideen Dar yek Nigaah (Status of Companions and life of Rightly Guided Caliphs in a Glance), Pgs. 36-37

[25] Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 51

[26] Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Nabawi: Pamphlet on Astaana-e-Ghadeer (Lecture on the topic of Ghadeer and Imamate, article on the subject of Amirul Momineen in the period of Caliphs – Araaf Noor Cultural Organization – Summer 81), Pg. 19 This pamphlet was republished in 1382 and in a book form also in 1382.

[27] “The Second Caliph was not fond of much discussion and religious arguments due to his weakness in knowledge.” (Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 97)

[28] Refer: Ibid. Pgs. 191-220

[29] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 273-276

p: 49

[30] Ibid. Pg. 276; quoting from: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 17, Pg. 426

[31] Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 55

[32] Refer: Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 167; quoting from Mahaazaraat al-Udaba, Pg. 4, Pg. 478

[33] [A Syrian city]

[34] “He suggested to Abdullah to take the rulership of Humis on the condition that he will not use his position in favor of Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) after the Caliph.” (Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 281)

[35] Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [Research on political stands of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)], Pg. 120

[36] Yusuf Gholami: Bohraan-e-Jansheeni-e-Payambar (Crisis of Succession to the Prophet), Pg. 27; quoting from: Al-Kamil, Vol. 2, Pg. 329; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 243; Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 1, Pg. 582

[37] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Interview in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 156

[38] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381

[39] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 25

[40] Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi: Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 139; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 52

[41] Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 81

[42] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Interview in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 16

[43] Markaz-e-Pazuhashhai Sada wa Seema: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 182, Azar 80, Pg. 37

p: 50

[44] Muhammad Ali Taskhiri: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 34

[45] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18

[46] Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [Analysis of political stands of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)], Pg. 125

[47] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381

[48] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 125

[49] [There are only 8 instances out of 85 when the Imam (a.s.) expressed his view before the opinion of the Second Caliph can be acted upon as can be seen the tables]

[50] Ibid. Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pgs. 125-126 [51] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7

[52] Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7

[53] Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 82, Pg. 11

[54] Refer: Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pg. 160

[55] Muhammad Baqir Bahboodi: Seerah Alawi (1st Edition), Pg. 41 [56] Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 55

[57] Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali (a.s.)-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 97

[58] Although if he could not think of anything he would refer to the Sunnah of Prophet (s.a.w.s.). (Ibid. Pg. 99)

[59] These were personal derivations of the Caliph variously based on exigencies. (Ibid. Pg. 99)

p: 51

[60] Ibid. Pgs. 98-99

[61] Ibid. Pg. 56

[62] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Teer 1381

[63] [This statement requires correction. The phrase “Absence of armed uprising” is more appropriate]

[64] Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [Research on political stands of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)], Pgs. 97-98 [65] Ibid. Pgs. 103-104

[66] Ibid. Pg. 109

About Imam’s Co-operation with the Second Caliph it can be said: “The Second Caliph also was not pleased with the obstinacy and haughtiness of Imam Ali (a.s.) and many times he appointed in-betweens who can motivate the Imam (a.s.) to assist the regime; but Amirul Momineen (a.s.) only looked to the interests of Islam. At the time of need, he forwarded his expert opinion. Commonly he ignored the requests of Caliphs for all-round cooperation.[14] Documentary Proof A) Of course it was not that the Imam always fulfilled their requests. The Caliph asked Ali to accompany him in the journey to Syria, but Ali refused. Umar complained to Ibne Abbas: I asked your cousin to accompany me to Syria but he refused… Documentary Proof B) Likewise in the battle of Qadasia, Muslims sought Umar’s help. The Caliph asked Imam (a.s.) to take the command and go to the battlefront, but the Imam (a.s.) did not accept.”[15] Therefore the Caliph sent Saad bin Abi Waqqas.[16] It is clear that in both cases the Imam rejected the request, still they falsely claim: “In this way Ali (a.s.) was always by the side of Umar.”![17] “When Umar asked Ali to take the command of Muslim forces to conquer Iran, Imam did so.”![18] Attention and contemplation on this matter related to always ‘Absence of acceptance of co-operation and bearing responsibility’ makes every researcher and investigator think His Eminence has not always denied co-operation with the caliphal regime; thus his non-acceptance of co-operation and responsibility in chosen instances must be for some special reason; such that Amirul Momineen (a.s.) had some standard on the basis of which he either chose to help or refuse. Therefore in the first stage it will be seen that the Imam never refused his help. But in the second stage it will be seen that the Imam also in some cases hit out at the chest of the rulers and refused to co-operate in some matters.

p: 54

[7] Yaqoobi: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 129

[8] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) (1st Edition), Pg. 198; quoting from Futuh Ibne Athim, Vol. 1, Pg. 72

[9] Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 3, Pgs. 143-144

[10] Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pgs. 84-85

[11] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 225

[12] Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 85

[13] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 16

[14] Hasan Yusufyan: Article ‘Imam Ali wa Mukhaalifaan’ quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 6, Pg. 216

[15] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 227; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pgs. 78-79 and quoting from: Futuh al-Buldan of Balazari, Pg. 264

[16] Masoodi in Muruj az-Zahab (Vol. 2, Pgs. 309-310) has also explained that Uthman mediated in this matter but the Imam rejected the commandership.

[17] Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379], Pg. 43

[18] Muhammad Ali Taskhiri: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 35

They were usurpers of his right. They were sitting where Prophet in Ghadeer had already made him sit. How could he come to terms with his own oppressors or accept from them what they give while everything was his. He was expected to forego the whole and accept a part.”[4] “However the isolation of Ali indicates that both sides knew each other and also that he cannot behave towards them that could be an indicator of his approval of their Caliphate. It was a divine post. God should choose. And God had chosen him and the Prophet had conveyed God’s choice. Ghadeer Khumm was a matter of yesterday. Still nobody had forgotten the ceremony.”[5] “During the periods of three Caliphs Ali did not take any active part in government – politically or running its affairs. What he gave was advice by way of consultation, that’s all. He had no membership in their governments. It can be said that he was rather an opposition leader from a distance.”[6]

The author of Pas az-Ghuroob writes: Even though the Bayyat of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) was effective in mobilizing forces it is also not unlikely that the Caliph made the attack a pretext to obtain the support of His Eminence.” (Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 171) “Jundab bin Abdullah says: After swearing allegiance to Uthman I went to Iraq. There I used to narrate the attributes of Ali to people. The best reply that I got from the people was this: Leave these words. Think of something that may benefit you. I answered them: These things are beneficial to both you and me. But the people on hearing this got up and dispersed.”[16] “In a society of Muslims, Imam was forgotten. Therefore it was for this reason that Imam during his Caliphate reminded people of his station, services and the battles he fought and won for the sake of Islam, his nearness and relationship with Prophet.”[17]

[7] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 120

[8] Ibid. Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 120

[9] [Regarding Bayyat, Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1] [10] Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 53

[11] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 105-106

[12] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381

[13] Allamah Askari: Saqifah, Pg. 73

[14] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 14

[15] Ibid. Pg. 15

[16] Ibid. Pgs. 14-15

[17] Ibid. Pg. 16

[17] Sayyid Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 85; quoting from: Ad-Darajaat ar-Rafia (Elevated Positions), Pg. 215

[18] Ibid. Pg. 200 [19] [‘Iqta’ is in the meaning of ‘Qate-Zameeni’ a piece of land that a king allotted to a person so that he may earn his livelihood from it.]

[20] Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [Research on political stands of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)], Pg. 116

[21] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 290

[22] Since this reply needs an introduction the readers may once more refer to the prefaces in the second and third section of this book.

[23] Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 Spring 81, Pg. 225

[24] Refer: Tables in Section Two.

[25] Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 Spring 81, Pg. 226

[26] Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 Spring 81, Pg. 228

[27] Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 Spring 81, Pg. 229

[28] [Arguments of the writer continue]

[29] Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 Spring 81, Pgs. 231-232

More interesting is that Ali restricted the presence of Hasan and Husain in battle of Siffeen because he was much anxious about their safety.[11] So how could he send the two reminders of Fatima (s.a.) to fight in Tabristan under the command of Bani Umayyah?! On the basis of this and the analysis of Allamah Ja’far Murtuza it is not possible to accept the presence of Hasan and Husain (a.s.) in the battles of Caliphs.

Scrutiny of Participation of Ali’s Companions in Battles and Government of Caliphs[1] It is surprising that the writer of the article has no knowledge of companions with regard to facts and reality of matters and opinion of Imams about battles. This analysis is not based on authentic information but on probability and likelihood of participation of companions. This point is not noted. Therefore if this probability is not accepted, it cannot be a confirmation of battles. Supposing if companions of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) attended on approval of Ali himself and were under no pressure, it is still not a ground to prove Imam Ali’s (a.s.) positive outlook. While it can be said that they might have taken part on ground of other productive reasons so this cannot be a proof of their approval. It could be that the presence of Imam’s friends could be a restriction for Caliph’s soldiers from plundering and pillaging conquered regions. Now we would like to ask: what is the reason that all co-operations are confined to supporting their battles. Why they have simply passed by all reasons and causes? If we accept positive outlook of Ali to battles, it will contradict his statement: “A Muslim should not go to a holy war in company of one who has no belief in God’s command and does not carry God’s orders with regard to spoils of war. If at all he goes and is killed, he has helped him in usurping our rights and shedding our blood. His death is a pagan’s death.”[2]

p: 70

Amirul Momineen (a.s.) never allowed that his attitudes be interpreted to be in favor of Caliphate and behavior of the Caliphs or that they may get an opportunity to take advantage of his attitude to help their deviated aims. What the Imam (a.s.) was in pursuit of is completely different to what the Caliphal regime aimed in obtaining his help and support. In spite of the fact that wrong interpretations and analyses are propagated to the contrary. Thus they claim: “Other notable example of co-operation of Ali (a.s.) is his participation in congregational prayers led by Abu Bakr.”![20] “On the basis of statements of modern Shia scholars like Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Hujjati, Amirul Momineen (a.s.)…participated in their congregation prayers so much that people never noticed his absence in the society. And never imagined that Amirul Momineen Ali was heading in another direction! And that he had severed connection with the society ruled by the Caliphs.”![21] Although there is another analysis regarding this that in no way talks of any special meaning that could be derived from these actions of Imam (a.s.) because it is believed that: “In such circumstances going to the Masjid and being present there… was ordinary matter.”[22] This analysis also ultimately does not consider these steps to be construed as support to the Caliphs and their behavior. “Presence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in their gatherings was not voluntary and willful. His Eminence spent most of his time in the Prophet’s mosque and the same presence was followed by his presence in their assemblies. On the basis of this His Eminence did not go there especially to attend their gatherings.” Moreover, even if he attended their gatherings with intent it was with the purpose of forbidding evil, because they used to refer to His Eminence in many issues.[23] On the basis of this a correct attitude and a firm connection with affairs of religion were the factors of his presence in their gatherings.”[24] Historical documents and sources show that after Abu Bakr emerged from three-day seclusion[25] there ensued another debate and discussion at the end of which Amirul Momineen (a.s.) said in reply to another invitation of his associates: “Then by Allah I did not enter the Masjid except like brother Moosa and Haroon when his companions said to him: go therefore you and your Lord, then fight you both, surely we will here sit down.[26] And by Allah I do not enter except for the Ziarat of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) or to decide a case…”[27] This narration clearly shows the limited aims of the presence of His Eminence (a.s.) in the Masjid.

p: 73

[12] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 44

[13] [Refer: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 322]

[14] Ibid. Vol. 16, Pg. 45

[15] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 229

[16] Refer: Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 340-345

[17] Refer: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Section Six, Pgs. 81-94

[18] Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 354

[19] Thus Saad bin Ubadah only because he did not give Bayyat to the Caliph and did not participate in their gatherings he was first exiled to Syria and then killed.

[20] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 124

[21] Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni viewpoint), [1st Edition 1380], Pg. 130

[22] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 20

[23] [Scrutinies of Discourse Two show that this was too less for the period of 25 years of the Caliphs’ rule.]

[24] Sayyid Murtuza Alamul Huda: Tanziyaul Anbiya (Translated by Ameer Salmani Raheemi), Pg. 227

[25] Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 8, Pg. 458

[26] Surah Maidah 5:24

[27] Tabarsi: Ihtijaaj, Vol. 1, Pg. 81; Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 208

Forced Participations of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) in Caliphs’ Government [1] It is surprising that the writer of the article has no knowledge of companions with regard to facts and reality of matters and opinion of Imams about battles. This analysis is not based on authentic information but on probability and likelihood of participation of companions. This point is not noted. Therefore if this probability is not accepted, it cannot be a confirmation of battles. Supposing if companions of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) attended on approval of Ali himself and were under no pressure, it is still not a ground to prove Imam Ali’s (a.s.) positive outlook. While it can be said that they might have taken part on ground of other productive reasons so this cannot be a proof of their approval. It could be that the presence of Imam’s friends could be a restriction for Caliph’s soldiers from plundering and pillaging conquered regions. Now we would like to ask: what is the reason that all co-operations are confined to supporting their battles. Why they have simply passed by all reasons and causes? If we accept positive outlook of Ali to battles, it will contradict his statement: “A Muslim should not go to a holy war in company of one who has no belief in God’s command and does not carry God’s orders with regard to spoils of war. If at all he goes and is killed, he has helped him in usurping our rights and shedding our blood. His death is a pagan’s death.”[2]

p: 76

[12] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 44

[13] [Refer: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 322]

[14] Ibid. Vol. 16, Pg. 45

[15] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 229

[16] Refer: Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 340-345

[17] Refer: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Section Six, Pgs. 81-94

[18] Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 354

[19] Thus Saad bin Ubadah only because he did not give Bayyat to the Caliph and did not participate in their gatherings he was first exiled to Syria and then killed.

[20] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 124

[21] Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni viewpoint), [1st Edition 1380], Pg. 130

[22] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 20

[23] [Scrutinies of Discourse Two show that this was too less for the period of 25 years of the Caliphs’ rule.]

[24] Sayyid Murtuza Alamul Huda: Tanziyaul Anbiya (Translated by Ameer Salmani Raheemi), Pg. 227

[25] Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 8, Pg. 458

[26] Surah Maidah 5:24

[27] Tabarsi: Ihtijaaj, Vol. 1, Pg. 81; Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 208

Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani, in this respect has this to say: “Regarding presence of Imam Ali (a.s.) in Prayers of Caliphs this much can be said: Although it is well-rumored there is no basis to it. There are many matters and subjects, sometimes new and interesting – but without a root or a base to it. Although some have taken for granted these things as sure and certain, but we inspite of our search do not find any documentary proof to it. What document or evidence, valid or otherwise exists to establish that Ali was always present in their prayers? The only thing that exists is the material written by Abu Saad Samani in his book Al-Ansaab that can be regarded as a miracle of Ali with regard to exposing scandals of opponents. We have narrated the case earlier. The case in question might have occurred earlier to Ali’s acknowledgment to Abu Bakr’s authority. Or his (Ali’s) dissidence with Caliphs should have been already known to public. Else there seems no ground for their decision to kill Imam Ali (a.s.).”[1] The author in another place referring to the actual case says: “So far we have not found any creditable source to bring this fact home to us that Imam Ali (a.s.) was obliged to be present in Prayers of Abu Bakr or someone else. On the basis of what Samani’s book[2] says: Ali was present in Prayers of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had issued orders to Khalid earlier to kill Ali. Abu Bakr was still in Prayers he spoke to Khalid not to do what he had asked him to do. Of course speaking during Prayer invalidates it, but Abu Bakr regardless to this fact spoke. Because Samani’s is not a book of traditions to be particular for creditability. And it is the will of God that this case reached to our knowledge although other authors tried to hide it.”[3]

p: 81

Point One The statement that: The Prophet married two daughters of Caliphs and Ali prayed behind them is silent about the cause and description of how this was done. To find the conditions or circumstances governing these attitudes it is enough to look at titles under which Shia scholars have narrated the incidents. Shaykh Hurr Amili has classified according to his own intelligence and understanding. In fact, the titles chosen by him show his insight in relation to contents of narrations. It is interesting that the late Shaykh in his book mentions them under the heading: ‘Chapter of appreciability of attending Congregation Prayers in dissimulation behind one who is not qualified to lead prayers and standing with him in the first row’. In the same way this narration is mentioned in Biharul Anwar[8] and Mustadrak al-Wasael[9] under following chapters: Chapter of marriage of polytheists, infidels and Ahle Bayt-haters. Chapter of lawfulness of marrying the deprived, those who are doubtful but show themselves to be Muslims and detestability of giving a Shia lady to them in marriage.

Point Two To understand a part of a narration we cannot ignore the wordings ahead or behind which would result in making the narration itself deficient. Such a look would end in a contradictory comprehension in relation to its real meaning. Therefore we write a full extract from, Wasaelush Shia (the Aal al-Bait Print). The narration runs as follows: “Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa, in his miscellaneous reports from Uthman bin Isa from Samma that he said:[10] I asked him about their marriages and prayers behind them. He said: This is a difficult thing. You cannot do that. The Prophet married and Ali prayed behind them.”[11] In the first part we read the tradition: “It is a difficult thing that you are asked to do and you cannot cut off relations with them and are compelled to do it.” This shows there was compulsion and coercion. One is forced to maintain relations with the opponents. As if the main thing is to keep away but under compulsion one is to remain with them.

Point Three If we ignore the beginning of this narration and suffice on the part, we conclude that the narration is silent with regard to conditions. To learn about the conditions prevailing at that time we have to seek some other report similar to these narrations. This tradition is known as the ninth tradition and exists in Wasaelush Shia in the following wordings: “Ali bin Ja’far says in his book narrating from his brother, Moosa bin Ja’far, that Hasan and Husain prayed behind Marwan and we prayed along with them.”[12] Attention is required here. In the contents it is not clear whether Hasan and Husain, although praying in a group, prayed individually or prayed following the leader of prayers; i.e. Marwan. The contents do not disclose whether Ali too prayed with them. Also not obvious in the contents is whether Hasan and Husain prayed in dissimulation or what the conditions were for their praying. However in the contents there arise great many questions. Therefore we must search for narrations, which could open doors for us to see prayers, which our Imams performed with opponents and adversaries. A salient difference exists between congregation prayers of Shias and other than Shia. The leaders of prayers (Imam of congregation) in Shia must be a just man, i.e. a man of probity and piety, virtue and having justice. This clearly proves that if a Shia prays behind an opponent of Shia faith, it does not mean that he has paid allegiance to him, his opinion, his school or his belief, because in this instance the condition of justice is cancelled. Alongside this group of narrations, there are also traditions that clarify the matter further as follows: “Ja’far bin Muhammad narrates from his father that Hasan and Husain used to recite the opening chapter and other chapter when they prayed behind Imam of prayers.”[13] This narration in fact tells us how the Infallible Imams prayed behind their opponents. This not only explains the method of prayers of Hasan and Husain (a.s.) in the narration about congregation prayer under the leadership of Marwan, it also tells us about the way Amirul Momineen (a.s.) prayed behind the Caliphs. On the other hand Allamah Majlisi has this to say under the explanation of these narrations, which is worth nothing: “When Imams prayed behind the leaders of tyranny they used to pray under dissimulation and they did not make an intention of following them. They used to recite as if independently; reciting the Surah Hamd and another Surah themselves. On the other hand it has been much stressed to attend congregation prayers. There are also traditions in this respect. It becomes compulsory in time of dissimulation. But it is recommended that if possible one should pray at home and then join them in congregation and pray with them. And if not then it is obligatory to recite the opening chapter and another Surah oneself. And according to well known view in their leadership Qiraat is not cancelled. Rather in the book of Muntaha it is mentioned that: We do not have an opposing view in this matter, and in these prayers it is not required to recite the Hamd and Surah loudly and even if it is not possible to recite the Surah only Hamd is sufficient; although in my view it is obligatory to recite the Surah also and apparently in this matter there is no difference of opinions. If the Imam of congregation goes into Ruku (kneeling) before finishing the chapter he can finish the chapter in Ruku. Some say that reciting the Hamd and Surah is exempted in helplessness. In the same way in Tahzeeb this absolute view is mentioned and that this same prayer is valid. It is even said that: If one could not catch them in reciting the chapter, he can leave it altogether and join them in Ruku, and his prayer will be correct but it is precautionary to later repeat even the Prayer in which one has recited Hamd and Surah in his heart, under dissimulation.” The message of this outlook means to say the view of all jurisprudents of Imamiyah sect is at parity. From many aspects it is in the category of response given by Allamah Sharafuddin in his Answer to the Problems of Jarallah. We quote the actual text from his book. In the meantime we must point out that Bi-Aazaar Shirazi has clearly and openly distorted the text. The facts and realities are sacrificed for the sake of so-called unity. It reflects a criminal tendency to distort authentic texts of well-known scholars of Imamiyah sect for their own benefits and ends. According to the extract taken from his book of Answer to the Problems of Jarallah, Allamah Sharafuddin believes: “Dissimulation in worship acts is that the Imam performs an action without intention that it be for proximity to God. It is only based on fear of a tyrant ruler. And dissimulation in propagation of religion is that the Imam attributes a verdict to the Prophet while in fact, it is not from him. Although it is clear that dissimulation is never practiced by an Infallible Imam. And to consider narrations and worship acts of Imam as being dissimulation is to ridicule his infallibility and honesty.”[14] In other words, Moosa Jarullah from this statement intends to inject the readers mind with belief that dissimulation is a possibility for an Imam that enables him the performance of a thing not for God’s sake but to find a scapegoat from detrimental surrounding imposed by a tyrant. In fact, it does not befit the Imam to stoop to such a category. If we accept this we have to deny his status of being infallible, which is irrecusable. Jarallah after this marginal introduction in which he sets dissimulation to face infallibility of Imam prepares the minds of the readers to accept Imam’s actions on the basis of dissimulation proceeds further to say: Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin (q.s.) says in response to these claims: “Ali, peace be upon him and his sons, was punctual to perform prayers in their early hours. He was particular to perform prayers in congregation following the three Caliphs. He did this for the sake of God. He also prayed Friday prayers behind all three Caliphs seeking God’s satisfaction. His prayers were on the ground of his virtue and piety.”[15] By this Jarallah aims to secure credibility and validity for Caliphs. He wants to establish legitimacy of their Caliphate because Ali prayed behind them. So they were men of justice and moral. Jarallah represents dissimulation as an act of show and a trick. So considers prayers of Imam outside circle of worship and bereft of sincere intention to seek nearness to God. On the other hand he refers to prayers of Ali, which he performed behind three Caliphs as remote from dissimulation to establish his own motives and aims. Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin against such propaganda says: “I said: No, never. Ali prayed only to seek nearness with God. He prayed to impart what God has obliged him to do. His prayer behind them was only with aim to please God. We prayed following prayers of Imam and we sought nearness with God. We too have prayed several times behind Sunni Imam of prayers being too sincere to God. This is allowed in faith of Ahle Bayt. The worshiper, though behind a Sunni, obtains the reward as he does while praying behind a Shia. One who knows our faith, is aware of the condition of justice for the leader of prayers. On the basis of this following a sinner and ignorant Shia was not allowed while these conditions do not exist for the leader of congregation in Sunni sect and they are allowed to follow anyone.”[16] From the comments of Sharafuddin, we discover that he has corrected the specifications of dissimulation given by Jarallah. In the second place he (Sharafuddin) has explained dissimulation within domain of worship – and not as Jarallah describes it. According to Sharafuddin, the act of dissimulation represents God’s command within teaching of faith. Sharafuddin regards dissimulation a means of proximity to God. As such he totally rejects the opinion of Jarallah with regard to dissimulation. Finally, Sharafuddin impedes the way paved by Jarallah to benefit from dissimulation to gain legitimacy and legality for Caliphs. The man who leads prayers in Shia school must be just and of good reputation. This condition invalidates the endeavor of Jarallah. The leader of Prayer must not be profane or a man of no respect among the people. We shall deal with this subject in detail as “Justice is not a condition for a man who leads prayers in other than Shia sect.” He has clearly displayed the worth of prayer behind a Shia and behind a Sunni individual (or Caliphs). The justice of Caliphs or they being men of justice and piety he puts to question and repudiates this quality in them. In the light of this description the reader becomes attentive that the act of Imam Ali (a.s.) and his followers, Shias, does not give any support to them nor do they agree with them. Their dissidence is already concealed in their behavior. In any case, firstly the response of Sharafuddin to the query of Jarallah is not personal inclination. It reflects the conditions prevalent in society. The direction of thought is an element at a zenith that cannot be neglected but necessarily to conceive the entailing developments. Secondly: This answer of Sharafuddin refutes the conjecture, which Jarallah disseminates and not that it is to censure deviation of a tradition or taking a part of it for own benefit as it does not need an answer because later the truth is bound to become known. Because such arrangement of texts is bound to put doubts in the minds of readers with regard to the behavior of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) this group is more dangerous than that of unity-seekers. It is thus said: “…His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was always with our chief, Abu Bakr and was present in all prayers behind him.”[17] “Ali (a.s.) himself also joined in Prayer with the Righteous Caliphs.”[18]

p: 84

The last set of conjectures of unity-seekers with regard to relations between Caliphs and Imam Ali (a.s.) targets good relations between the rulers and the House of the Prophet. They wish to establish that there existed good terms between Caliphs and the Prophet’s family. These conjectures can be divided into two groups.

Group One: Conjectures are put into circulation to prove existence of good relations. But no historical evidence is presented. A general package of conjectures is set in the course of a rumor which says there existed good relations but does not show a proof.

Group Two: Conjectures that propagate existence of good relations on the basis of some fixed and widely known historical evidences or events. So we shall take up the first group in brief and come down to the second group in our analysis and also refute some conjectures propagated in this group: Generally to prove that there existed good and friendly relations between the three Caliphs and the House of the Prophet statements are issued as follows: “What is fixed and settled is that all companions especially the Righteous Caliphs behaved with each other like brothers….”![1] “For 23 years in the lifetime of Prophet and 25 years after passing away of Prophet, Ali had friendly relations with Caliphs. He used to visit them in their houses and had family ties with them...”[2] “Whether in the lifetime of the Prophet or after his death, Ali used to meet and visit the three Caliphs. He had contacts with them and family relations with them.”[3] To analyse this claim we must first see individually the relations of each Caliph with the House of Divine Revelation during the lifetime and after passing away of Prophet.

p: 86

article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 52 said: His Eminence, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) has married his daughter Fatima to me and told me that God has performed our marriage in heaven…when Abu Bakr and his companions heard the news they pretended to be happy…”[10] Another case pertaining to the relations of Abu Bakr with Amirul Momineen (a.s.) goes back to the time of Prophet’s flight from Mecca to Yathrib and their halt at Quba; at that time: “Abu Bakr insisted that they enter Medina as soon as possible but the Prophet said: I will not enter Medina unless my brother, I mean, the son of my mother, Ali and my daughter Fatima come and join me. So Abu Bakr went alone to Medina in Ali’s jealousy.”[11] Historical sources mention that: “The Prophet stayed in Quba for fifteen days until Ali arrived. Abu Bakr told the Prophet: Ali may not come for a month! People of Medina are waiting for you! The Prophet said: No, it is not so. He will come soon. I too shall not move unless my cousin, my brother, the dearest one among my family and one who risked his life to save me, comes. This answer of the Prophet pained Abu Bakr. He left the Prophet at Quba and went to one of his friends’ house in Sunha locality in Quba.”[12] To summarize these events we can say: “Relations between Imam Ali (a.s.) and Abu Bakr were cold and not worth mention.”[13] Throughout the history of the Prophet, there is not one single incident to show existence of close, sincere, or intimate relations between Abu Bakr and the House of Divine Revelation. Now remains this claim to dwell upon: “Warm and sincere relations existed between devotees of the Prophet during the rule of the First Caliph, the Siddiq Akbar…”[14] To scrutinize this conjecture we have no way but to revert to the history of conduct and behavior of Abu Bakr toward the House of Divine Revelation. The scale of his affection and devotion to Ahle Bayt can be epitomized in one or two historical documents.[15] “Balazari writes in Al-Ansaab Al-Ashraaf: When Ali refrained from paying allegiance to Abu Bakr, he ordered Umar to go and fetch Ali by utmost coercion and maximum pressure. Ibne Abde Rabb writes in Al-Iqd al-Fareed: Abu Bakr assigned Umar bin Khattab to go and pull those (means Ali) out of their house and bring them to him. And he told him: If they do not come out, fight them.”[16] Therefore it can be said: Anyway, immediately after Abu Bakr became the Caliph and the insistence of the Imam to prove his rights with relation to Caliphate became a reason for difficulty between their relations. Attack on Fatima’s house, Fatima’s anger upon them, absence of permission for Abu Bakr and Umar to attend Fatima’s burial deepened the differences.”[17] On the basis of this there never existed good relations during the days of the Prophet but immediately after Abu Bakr becoming the first Caliph, harsh and impolite relations started hurting the House where once descended angels and divine revelations. So now how can one say: “Can one who has such intentions and beliefs about Zahra usurp her rights?”[18]

p: 88

No. 5, Spring 80, Pg. 30 These conjectures are answered by History very clearly: When Abu Bakr confiscated Fadak ignoring that it was personal property of Fatima and ignoring that it had been presented to Fatima by her father – the Prophet, Fatima demanded her right. He demanded witnesses to prove her claim. By so doing so he reflected that he had no belief in the Book of God – Quran in which the verse of purity clearly attests the impeccability and infallibility of Fatima and her sons – that is Ahle Bayt. Then he rejected the witnesses. It was a plot to deprive her of her own wealth and property. It is clear that he did not want to give back Fadak to her as he did not relinquish the office of Caliphate to Ali. Ali comes forward in defense of Fatima, but Abu Bakr remains adamant. There is exchange of words between Imam Ali (a.s.) and Abu Bakr. “The Imam after saying this goes home with a heavy heart. A din of voices fills the air. People among themselves say Ali is right. Fatima is right. It is their right. At that moment Abu Bakr goes to the pulpit and in order to silence the people says: O you people! What is this clamor for? You lend ear to everyone’s word. He (meaning Imam Ali) is a fox. The tail is his witness. He is after mischief. He himself is a malefic. He invites people to chaos. He seeks succor from a weak and takes help from women. He is like Umme Tahal, whose closest relatives were corrupt in her view. How imperious was the Caliph at the power he held. How brazen faced he is and insulting to the Imam. We can gauge the manners and etiquette of the Caliph and how he debased one whose purity the verse of purification had acknowledged… Ibne Abil Hadeed was very much surprised by all this insult done by the Caliph to Imam Ali (a.s.) and asked his teacher Ja’far bin Yahya Basri whether the Caliph had meant Ali? His teacher replied: Yes, my son. It is so. Ruling a government was in question… Yes! The fact is that the Caliphs did not spare anything to debase Ahle Bayt (a.s.) to establish their rule.”[19]

p: 89

No. 5, Spring 80, Pg. 35 Here it must be asked, how inspite of evidence of forgery and false claims they still say: “In the times of Siddiq and Farooq the financial rights were paid in full to the family of the Prophet.”[20]

[6] Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article quoted in Kitab Wahdat (Book of Unity), Pg. 131;

[7] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 125

[8] Engineer Jawad Husaini Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 171-173

[9] [Because to anyone who proposed for the hand of Zahra, the Prophet gave a negative reply due to divine orders]

[10] Allamah Majlisi: Jila al-Uyoon, Pgs. 202-208

[11] Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 179

[12] Muhammad Husain Rajabi: Article ‘Imam Ali Dar Ahd-e-Payambar’ quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali, Vol. 8, Pgs. 161-162; quoting from: Rasooli Mahallati: Zindigani Amirul Momineen (a.s.), Pg. 86

[13] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 16

[14] Khuda Raham Lakzai: Article quoted in Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue

[15] For sources of attack on Fatima’s house refer to Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Muhaziraat Fil Iteqaadaat, Vol. 2, Mazloomiyat-e-Zahra; Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani: Al-Hujjat al-Gharra Alaa Shahadat-e-Zahra; Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima; Husain Ghaib Gholami: Ahraaq-e-Bait-e-Fatima (Arabic) and also: Sayyid Muhammad Husain Sajjad: Aatish Ba Khana-e-Wahy; Masoodpoor Sayyid Aaqai: Hoor Dar Aatish (Persian)

[16] Engineer Jawad Husaini Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 109-111

[17] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 13

[18] Khuda Raham Lakzai: Article quoted in Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue

[19] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 202-203; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha of Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pg. 214

p: 91

[20] Khuda Raham Lakzai: Article quoted in Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 5, Spring 80, Pg. 33

[21] [Abdul Aziz Nomani in the article: ‘Fatima Zahra Az Wiladat Ta Afsana-e-Shahadat’ quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, (Issue No. 3, Autumn 79) This forged tradition is quoted from the book, Al-Muntazim fee Tarikh al-Umam wal-Mulook (written by Ibne Jauzi), Vol. 4, Pg. 96, considering it authentic.]

[22] Quoting from: Lisan al-Mizan, Vol. 3, Pg. 334

[23] Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Guftaarhai-e-Peeramoon Mazloomiyat-e-Bartareen Banu (Translation: Masood Shikohi), Pg. 106

[24] Muhammad Ismail Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Tradition no. 3913

[25] Muslim bin Hajjaj Nishapuri: Sahih Muslim, Tradition no. 3304

Document no. 5 “[In the matter of asking for her inheritance] Fatima got angry and left Abu Bakr and remained severed with him until she passed away.”[5]

Document no. 6 “[In the matter of asking for her inheritance, Fadak and what remained of the Khums of the Khaiber booty] Fatima became angry upon Abu Bakr in that (matter).”[6]

Document no. 7 “She said, by God, I shall never talk to you two and she died and did never speak to the two of them.”[7]

In spite of the fact that it is against all historical proofs it is claimed: “In authentic documents we do not trace any sign of referring to Caliphs by the term of enmity by Ali or Zahra or any of the Infallible Imams. Therefore I conclude that they treated this as a difference between companions of Prophet during the total period of Caliphs and even during the period of Ali’s rule. And after that during the time of the Purified Imams (a.s.).”![8]

Aim of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in taking over the Guardianship of Muhammad bin Abu Bakr? Another conjecture concerns relations between the First Caliph and Ali with regard to Guardianship of the widow and his son Muhammad, after the death of Caliph. Their claim goes like this: “His Eminence (a.s.) showed close affection to Abu Bakr and after his death married his widow and brought up his son, Muhammad Ibne Abu Bakr in his house…”![1] “Muhammad Ibne Abu Bakr was very dear to Ali. He was brought up along with his own sons. During Caliphate of Ali, he was appointed as a governor of Egypt.”![2] Now to check this conjecture we must go to Asma Binte Umais, the widow of Abu Bakr and speak about her: “Asma was Abu Bakr’s wife, but she mostly spent her time at the house of the son-in-law of the Prophet and the brother of her husband (Ali Ibne Abi Talib a.s.) and in the service of Fatima”[3] In this regard it can be said: “The lady, Asma Binte Umais was a good and virtuous lady. Her early life was as prosperous as the evening of her life. She was the wife of (brother of Ali) Ja’far bin Abi Talib. Finally, she became wife of Ali bin Abi Talib. In the middle for a few years, she was Abu Bakr’s wife. She gave birth to Muhammad son of Abu Bakr. But this great lady brought up Muhammad so purely that the impure sperm turned out a man adhering to the right path of Ali enriched by the love of Ahle Bayt. This lady made Muhammad son of Ali though he was son of Abu Bakr. Indeed, beyond appreciations it is that when she witnesses Caliphate – the right of Ali – is usurped by her husband and the track perverted, she deserts the house of usurpation and comes to Fatima’s House of Divine Revelation. By this act, she displays her scorn to tyranny to Ali and Fatima and her fidelity and devotion to the Wilayat of Ali and Ahle Bayt…”[4] On the basis of this, marriage of Asma to Abu Bakr is worth pondering upon as: “Cause and motive of this marriage – inspite of such a wide gulf between wife and husband in thoughts and moral tendencies – from the historical view has put this in the circle of ambiguity.”[5] Therefore the arguments of marriage of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) with Asma and his Guardianship of her son, Muhammad should be sought in the personal excellence restricted to Asma herself – her support for the sanctity of Alawite Wilayat and Imamate can be nicely seen in the following steps of Asma: “Abu Bakr, Umar and their advisory board were so much harassed and disturbed in their thoughts by the campaign of Ali that they were at a loss what to do. Their minds hurried this way and that and made hasty decisions only to be rescinded and made again. In a quandary, they dismissed what was determined. Finally, their thoughts collectively relaxed at one decision – to assassinate Ali. Abu Bakr’s wife Asma learnt of this plot. She immediately sent her maid to Fatima’s House and told her to recite the following verse as soon as she entered the house: That is these people are plotting (conspiring) against you to kill you. So get out, I advise you.[6] Similarly Asma told the maid: If they do not take the cue repeat the verse…”[7] Likewise, the level of Muhammad (Asma’s son) with the family of his father, Abu Bakr can be judged very well by his stand in the battle of Jamal against his own sister, Ayesha. In this battle in support of his Imam, Muhammad drew his sword against his sister, Ayesha binte Abu Bakr. At the end of the battle Muhammad addressed Ayesha and introduced himself as follows: “I am nearest in relation to you and at the same time your most ardent enemy…”[8] Therefore Ali’s marriage with Asma after the death of Abu Bakr and guardianship of her son, Muhammad Ibne Abu Bakr has no bearing on relations of His Eminence (a.s.) with Abu Bakr. It is related to the moral quality of Asma herself as was a lady with belief in the Wilayat of Ali (a.s.) and was blessed with affection for the House of the Prophet. Imam Ali (a.s.) not only married her, he even took her son under his own training. Later this Muhammad – the son of Abu Bakr becomes a model among Shias to brighten the Shia school. His (Muhammad’s) son became a special associate of Imam Sajjad (a.s.).[9] His (Muhammad’s) daughter became the wife of Imam Baqir (a.s.) and mother of Imam Sadiq (a.s.).[10] Now let us ask the reader himself – do these attributes of Asma binte Umais have any bearing on Abu Bakr, or do they bestow any virtue on Abu Bakr? In spite of these facts they still claim: “But Imam Sajjad married the granddaughter of the First Caliph. The grand children of Imam Baqir’s mother were in fact the progeny of Abu Bakr. So such relation cannot be created or formed with an enemy.”![11] “Our Imams from Imam Baqir (a.s.) onwards are the off springs of Abu Bakr’s daughter. Our Imams are closely related to the Caliphs.”![12] On the basis of what you have seen no scope remains for the claim that: “Besides the co-operation of our chief, Ali with Hazrat Abu Bakr…these two pupils of the Prophet (Abu Bakr and Ali), like members of one family, were friendly and loving to each other.”![13]

p: 94

Thus Imam (a.s.) displayed to others his objection and anger for usurpation of Caliphate till the Caliph and the people became aware of it.”[29] The exact words of Umar’s statement about Ali’s attitude towards him are these: “I always find him angry towards me. What in your view is the cause of his anger?” In view of these two reliable documents taken from Sunni source of repute and mentioned in a prestigious Sunni book, we leave the reader to himself judge the creditability of the claim. Such claims are in rife. But their creditability cannot stand before historical grounds that reflect a contradictory picture to us. For instance, a few more we quote here: “Behavior and talk of Ali, according to contents of reliable books of both sects show that there never existed enmity etc. between him and Caliphs.”![30] “I challenge and even prove that Ali was not an enemy of the three Caliphs.”![31] “He had a mild behavior with this Caliph too. He kept behind his claim against this new Caliph.”![32] “So doubt vanished from both sides. The distance was reduced between the two. Trust came in with a new title in a new stage.”![33] “In the era of Caliphs, Ahle Bayt of Prophet did what they could for the expansion of Islam and strength of Islamic government. They sacrificed money and life. This itself is proof and indication of their satisfaction and love.”![34] “When Hazrat Umar died, his body was laid under a shroud. I was present there. Imam Ali (a.s.) came. He removed the shroud from his body. He said: Abu Hafs! May God immerse you in His Mercy. I swear by God, after the Prophet of God, there is no one except you that I was friend of. How I wish that the scroll of your deeds were mine. I could have met God with the scroll of your deeds.”![35] “Ali behaved mildly and politely with Caliphs’ government.”![36] “On the basis of this those who think that since they follow Ali they must declare immunity from Caliphs should prove whether he also did Tabarra with them, so that we must also do so.”![37] At the end of this chapter we draw your attention to another historical document: “When Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) returned home after [from six-member Shura committee] he told the family of Abdul Muttalib: “O family of Abdul Muttalib! Your relatives are at animosity with you after passing away of Prophet like their enmity with the Prophet in his life. If your people attain power they will never take you into consultation. By God, they will not turn to the Truth but by sword.” The narrator says: Abdullah Ibne Umar was also present there and he heard all what His Eminence said as he was entering. Then he entered and said: “O Abal Hasan, do you want to create enmity between your relatives and them? Ali said: “Woe be on you! Keep Quiet! By God, if your father had not been there and he had not behaved with me in this manner all his life, the son of Affan (Uthman) and son of Auf (Abdur Rahman) would never have challenged me. At that moment Abdullah bin Umar got up and went away.”[38]

p: 96

[9] Allamah Majlisi: Jila al-Uyoon, Pg. 870

[10] Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) said: “My mother was from those who had brought faith and were pious and righteous and Allah loves who are righteous.” (Allamah Majlisi: Jila al-Uyoon, Pg. 870)

[11] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379

[12] Ibid. Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 62

[13] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 82, Pg. 12

[14] Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), [1st Edition 1380], Pg. 110

[15] Ibid. Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), [1st Edition 1380], Pg. 87

[16] Engineer Jawad Husaini Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 109-110

[17] Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 81

[18] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 62

[19] Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379

[20] Ibid. Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 30, Bahman 1379

[21] [It is the events that unfolded after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.)]

[22] Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381

[23] Reza Salmani: Rawabit Mutaqabil Kholafa Ba Khandaan-e-Payambar, Pg. 42

[24] Ibid. Pg. 41, quoting from: Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, Kitabul Jihad was Sayr, Bab Hukmul Fee, Pg. 27, Tr. 49 (3302), Mausisa-e-Izuddin

[25] Ibid. Pgs. 41-42; quoting from: Tarikhul Madina, Vol. 1, Pgs. 202-204, Daar al-Fikr

p: 98

[26] Sahih Muslim, No. 3302

[27] Husain Ghaib Gholami: Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) wa Rumuz-e-Hadith-e-Fadak, Pgs. 52-59

[28] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 29, Khordad 1379

[29] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 227; quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha of Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pgs. 78-79

[30] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381

[31] Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381

[32] Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379], Pg. 40

[33] Ibid. Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379], Pg. 42

[34] Abdul Hameed Ismail Zahi: Appeal quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 9, Spring 81, Pg. 71 [35] Abdullah Futuhi: Article in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, Summer 81, Pg. 78

[36] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381

[37] Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381

[38] Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 9, Pg. 54

[39] Refer: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1

[40] Muhammad Ismail Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Pg. 253, Kitabul Maghazi, Chap. 155, Ghazwa-e-Khaiber, Tradition no. 704 (3913)

The rancor of Umayyad dynasty was never to be mitigated which had taken root since years long. Their fathers had fed their children with this rancor. Therefore one generation carried it to the next. Umar was in his deathbed. However he designed a plot so shrewdly that he brought forward all the motives of national prejudices against Ali. It was clear that the victim was Ali. Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood writes: For the Quraish the principle of age of ignorance was a fixed policy. Further, a staunch attachment to tribal bigotry to limits of worship was their characteristic. Members of the committee were from such a tribe with such an outlook. To break down family unity of Bani Hashim was an ambition and aspiration of Quraish. Umar performed his duty, which was to isolate Caliphate from Bani Hashim. This was already in efforts since passing away of Prophet. There was no possibility left for Ali to win the contest. Whoever heard the names of the members of this committee became sure of the choice of Uthman.”[4] “How Umar introduced each member of Shura, highlighting their defects and kept them in line with Ali? His motive is clear. He wanted that the man most deserving to this office and most competent to this job should not come to power.”[5] In the same way Umar told Ibne Abbas while speaking to him about Ali refusing him to accompany to Syria unveiling the matter of the pen and paper by confessing that: “The Prophet during his sickness wanted to introduce Ali as his successor but I prevented him.”[6] On another occasion the Second Caliph says: “His Eminence, during his illness decided to clarify this matter but I prevented him.”[7] These confessions nicely disclose the plots he had designed one after another to hinder the way for Ali to attain the Caliphate. In conclusion, it can be said: “Not only the behavior of Caliphs was not good with Ali (a.s.) and Ali did not cooperate with him whole-heartedly, the behavior of Abu Bakr towards him was very cold and Umar did not give any office to Bani Hashim. On the contrary, he used to give key positions to Bani Umayyah and by reviving practices and malice of the days of ignorance he compelled Ali (a.s.) to isolation. In a gathering Umar told Saeed bin Aas, an Umayyad, in the presence of Ali: You are looking at me as if I have killed your father, while it was Ali who killed your father.”[8] Allamah Askari has narrated the aforesaid conversation in his book Saqifah. His source is Tabaqaat of Ibne Saad (Vol. 5, Pg. 20-22). His analysis is this: “It shows his provoking and inciting the people against Ali. Do such words of Umar not excite and provoke to revenge the blood of their nearest ones shed by Ali? Does it not encourage Saeed to take revenge of his father’s death by assassinating Ali?”[9]

p: 100

He has similarly said: “All who have mentioned this marriage have said: Her marriage took place after assassination of Umar with Aun. Aun was killed in the battle of Tustar[30] in the year seventeen Hijra during Umar’s Caliphate. So it cannot be accepted that he[31] married her[32] after Aun was killed?... The most surprising thing, which has incited a group to believe this story, is the statement of Ibne Abdul Barr. He says Muhammad bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib is the same who married Umme Kulthum after the death of Umar. While in the same book he says: Aun bin Ja’far and his brother Muhammad bin Ja’far were martyred in Tustar district (of Iran). He knows that the battle of Tustar happened during Umar’s Caliphate seven years before his death. Considering the date how can we give credit to this story?”[33] Therefore it can be said: A group of Sunni sect denies the narrations of marriage because they consider it an insult to Umar as the narrations mention his behavior with Umme Kulthum. Therefore to safeguard Umar’s honor they have no way but to deny it.

Regarding the threats of Caliph it can be said: “Shia and Sunni are unanimous that Umar threatened Ali when he persisted on his refusal to demand of Umar to marry Umme Kulthum. Sunni scholars have mentioned it in Tabaqaat Ibne Saad, Zurriat al-Tahera of Dolabi and Majma az-Zawaid.[47] In these two books the cane of Umar[48] is referred to.”[49] Therefore if there be truth in this marriage and there be a reality in the whole incident then it is self-evident and self-explanatory about Ali’s victimization. Further, it explains the political conditions ruling over Muslims at that time. It shows a plot designed by Ayesha, Umar and Amr Aas for this marriage to take place. “Many Sunni sources, including Tabari, have written: Umar bin Khattab first went to Abu Bakr to ask his daughter, Umme Kulthum, in marriage. Ayesha conveyed this errand to her sister (Umme Kulthum). Umme Kulthum in reply said that she has no business with him. Ayesha asked her whether she (Umme Kulthum) did not like the Lord of the believers. In reply, Umme Kulthum said: Yes, I don’t like him. He is harsh and hard to live with. Beside he has a negative behavior and a very rough conduct with women. Ayesha sent a message to Amr Aas to inform him about the development. Amr Aas assured her that he would adjust the things. Then he went to Umar bin Khattab and told him that he had heard news, which he wished from God to be not true. Umar asked what it was. Then he replied that he had heard that he (Umar) had asked for Abu Bakr’s daughter in marriage. Umar said: Yes. Do you think me not fit to her or she to me? Amr Aas told Umar (bin Khattab): No, nothing of these two. Umme Kulthum is too young. She is treated by her sister (Ayesha) too mildly and affectionately. On the other hand you are extremely hard and harsh. We are afraid of you because we cannot change any of your habits…I will direct you to one better than her. Another Umme Kulthum – daughter of Ali bin Abi Talib.[50]“[51]

p: 106

Umar might have contacted Ali with the request of marriage. It could be possible that he might have insisted upon his request besides having had repeated his contacts either by visits or approaches. Such persistence on his part could be the reason for change in answer of Ali from negative to positive. In addition to this, there is another element very much efficacious in this matter. Umar had sought the good offices of Aqeel (Ali’s brother) and Abbas (Ali’s uncle). So their recommendation in between seems to have played an effective role in making Ali change his stand. By the way, Sunni sources attest that Aqeel was in between. In a long run, Umar succeeded in creating compelling conditions for Ali. Finally, there remained no option for Ali but to accept. His acceptance was not on his will or inclination. Finally, he personally does not undertake the responsibility. This is further proof of his unwillingness. He leaves the whole matter to his uncle (Abbas). What could be a better sign of his unwillingness? Abbas performed the marriage and took the girl, Umme Kulthum, to Umar’s house. After this marriage, a short span of time passed and Umar was killed. Then Ali brought back his daughter home. However this is the reality of the case and the background of the story. Now in view of this background and conditions that prevailed and the circumstances created for Ali, how could it be said that close, friendly and brotherly relations existed between Ali and Umar? A dim ray of reason will suffice to see the facts, a little wisdom is enough to judge the things and a least justice is sufficient to speak the truth far from selfish aims or motives. Shias have repeatedly stated with proof, logic and reason that Caliphate is a divine office as Prophethood. As we cannot appoint or choose a Prophet we cannot choose or appoint a successor to him. It is entirely and absolutely God’s choice and His responsibility. The office of Imamate is sacred and too holy and too high. To occupy this office, everyone, no matter whatever his qualifications, is impaired unless he is chosen by God and is infallible. Regarding this marriage, the narrations have several stories within a story to weave such as the children born of this marriage and the material used to enhance the beauty of the bride. All these things are false and without a ground. If at all, anything could be proved it could be this: The insistence of Umar bin Khattab and nothing else. There is a tradition of the Prophet that: on the Day of Judgment there will not remain any family link or relation except that of mine.[58] To explain, the ties or links with the Prophet, that is the birth ties or links by birth that originate from the Prophet are not breakable. So Umar wanted to attain a family link with Fatima (daughter of the Prophet) and through her enter into family ties with the person of the Prophet to get that distinction. But the real motive of Umar by this marriage is something else. This motive can be found in the narration of Muhammad bin Idrees Shafei: When Hajjaj bin Yusuf Thaqafi married the daughter of Abdullah bin Ja’far. Khalid bin Yazid bin Muawiyah told Abdul Malik Marwan: Have you left Hajjaj on his own on this matter of marriage. Abdul Malik replied: Yes, is there any problem in it? Khalid said: By God, this creates great many problems. Abdul Malik asked how and why. Khalid in answer said: By God! O Caliph! From the time I married the widow (daughter of Zubair) all the hatred and rancor that was rankling in my breast towards Zubair has now gone. By these words of Khalid, Abdul Malik woke up as if he was in sleep. He immediately wrote to Hajjaj to divorce the daughter of Abdullah. Hajjaj did the same. In other words, he obeyed the orders of Caliph.[59] Of course there is no doubt that through marriage one enters into other’s families and new links come into being. Also the inimical relation changes into friendly by a marriage. But the ill-will that Bani Umayyah had towards Bani Hashim always instigated them towards revenge instead of friendship. Bani Umayyah clan was always waiting for any opportunity to cool the fire of hatred burning in their hearts generation after generation. But the case differed with Umar bin Khattab. By entering into the clan of Bani Hashim and particularly the House of Ali through this newly created link he wanted to change public opinion. He thought that the painful occurrence of Saqifah and his atrocious conduct along with his colleagues that entailed against Zahra could be redressed in the public view.”[60]

p: 108

Ubaidullah (Cousin of Abu Bakr and a strong supporter of Ayesha). Therefore it must be said: In the beginning Umar asked for the hand of Umme Kulthum daughter of Umme Habiba.

Her Eminence, Zahra or Umme Kulthum, the younger, from slave wife or her step-daughter] was to insult His Eminence (a.s.). (Refer: Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Zalaamatu Umme Kulthum, Pgs. 78 110)

“By God, to me you are not above Marwan!”[75] Again in the case of Ali’s support to Ammar Yasir: “A harsh exchange of words took place between the two, which turned into a fracas. Little by little, Uthman could not tolerate the brawl. He said to Ali: You too deserve to be expelled.[76] The reason for such rows was that: “Uthman considered Imam’s support to victims and oppressed as a direct war and an insult to him. Imam knew this but he did not forgo helping the victims.”[77] So the difference went along between the two and became too serious that Uthman told him: “I don’t know whether I like to see you dead or alive.”[78] Then during the general riots: “Marwan and Bani Umayyah used to whisper into the ears of Uthman that Ali was instigating the people against the Caliph to riot. The Egyptians were under Ali’s directions. Therefore Uthman expelled Ali to Yanbuh.”[79] While this expulsion, in spite of historical evidences in support of it, has been distorted as follows: “As Ali was more sympathetic to Uthman because of the riots against him, Uthman sent message to Ali to go out of Medina. Ali did so and this happened several times.”[80] There is another example of such conduct towards Ali: “Uthman too followed his predecessor Umar and prohibited the Hajj. Ali objected because openly it was wrong. He stood against Caliph in word and deed. He took such a strong stand that his assassination seemed too likely to occur at the hands of Caliph’s men. Abdullah bin Zubair says: A man from Damascus said, which I will never forget: See the man how he argues with the lord of believers (Uthman). By God, I will kill him if the Caliph orders me.”[81] There is another incident. Ali objected to the Caliph when Uthman wanted to buy endowed land. “The argument became a dispute the dispute became a noisy quarrel and the quarrel enraged Caliph so much that he lifted the whip upon Ali and Ali raised the cane which was in his hand. Prophet’s uncle, Abbas came in between and calmed the two.”[82]

p: 112

[18] Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 12

[19] Jamaal Baadroza: Khilafat O Imamat Az Deedgaah-e-Ahle Sunnat (1st Edition 1381), Pg. 27

[20] Ibid. Khilafat O Imamat Az Deedgaah-e-Ahle Sunnat, Pg. 80

[21] [Masoodi says that shedding blood gave him maximum pleasure…Ibne Kathir says that in the year 68 A.H. it became customary to celebrate the Day of Ashura as Eid. They dressed in new clothes and felt regretful for not being present in Kerbala. They dug up 3000 graves to bring out the last remains of Ali (a.s.). During the long period of his rule no one could name his child Ali, Hasan or Husain… In his time disbelief was not as serious an offence as Shiaism, it was better to say: I am a Kafir than to say I am a Shia. (Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani:: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pgs. 81-82)]

[22] Ibne Jauzi: Akhbaarun Nisa, Pg. 65

[23] Engineer Jawad Husaini Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pg. 178

[24] [In other words if these versions are compared, their contradictions will become clear.]

[25] Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar (Translated by Dr. Sayyid Hasan Iftikharzadeh Sabzawari) Pgs. 875-876

[26] Refer: Al-Ghadeer, Vol. 2, Pg. 396

[27] [The view of Shaykh Mufeed is that the Sunnis cannot prove this marriage on the basis of their books.]

[28] Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani:: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 57

[29] Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar, Pgs. 872-873

[30] Shushtar

[31] [Umar]

p: 114

[32] [Umme Kulthum]

[33] Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar, Pg. 873

[34] Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar, Pg. 876, quoting from: Shaykh Mufeed

[35] Vol. 16, Pg. 103, Dar al-Fikr Beirut

[36] Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj (Investigation about the marriage of Umme Kulthum with Umar in Shia and Sunni sources), Pgs. 20-22

[37] Since the honorable post of providing water in Masjidul Haraam and distributing Zamzam water was held by Abbas, Umar wanted to destroy this honor and ridicule Abbas.

[38] Thiqatul Islam Kulaini: Kafi, Vol. 5, Pg. 346, Tr. 1; Hurr Amili: Wasaelush Shia, Vol.14, Pg. 433, Tr. 2 [39] Sharif Murtuza: Ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 282

[40] [The point worth noting is that according to Islamic Shariah if four witnesses testify the accused will be punished. If three do and the fourth is proved wrong all the three are punished with 80 lashes. The Second Caliph used this in the matter of Mughaira. Instead of punishing him he lashed the three witnesses.] Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 340-345]

[41] [This same document proves that Amirul Momineen (a.s.) was not always present in the congregation prayers in the Masjid and other similar rituals.]

[42] Bahrani: Awalim al-Uloom, Vol. 2; quoting from Al-Motatul Baiza, Pg. 139

[43] Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj, Pgs. 23-26

[44] Bahrani: Awalim al-Uloom, Vol. 2; quoting from Al-Motatul Baiza, Pg. 139

[45] Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj, Pgs. 28-29

[46] Kulaini: Kafi, Vol. 5, Pg. 350; Hurr Amili: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 3, Pg. 129

p: 115

[47] Tabaqat Ibne Saad, Vol. 8, Pg. 462; Ad-Dhariatut Tahira, Pg. 160, Tr. 210; Majmauz Zawaid, Vol. 4, Pg. 499

[48] [Ibne Abil Hadeed in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, (Vol. 1, Pg. 181), has considered the whip of Umar to be more terrifying than the sword of Hajjaj.]

[49] Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj, Pgs. 26-27

[50] Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 421; Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 6, Pg. 91; Kamil Ibne Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 213; Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya Ibne Kathir, Vol. 7, Pg. 157

[51] Engineer Jawad Husaini Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pg. 175

[52] Those who are interested may refer to detailed discussion on this topic in his books: Ar Rasail al-Ashar fil Ahadith al-Mauzoo fee Kutub as-Sunnah and Muhaziraat fil Itiqaad.

[53] Kulaini: Furu Kafi, Vol. 5, Pg. 346, Vol. 6, Pg. 115

[54] It is worth mention that some senior scholars like Shaykh Mufeed and Sayyid Murtuza have rejected the marriage totally.

[55] Tahdhib at-Tahdhib: Vol. 1, Pg. 44; Vol. 11, Pg. 382; Vol. 4, Pg. 106

[56] Tabaqat al-Kubra: Vol. 8, Pg. 462; Al-Mustadrak: Vol. 3, Pg. 142; As-Sunan al-Kubra: Vol. 7, Pg. 63 Pg. 114; Tarikh Baghdad: Vol. 6, Pg. 182; Al-Istiab: Vol. 4, Pg. 1954; Usud al-Ghaba: Vol. 5, Pg. 614; Ad-Dhariatut Tahira: Pgs. 157-165; Majmauz Zawaid: Vol. 4, Pg. 499; Al-Musannif Sanaani: Pg. 10354

[57] At-Tabaqat al-Kubra: Vol. 8, Pg. 463, Printed in Beirut; Al-Isabah: Vol. 4, Part 8, Pg. 275, No. 1473, Darul Kutub al-Ilmiya – Beirut; Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya: Vol. 5, Pg. 330, Darul Ahya Turathul Arabi – Beirut; Ansaab al-Ashraaf: Vol. 2, Pg. 412, Darul Fikr – Beirut; Al-Mustadrak: Vol. 3, Pg. 142, Darul Maroof – Beirut

p: 116

[58] At-Tabaqat al-Kubra: Vol. 8, Pg. 463, Printed in Beirut

[59] Mukhtasar Tarikh-e-Damishq: Vol. 6, Pg. 205

[60] Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pgs. 227-235

[61] Extract from Arabic text quoted in: Fatima Zahra Bahjat Qalb-e-Mustafa, Vol. 2, Pgs. 655-656

[62] By Shaykh Mufeed (q.s.)

[63] According to Late Muhaqqiq Shustari we can arrange this as follows: [a) Umme Kulthum Kubra; daughter of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). b) Umme Kulthum Sughra; daughter of slave-wife. c) Zainab Kubra; daughter of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). d) Zainab Sughra; daughter of slave-wife.]

[64] Refer: Muhaqqiq Shushtari: Qamoos ar-Rijaal, Vol. 10, Pg. 205

[65] Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 59

[66] Refer: Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Zalaamatu Umme Kulthum, Pgs. 127-131

[67] Historical sources have mentioned that: Umme Habiba daughter of Kharja bin Zaid Ansari – wife of Abu Bakr – after his death, gave birth to a daughter who was named Umme Kulthum. (Nuwairi: Nihayatul Arab, translated by Dr. Muhammad Damghani, Vol. 4, Pg. 117)

[68] Refer: Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 59

[69] Even if we do not agree to the view of Ayatullah Marashi we can still say that the suggestion of Amr Aas to marry the daughter of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) created a new motive in the Second Caliph.

[70] On the basis of this it is known that Abu Bakr had two daughters named Umme Kulthum.

[71] Ustad Ja’far Murtuza believes that the intention of Umar in trying to marry the daughter of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) [whether it be Umme Kulthum, the elder, from

p: 117

[72] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 133

[73] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)], Pg. 21; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 4, Pg. 132

[74] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 219; quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadid, Vol. 8, Pgs. 254-255 Muruj az-Zahab, Pgs. 359-360

[75] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 337; quoting from: Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 1, Pg. 689

[76] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 198; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pgs. 54-55

[77] Ibid. Pg. 196

[78] Ibid. Pg. 196; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 48

[79] Ibid. Pg. 246; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 62

[80] Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article quoted in Kitab Wahdat (Book of Unity), Pgs. 139-140; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 53

[81] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 282; quoting from: Tarikh Damishq, Ibne Asakir, Vol. 6, Pg. 24

[82] Ibid. Pg. 297; quoting from: Majma az-Zawaid, Vol. 7, Pg. 226

In any case: “To oppose the government was not easy for Imam Ali (a.s.). In the early years, it was very hard to Ali. So he tried to take refuge in isolation to avoid face-to-face situation. The fate of Saad bin Ubadah was a very painful example. He did not give Bay’at to Abu Bakr. In the period of Abu Bakr or Umar news came that Jinns have killed him in Damascus. Some sources[4] indicate that his murder was political.”[5] In the same way: “Opinion of Imam about Caliphate of the three Caliphs remained confined to himself. The stringent conditions deprived him of any freedom of expression. Caliphate of the first two (Abu Bakr and Umar) receded into the annals of history. As for the third (Uthman) again Ali did not find an opportunity to express his judgment. The handicap was Imam’s soldiers in Kufa were those who had acknowledged the authority of Abu Bakr and Umar. So in their presence Imam could not speak freely. Only once he got the opportunity. He gave expression to his agonies suffered at the hands of those two. Then all of a sudden he stopped and shifted to some other subject.”[6] Because: “Although he had a multitude of political supporters during his own Caliphate mostly they had belief in competency of Abu Bakr and Umar. So it was difficult for him state the facts about them or do anything contrary to their attitude as it would have created difficulties for him.”[7] In short it can be said that: Amirul Momineen (a.s.) had to face insurmountable difficult conditions. “Any change in political trend from the past two Caliphs was, for Ali, a change from a norm to which the people had become familiar and habituated for a quarter of a century. A multitude of people had come under Ali’s banner because they were critics of Uthman as to why he was not following in the footsteps of Abu Bakr and Umar. (It shows how hard it would have been for Ali himself.)”[8] Therefore before dwelling on analysis of Imam Ali’s (a.s.) speeches, it would be interesting to see the trend of the people: “People of those days…came after Ali to persuade him to become Caliph. But they expected him to follow the track of Umar.”[9] “Some people clearly told the Imam (a.s.) that he must act on the practice of the past Caliphs.”[10] “Ezzat-al-Din Abu Hamid Motazalli has gone a step forward and says: People’s getting accustomed to Umar was the main reason for their opposition to Ali bin Abi Talib. Ebb and flow of their opposition kept playing for long, Sometimes it caused Ali’s anger and anguish. He used to ask whether the tradition of the Prophet was better or that of Umar?!...[11] Ali himself says that innovation in religion had taken a deep and strong root. If I were to disclose the real ruling or decree of faith in such regard, people would have left me and dispersed from around me. Imam Ali (a.s.) further says: I told the people that in the month of Ramadan except for daily prayers they must not come for any other congregation prayer and announced that praying collectively in recommended prayers is innovation. Some soldiers who had fought under my command shouted: O, Muslims! Look, the tradition of Umar is altered. Ali wants us to give up recommended prayers of Ramadan. So with such mentality of the people, Ali says that he feared mutiny.[12]”[13] Circumstances such as these also did not allow Ali to restore Fadak during his own rule.[14] Anyway, from time to time at an opportunity whether short or long, Ali utilized to express his victimization and the tyranny done against him. Ibne al-Hadeed writes: “Narrations that have reached us in continuity inform us about the situation of Ali. He has told something like this: I have been oppressed since passing away of Prophet right till this day.”[15] Historical documents show that the people were also exercising a severe force on Ali. When such an opinion prevails generally Imam Ali (a.s.) refers to them (Abu Bakr and Umar) with great circumspection. This widely disseminated opinion snatched from him the possibility of criticizing them openly. To be acquainted with the necessity that forced Ali to accept the past as it preceded him refer to the third volume of this series. A little attention to historical documents indicates the elements that existed during Ali’s Caliphate which impeded him to criticize or censure his predecessors, particularly Umar. The following document, for example, shows the stringent conditions that ruled over Ali. From this, we can grasp the tight and narrow possibilities that were at Ali’s disposal: Muawiyah in his letter to Ali writes: “I have heard the news of your remembering them (Caliphs preceding Ali) with mercy and kindness. This could be either of the two reasons – to which there is no third. This might be due to dissimulation because you are afraid that your soldiers with whom you fight against me would desert you. And the second reason is what you say is false and wrong. Also I have come to know that you have told your Shias who have gone perverted and astray: I have named my three sons: Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. So whenever you hear me send blessings on Imams of perversion you should know that I mean my sons.”[16]

p: 119

(343) We have spoken in the past regarding this subject referring to the words of Ibne Abdul Barr.[30] Now we wish to dwell on details. First: Such matters attributed to Imam Ali (a.s.) are mostly and only mentioned in the books of Sunnis; such things are never found in Shia books. The logic of argument is lame here. They always trod over norms and trespass the standard formulas whenever Amirul Momineen (a.s.) comes into question. Second: No books of repute among Sunni authorities have mentioned these things. If at all anything is mentioned, it is mentioned not as an established fact. They mention under a guise of: It is told of Ali or: Having had told of Ali…Such a tone of narration eschews responsibility. It does not establish the narrated matter as solid truth. Such type of narration either in history or by any authority in itself loses credibility. They are deprived of any strength that a document or a reality should have. Third: Existence of words and plenitude of narrations besides the multitude of narrators about superiority of Ali and about the best qualities in his person, in addition to the constant sayings of Prophet regarding the worth and highly dignified status of Ali repudiate praise for Caliphs. There remains no room to any praise for any Caliphs. It is invented to bedim the widespread glitter of Prophet’s praise of Ali: There was no need for Ali to praise Caliphs. Fourth: There are evidences in excess that prove attributions such as these as false and absolutely lie. We suffice with one: Ibne Abdul Barr in his book Al-Istiab Fil Marefat-al-Ashaab writes on the authority of reputed personalities such as Salman, Miqdad, Abu Zar, Habbab, Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansaari, Abu Saeed Khudri and Zaid bin Arqam: Ali bin Abi Talib is the first one to embrace Islam. After that he writes: They all gave Ali priority over others.[31] Here it is necessary to point out that those who had such a belief in Ali or they viewed Ali at such a station, were in all twenty persons. They were themselves companions and enjoyed a good reputation in society. The author of Al-Istiab has avoided many others and only refers to these twenty persons that he deems fit. The question who was the first to become Muslim has a great bearing on worth or reputation in Sunni books. Its answer is Ali. Therefore this very element singly brings much credit and worth to Ali. Sunni sources have narrated that Abu Bakr embraced Islam after fifty persons[32] had become Muslims. Therefore they created such baseless stories to stain Ali’s reputation because of the realities of his personality, which cannot be denied. More strange is that they have created stories to say that it was Abu Bakr who embraced Islam first though they have no evidence to prove it. There are several such false stories but don’t have to argue their worth. The theme of our argument is the saying of a highly reputed scholar among adversaries of Shia. He is Ibne Abdul Barr Qurtubi. He says in his book that many among the Prophet’s companions have acknowledged Ali’s superiority over Abu Bakr. We all know this but Ali during all the periods, including when he was in power did not punish any for this matter. Here we see Ibne Hajar Asqalani helpless and seeking to rescue himself. On the other hand they attributed Ali having told that he would punish those who say Ali was better than Abu Bakr and Umar. If it was true why Ali did not punish anyone? Ibne Abdul Barr adds: And they preferred him upon others. So contradiction is quite obvious in his saying. We have evidences that say similar things attributing it to the past scholars and some to recent ones – each trying to establish his claim.”[33] In the end it is noted that Caliphs themselves have admitted superiority of Ali in learning and knowledge. In many cases, Ali went to their help. He solved their problems and clarified many issues. This aspect of knowledge is very important for a Caliph. This itself is enough to refute what Ibne Taimmiyah has claimed.

p: 123

We can ignore all these things. The Late Ustad Mutahhari in his essay Sairi Dar Nahjul Balagha says: “Ibne Abil Hadeed believes the story that there are sentences in Nahjul Balagha in praise of Umar. But there are some contemporaries who have narrated in different form. It runs thus: Ali came out of his house and saw Mughaira. In a tone of interrogation, he asked Mughaira whether was it true what the daughter of Abi Khathima said in praise of Umar? Therefore as such this cannot be confirmed that it was Ali’s saying or Ali’s acceptance of the words of the speaker that Sayyid Razi included in the text of Nahjul Balagha by mistake.[39] Of course through careful attention, study of the text of Tabari’s saying Abi Khathima’s daughter and text of the sermon 228 we can distinguish the subject matter.”[40] Thus it seems Imam Ali (a.s.) has repeated the words of the girl by way of surprise. There is another point to be paid attention to: In the closing sentences, Ali says: “The astrayed cannot be guided and the guided one cannot retain certainty nor could he rest assured.”

Point One: The matter taken from the text of Al-Gharaat is a portion from letter of Ali to his followers. This is mentioned in the book also beneath the heading. It should be reminded here that the letter exists in other sources too.[57] Likewise, in Al-Mustarshid fil Imamah[58] by Muhammad bin Jurair Tabari Imami Kabeer (died around year 310 A.H.) Reference to the text makes clear the matter.

Point Two: What Ali has mentioned in the letter is in connection to his previous sayings about Abu Bakr. This should be read after studying the conditions prevalent in society in those times. On the same page of Al-Gharaat, following sentences of Ali are mentioned regarding Abu Bakr: “…He obeyed God…”[59] Then he repeats about Umar “…We obeyed him.” Imam Ali’s (a.s.) obedience is to God not to Caliphs. He obeyed where obedience to God was necessary.

Point Three: Whatever Ali has said about Caliphs, depends on the same circumstances and conditions, which we dwelt in the chapter concerned. There is an obvious contradiction in Al-Mustarshid page 415 in the text. This confirms an idea that whatever said or done was with an aim to protect Islam and hold the people at it. Else, there was a strong likelihood of people’s reverting to ignorance, i.e. the pre-Islamic days – to idol-worship. The words impart such a sense.

Point Four: The text: a desired conduct and a blessed soul had a great influence on the people of that time which has a bearing on Caliphate. Imam Ali (a.s.), in fact, has sketched a general picture of people’s outlook concerning the Caliphs. A little attention to the norm and nature of Ali’s statement clearly confirms the said conjecture. In reverting to Al-Gharaat, which is newly printed with a commentary and correction of Mir Jalaluddin Husaini known as Traditionist Armavi. On the same page of the book in Footnote No. 5 he mentioned Allamah Majlisi’s words that the Imam’s words are in keeping with the delicate situation. Similarly in Footnote no. 6 of the same page he points out the location of some words, which are ahead and some behind. Imam was then speaking about the general condition of the society.

p: 126

This also applies to the letter of Ali for Egyptians.[60] Late Mirza Habeebullah Hashimi Khoei in his commentary on Nahjul Balagha says: “It seems so with the people and possibly it could be by persuasion of adversaries”[61] Of the indications that attest Khoei’s viewpoint is the difference between text of Al-Gharaat[62] and Al-Darajaat Ar-Rafia.[63] Although late Sayyid Ali Khan Madani has copied the letter from Al-Gharaat, the text is short of some words of praise, which exist, in the present text of Al-Gharaat. This in itself is a proof that the text is altered and added thereon some words.[64] Another thing that confirms the views of Allamah Majlisi and Allamah Khoei is that the Imam had reflected people’s outlook. Therefore his words mirror people’s view about the two Caliphs. The letter is addressed to the people of Madayn. In the end, he adds: “Then some among Muslims rose and accepted two persons and were pleased to be guided by them and the conduct of the two pleased them.[65]”[66]

Final Point: The attitude of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the six-person Shura committee to appoint a Caliph is quite clear[67] as Imam rejects the proposal of Abdur Rahman bin Auf to follow the tracks of two preceding Caliphs. This proves the falsehood of their claims. When he is not willing to follow the policies of the first two Caliphs how can he praise them? (353) The denial of Ali to the proposal of Abdur Rahman in itself establishes the illegitimacy of Caliphate of the two.

p: 127

This message of Ali confirms Shia outlook about Imamate being a divine office and its appointment directly by God Himself. In this respect, people have no part to play. If people take this matter in their hands, it creates several questions and loses its glitter of originality and falls short of legitimacy that embraces dispute in each and every age as seen in history. Divine Authority needs no human consultation or plot. Muawiyah was confused and confounded and stood in a quandary. He had no way but to surrender to reality and resign to truth. He had no answer to Ali’s argument that it is the people who have chosen him if God be disputable to Muawiyah. Again on the ground of Quran and traditions, Ali was the Caliph; so each of the two is irrefutable.[82] What excuse remains for Muawiyah except obduracy?

[10] Ibid. Pg. 232

[11] Quoting from: Daimul Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 384, Nahjus Saada, Vol. 1, Pg. 229

[12] Quoting from: Rauza Kafi, Pgs. 58-63; Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 136

[13] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 240

[14] Refer: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pg. 231

[15] Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 9, Pg. 306

[16] Muhammad Ismail Ansari Zanjani: Translation of Asraar Aale Muhammad, Pg. 435

[17] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 135

[18] Abdul Hameed Ismail Zahi: Appeal quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 9, Spring 81, Pg. 71

[19] Arabic speaking

[2] [For more information most books of Shia Rijaal can be referred like: Rijaal Toosi, Rijaal Barqi, Rijaal Kishi, Mojamur Rijaal al-Hadith of Ayatullah Khui.

[21] [Father and son, both from Bani Hashim were named Yazid after the tragedy of Kerbala.

[22] [Especially non-Arabic-speaking]

[23] Engineer Jawad Husaini Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 181-184

[24] Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pg. 237

[25] Abul Faraj Isfahani: Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, (Translated by Rasooli Mahallati), Pg. 80

[26] Tahdhib al-Kamal: Vol. 21, Pg. 467

[27] Tahdhib at-Tahdhib: Vol. 7, Pg. 411

[28] Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pgs. 235-236

[29] Sharh al-Mawafiq: Vol. 8, Pg. 367

[30] [This statement will be repeated further in this text.]

[31] Al-Istiab: Vol. 3, Pg. 109, Edit. Bajawi

[32] Tarikh Tabari: Vol. 2, Pg. 316

[33] Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pgs. 237-241

p: 132

[34] Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), [1st Edition 1380], Pg. 115 [35] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 29, Khordad 1379

[36] Sermon 219, Faid al-Islam Edition.

[37] Tarikh Tabari: Vol. 3, Pg. 285, Account of Year 23 A.H.

[38] That is there were such people who publicized such things and introduced the Caliphs as such.

[39] Seeri Dar Nahjul Balagha, Pg. 164

[40] Dr. Muhammad Asadi Garmarudi: Haqeeqat Sookhte, Pgs. 49-54

[41] Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi: Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 139; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 58

[42] Bahjus Sibagha: Vol. 4, Pgs. 369-373

[43] Ibid. Vol. 5, Pg. 473

[44] Ibid. Vol. 9, Pgs. 448-465, especially Pgs. 428 449

[45] Ibid. Vol. 9, Pgs. 466-480

[46] Ibid. Vol. 9, Pgs. 480-509

[47] Ibid. Vol. 9, Pg. 536; quoting from: Al-Jamal, Pgs. 322-327

[48] Ibid. Vol. 9, Pg. 564

[49] [It is necessary to mention that this statement of Nahjul Balagha is used to show separation between Imamate and Caliphate and in the end to make rulership of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) valueless. (Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 17)]

[50] Bahjus Sibagha: Vol. 10, Pgs. 40-44

[51] Ibid. Vol. 12, Pgs. 90-91

[52] Sayyid Razi: Al-Majazaatun Nabawiyyah, Pg. 401, Tr. 317

[53] Bahjus Sibagha: Vol. 14, Vol. 477

[54] Ibid. Vol. 14, Pg. 573

[55] Muhammad Sahati Sardarudi: Article quoted in the book, Mashal-e-Javed, Dalil Publishers

p: 133

[56] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 31

[57] Refer: Ali Akbar Zakiri: Hukoomat O Siyasat (Letter of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to Shias about Caliphs), Pgs. 29-36

[58] Research: Ahmad Mahmoodi: Mausisa Thaqafatul Islamiya, Pgs. 409-427

[59] This statement is also mentioned in Kashful Muhajja of Sayyid bin Tawoos, al-Mustarshid of Tabarai Imami Kabir and Al-Imamah was Siyasah of Ibne Qutaibah

[60] Sayyid Abul Fazl Barqai in his Preface to the book, Shahira-e-Ittihaad has based his view on this document about good relations of Amirul Momineen (a.s.).

[61] Hashimi Khoei: Minhaaj al-Bara-a, Vol. 6, Pg. 106

[62] Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat, Vol. 1, Pg. 210

[63] Sayyid Ali Khan Madani: Ad-Darajaat ar-Rafia (Elevated Positions), Pg. 336

[64] This possibility is also applicable to the book of Ad-Darajaat ar-Raafia as it also contains many praises of the Caliphs.

[65] [For more information refer to Section One of the 4th volume of this book.]

[66] Muhammad Baqir Mahmoodi: Nahjus Saada Fee Mustadrak Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 4, Pg. 23

[67] Refer: Ibne Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 26, Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 188, Yaqoobi: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 162, Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 22

[68] The interesting point is that these people forget their own claims that after the passing away of the Prophet they selected Abu Bakr as Caliph without consulting Ali (a.s.) – Refer: Mashal-e-Ittehad, Pg. 20

[69] [Which of the three Caliphs was selected on the choice of the people? Abu Bakr got the Bayyat of just five of his associates in Saqifah, Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr and Uthman was chosen through the trick of Shura.]

p: 134

[70] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18

[71] Nahjul Balagha (Abduh), Letter 6

[72] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 14, Pg. 36

[73] Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat (Leadership of the nation), Pgs. 64-66

[74] Sayyid Razi was born in 359 A.H. and passed away in year 406 A.H.

[75] These letters exchanged between Imam (a.s.) and Muawiyah are quoted in Asl Sulaym bin Qais, Najaf, Pgs. 159-176

[76] Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Article ‘Mushawera Dar Quran O Nahjul Balagha’ quoted in the book Kawish Dar Nahjul Balagha, Pgs. 195-197

[77] Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura O Bayyat, Pg. 71

[78] Ibid. Shura O Bayyat, Pg. 86

[79] Ibid. Shura O Bayyat, Pg. 88

[80] Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue No. 4-5 Pg. 177

[81] Allamah Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 33, Pg. 144

[82] Muawiyah considered himself to be appointed by the past Caliphs as the governor of Syria and therefore could not object to the validity of their Caliphate.

Sunni Friday speaker of Zahidan says regarding Zahra that she died a natural death. Her martyrdom is only a propaganda started in recent years. Such a propaganda is neither to the benefit of Islam nor to advantage of sects – Sunni and Shia. This is not my personal view alone. The open-minded Shia scholars also are of the same mind. Such a thing never existed before recent years.”![3] While researches on these matters have proved their falsehood beyond any doubt.

Warning: This is a device to invent things like existence of good terms between Caliphs and Ahle Bayt (a.s.) – the House – the descending spot of angels and revelation from heaven. They go on making claims like: “The writer has claimed and proved that Ali was on good terms with the three Caliphs…”[4] “Tabarra (immunity) from enemies of Prophet’s House is a principle with Shias. But it does not imply those with whom Ali had very close relations for 25 years.”[5] This will gradually lead to the situation that even in Shia circles the questions: “What was the cause of Zahra’s death? Was it a natural death?”[6] Will be answered through statements like: “After the death of her father, she was very much sad and depressed for many days that told upon her health. She wept day and night and in a few days became weak and feeble. She became seriously ill and passed away in a few days…”![7] Or with regard to congregational gatherings and meetings to commemorate the tragedy of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) as we will explain in the deviated analysis like: “The British Embassy was indirectly responsible of establishing meeting each day in the mosques after the night prayers in which the side-breaking of Zahra was lamented in excess.”![8] We close this book with the verdict of Ayatullah Tabrizi about whoever doubts the martyrdom of Zahra (s.a.): This is the text of the verdict is as follows: In this exalted Name. It is not allowed to support one who doubts Zahra’s martyrdom. We do not believe such a man to be learned. Had he been so he would have been aware of narration reports about her martyrdom which are obvious and evident and other narrations about the cause of her martyrdom. May Allah guide to the straight way.[9]

p: 136

They claim that it is against Quran and tradition. Sometimes according to them, the office of Imamate is a separate entity independent from Caliphate. Sometime in principles of belief also they have created a base and a branch. They introduce belief in Imamate as a branch, as a subsidiary thing liable to personal jurisprudence. As such, it does not constitute any obligation on the part of the person in event of his denial. Sometimes the words and deeds of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.), in his dealings with Caliphs is a ground to them to justify their allegation that Ali was totally in agreement with their Caliphate.

It seems that they have not heard the painful cries of that oppressed Imam that used to come out of his aching heart as he says: “When Allah took the Prophet (to himself) a group of men went back on their tracks. The ways (of misguidance) ruined them and they placed trust in deceitful intriguers, showed consideration to other than kinsmen, abandoned the kin whom they had been ordered to love and shifted the building from its strong foundation and built it in other than its (proper) place. They are the source of every shortcoming and the door of gropers in the dark. They were moving to and fro in amazement and lay intoxicated in the way of the people of the Pharaohs.

They were either bent on this world and taking support on it or away from faith and removed from it.” (Nahjul Balagha, Faid, Sermon 150 End of Part Two) Attention to it is a matter of absolute necessity. Research about a true religion is the most essential element of life for Islamic society. A tangible proof of its salubrity and originality of being from divine should be brought home to people. The minds of young generation should be enlightened with regard to its principles and fundamentals as well as to defend the precincts of its sanctity. This does not mean sedition among groups or creating differences in thoughts of people. It is a matter of regret that there are individuals who refrain from discussing facts about religion and analyzing issues pertaining to beliefs and its literature. Their excuse is to preserve unity. Those who discuss and debate such matters perhaps are accused of sedition causing disunity and creating crevices in a concrete block of unity.

p: 2

It seems that this fact has escaped their sight. Unity appreciated by reason and religion – and at the same time a sacred one – is unity that should be framed over the pivot of truth rotating around truth. Otherwise it will be a unity at wrong (supposing if it comes into being). It will be unholy unity resulting in nothing but loss, havoc and emptiness. It is natural first to know the truth. Then people should be invited towards unity based on truth. This needs to undergo a discussion and all-sided research in religion to find out what is there after truth except losing the way and going astray.[1] Now the present collection which is an output of a year-long labor of a group of learned, believer youths and committed persons; to do justice to it, one should say honestly that it has originated from faith and a staunch love towards the most sacred position of divinely authorized Guardianship (Wilayat) of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) and Ahle Bayt of Prophet. Peace be upon them all.

Those who are acquainted with the task of writing books know that constancy in discourses and in scattered writings of speculators is not easy. Grouping and collecting the doubted data from spoken words and writings and then their orderly arrangement and classification, then to make it coherent is not an easy job. Obvious it is as to what could be the corrupt aftermaths begotten by a doubtful belief.

They have not allowed this to escape without replying. In this regard, they have made full use of books of great scholars of religion and faith. Considering all this, one should honestly acknowledge the difficulty and labor involved in it. One cannot undergo this burden unless one is blessed with moral impetus and love to defend the true faith. Therefore all who love Shia faith, particularly the youths, will read this collection with interest in order to know how conjectures and allegations are spread which should not go without answering. In the end, I beseech the Lord to bless the author and his colleagues with prosperity in both the worlds and bestow upon him bounty of service to religion in future also.

p: 3

1-10-80 (9th Shawwal 1422) Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi By the Grace of the Almighty, this valuable book: A Victim Lost in Saqifah[2] is being published for the second time, revised and with additional data on some parts of original text. After reading the additional matter, I realized that it was necessary for the original text as it completes it. I hope for continuation of such a service to religion on the part of the author by the grace of God. 12-8-83 (18th Ramadan al-Mubarak 1425) Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

The pivot around which policies of our Lord and Master Ali rotated was the spirit that protected Caliphate of the prophets and the way of the Righteous Caliphs.”![1]

“And this statement is not correct that Caliphate of the preceding Caliphs and the four members, altogether, differed from one another in thought, policy and aims. Each of these four Caliphs was a mirror reflecting one image. They together reflected and represented Caliphate of the Prophet. One spirit ran between the four. These four collectively completed one image, one system and one aim.”![2]

“Salient here is conduct and true faith of Caliphs in Islam and divine teachings. Humility of Caliphs, their unanimity in word and deed, their moderation and honesty is worth appreciating. Scrutiny into their life shows that they collectively had one and same moral and manner.”![3]

“When Islam was subject of conversation and Islamic teachings and law, Ali did not discriminate between the learned and ignorant. In the same way was Umar.”![4]

“Ali was like Umar in piety of a poor life.”![5]

“Ali was strict and hard like Umar. He acted as per laws of religion.”[6]

In order to answer these claims and conjectures we have tried to scrutinize the praises rendered to Caliphs and their rule. We have tried to display contrasts and contradictions in narrations based on documents of Sunni sources. This will assist the reader to conclude for himself in the light of proofs and reach a judgment about the claims made in this regard.

p: 5

Reminder

Perhaps after reading the above statements our reader might ask why in this analysis of thirteen years of the rule of two Caliphs nothing is mentioned about usurpation of Ali’s Caliphate which is followed by denial of his Imamate and Wilayat, attack on Zahra’s house which resulted in the martyrdom of Zahra (s.a.) and Mohsin Ibne Ali (a.s.), usurpation of Fadak, denial of Khums and inheritance etc. and all the other crimes committed with regard to Ahle Bayt (a.s.)?

Because these events themselves are self-explanatory about the behaviors and moral of Caliphs and their tyrant rule.

In the same way some of you might think that if the analysis done so far had been compared with the method of administration of Imam Ali (a.s.) the result would have been more beneficial and satisfactory.

In reply, we should say that the thing which impeded us to write these points is that extensive influence of the outlook of open-minded people who urge us to avoid criticizing this period of thirteen years. They insist to not compare this period with Ali’s government. Else, the reader would see the simplicity and matchlessness of Ali’s government in those days. The reader would see the status of freedom and liberty. Thus they say:

“Had there not been shed the pure blood of these men of liberty, equality and justice; and had there not been the self gleaming path of God and its devotees, today we would have thought Islam and the spirit of Quran and Prophet’s traditions to be in the royal court of Uthman, sycophant courtiers, deceptive people, the Green palace of Muawiyah and his murder agents, the ignorant days’ arrogance and Arab bigotry. Not in the astonishing life of Ali and not in the simplicity, equality and freedom of the government of Abu Bakr and Umar.”![7]

p: 6

In continuation of this same text written as preface to the book of Hujr bin Adi, we read in the footnote:

“Here the criticism of Shia narrated from Ali’s tongue that personifies the spirit of Islam, is accurate and detailed. But no historian having a least information about world politics will ever judge the government of these two renowned companions of Prophet at the scale of Choesroe’s and Caesar’s governments. He cannot resist admiring these governments. The only misfortune of these two, Abu Bakr and Umar, was that their rival was Ali an extraordinary man. Historians judge them at the level of Ali and hence condemn them.

If there were no Ali the rule of Abu Bakr and Umar would have been recognized as the best government in the world and a model.”![8]

Regarding the analysis of the question why Iran displayed its weakness when the soldiers entered, we read:

“It is quite obvious as to why: Umar was then the Caliph and advisors and commanders were close companions of Prophet. (continuation of the footnote). Indeed, in comparison to Ali they did have shortcomings and weakness. However comparing to Sassanides and Rome they were paragons of freedom and justice in the eyes of non-Muslims.”![9]

Therefore it seems necessary to scrutinize the system current in those days in order to provide information to our Shia youths. It is a dire necessity of the day that they, our youths, should become strong and powerful with knowledge to be able to answer such conjectures or not fall a prey to these conjectures. They should be acquainted with relative historical documents to make their answers weighty with reason and evidence. We will to try to prove here to our youths that Caliphs within themselves were not bound to any teaching of Islam. They wanted Islam only to the extent of their interests to have a ground to put their foot. They needed Islam as much as they needed power because Islam gave them a ground to establish their power. Therefore when necessary to their own interests they did not hesitate to crush under their feet principles and fundamentals of freedom and justice. On most occasions, they too acted as Romans and Sassanides. The only difference was that their rule was in a guise and name of Islam. From one side the name of Islam covered their real horrible designs and from the other side dishonest historians did not record the truth. Therefore it vanished from the history also. The record of thirteen years’ tyrant rule was wiped out from the annals. Therefore we face a great many difficulties on way of research; we face many shortages and lack of documents. For instance:

p: 7

“Ahmad bin Hanbal in his book Al Ilal (The Causes) says: Abu Awana[10] in his book had recorded the defects of the companions of Prophet of God. Salam bin Abi Mutee came to him and said: Give this book to me. Abu Awana gave to him the book. Salam took and burnt it.[11]

Ahmad bin Hanbal in the same book has narrated from Abdur Rahman bin Mahdi that: I seek forgiveness of Allah for having seen the book of Abu Awana.[12]

He seeks God’s forgiveness for having seen the book. And another one takes the book and burns it without the owner’s permission.

In the biography of Abdul Rahman bin Kharash is written that he had recorded the defects of Abu Bakr and Umar in two volumes.

In the biography of Husain bin Hasan Ashqar it is mentioned: Ahmad bin Hanbal has narrated traditions from him and said that no one has called him a liar.

Someone told Ahmad bin Hanbal that Husain bin Hasan Ashqar narrated traditions against Abu Bakr and Umar and that he had a separate chapter in his book in this regard.

Ahmad bin Hanbal said that he (Ashqar) was no more competent and trustworthy to be quoted traditions from.[13]

Where are those two parts or chapters about defects of Abu Bakr and Umar?

Why nothing from its contents is narrated and reached us?

As soon as Ahmad bin Hanbal understood that Husain bin Hasan Ashqar has narrated traditions against Abu Bakr and Umar he changes his opinion. Ashqar, all of a sudden becomes a liar, unreliable and untrustworthy. He is not worth relating from. Why? But why!

p: 8

In the biography of many great tradition scholars except the authors of Sihah Sitta it is mentioned:

They used to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar. For instance, see the biographies of Ismail bin Abdur Rahman,[14] Taleed bin Sulaiman,[15] and Ja’far Ibn Sulaiman al-Zabyee[16] and others.[17]

In the middle of third century curse and abuse of Abu Bakr and Umar was a common practice. Zaid bin Qadama who lived in that period (3rd Century) writes:

What a time has come! People abuse Abu Bakr and Umar.[18] This matter spread till in the Sixth Century prominent hadith scholar of Ahle Sunnat Abdul Mughees bin Zuhair bin Harb Hanbali Baghdadi wrote a book in praise of Yazid bin Muawiyah. He defended Yazid and prohibited cursing him (Yazid). The author of the book was asked why he had written it. He replied: To prevent the people from cursing the Caliphs.[19]

At the end of the eighth century we come across Taftazani. In Sharh al-Maqasid (Explanation of Purposes) he says:

If it is asked why some religious scholars consider Yazid eligible for curse but still consider it impermissible to curse him? In reply we say: It is so because that they may prevent cursing of persons beyond Yazid (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Muawiyah etc.)[20]…”[21]

“In view of what we said, after necessary search in sources we first conclude that there are many scholars and writers of Sunni school who have written about the impolite and indecent behavior and conduct of companions of Prophet either during his lifetime or after his death. But these narrations are missing mostly due to various reasons. Or these narrations are distorted.

p: 9

Ibn Adi, died 365 Hijra, writes about Ibn Kharash:

He wrote two volumes containing defects and shameful actions of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Then Ibn Adi regards it most reliable.[22]

In the biography of Abdul Razzaq bin Hamaam he writes after praising him very much:

He has many things by way of defects of some companions and Caliphs which I shall not mention in my book. He has mentioned excellences of the Prophet’s Household and shameful behavior of companions and Caliphs, which is hard to accept.

Ibn Adi considers this also reliable.[23]

Zahabi (d. 798 A.H.) in the biographies of Abu Sult Haravi[24] and Rawajini[25] and similarly Ibn Hajar (d. 852 A.H.) in the biography of Ja’far bin Sulaiman[26] have mentioned the defects of Caliphs. According to them it is a weakness to mention the defects of companions and Caliphs.

In his Sahih, Muslim has mentioned:

Abdullah bin Mubarak used to say in public: Do not narrate anything from the tongue of Umar bin Thabit because he speaks ill of companions.[27]

In this regard we can refer to biographies of Ahmad bin Muhammad Ibn Saeed bin Uqda,[28] Ismail bin Abdur Rahman,[29] Taleed bin Sulaiman,[30] Qadasi,[31] Amr bin Shimr,[32] Muhammad bin Abdullah Shaibani,[33] Ziyad bin Mundhir[34] and others.[35]

Why did they curse Abu Bakr and Umar?

Did a narration or narrations reach them that encouraged them to curse them and themselves gave permission to curse the First and Second Caliph? Now where have those narrations and matters gone?”[36]

p: 10

“The information certainly was within books. So what happened to those books?

Did they meet some other fate? Ahmad bin Hanbal says that the books were burnt. Whether all that information is locked in boxes of bigotry and obduracy? Or it is concealed in obstinacy and stubbornness? It is another tyranny that made such rare information inaccessible.

Zahabi writes:

Though writings and books are full of texts that convey disputes, brawls and skirmishes among companions, however at the same time some stories are short of documents and proofs. We must hide them. We must destroy them. This will pave way to make the people to love companions. People must be made pleased with them.

Concealing such matters is compulsory on all generally and on the scholars especially…[37]”[38]

This reflects to our readers how difficult has become the job of scrutiny or research into history of the thirteen years since passing away of Prophet. Therefore it must be said:

Discussions in this book have limited scope and from the whole it is very little. This clearly shows that Islam served their own interest and was a tool to them to do what they wanted. They had no belief in its teachings. The enthusiastic reader will shift from plain thinking towards Caliphs’ government under the title of Islam to the depths of thought. If one performs a postmortem of those days one will see the cause of illness of Islam and the reason for its decline. Then he will be able to reach a correct and accurate judgment.

p: 11

If you could understand this crime and reach into its depths then only you can guess or at least imagine the dimensions resulted therefrom. You can hear its agonies from the tongue of history of Islam. You will then be able to see the real ugly faces of these betrayers hidden in the guise of Islam. They concealed their face of paganhood behind a veil of false Islam. There is no havoc that they did not bring to the Muslims. There no calamity they did not bring for Islam.

They led the Ummah to a horrible valley of darkness. You will understand that their good deeds too were not good. In those good actions were hidden several crimes. Their good actions were their additional crimes, harmful and hurtful to mankind.

Suppose: A cheater comes to you. By a trick, he occupies your house and expels you from there. Then he behaves as if he is the real master of everything. He expands the house and builds it in the way he wants. He decorates and paints it after his own taste. This rogue got hold of your house by force and fraud, by trick and tyranny. So his later actions such as building and rebuilding and decorating the house would be regarded by you as service to you? Would you be indebted to him? Would you owe any gratitude to him? Of course not! It is usurpation. It is immoral. It is a transgression. It is regarded a sin, a crime, a tyranny.

p: 13

In the same way we know that they forcibly occupied the seat and place of the Prophet and laid hands on the Prophet’s pulpit and niche. Their outward show was their good actions that they fought against pagans and the tribes of Arabs and Ajam (non-Arab).

They also waged wars and occupied countries where they hoisted the Islamic flag. They posed themselves as protectors of justice and guards of Islamic territories. They showed themselves as executors of Divine laws. In this respect, they even scourged their own son for his wrong or sin. But any of their deeds, however admirable, was not to the pleasure of God. From the root it was wrong. It originated from illegitimacy. They first robbed and from usurpation, they spent on good things. Therefore they did not deserve reward. They stand answerable for their very first step – that is their occupation of the Prophet’s seat which should have been occupied by his rightful successor, Ali. Their every good deed shall be counted as a sin for them.

One who, without having the capability and divine permission claimed to be Prophet’s successor, which is a divine office (caller towards Allah), in the view of Quran he is the greatest liar and most unjust being and will be liable to the most terrible punishments and most serious chastisements; even though from the position of the usurped pulpit and prayer niche in a show of piety delivers lectures of guidance calling people to god-worship, truth, honesty, trustworthiness and fear of God. And he makes war on the infidels and defeats them widening the territories of Islam and bringing countries under the banner of Quran!

p: 14

Possibly the simple-minded people on the basis of this outward show could have accepted them as contributors to Islam and Quran. But their real features with real identities are seen by those who have insight and look deeply into issues. The lack of leadership of an infallible Imam was the cause of these fatal results that the tyrant Caliphs prepared ground for peoples’ negative thinking. They made people to doubt about the divine religion. They posed Islam as a tool to expand territories and to gain worldly purposes. Islam was looked upon not as a religion but a reason to rule and govern.”[40]

[13] Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 2, Pg. 291

[14] Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 1, Pg. 274

[15] Quoted from: Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol. 4, Pg. 322

[16] Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 2, Pgs. 82-83

[17] Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Guftaarhai-e-Peeramoon Mazloomiyat-e-Bartareen Banu (Translation: Masood Shikohi), Pgs. 38-40

[18] Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 3, Pg. 264

[From his statement it seems that talking about the defects of Caliphs was a common practice in those days]

[19] Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 21, Pg. 161

[20] Quoted from: Sharh Maqasid, Vol. 5, Pg. 311

[21] Ibid. Pgs. 41-42

[22] Quoted from: Al-Kamil fee Zo’fa ar-Rijaal, Vol. 5, Pg. 519

[23] Quoted from same source, Vol. 6, Pg. 545

[24] Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 11, Pgs. 447-448

[25] Quoted from same source, Vol. 11, Pgs. 537-538

[26] Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 2, Pg. 83

[27] Quoted from: Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Pg. 12

[28] Quoted from: Al-Kashful Hadith, Pg. 70

[29] Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 1, Pgs. 273-274

[30] Quoted from same source, Vol. 1, Pg. 447

[31] Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 18, Pg. 12

[32] Quoted from: Lisanul Mizan,, Vol. 4, Pg. 366

[33] Quoted from same source, Vol. 5, Pg. 231

[34] Quoted from: Al-Majrooheen (By Ibne Hibban), Vol. 1, Pg. 302; Refer: Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol. 10, Pg. 136 Vol. 21, Pg. 594

[35] Shaykh Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Bibliography of Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima, Pgs. 186-188

[36] Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani: Guftaarhai-e-Peeramoon Mazloomiyat-e-Bartareen Banu (Translation: Masood Shikohi), Pg. 40

p: 16

[37] Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 10, Pgs. 92-93

[38] Shaykh Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Bibliography of Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima, Pg. 190

[39] This text is included with permission from the author.

[40] Extract from Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 165-182

In anticipation of a correct outlook from our reader on these conjectures, we discuss prophethood. In the meantime, we shall dwell on the outlook of prominent scholars of Sunni sect in the field of Caliphate. Our discussion will prove that this Sunni school acknowledges that scandalous and most detested qualities did exist in the person of Caliph. But the said school does not consider such undesired qualities an impediment for one to become a Caliph. Such mentality incites them to lower the station of the Prophet. It is easy for them to bring down the position of the Prophet from its actual standard. Therefore this group of writers cannot claim that Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar mirror every detail of the Prophet[4] – that too prophethood based on a sound reason and pristine human nature. However in the mind of the reader such essays do impart its effect and influence. This can only be eschewed if the writer makes known his perverted beliefs in prophethood beforehand. They draw similarity between prophethood (of their own creation) and Caliphate: Caliphate, which is:

A) Qadi Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Tayyab Baqilani (d. 403 Lunar) writes in his book Al-Tamheed that this school allows its followers to believe him in place of the Prophet as his Caliph in spite of his sins, low moral and corrupted personality. He adds:

“A Caliph cannot be deposed because of his atrocities, confiscation of people’s properties, lashing innocent people and not respecting and protecting rights of people.”[5]

B) Saad al-Din, Masood bin Umar Taftazani (d. 792 Lunar) writes in his book Sharh al-Aqaid al-Nasafiya:

p: 18

“A Caliph cannot be deposed or dismissed from his position because of his sins, corruption and tyranny.”[6]

He writes in this book Sharh al-Maqasid:

“When a Caliph dies and a person having qualifications of Imamate – without getting allegiance or having been appointed by the previous Caliphs – forcibly takes the seat of Caliphate, the position of vicegerency of the Prophet will be established for him and in the same way – according to the view nearest to correctness – even if he is corrupt and ignorant… and the Caliph cannot be deposed on the ground of corruption and sins.”[7]

C) In addition to these two quotations, we add one more here from the book Al-Vikhaye Fi Fiqh al-Hanafia.[8] This shows the identity of the Caliph in the Sunni school:

“If the Caliph drinks wine the punishment prescribed by Shariah cannot be carried out on him because he is a representative of God.”[9]

Such statements in books of the School of Caliphate clearly show that from the viewpoint of this school there is on objection if the Caliph happens to be profane, perfidious, a sinner or an alcoholic also. This shows that their Caliphs were men of such qualities. They gave allowance from these bad qualities and exempted them from conditions that quality one for the office of Caliphate. Our reader can conceive what type of men they were who for thirteen years occupied the divine office of Caliphate.

According to the belief of this sect, a Caliph can be a tyrant. He can oppress the people and commit any sin he desires. He can snatch from the people’s belongings what attracts him; and can still remain Caliph of the Prophet of God. At the same time they claim that Righteous Caliphate is a true representation of the Prophet in all respects.

p: 19

On the basis of this identification of the personality of the Caliph we conclude that neither the Caliph nor Caliphate carries remotest resemblance to the person of Prophet and prophethood. The real face of the Prophet is attractive, endearing, worthy of respect and regard while the office of prophethood is divine and awe-inspiring. However Caliphate is not in line with prophethood because it is short of divine attributes and deprived of those high and glorious qualities of the Prophet. This is the reason that we witness no moral at all with the Caliph. Further, we see his enthusiasm to destroy that beautiful image of Prophet to have occupied his place. It is a false claim that his Caliphate is Rashida; that it is a true reflection of the Prophet’s character. It is a trap and a guise they are dressed in. It is a device to fool people. The claim provides them an excuse to prolong their rule and strengthen yoke on the necks of masses. They claim that their Righteous Caliphate reflects the face of the Prophet while they usurped his face as soon as he died.[10]

Now with this knowledge of intellectual bases of Ahle Sunnat regarding the issue of Caliphate how can we trust the point of view of “Second revival of the system of Caliphate” which is expressed by the unity-mongers who think that this is the only possible solution for the present situation to bring Islamic unity? This is itself a question!!!

Can it be accepted that:

p: 20

“…The system of Caliphate of Sunni sect can bring unity among Muslims and in all Islamic countries…”![11]

To acquaint you further with the outlook of the enthusiasts of this movement in the Islamic world we quote here the epitome of their thought:

“Modern historians, both western and Muslims, cannot refrain themselves from praising the Second Caliph of Prophet Muhammad. They consider his Caliphate as a consummate and complete Caliphate. The Sunni sect particularly is of such a belief. They (the Sunnis) think that Quranic principles were carried out by Umar. He laid the foundation of the leadership of society on the basis of religious politeness. He catered to the aspirations of Islam. They consider it a renovation of Caliphate on democratic basis.”![12]

- Mirza Rizayee Kermani narrates from Sayyid Jamaluddin Asadabadi (1254-1314 Lunar) that he (Sayyid Jamaluddin) used to say:

“The difference of word Ali and Umar must be kept aside and then one must look at Caliphate.”[13]

- Shaikh Muhammad Abduh (1266-1323 Lunar), considered the greatest student of Sayyid Jamal, in totality repeats the views of his teacher, in a more refined way.

Even though political views of Abduh are not so liberal as his thoughts about reform of religion but he seems to be a believer in principle of Caliphate and its central position.[14]

“He bases his sociology and psychology on things that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab had invited the people to.

Shaykh Muhammad Abduh was supported in his view by Sayyid Muhammad Rasheed Riza, a close friend and a devoted pupil who published ‘Al Munar’ magazine and disseminated his thoughts in the world.”[15]

p: 21

- Muhammad Rasheed Riza (1354-1382 Lunar) a close student of Abduh considered Caliphate as the best means to achieve Islamic unity. He was a defender of early Caliphate. That is the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar and some Bani Umayyah persons like Umar bin Abdul Aziz.[16] To him these Caliphs were paragons.[17]

- Abdur Rahman Kaukabi (1271-1320 Lunar) another pupil of Sayyid Jamal was also a supporter of early Caliphate. It was a model to him. Islamic unity was possible through that Caliphate.[18]

- Hasan Banna (1368 Lunar), founder of Muslim Brotherhood too, like Rasheed Riza was an advocate of Islamic Caliphate. What Muslim Brotherhood wanted from the theory of Islamic government is the same idea of Rasheed Riza but in a stronger sense.[19]

At the end of this short introduction, we would like to remark that historical documents indicate that differences even existed between Abu Bakr and Umar. Contradictory to general belief there existed a wide gulf between the two in their aims, motives, political programs, way of thinking and the method.

“The apparent behavior of those two can be only considered as a political program framed in accordance to the demands of time.”[20]

Historical evidences that show a deep gulf between the thoughts of the First Caliph who differed in his practice with the second in dimensions of gaining power and exercising his influence in society. This difference stretched and attained two different identities, which can be said to be opposed to each other.

A)

p: 22

“Saeed bin Jubair narrates: Someone mentioned the name of Abu Bakr and Umar in the presence of Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab.

Another in the group said: By God they were the sun and light for the Ummah.

Abdullah bin Umar asked: How did you derive this conclusion?

The man said that they were allies in Caliphate.

Ibne Umar said that it was not so. On the contrary they had differences among themselves. One day I was with my father when he restricted from seeing any. In the meantime Abdur Rahman Ibne Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see my father. My father said: This is also a bad four-legged crawler. But in spite of it he is better than his father.

My father’s words horrified me. I asked: Is Abdur Rahman better than his father?

My father said: O motherless! Who is there not better than his father! Ask him to enter…

After Abdur Rahman went away my father turned to me and said: Until today you were in ignorance about the things in which this great fool of Bani Teem (Abu Bakr) went ahead of me and the tyranny he did to me.

I said: I had no knowledge of this.

My father said: I had not expected you to know it.

I said: He (Abu Bakr) is dearer to the people than the light of their eyes.

My father said: Yes, it is so in spite of your father’s anger.

p: 23

I said: O father, don’t you want to disclose the secret to the public?

My father said: How it could be possible when the people love him more than the light of their own eyes? If I do so people would not believe me. And as a consequence they would break my head with a rock. Later my father showed courage and on Friday told the people: Know that! Allegiance of Abu Bakr was a job done in haste and without thought. God saved the people from it evil. You must kill whoever invites you to do Bay’at like Abu Bakr.”[21]

B)

Shareek bin Abdullah Nakhayee narrates from Abu Moosa Ashari that he (Abu Moosa) went to Hajj in the company of Umar. When we arrived Mecca, says Abu Moosa, I wanted to see Umar. Therefore he went to the place he had chosen for his residence. On the way, he met Mughaira bin Shoba. He too wanted to meet Umar. So we both followed the same way. On the way, we talked about Umar and his reaching to Caliphate. The talk brought within its folds Abu Bakr. I told Mughaira that Abu Bakr was insistent upon Umar becoming Caliph. Mughaira attested my view. He added that the people were not inclined to Umar to become Caliph. They had hatred towards Umar. They viewed no benefit to them in his Caliphate.

I asked him who opposed Umar? Mughaira said: O, Abu Moosa! As if you don’t know to what extent the tribe of Quraish is jealous. Here Quraish means the tribe of Teem. Abu Bakr belongs to this tribe. If jealousy could be split into ten parts, nine would go to Quraish and remaining to all the people.

p: 24

I told Mughaira to be silent. He seemed to ignore the favor of Quraish to the people and the people were indebted to them. We were busy talking and in the meantime, we reached the residence of Umar. He was not there. We were told that he had just left. From there we went to the sacred Mosque and saw Umar going around the Kaaba, so we also started doing the same.

When he finished he came and stood among us leaning on Mughaira. He asked where we were coming from. We said that we wanted to see him, since he was not there we came here. Mughaira looked at me and laughed. Umar did not seem pleased with his laughing; and asked why he laughed. Mughaira said that he was talking on his way with Abu Moosa, at which I laughed then Umar asked what the matter was. We narrated to him the subject on which we had talked and told him the views exchanged between us over jealousy of Quraish. Then we told him about one who had approached Abu Bakr to persuade him to abstain from nominating Umar to Caliphate. Umar then sighed a long sigh and said: May your mother wail for you, Mughaira. Nine out of ten; what? It is nothing. It is ninety-nine out of hundred. Ninety-nine would go to this group of Quraish and the remaining one to others. And in that one too Quraish shares with others. Umar was calmed down to a certain extant after saying that sentence. Then he (Umar) asked: So you want me to inform you about the most jealous of Quraish? We asked to him to do. He asked: How that could be possible when you are wearing clothes. We asked him what connection it had with our clothes. He said: I am afraid the secret might creep out of the cloak. We said that he must have meant us. He said it was true. So we all together went to his (Umar’s) residence.

p: 25

He pulled out his hands from us and entered but asked us to remain outside. In the meantime, I told Mughaira that our conversation seemed to have influenced him. Since he asked us to wait here because perhaps he would say the rest to us. He said that we too were after the same. We were asked to come in and we entered. We saw that Umar was relaxing stretched on his back. He again asked us to respect the secret. We again assured him not to worry in this respect. Then he got up to close the door. A guard was standing at the door. Umar ordered him to go; and he went. He closed the door came and sat in our company. He asked us to repeat the question in order to hear the answer from him. We reminded him that he had told us that he would inform us who the most jealous one among Quraish was. He answered that we had asked the most difficult thing. He proceeded and said that we should not disclose it as long as he was alive.

Abu Moosa says that he thought to himself that the reason for his grievance could be Talha and Zubair because they did not like Umar to be Caliph. They had even told Abu Bakr not to nominate him. From subsequent words I understood that he meant someone else. Umar sighed again. We told him that whatever we know was only supposition. Umar asked against whom our supposition was. We said that they were those who had asked Abu Bakr to not make Umar a Caliph.

p: 26

Umar said: No. by God, it is not so. It is Abu Bakr himself – the most jealous of Quraish.

Then Umar cast his head down for a long time. I looked at Mughaira and Mughaira stared at me. We too cast our heads down. Silence prevailed for a long time. We guessed that Umar was sorry for telling us the secret. Then Umar continued: How sad! This man of no weight at all from Bani Teem! He advanced his own gain and pushed me behind. He committed tyranny and a sin against me, made me lag behind.

Mughaira said: O Chief! We know what you say, but we don’t know how he kept you behind by sin?

Umar said: Abu Bakr did not do that till I lost hope in Caliphate because I knew that people were not with me. I pushed him ahead. Otherwise he would have never enjoyed the sweet taste of Caliphate. Had I obeyed my own brother, Yazid bin Khattab it would have been far better to me. I lifted him high. I supported him. I got Caliphate confirmed in his favor. I made simple for him the issue of Caliphate. I closed every trouble-creating issue for him. When he got the job, he adhered to it blindly without a thought of me. Alas! Hell to me! I was hoping the government will turn its face toward me. By God, Abu Bakr did not gain anything besides the measure a sparrow needs to be fed. He lost that too ultimately.

p: 27

Mughaira said: What was the obstacle in your reaching to Caliphate. On the day of Saqifah, Abu Bakr offered Caliphate to you. You yourself returned it to him and now you feel sorry for it.

Umar said: May your mother lament for you. I thought you are one of the shrewdest and cleverest Arabs, but now it seems that you have no knowledge of what happened there. This man played a trick on me. So I too cheated him. He found me cleverer than a hen that eats stones.

Umar further added: When Abu Bakr saw the welcome of the people to him he became sure that they will not prefer anyone. He was very much anxious to know my mind then. He wanted to know whether I would campaign against him. Whether I would surrender to my inner inclination to Caliphate? He wanted to test me by inciting me towards the position. For this reason, he offered the Caliphate to me. On the other hand he very well knew and I too know that if he had surrendered Caliphate to me people would have never complied and responded favorably. In spite of my deep attachment to that position, he (Abu Bakr) found me clever and also circumspect. Though I might have given a positive answer to attain that office but people would have prevented it to reach me. Abu Bakr would have reserved in his heart implacable hatred and rancor against me. I would never have been safe from him. I came to know that people hate me.

p: 28

Umar continued his talk and finally said: Didn’t you hear people were shouting: O Abu Bakr! We don’t want anyone other than you. You are befitting one to Caliphate.

Finally he said: When he heard people calling his name he became so glad that he became invigorated. I do not forget the envy Abu Bakr had against me. Someone had backbitten me to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had scolded me. The story is not new. Ashath was captured and brought before Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr did a favor to him and set him free. He even gave his sister in marriage to him. I visited Abu Bakr when Ashath was sitting with him. I told Ashath: O Enemy of God! You became apostate after having become a Muslim. You have turned back and taken the way of denial.

Ashath looked at me seriously. I thought he wanted to talk to me. But in his view, the time was not suitable. After sometime he met me in a by lane of Medina and asked whether it was I who had told those words. Umar said: Yes, it was me. Further Umar told him that the punishment awaiting him was more detrimental and pernicious than the sentence he had uttered.

Ashath said: I am very much distressed because of you because you are compelled to be a follower of Abu Bakr. I swear by God, that which made me disobey Abu Bakr was his getting ahead of you in Caliphate. Had you been the Caliph you would never have seen any insurgency from me.

p: 29

Umar: Yes, it is so. Now what do you advise me?

Ashath: Now is not the time to advise. It is time to be patient.

Umar said that they separated after that much conversation. Ashath on his way met Zibirqaan bin Badr and narrated the whole conversation to him. He too had filed a request with Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr wrote a letter to Umar expressing his anger, sorrow and censure. Umar too replied to Abu Bakr in the following words:

I swear by God! I will prevent you from continuing this job or I will reveal the secret that is between me and you. If the horse riders heard it they will disseminate it along the route they traverse and at the destination they arrive. In this current condition, if you want, let us be at forgiveness towards each other. The secret too will remain unrevealed.

After this letter, Abu Bakr told Umar: We should remain on terms as before. This Caliphate too will be yours shortly.

Umar added: After these words of Abu Bakr I thought that he will return me Caliphate before Friday passes between us. But he did not care. He did not even refer to this matter. He never mentioned it any more until he died. As long as he was Caliph, he never paid attention to his words. He always pressed his teeth due to the excess of malice and envy towards me until he died and was disappointed that he will no more be a Caliph.

p: 30

Please keep secret from people particularly from Bani Hashim whatever I told you. Do not disclose it at all. Now if you like you may go.

We got up and left amazed at what we had heard. By God, we did not disclose his secret until he was killed.”[22]

[11] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 2, Pg. 106

[12] Wilfred Madelung: Succession to Muhammad, Pg. 109

[13] Nazim-ul-Islam Kermani: Tarikh-e-Bedaari-e-Iraniaan (History of Iranian Awakening), Vol. 1, Pgs. 114-115; Dr. Sayyid Ja’far Shaheedi in his article titled, ‘Wahdat-e-Gumshudai Ke Bayad Yaft, Amma Che Gune Wa Az Kuja?’ printed in the book of Kitab-e-Wahdat; have accepted the authenticity of this historical quotation.

[14] Refer: Dr. Hamid Inayat: Seeri Dar Andisha Siyasi Arab

[15] Ali Asghar Faqihi: Wahhabiyaan, Research and Study of the Beliefs of the Wahabis, Pgs. 407-408

[16] [When Umar bin Abdul Aziz used to study under his maternal uncle, Ubaidullah bin Umar bin Khattab in Medina, he himself used to talk ill of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)]

Ibne Asakir in his Tarikh Damishq has written about the enmity of Umar bin Abdul Aziz to Ahle Bayt (a.s.) in the report of his entry into Medina:

Abdul Aziz was appointed by the Syrian regime as the governor of Egypt. He sent his son Umar, who was named after his maternal grandfather to Medina for studies. The narrator says that when he arrived in Medina and entered the Prophet’s mosque, people remarked: The sinner has sent his son to obtain knowledge so that later he may act as the successor of Umar bin Khattab and act on his practice.

The narrator says: By Allah! We saw that he became a Caliph and acted on the practice of his grandfather.

(Husain Ghaib Gholami: Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) wa Zumar Hadith Fadak, Pgs. 63-64; quoting from Tarikh Madina Damishq, Vol. 45, Pgs. 136-137; Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol. 14, Pg. 118; Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 5, Pg. 116)

p: 32

From this aspect it can be said that ban on the practice of abusing His Eminence Ali (a.s.) from the pulpits in force since the time of Muawiyah by Umar Ibne Abdul Aziz was a diplomatic move to strengthen the weakening Umayyad empire.]

[17] Refer: Dr. Hamid Inayat: Seeri Dar Andisha Siyasi Arab

[18] Refer: Muhammad Jawad Sahibi: Tabiyat Istibdaad

[19] Refer: Dr. Hamid Inayat: Tafakkur Nuyin Siyasi Islam

[20] Hashmatullah Qambari Hamadani: Israar wa Asaar Saqifah Bani Saada (Secrets and relics of Saqifah Bani Saada), Pg. 71

[21] Ahmad Asadnejad: Wasi-e-Payambar Keest? Pgs. 139-140; quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 2, Pgs. 28-29

[22] Ahmad Asadnejad: Wasi-e-Payambar Keest? Pgs. 140-147; quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 2, Pgs. 30-34

The type of life they lived gave them required strength and needed ability to cheat and deceive people to an extent, which provided them a stand among them and brought the public opinion to their absolute favor. Such a gain on their part went a long way to silence people when the First Caliph confiscated Fadak and when the Second Caliph brought new things into religion that had not existed in the Prophet’s lifetime. Because:

“Abu Bakr and Umar did not very much take benefits from the Public Treasury. On the basis of this, people thought that if the Caliph confiscated one’s property or wealth it was not that he wanted to increase his own wealth.

People like that their rulers not be strict towards them in collecting taxes. And if the public pays taxes, the money should not be used for personal expenditure.”[2]

Ibn Abil Hadeed Motazalli narrates in his commentary of Nahjul Balagha what his teacher. Abu Ja’far Naqeeb had told about the deep influence of pious-looking politicians:

“The style that Abu Bakr and Umar had adopted in their political life attracted peoples’ general admiration because they distanced themselves from worldly riches and adopted piety, though a feign one.[3] They eschewed worldly decorations and greatness. They showed as if they are at a distance from worldly gains. They sufficed with a little of it. For food, they sufficed on very simple food. In clothes, they chose very coarse cloth. Whenever they got any worldly profit they divided it among the people. They did not corrupt themselves with worldly riches. This issue played a great part in attracting peoples’ hearts towards them. Caliphs remained always in good books of people and in their good will. Those who had a little doubt in their hearts said to themselves:

p: 34

Had they been opponents of Prophet’s orders it would have been for their personal benefit. Some or other attachment to world could have been seen in them.

How they opposed the Prophet’s command and [at the same time] eschewed worldly pleasures; so they spoiled for themselves both the worlds. Would a man with a little sense do it?

It was this issue that left no doubt in anyone with regard to their actions;[4] they trusted their rulership and approved their character.

But people neglected one point in their calculations that is the pleasure of being in power. Being at the helm of affairs and ruling people and steering the government is itself a great luxury and a great gain.[5] For this, everything is sacrificed. Food and other things are of no importance for those who are after greater aims. Thus the poet says:

Some ignored the pleasure of riches.

But they did not ignore the pleasure of commanding and prohibition.

Abu Ja’far Naqeeb says: The difference of the two Caliphs with the third was the cause that the third was killed that way. People had deposed him. Uthman thought that he and his family has a share in the public belongings. Whatever does not belong to him and his family, he thought that it should belong to him. When it belongs to him, it belongs to his family too. If Uthman also had followed the system of his predecessors and kept his family away from public treasury, people would have been at his side. Even if he had changed the direction of prayers from Kaaba to Jerusalem or if he had reduced the five-time prayers to four, people would not have objected and none would have criticized him…”[6]

p: 35

According to this analysis, we can understand the reason of peoples’ silence against innovations of the Second Caliph. Whatever wrong the Caliph did, it was regarded within a religious framework even by the Prophet’s Companions, even though it be against the Prophet’s practice.

How come Umar frame a committee of six persons and gave such powers to Ibne Auf[15] so that it was sure that Uthman would become the Caliph? This is a question that can only be answered by Umar himself.

Umar answered: Do you want Muslims to change their opinion about me. After doing this, he asked Muslims to enter the house and eat the food.”[17]

“Abu Bakr was a man most indifferent to the world.”[21]

“It is mentioned in Mustadrak Sahihain Vol. 4, Pg. 309 that Zaid bin Arqam narrated: We were with Abu Bakr when he asked for something to drink.

Water mixed with honey was brought for him.

He took the glass close to his lips and wept for a long time then he wiped his tears.

He was asked: O Caliph of Prophet of God, why are you weeping?

Abu Bakr: I was with the Prophet of God. I saw him driving away something, but there was no one to be seen.

I asked: O the Messenger of Allah! What is it that you are warding off from you?

He said: It was the world that came to me personified. I told it to go away from me. She (the world) cried and returned and said: Even though you may flee from me but he that would come in your place after you would not be able to leave me.

This same story Khateeb Baghdadi has written in the Tarikh Baghdad Vol. 10, Pg. 286 and Abu Naeem has written in Hilyat al-Awliya Vol. 1, Pg. 30. Both of them have mentioned this too that Abu Bakr told that he feared that the world might occupy him in its pleasures. Muttaqi has also written is Kanzul Ummal Vol. 4, Pg. 37 that Abu Bakr wept fearing the world would entrap him…”[22]

Analysis of this quotation brings three points to the fore:

p: 39

A) This story is narrated by Sunni sources in their reliable books. If relation or mutual attachment between Abu Bakr and the world is accepted, it would contradict the claim of his being pious.

B) If the claim of Abu Bakr of the talk of the world with the Prophet were true then there comes the attachment of the world and Abu Bakr, which contradicts the claim of his piety.

C) If this talk between Abu Bakr and Muslims is true, it seems that the confession of Abu Bakr before Muslims and his companions in that particular way was a salient quality with him and was a covering over his extraordinary inclination towards the world. The Caliph (Abu Bakr) here has invented the tradition to confirm his Caliphate and at the same time his piety. He wants to establish his probity before the events of Saqifah. He wants to prove by this invention of his, close familiarity between him and the Prophet. This will give popularity to his Caliphate and justification to him for that post. In the tradition invented by him these worlds are very much meaningful “…he that will come in your place after you.” How can it be believed when in order to justify the usurpation of Caliphate of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) they claim that the Prophet did not appoint anyone as his Caliph or successors?

The document leads us to a crossroad where one way leads to his confession of being worldly and enchanted by the world and the other is contrast in claim of his piety and fear of God, which compelled him to return public funds he had used during his Caliphate.

p: 40

Abdullah, grandson of Abu Bakr (from his daughter), requested Asma, wife of Zubair, to recommend Abu Bakr. He was very much dear to Ayesha – his aunt.

His request from his grandfather Abu Bakr is interesting.

“When Abu Bakr became Caliph Abdullah was a youth. One day he came to Abu Bakr (his grandfather) and asked him to give him a huge piece of land. A hill too was in that land. Abu Bakr granted that big piece of land to his grandson to please him.

In Tarikh Ibn Asakir this story of wholehearted generosity of Abu Bakr to his own grandson, Abu Bakr bin Zubair is narrated as follows:

Abdullah requested his grandfather to give him a hill somewhere in Medina. Abu Bakr asked him what he wanted the hill for?

Abdullah answered: We had such a hill in Mecca. So we want to have a similar thing in Medina also. Abu Bakr spotted out a suitable location and granted it to Abdullah. He built two bridges in that place but now there is no sign of them.”[23]

Such irresponsible utilization of public funds is recorded in the annals of history. On the other hand conjectures are invented to dress the Caliph in a guise of piety.

“It is also said that when Abu Bakr was dying he said to his daughter Ayesha: We had Muslim affairs in our hands. But you know that I did not take even one Dinar or Dirham from public funds by way of salary…”![24]

p: 41

In the same way we see the following claim repeated regarding the deprivation of family members and children of Caliph from minimum material needs through Abu Bakr:

“Abu Bakr adopted a life of piety since he became a Caliph. He took from public treasury the minimum amount in salary. His salary was not enough to purchase sweets for his wife and children. He lived such a stringent life at a time when conditions were improved, Islamic territories were stretched and expanded and the revenues too had increased.”[25]

On the other hand we hear this story from a girl grown and brought up in the house of Abu Bakr:

“Ayesha, in the days[26] of the Prophet, had several dresses and cloaks of different designs and fashions while other wives of Prophet had simple dresses of cheap quality.

Ayesha also wore gold and other jewellery.

Even in the days of Hajj when costly dresses and ornaments are ignored and not used Mother of believers did not abstain.”[27]

Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari has shown documents in this respect, which he has utilized in his analysis. We quote a few here:

A) The author of Tabaqaat writes on the basis of the narration from Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr (son of Ayesha’s brother): Ayesha wore costly cloaks – mostly of yellow color. She had costly rings, which she used to wear.

B) A Muslim woman named Shamsia narrates: One day I visited Ayesha and found her wearing a yellow dress and a yellow headscarf.

p: 42

C) Son of Ayesha’s sister, Urwah bin Zubair narrates: Ayesha had an upper dress of silk. She used to wear it on occasions. Later she gave it to Abdullah bin Zubair.

D) After passing away of Prophet, Muhammad bin Ashath brought a present of a skin coat, which she used to wear in winter.

E) A Muslim lady named Amina says that she saw Ayesha wearing upper dress of red color and headscarf of black color.[28]

F) Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abi Bakr says: Ayesha used to wear a yellow Hajj dress (Ihraam). At the time of Hajj, she performed Hajj wearing her gold ornaments and other costly things.[29]

The interesting thing is Ayesha wore such dresses and appreciated the dress of the ladies of Ansaar as a model for a Muslim lady. She says:

“I have not seen women better than the women of Ansaar. When this verse [verse of Hijab in Surah Noor] descended each one hurried to her woolen cloth, cut it and covered their heads with it as though a black crow was sitting on their heads.”[30]

In reply to this we have to rely on historical documents that show how he lavished bribes from Muslims treasury on his opponents to obtain their support. It is the worst type of advantage that puts the piety of Caliph to question.

A)

As you know the Prophet delegated Abu Sufyan to a certain district to collect Zakat. When Abu Sufyan returned to Medina the Caliphate of Ali was hijacked in the Saqifah conspiracy.

Abu Sufyan at first because of communal feelings proposed to Imam Ali (a.s.) of his acknowledgement to him as the Caliph but after

“He got disappointed from Ali towards his own personal gains. On the other hand the government at that time was anxious for his campaign, which was in anticipation of government. Umar went to Abu Bakr and told him that Abu Sufyan had returned from his assignment. He warned Abu Bakr that they would not be safe from his mischief. The Prophet of God too, always treated him with care and affection for this very reason. Now he has some amount collected by him in Zakat. Although the amount with him belongs to the Public Treasury we should ignore the amount and give it to him to please him. Abu Bakr agreed and did the same.

Abu Sufyan was pleased and he paid allegiance to Abu Bakr.[32]

According to the narration of Tabari, Abu Sufyan did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr until he got the post of commander for his son, Yazid bin Abu Sufyan, to the army in Syria.[33]”[34]

p: 44

“Our readers are aware of the fact that among them and Bani Umayyah chief (Abu Sufyan) there was no difference of views. I (the author)[35] believe that contradictions in their behavior were a strategy to create divisions in society. There was no motive at all of any good among them.”[36]

B)

Although it must be noted that diversion of public funds in such a way and bribing political adversaries was a common practice of Caliphs. Such misappropriation was in excess. They did it freely without fearing God. To prove this there are many historical documents but we quote here a few:

“When Abu Bakr was established in office he fixed salaries from public funds to Muhajireen and Ansaar women.

Share of a woman from Bani Adi bin al-Najjar was given to Zaid bin Thabit to deliver to her. Zaid went to her and presented the stipend. The woman asked him what it was for. Zaid told her that it was her share fixed by Abu Bakr. The woman replied: Do you want to take away my faith by this bribe? I swear by God, I will not accept anything from him.

The amount was returned to Abu Bakr.”[37]

This of course was not the first case and that woman, not the only woman to be bribed though she rejected. Such cases of expenditures that told on public funds are aplenty. Besides there are many cases of bribes given to persons of their own choice secretly and which were not recorded in books of treasury. For instance the Bani Aslam tribe got free provision in return to their support to Abu Bakr’s rule.[38]

p: 45

Anyway the policy of terror, fear, greed and bribe –was at the top of the list that ran the administration of Abu Bakr’s rule. Such that he said:

I hope your hearts by terror and your bellies by food have been filled.[39]

At the end we would like to quote another case of misappropriation of public funds by Caliphs for their personal benefit and benefit of their families, particularly by Umar.

C)

“Zakwan a freed slave of Ayesha narrates: When Iraq was conquered, spoils of the war were distributed among Muslims. A basket was sent to Umar with a jewel. Umar showed the jewel to Muslims around him and asked its worth. Nobody knew its worth. He then asked them to allow him to send the jewel to Ayesha for the love the Prophet had towards her.[40]

All agreed.

He sent the jewel to her.

Ayesha said: O, God! What a great victory You have bestowed on Umar today...”[41]

Apparently Umar had forgotten what he himself had told Abu Bakr that public property cannot be granted to anyone that the Caliph likes. Acceptance of a few cohorts around the Caliph cannot be a sanction for this generosity. It belongs to all Muslims. The courtiers of Caliph are not peoples’ representatives. So their sanction does not carry any credit.

More interesting is that Ayesha accepted the jewel as a present. She immediately was pleased and praised Umar. She forgot her father’s will in which he had advised her not to use anything from public property or any sum from public funds because it belonged to Muslims. This shows that in fact there was no such will.

p: 46

Anyway, public funds were used for personal interests very openly and freely. On the other hand they go on making claim after claim. For instance:

“Umar did not use his Caliphate for any personal benefit. He did not allow himself any sum from public funds for his private ends. He did not allow himself to lavish money on others from public funds.”[42]

D)

“Ibn Saad narrates from Saeed bin Aas Amawi[43] that he (Saeed) asked Umar to give him a piece of land surrounding his house. He wanted the land to expand his house.

He was encouraged to make such a request because Umar had given lands to some of his close associates.

The Caliph told him: Come after the Morning Prayer so that I may do what you want.

Saeed did accordingly. Then they both, Umar and Saeed, went to the spot to see the land.

Umar drew a line by his foot over the land and said this too is yours.

Saeed bin Aas said to Umar to enlarge the land to some extent because he had a large family.

In reply to this request, Umar said: This much is enough for you. However I’ll tell you a secret, which you please don’t disclose to anyone. After me, one will become Caliph that will give you what you request. He will attend to family ties and relations.

Saeed waited the whole duration of Umar’s Caliphate. When Uthman became a Caliph he did what Umar had predicted.”[44]

p: 47

The interesting point is that Umar did not consult anyone in his charity of lands, which belonged to all Muslims. He did not obtain permission of any Muslim around him. He perhaps forgot the many times he had censured and blamed Abu Bakr in his similar procedure and had even refused the excuse that he (Abu Bakr) had consulted the people around him.

Now if we suppose his fixed annual expenses were five thousand Dirhams then such a loan as this would equal expenses of more than sixteen years.”[50]

Other matters recorded in history say:

B) “Umar gave one thousand Dirhams to one of his relatives.”[51]

C) “He fixed a dowry to one of his wives as forty thousand Dirhams.”[52]

D) “He presented 10000 Dirhams to one of his sons-in-law who had come from Mecca.”[53]

E) “One of the sons of Umar sold his share of inheritance to his brother, Abdullah bin Umar to the amount of a hundred thousand dirhams.[54]”[55]

Abu Yusuf confirms all these cases and adds:

F) “Umar had four thousand distinguished horses in the way of God.

Umar used to give one of these horses to one whose share from public treasury was little and his needs more. Umar put this condition when he gave the horse: If you tire the horse or do not feed it properly or make it thin and lean, you will be held responsible. If you went to holy war with it and it got wounded you will not be accountable.”[56]

Although the last part of the narration is praise to Umar in some way or other, if the Sunni sect believes this praise they should also believe that Umar owned four thousand horses in the first place. If it is so, it will be in immediate contradiction with claims of his having had lived a poor life because of his piety. On the whole, it can be said:

p: 49

“His pious life does not mean that he had no wealth during his Caliphate. According to sources Umar was among the rich ones of Quraish.”[57]

While it is said about him:

“Umar owned nothing and he did not desire to own anything.”[58]

D) These were the things in addition to other wrongdoings of Muawiyah, which Umar did know but overlooked. For instance he lent money on interest but Umar did not take any action against him.[62]

E) One day Muawiyah was censured and blamed in the presence of Umar. Umar said to them: Don’t blame the brave man of Quraish before me. He is so brave that he laughs even while he is angry.[63]

F) Umar paid as a salary of one thousand Dinars every month to Muawiyah from public funds. This amount is mentioned as 10000 dinars yearly in other narrations.[64]

G) Umar used to say about Muawiyah:

Beware of a man of Quraish – a man whose color is closer to black. Also beware of his son. He is one who goes to slumber when he is pleased and laughs when he is in rage.[65]

H) Once Umar saw Muawiyah and remarked: He is Choesroe of Arabs.[66]

I) One day Umar asked his companions: Will you speak about Choesroe and Caesar and their policies in the presence of Muawiyah?![67]”[68]

Such praises for Muawiyah and his royalty while it is that:

“Sometimes Umar too had called himself a king.[69]”[70]

It is interesting that in spite of these clear confessions of the Caliph it is still claimed that:

“Having had so much greatness and power he did not like to be counted among kings and rulers.”![71]

“This great sacred man instead of becoming proud and arrogant because of his battles – one of which was Jerusalem – became humble.”[72]

p: 51

Whoever among you I appointed as officer collected the revenue for himself.”[81]

“Umar bin Khattab [also] time to time used to call his officers to Medina. His officers had openly hoarded wealth from public funds. Umar checked their financial position and interrogated them. He used to take half of their money for public funds and the other half he left for themselves.[82] He neither changed their position nor transferred them.[83]

Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) did not like this policy. He told Umar:

If you think they are wrongdoers, why you take half of their wealth obtained by them illegitimately and return the other half? Why you keep them in their posts?

One day one of the interrogated officers asked the Caliph:

If this money is God’s why don’t you take all of it? If it is mine why you take half of it?[84]”[85]

More interesting is that:

A)

Persons like Abu Huraira, governor of Bahrain was accused of misappropriation of public funds and the Caliph was notified of this accordingly.[86]

B)

“The Caliph confiscated the property of Abu Moosa Ashari,[87] governor of Basrah, but he was not dismissed from his job.”[88]

In other words, one whose property is confiscated because he misappropriated public funds is allowed to continue in his job!

There are further documents that show:

“A man named Zabbat bin Mohsin Anzai quarreled with Abu Moosa Ashari for spoils of war. Abu Moosa sent him to Umar. Umar, without asking him for the reason of his quarrel with Abu Musa, punished him. Zabbat was enraged and wanted to leave the place. At that time, Umar asked him the reason of the quarrel.

p: 53

He replied: Abu Moosa has seventy Iranian slaves and a maid by name Aqeela. He said that Abu Moosa lives in such and such way. Then the man counted to Umar the spoils Abu Moosa had taken for himself.[89] In spite of this information about Abu Moosa, the Caliph did not dismiss him. The only thing Umar did was that he purchased Aqeela from Abu Moosa for himself!”[90]

Keeping in mind his partiality with freed slave like Muawiyah, Zaid bin Thabit and Tameen you can yourself judge the following claim about him:

“Umar was so astute and shrewd that he sensed the slightest change in the life of his personnel while they were in the hurricane of victories and spoils of war. He had a watch over all of them. He interrogated them without exemption to check their honesty and trustworthiness towards government and Muslims.”[91]

“Umar throughout the years of his Caliphate paid due care and attention to the work of his personnel and proceedings of his governors.”[92]

A man of probity if considered weak the weakness will be his own – not yours. But his inability is counted on you because it will have an immediate bearing on you. On the other hand a strong man will be to your advantage while the sins will be his alone!

The Caliph said: You are right! That man is yourself, because at the same time you are a tyrant also. This was the ground for his appointment and he was sent to Kufa.[96]”[97]

In this way the Caliph preferred a profane man who had committed great many sins and crimes in Basrah when he was the governor there, but he (Mughaira) was never punished or dismissed. Now he was appointed governor of Kufa.

Historical annals say that Abu Bakr too had the same policy.

“One who appoints a transgressor to a job knowing that he is such, is like him only.”[102]

Anyway, in spite of all these historical records still they claim:

“Umar bin Khattab himself was epitome of justice. Therefore he wanted his district collectors and provincial governors to be like him – men of justice in all respects.”[103]

Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 35

“Balazari and Muqaddasi have also mentioned the story of Zilqissa and the event of the attack of Bani Fuzara.

Muqaddasi after narrating Abu Bakr’s journey to Zilqissa adds:

Then Khalid advanced towards the enemy with his army. Kharija bin Hisn saw Muslims were in a limited number so he gathered courage and attacked them with a few mounted warriors. As a result, Muslims fled and Abu Bakr too fled with them. His age put him out of breath which failed his legs so he took refuge by climbing up the nearest tree concealing himself in the foliage to escape the enemy…”[105]

“It is interesting how they fabricate narrations[106] and create stories to justify the Caliph’s absence in the field and the necessity for his presence in the capital (Medina).

They in the same way have forged narrations attributed to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in which Ali (a.s.) restrained Abu Bakr and Umar not to personally take part in battles for the safety of their lives.”[107]

While Amirul Momineen (a.s.) although having devoted and loyal warriors around him like Malik Ashtar etc. himself commanded the Islamic forces in three battles of Jamal, Siffeen and Nahrawan and took an active part in them.

But what historical documents say is that:

A) “A man told Umar: You have put on weight.

Umar replied: Why should I not when I have women around me who have no pursuit except to fill my stomach?…”[110]

More interesting is that the Caliph himself chastised those who grew fat.

“The Caliph saw a man, who because of obesity walked huffing and puffing.[111]

He asked: What’s wrong with you?

The man replied: This is a blessing from God.

Umar said: No, this is a punishment from God. He is punishing you in this way.”[112]

B) The narrator says: “I was in Umar’s house at dinner time. He (Umar) was eating bread with meat...”[113]

C) “Ibn Abbas says that he visited Umar during his Caliphate. A vessel full of dates was brought that he may taste them. It contained a Saa-a[114] of dates.

He invited me to join and I only took one piece but he ate up all the dates emptying the vessel, then drank water from a flask kept near him. After that he put his head on a pillow, stretched his legs and relaxed…”[115]

D) Abdullah bin Umar narrates: “I saw my father that his mouth was watering. I asked him how he was feeling?

He said: I very much want to eat red shrimp[116].”[117]

In the end, we leave to you to judge the truth of claims such as:

“Our lord Umar was a model and example to Muslims for his simple living, not getting entrapped in worldly pleasures and his humble and submissive nature.”![118]

p: 58

For this the piety of Caliphs was propagated to shadow the piety of Imam Ali (a.s.). Today they claim:

“The pious life of Ali was a shadow of the Prophet’s life and a ray of light of Caliphate Abu Bakr and Umar.”[123]

“Ali was like Umar in his piety.”[124]

[13] [Sons of Umayyah means: Abul Ais, Abu Amr, Aas, Abul Aas (grandfather of Uthman bin Affan and Marwan bin Hakam) and Harb (father of Abu Sufyan).]

[14] Ahmad al-Kubra: Min Hayatul Khaleefah, Pg. 435; quoting from Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pgs. 158-159

[15] [Abdur Rahman bin Auf, brother-in-law of Uthman (husband of Umme Kulthum binte Uqbah bin Abi Muit) (Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 19)]

[16] [Hurmuzan, the former king of Shoos and Shustar had become a Muslim who sketched conquest of Iranian towns for Umar.]

[17] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 36

[18] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, (9000 copies), Summer 81, Pg. 20

[19] Consent: what is this consent? We very much come across this word in the Sunni books. If they mean it is the consent of all the Muslims, it is impossible to obtain from all. If they mean only those around the caliph and if they are regarded as the representatives of Muslims, they have no such authority because of the ruling of Umar in the following case:

Here is this historical document:

Two men came to Abu Bakr and demanded a piece of land for cultivation. Abu Bakr asked the opinion of those who were around him that time. They agreed. So, Abu Bakr gave them the relative documents of the land. The two men took the document to Umar to attest it. Umar took the document and tore it up. Umar was angry and came to Abu Bakr and asked: Is this land yours? Or, is it of all Muslims? Abu Bakr said that it belonged to all Muslims. He said that he had consulted his courtiers. Umar asked whether the few persons were all Muslims. Whether all have agreed on this? Abu Bakr said: I told at the beginning that you are more competent to be the Caliph. But you did not agree and forced me to accept this post. (Ali Muhammad Mir Jalili: Imam Ali and the Rulers, Pg. 61, narrated from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 12, Pg. 58)

p: 61

[20] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pg. 31

[21] Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 29

[22] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Husaini Firozabadi: Shanasai-e-Haft Tan Dar Sadr-e-Islam (Translation of As-Saba’ tu Min as-Salf; written by Abbas Rasikhi Najafi), Pgs. 81-82

[23] Husain Ghaib Gholami: Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) wa Rumuz-e-Hadith-e-Fadak, Pgs. 43-45; quoting from: Tarikh Madeenatud Damishq, Vol. 28, Pg. 200

[24] Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 35

[25] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pg. 31

[26] [After the passing away of the Seal of the prophets and during continuous wars there was excess of war booty and wealth.]

[27] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 3, Pg. 232

[28] Ibid. Vol. 3, Pgs. 232-233; quoting from: Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 8, Pgs. 69-73

[29] Ibid. Vol. 3, Pg. 233; quoting from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 132

[30] Zamakhshari: Al-Kashaf, Vol. 3, Pg. 231, Under Verses 30-31 of Surah Noor

[31] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, Summer 81, Pg. 20

[32] Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 3, Pg. 62

[33] Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 449

[34] Allamah Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 157

Allamah Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 157

[35] [Author of Asraar wa Asaar Saqifah Bani Saada]

p: 62

[36] Hashmatullah Qambari Hamadani: Asraar wa Asaar Saqifah Bani Saada (Secrets and relics of Saqifah Bani Saada), Pg. 81

[37] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pg. 58; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 2, Pg. 133

[38] Refer: Shaykh Mufeed: Al-Jamal, Pg. 43

[39] Suyuti: Jame al-Ahadith, Vol. 13, Pg. 106

[40] [On reading the first volume of Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, it is known how Ayesha coined traditions to strengthen the foundation of Caliphate.]

[41] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 118; quoting from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 133 Mustadrak Hakim Talkhis Dhahabi, Vol. 4, Pg. 8

[42] Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 46

[43] [Saeed bin Aas bin Saeed bin Aas bin Umayyah]

[44] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 14, Pgs. 25-26; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 5, Pgs. 20-22

[45] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, (9000 copies), Autumn 81, Pg. 7

[46] Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 73

[47] Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 90

[48] Muhammad Kamil Hasan al-Hami (translated by Ghulam Haider Farooqi): Zindagi Naame Umar bin Khattab (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 22

[49] Quoted from: Tarikh al-Khulafa, Pg. 135

[50] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 7

p: 63

[51] Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 62

[52] Ustad Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) (Translated by Muhammad Shahri, 2nd Edition), Pg. 182; quoting from: Al-Futuhaat al-Islamiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 55; At-Tarateeb al-Idariya, Vol. 2, Pg. 405; Al-Bahruz Zakhaar, Vol. 4. Pg. 100

It is said that they were 10000 in number (Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 2, Pg. 109)

[53] Ibid. Pg. 182; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 3, Pg. 219; Al-Futuhaat al-Islamiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 390; Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, quoting from: Ibne Saad and Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 2, Pg. 317 Ibne Jurair and Ibne Asakir; Tarikh al-Khulafa, Pg. 120

[54] Ibid. Pg. 182; quoting from: Jame Bayan al-Ilm, Vol. 2, Pg. 17

[55] Extract from: Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 705; quoting from: Tarikh Mukhtasar Damishq, Vol. 10, Pg. 406]

[56] Ibid. Pg. 182; quoting from: Al-Kharaij, Pg. 51

[57] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 70; quoting from: Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 1, Pg. 347

[59] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 14, Summer 82, Pg. 20

[60] Quoted from: At-Tarateeb al-Idariya, Vol. 1, Pg. 269

[61] Quoted from: Tabari, Vol. 6, Pg. 184; Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 14

[62] Quoted from: Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 5, Pg. 347; Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 4, Pg. 60

[63] Quoted from: Al-Istiab, (on the margins of Al-Isabah), Vol. 3, Pg. 397

[64] Quoted from: Uyun al- Akhbaar, Vol. 1, Pg. 9

[65] Quoted from: Uyun al- Akhbaar, Vol. 1, Pg. 9

p: 64

[66] Quoted from: Al-Istiab, (on the margins of Al-Isabah), Vol. 3, Pgs. 396-397

[In this book it is mentioned:

Whenever Umar came to Syria or looked at Muawiyah he used to remark: This is the Choesroe of Arabs.

(Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 434; Usud al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, Pg. 386)]

[67] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.), Pgs. 98-100

[68] [The Caliph said before the people: By Allah! I don’t know whether I am a Caliph or a king (Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 66)]

[69] Ibid. Pg. 181; quoting from: Al-Futuhaat al-Islamiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 290; Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, Pg. 256

[70] Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102

[71] Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102

[72] Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 417

[73] [Tameem bin Aws bin Kharija was a Christian monk who had converted to Islam in 9th year of Hijra, that is a year before the passing away of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.)]

[74] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 6, Pg. 88; quoting from: Futuh al-Buldan, Pg. 556

[75] Ibid. Vol. 6, Pg. 87; quoting from: Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 473; Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 446

[76] Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 445

[77] Ustad Ali Koorani: Tadween-e-Quran, Pg. 186

[78] [A young Jew who had recently converted to Islam]

[79] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 76; quoting from: Tarikh Madinatul Munawwara, Vol. 3, Pgs. 854-855; Al-Isabah, Vol. 1, Pg. 85

p: 65

[80] Balazari: Futuh al-Buldan, Pgs. 90, 226 392

[81] Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 247; quoting from Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 137

[82] [This shows misappropriation, and the action of Caliph proves that he did not consider his officers trustworthy]

[83] Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 46

[84] Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 46

[85] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 285

[86] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 205; quoting from: Sharh

Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 3, Pg. 113

[87] [Abdullah bin Qais, also called as Abu Musa; Abdullah bin Umar was his son-in-law]

[88] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 222; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 43

[89] Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 2, Pgs. 288-289

[90] Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 248

[91] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 6

[92] Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102

[93] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 199

[94] [In the original text it is mentioned that this happened at the time of dismissal of Saad bin Abi Waqqas and appointment of Mughaira in his place, while the fact is that Mughaira was not immediately appointed after Saad, in between Ammar Yasir occupied the post of governorship of Kufa for a brief period.

“After Saad bin Abi Waqqas for a short period Abdullah bin Utban and then Ammar bin Yasir became the governor of Kufa. Since the people of Kufa found him lenient they asked Umar to appoint someone else and he sent Mughaira bin Shoba to Kufa.” (Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 283)]

p: 66

[95] [Umar is said to have expressed his view in this sentence: “They weakened him – their pious governor! The pronoun used by him refers to Ammar Yasir and not Saad bin Abi Waqqas. As such, the man who was considered able one and at the same time a tyrant and profligate was Saad bin Abi Waqqas.

It should be remarked here because the name of Salman Farsi too is referred to. The historical document shows that Umar appointed Salman Farsi governor of Madayn. The motive of Umar was that Salman would commit some or other wrong. This would provide Umar with an excuse to destroy Salman and discard him from society.

According to this, one can conclude that such a plot could have been there for Ammar to enmesh him. So, quite possibly Ammar must have been the victim of such intrigues.]

[96] Quoted from: Al-Istiab, Vol. 3, Pg. 472 Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 204; quoting from Al-Iqdul

[97] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 200

[98] Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 189; quoting from: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 138; Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 617

[99] Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 189; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 603

[100] [Regarding the attitude of Mughaira and Khalid we will be giving more sources and documents in the following pages.]

[101] Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 200; quoting from: Abqariya Umar, Pg. 28

[102] Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 200; quoting from: Tarikh Umar bin Khattab, Pg. 56

[103] Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 204

p: 67

[104] Allamah Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pg. 43

[105] Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 42

[106] For example: Refer: Tarikh Khaleefatain bin Khayyat, Pg. 51 (Darul Kutub al-Ilmiya, Beirut)

[107] Extract from: Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 1, Pgs. 313-314

[108] Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 101

[109] Ibid. Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102

[110] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 8; quoting from: Shaykhaan Balazari, Pg. 237

[111] [Around 3 Kgs.]

[112] Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 165

[113] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 1, Pg. 44; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 3, Pg. 318

[114] [Around 3 Kgs.]

[115] Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 20

[116] [A delicious Arabian dish]

[117] Ahmad al-Bakri: Min Hayatul Khaleefa, Pg. 76; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 3, Pgs. 229-230

[118] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 5

[119] [Rule of nobles]

[120] Muhammad Hasan Mashayakh: Article quoted in Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue Nos. 2-3, Summer 80 – Spring 81, Pgs. 70-71

[121] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 174; quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 4, Pg. 78

[122] Like in establishment of Taravih Prayer or with attention to the recitation of Quran.

Abu Moosa Ashari says: “The Caliph appointed me as the governor of Basra and instructed me only to make the recitation of Quran popular among the people.” (Ibne Kathir: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 8, Pg. 107)

p: 68

[123] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pg. 33

[124] Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 139

“He was an Emperor but with people’s pain at heart. At night he was in the streets to help the weak and support widows.”[3]

On the whole, it can be said:

Scrutiny into praises lavished on Umar shows that there are obvious contradictions in them.

For instance with regard to public welfare they remark:

“During Umar’s Caliphate, Muslims had become rich. They had too much money that they did not know how to spend it. There was not a single hungry man in the whole Arab peninsula.”[4]

“In the period of Umar there was not one poor man to be found in the Arab state.”![5]

On the other hand some praise Umar for his affection to oppressed and needy people. In this respect, they have shown the power of their pens to gain the feelings of their readers. They have accepted existence of poverty in days of Umar as a fact and on the basis of that say:

“Caliph of Islamic government, Umar bin Khattab, on a very cold night saw a fire at a distance and along with his companions went towards it to see a mother sitting with her three small children by the fireside. One of the children was crying and saying: Mother, see my tears and have mercy on me. The other was saying: Mother! I’ll die of hunger. The third said: Mother! Can I possibly have some food before I die? Umar sat near the fire and said to the mother: To whom do you complain? The mother said: By God! By God! To Umar!

p: 70

Umar asked: Who has informed Umar about you and your condition? She said: He is our guardian (wali) and responsible[6] and he is ignorant about us!

When Umar heard this, he immediately hurried to the Treasury and brought back a bag of flour, a vessel of ghee (oil) and a vessel of honey. He prepared the food and then he himself fed the children…”![7]

Here we should ask:

If such a story is indeed true what is the meaning of the claim that there did not exist a single poor needy one? If this claim is true and there was not a single person hungry in all the Arabian Peninsula what is the aim of this story?

We leave the judgment on the part of the reader. Such contradictious are aplenty in all stories invented by them.

For instance, we give here one more example:

“Umar had no leisure to wash his clothes.”![8]

On the other hand they say:

“He was careless about the fashion or elegance of dress but he was very much particular about neatness and cleanliness of clothes.”![9]

These contrasts resulted due to concept of piety with the different writers. Some saw goodness in dirty clothes while some in neat. So each batch of writers writes according to its mind not wanting to deprive Umar of this quality. They want to elevate him in the sight of the readers causing this discrepancy.

In this way they painted the face of their beloved Caliph so that as much as possible it appears attractive to all.

p: 71

On the other hand Caliphs after Saqifah

“Established a Quraishi kingdom, especially in the days of Umar accommodating the tribes in newly created cities of Kufa and Basrah but keeping the Quraish in Medina itself. He distributed lands in Medina among them and created social classes and distinctions so that wealth remained with Quraish. The Quraish tribe now owned slaves, gardens, fertile fields and villas. The Quraish had the army under them because the commanders and officers were from Quraish. Likewise, the governors were also from Quraish. The city of Medina became a place of kings, princes and wealth. All facilities, amenities and wealth were now for Quraish.

The Quraish purchased slaves and used them as labor – a free labor. They expanded the town and settled around it.[14]

Umar’s regime was a pure Arab regime. He restricted non-Arabs to live in Medina.[15] Medina was the capital of Islam.

Besides Arabs, no one was allowed to live in the capital. Umar had prohibited an Arab girl to be married with a non-Arab. Likewise, a non-Quraish Arab was not allowed to marry a girl from Quraish.

Accordingly Umar made the Islamic society into a society of classes and ranks. Whatever Umar ordered, the people considered a divine order and as religion itself. If an Arab married a non-Arab girl and if she gave birth in Arab territories the male child was entitled and liable to inherit. On the other hand if the birth took place in non-Arab territory; that is in a land which does not belong to Arabs – the male child was deprived of heritage.

p: 73

Umar’s regime was an Arab and Quraishi regime. In military the top posts of captain, brigadier, colonel, general, commander and so forth were for Quraish. He never appointed an outsider from Quraish to any position in military.

However there was an exception. Among all the tribes of Quraish, he (Umar) did not give governorship of any province to Bani Hashim.[16]

In Islam, Public Treasury was called Baitul Maal. In days of Prophet, public funds were distributed among all Muslims equally without any distinction. Abu Bakr did the same during his two years’ rule.

Umar did not like this method and said that particularly from the residents of Medina each individual should get in accordance to his social status. The salaries were set for annual distribution. He made classes and grades among the people themselves.”[17]

“During Umar’s rule a court was formed. Courtiers came into existence. He based his rule on tribal foundations. He gave preference to his courtiers who were his companions. Among them too he framed distinctions and differences.”[18]

“In financial distribution, he adopted this formula: A thousand Dirhams to participants of the battle of Badr, four thousand to those present in Uhad, three thousand to fighters of Khandaq. To the Prophet’s widows he gave ten thousand Dirhams each. But Ayesha was an exception and was paid twelve thousand.”[19]

“Umar introduced these classified grades. He gave to Muawiyah and his father Abu Sufyan a share equal to those who took part in the battle of Badr. He gave a distinction to three women among ladies of Islam. He preferred these three to all other women of the society of those days. They were (1) Hafasa, his own daughter (2) Ayesha, Abu Bakr’s daughter and (3) Umme Habeeba, Abu Sufiyan’s daughter and Muawiyah’s sister.[20]”[21]

p: 74

“These preferences and distinctions were carried out at a time when for the whole year he did not pay any amount to Umme Salma – another widow of Prophet[22] because she had sided with Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, when he confiscated Fadak.”[23]

“Well, what is the outcome of this division? It is quite obvious, the class of dignitaries, aristocrats or lords –were up and above the common people. This is the same division that existed in Mecca prior to Islam. Now it returned but this time under the banner of Islam. In other words he took the society backwards and destroyed all that Islam had labored hard for its goals and ends.”[24]

“Thus Islamic society also became a society of classes like in Iran and Rome. There were various divisions – princes, clerks, military personnel, laborers, shopkeepers etc.

When Iranians and Romans were embracing Islam they used to see Islam in the deeds of Muslims and in Caliphs’ government. They concluded that Islamic society resembled theirs – that is a society of classes and divisions.

Immediately after the battles in early Islamic era, Umar issued orders to build towns like Basrah, Kufa and a city near Iskandaria. When these towns were built, he relocated Arab tribes there but kept Quraish in Medina itself. He gave the lands in Medina to them.”[25]

“Umar fixed a tax under name of Zakat upon farmers, artisans and merchants. The revenue accrued from this was spent on scholars,[26] governors,[27] commanders[28] and other military personnel. In this regard he created offices and to run the offices he employed staff. Their salaries were paid from this revenue. The job of these officers was to keep a record of money collected in taxes and its expenditure.”[29]

p: 75

In praise of this taxation and expenditure, they have said:

“By so doing he uprooted poverty from Islamic Ummah.”![30]

While on the whole it be concluded that:

“This policy of Umar was based on tribal discrimination that he divided the shares from public treasury. This is appreciated as his justice. He took pride to announce that he learnt[31] justice from Choesroe.[32] Here a question arises that why he learnt from Choesroe and not from the Prophet of Islam? Which would have been better for him. What did he see in Choesroe that enchanted him to compare himself with Choesroe!?”[33]

There are further historical evidences that show:

A)

“People were harassed and tortured for taxes. Troubling people started from the days of Umar.”[34]

B)

“Malik bin Anas says about Muslims who lived outside Medina that they were treated such at the orders issued by the rulers.[35]”[36]

C)

“Umar doubled the tax for Christians of Taghlib[37] which is a widely known fact and there is no need to write anything in this regard.”[38]

D)

“Umar tried very much to tax the man who had become a Muslim. While originally it was only applied to Jews and Christians, and Muslims were exempted.”[39]

Inspite of this they claim:

“In the days of Umar in Jerusalem, taxes were collected from non-Muslims for protection of their properties and them. Once it so happened that it became necessary to transfer the army from Jerusalem to some other front. Umar gathered all non-Muslims and announced to them that their protection had been the responsibility of government therefore taxes were collected from them. Now that the army is transferred from there the money taken from them in taxes will be returned to them.”[40]

p: 76

“He was severe and tough but one who spread justice and equity.”![49]

Or the fact is that he was a racial bigot who advocated the supremacy of Arabs?

Among his famous statements, he usually used to issue are:

A) “Arab cannot be enslaved by anyone.”[50]

B) It is very awkward for Arabs to enslave among themselves; that is some to become slaves of some…”[51]

C) “He mentioned in his will that all Arabs are free from God’s property…[52]”[53]

D) “Whenever Umar sent his agents on some assignment he used to enjoin them: Not to beat Arabs as it will belittle them in the eyes of others. Do not detain them too long in the battlefields as it will make them to go astray and corrupt them. Don’t act as their superiors as it will make them to feel deprived or disgruntled.”[54]

“On the other hand he always tried in his policies to reduce the rights of non-Arabs. He persisted on this policy regardless of conditions and circumstances. He even went beyond this and suppressed their honor and prestige. To him the entity that was not an Arab carried neither meaning nor weight.[55]”[56]

“His policy brought them atrocities in various forms and shapes beside injustice in its thousand vogues, in addition to scorn, acrimony, vilification and hardship every morning and evening.

Umar founded such policies of racial discrimination. After Umar, the Bani Umayyah Caliphs followed it exactly.”[57]

Here with support of relative historical documents we sketch the method Umar adopted to carry out his policy of racial superiority:

p: 78

His policy of giving preference to Quraish over all freed ones, even Arabs, was carried out for the widows of the Prophet.

Here we suffice to mention one case:

Umar gave six thousand Dirhams to Juwairia[72] while to Ayesha he sanctioned twelve thousand.

Umar said that he would never treat one who was a slave equal to the daughter of Abu Bakr.”[73]

“He succeeded because his great mind enabled him to administer the wide Islamic world of those days alone and by his own style. He did it so justly that there is no parallel to it in history.”[81]

“Hazrat Umar brought a political revolution in the Islamic world which brought with it prosperity to mankind. He brought into light the old doctrines on the basis of which tyrant rulers were oppressing people.”[82]

“Whoever looks into the life of Umar and ponders a little will understand that it was God, the Almighty’s will that he should take the seat of Caliph of the last Prophet of God to disseminate social justice in accordance with divine rules and Islamic teachings. It was His will that people of Arabian Peninsula and abroad should enjoy equally the bounty of justice.”![83]

“Islam was spread far and wide in the period of Umar. He invented laws during his administration which were unknown before.”![84]

Here it should be asked: With policy of racial discrimination even among the Arabs themselves how could it be possible that he dispensed justice and equality to non-Arabs and new converts to Islam? That it should be claimed that:

“During the rule of Umar… without any break, communities enjoyed ease and well-being which was the beginning of Muslim kingdoms.”![85]

These Arabs in their recent past had never even dreamed to be rulers and had lived a life, which was a source of their own vilification. It was a constant pain to them that they were alive because life was a package of misfortunes to them. The days passed in agony to them.

People who looked on their neighboring nations from a lower station and in a needy position felt their own littleness and non-entity too deeply. They compared with the dazzling glare of the greatness of Choesroe – the Emperor of Iran and the imperious glory of Caesar and saw their own backwardness magnified to them. The difference that appeared to them further impressed them.

It never occurred to their imagination that a day would come to their relief from this ugly impecuniosity. They even in their dreams never had imagined that they would be victors over Choesroe. A day they will rule the lands outlandish to them. One day they will be the masters of widespread territories.

It is normal that they will behave with pride and vainglory. It was their background that had maddened them in self-centeredness, stubbornness and arrogance. They believed that all were indebted to them. Now they should pay back what was withheld from them. Therefore they committed tyrannies on nations subordinate to them. To belittle the men of yesterday’s greatness was a pleasure to them.

What they did when they captured their properties, farms, cultivated lands and so forth; it is natural and expected from anyone long deprived. They plunged headlong into sins and crimes. They stooped to low pleasures of life. Tyranny became their sport.

p: 83

This made them like a disobedient ghost. Whoever stood to challenge it, was crushed. It had gone so wild that it would show no mercy or least leniency in dispatching its opponents to perdition.

It is exactly the same thing that is explained by us as the cause of calamities on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), his family and his Shias throughout history.”[86]

“Racial discrimination increased their shares from Public Treasury and gave them superiority over non-Arabs…as a result they became proud, haughty and imperious and did not know any bounds to confine them. They became an aristocrat class. The plenitude of pelf, the pleasures of no prohibitions made them even challenge every power that could restrict them. So they crossed the borders of religion and trespassed limits of conscience.”[90]

So they went away and selected one among themselves to lead them in prayers. Ali sent his son, Hasan, to disperse them. When they saw Hasan coming, they ran towards the mosque doors and shouted: O Umara![94]

Perhaps the first to shout thus was Qadi Shurai.[95]

B)

When His Eminence wanted to dismiss Qadi Shurai from his post of judge, people of Kufa approached and pleaded him not to dismiss him because Umar had appointed him.

They said: We paid allegiance to you in the condition that you will not change anything that Abu Bakr and Umar had done.[96]”[97]

C)

“When Khawarij were driven out of Kufa, friends and Shias of Ali came to him and pledged allegiance to him saying: We are friends of your friends and enemies of your enemies.

His Eminence put a condition to them that he (Ali) would act according to Sunnah of Prophet. Rabiya bin Abi Shaddad Khathami, standard-bearer Khathami tribe who had fought under Ali’s command in Jamal and Siffeen came to Ali.

His Eminence (a.s.) said: Pay allegiance to me according to Book of God and Sunnah of Prophet.

Rabiya said: I will pay allegiance to you according to the Sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Ali told him: Woe be on you! Even though Abu Bakr and Umar acted against Book of God and Prophet’s tradition and were far from truth…?”[98]

D)

“Soldiers who had fought in Jamal under Ali’s command shouted: O Ali! With regard to us act according to tradition of Abu Bakr and Umar.[99]

p: 86

E)

Khawarij told Qais bin Saad that they would not obey him unless he brought to them one like Umar.[100]”[101]

F)

“Ashath bin Qais[102] said with regard to Abu Moosa-Ashari who was chosen as arbitrator:

This is Abu Moosa. He was delegated by people of Yemen to the Prophet. He was the treasurer of spoils for Abu Bakr and a staff member of Umar…”[103]

G)

“They say: Ibn Abbas said to Ali to keep Muawiyah in his post as governor of Syria. His reasoning was that Umar had appointed him in that post.[104]”[105]

As is clear most troubles that Ali had to face during his rule was the presence of soldiers in his army who had received religious training by Umar. Later they were known as Khawarij and they fought against Ali.

“Even though Khawarij openly declared their entity in the battle of Siffeen, in the issue of raising Quran on spear points and in the matter of arbitration the fact is that doubt had already crept in their hearts in the battle of Jamal when they saw Ali’s stand towards captives and spoils of battle.[106]

It can even be said that doubt and suspicion took hold of them when Ali became Caliph and gave up the practice of Umar following the tradition of Prophet in treating all equally. He did not give any preference to anyone. It was at that time that they objected to him. They told him to pay their shares in the same scale as Umar used to give. Ali (a.s.) rejected their demand and acted on the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.)…

p: 87

Khawarij censured Ali because in the battle of Jamal, Ali did not allow them to plunder the defeated opponents and take their sons and women captives.[107]”[108]

[14] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 14, Pgs. 95-96

[15] [Except Hurmuzan, Abu Lulu, Salman and Bilal.]

[16] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pgs. 124-125

[17] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 54

[18] Rasool Ja’faryan: Seerah Rasool-e-Khuda, Pg. 164

[19] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 14, Pg. 160

[20] Quoted from: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 153

[21] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 47

[22] Quoted from: Dalail al-Imamah, Pg. 39

[23] Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 66

[24] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 55

[25] Ibid. Vol. 14, Pg. 76

[26] [It denotes the intellectuals, persons like Kaab al-Ahbaar! (Refer: Najah Ata at-Tai: Yahood Be-Suboot al-Islam)]

[27] [Persons like Mughaira and Amr Aas]

[28] [Persons like Muhammad bin Musailama who killed Saad bin Ubadah]

[29] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pg. 559, Footnote no. 3

[30] Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 92

[31] Quoted from: Ahsan at-Taqaaseem, Pg. 18

[32] [The Arabs called all the Sasanid rulers as Choesroe]

[33] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 103

p: 89

[34] Ibid. Pg. 184; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 11, Pg. 245 onwards

[35] [“Umar applied the custom of Iran and Rome to landed properties in Iraq.”

Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Nigahi be Sarguzahsht-e-Hadith, Pg. 26)]

[36] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.), Pg. 124; quoting from: Jame Bayan al-Ilm, Vol. 2, Pg. 194

[37] [In order to maintain the supremacy of the Arabs the Caliph used to collect from them a tax, that he didn’t refer to by the name of Jizyah as they would have considered it abhorring, but he collected from them a tax which was twice that of Zakat.]

[38] Ibid. Pg. 184; quoting from: Sunan Baihaqi, Vol. 4, Pg. 216; Al-Musannaf, Vol. 6, Pg. 50

[39] Ibid. Pg. 184; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 6, Pg. 94

[40] Abdus Samad Hasan Zahi: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 7, (7000 copies), Autumn 80, Pg. 13

[41] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 127

[42] [The system of taking war hostages as slaves was responsible for so many Arabs being made slaves in the period of Abu Bakr.

Waging battles was the most important method of getting slaves.

It is mentioned in history that one-fifth prisoners of the town of Qaisariya during the time of Umar bin Khattab used to be 4000 slaves. (Ref: Futuh al-Buldan, Pg. 142)

In the same way it is said that the prisoners of Ahwaz, especially Shustar, were in such a large number that Umar bin Khattab ordered them to be returned. (Ref: Futuh al-Buldan, Pg. 382)

p: 90

The distribution of slaves among the soldiers and the government was in such a way that one-fifth were given to the government and four-fifth were retained with the soldiers.

Therefore these war prisoners were lodged in houses built for this purpose during the time of the Second Caliph.

(Ref: Tabaqat Ibne Saad, Vol. 3, Pg. 203 261.)]

[43] [Released hostages were called Mawali]

[44] Yusuf Gholami: Peshwai Farzand Abu Talib, Pg. 61

[45] [Surprising is the claim that:

“He had a clean tongue and he did not like bad language.”! (Muhammad Kamil Ilhami (Translation by Ghulam Haider Farooqi): Zindagi Name Umar bin Khattab (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 24)

While historical documents show that: Abu Sufyan in dialogue with Umar bin Khattab in the presence of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and Abbas told Umar: “Woe be on you Umar! You are a profane man.” (Najah Ata at-Tai: As Seeratun Nabawiyyah, Vol. 2, Pg. 130; quoting from Sirah Ibne Dahlan, Vol. 2, Pg. 58)]

[46] Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 1, Pg. 392; quoting from: Abqariya Umar, Pg. 130

[47] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 4

[48] Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 197

[49] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 6

[50] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Fars, Pg. 128; quoting from: Al-Amwaal, Pgs. 197-199; Al-Izaah, Pg. 249; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 549; Sunan Baihaqi, Vol. 9, Pg. 74

p: 91

[51] Ibid. Pg. 129; quoting from: Al-Kamil Fit Tarikh, Vol. 2, Pg. 382; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 549

[52] [“Sending Arab tribes to war was responsible for promoting the practice of slavery among Arabs…

It is seen that prosperity of these tribes after conquests motivated them to pay religious penalties by freeing slaves…

But these changes and steps were not effective with all slaves…it can be said that these victories created among the Arabs a feeling of racial superiority…” (Jamal Jooda: Auzaa Ijtimai – Iqtisaadi Mawali Dar Sadr-e-Islam, Pgs. 88-90)]

[53] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 128; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 8, Pgs. 380-381; Vol. 9, Pg. 168

[54] Ibid. Pg. 130; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 11, Pg. 325; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 273; Mustadrak Hakim, Vol. 4, Pg. 439; Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, Pg. 82

[55] [Its most prominent example will be given in the matter of Jabla bin Aiham]

[56] Ibid. Pg. 127

[57] Ibid. Pg. 131

[58] Ibid. Pg. 131; quoting from: Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 2, Pg. 320

[59] [Nubati or Nabatean were non-Arab people who had settled down in Iraq and southern Palestine and mixed with the local population of unspecified lineage.]

[60] Ibid. Pg. 132; quoting from: Tahdhib Tarikh-e-Damishq, Vol. 5, Pg. 446; Tadkirah al-Huffaz, Vol. 1, Pg. 31; Sunan Baihaqi, Vol. 8, Pg. 32; Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 440; Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 7, Pg. 303

[61] Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 115

[62]Muhammad Kamil Hasan al-Hami (translated by Ghulam Haider Farooqi): Zindagi Naame Umar bin Khattab (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 3

p: 92

[63] Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 82

[64] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 133; quoting from: Iqtiza as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem, Pg. 162

[65] Ibid. Pg. 133; quoting from: Rabi al-Abraar, Vol. 1, Pg. 796; Tarikh Jurjaan, Pg. 486

[66] Ibid. Pg. 134; quoting from: Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 3, Pg. 150; Al-Musannaf, Vol. 11, Pg. 439

[67] Ibid. Pg. 136; quoting from: Al-Izaah, Pgs. 280 286; Muhaziraat al-Udba, Vol. 3, Pg. 208

[68] Ibid. Pg. 136; quoting from: Al-Uthmaniya, Pg. 211

[69] Ibid. Pg. 136; quoting from: Al-Izaah, Pg. 286

[70] Ibid. Pg. 135; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 8, Pg. 111

[71] Ibid. Pg. 135; quoting from: Iqtiza as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem, Pg. 159

[72] [She was the wife of the Prophet and the daughter of Harith, the chief of Bani Mustaliq tribe. She was taken as a prisoner by Muslims along with the people of her clan. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) purchased and emancipated her and then he married her; when this news reached Harith, he came to Medina and accepted Islam and after that most people of his tribe also accepted Islam (Refer: Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 1, Pgs. 58-59)]

[73] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 135; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Sirah Payambar, Pg. 442; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 614

[74] [Utbah bin Ghazawaan was the founder of Basrah]

[75] [That is desert dweller; Bedouins etc.]

[76] [Mughaira was a Thaqafi and a native of Taif]

p: 93

[77] [That is city dwellers]

[78] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 79; quoting from: Mojam al-Buldan, Vol. 1,Pg. 433

[79] Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 164

[80] Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 79

[81] Ibid. Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 46

[82] Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 422

[83] Ibid. Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 421

[84] Ahmad Naseeb (translated by Saaduddin Shaykh Ahmadi): Mohabbat-e-Payambar Dar Qalb-e-Yaaranash (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 84

[85] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 6

[86] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pgs. 170-171

[87] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 106

[88] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 172

[89] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.),Pg. 106

[90] Ibid. Pg. 179

[91] [Second Caliph]

[92] Quoted from: Kafi, Vol. 8, Pgs. 59-63

[93] [It includes his words, actions and silent approval.]

[94] Quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 1, Pg. 269; Vol. 2, Pg. 283

[95] Quoted from: Rijaal Mamaqaani, Vol. 2, Pg. 83

[96] Quoted from: Rijaal Mamaqaani, Vol. 2, Pg. 83

[97] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 173

[98] Ibid. Pgs. 175-176; quoting from: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 146

[99] Quoted from: Al-Kamil fil Adab, Vol. 1, Pg. 144

p: 94

[100] Quoted from: Akbaar at-Tiwaal, Pg. 207; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 4, Pg. 62; Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Vol. 3, Pg. 343; Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 2, Pgs. 370-371

[101] Ibid. Pg. 174

[102] [He was from Kinda tribe]

[103] Ibid. Pg. 176; quoting from: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 130

[104] [Careful attention on these statements would clearly prove what circumstances restrained Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from criticizing the Caliphs openly during his Caliphate and the exigencies of accepting the names of Caliphs for his sons.]

[105] Ibid. Pg. 175; quoting from: Al-Fusool al-Muhimma by Ibne Sabbagh Maliki, Pg. 49

[106] [His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) asked them: What has made you angry with me? They replied: The first thing that infuriated us against you was that in the battle of Jamal, though you allowed us to take war booty you restrained us from taking their women

and children as hostages. (Quoted from: Baghdadi: Al-Farq Bainal Firq, Pg. 78)

[107] Quoted from: Shahristani: Al-Milal wan Nihal, Vol. 1, Pg. 116

[108] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Article: ‘Mariqeen’ (Translation Muhammad Shahri) quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 9, Pgs. 239-241

It is interesting that Bukhari writes:

After passing away of Prophet, Jabir bin Abdullah claimed that the Prophet had promised him to give him certain amount.

Abu Bakr put his hand inside and gave to Jabir again and again. Each time he gave five hundred dirhams and he did this thrice.[2]”[3]

This double policy of the Caliph is surprising: He did not accept the claim of Zahra to inheritance, who is infallible according to the testimony of verse of Quran and he asked her to present witnesses whom also he rejected later, but he accepted the claim of Jabir bin Abdullah Ansaari without asking for any witness regarding Prophet’s promise.

“Bukhari and Muslim have narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansaari: When revenue from Bahrain was brought to Abu Bakr I was present there. I said to Abu Bakr: The Prophet had told me that when the revenue from Bahrain came he would give me something from it.

Abu Bakr told Jabir to go and pick up what the Prophet had promised.

You see that the Prophet has passed away, Jabir claims that the Prophet had promised him a certain amount from Bahrain revenue. After his death the revenue comes. Abu Bakr has succeeded the Prophet. Jabir goes to Abu Bakr and narrates a story to him. Abu Bakr believes him and pays him the amount he wants.

Commentators of Bukhari and Muslim in their books justify the act of Abu Bakr in his making the payment from public funds without a witness or swearing.

p: 96

The book Al-Kawakib al-Durari Fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Kermani, the most reliable commentary on Bukhari, writes:

Abu Bakr believed the word of Jabir because of the Prophet. He had warned that if anyone said a lie on his behalf he would have a seat of fire in the next world. Therefore it was not possible for a companion of Prophet to lie and accept fire for himself.[4] There was great likelihood that Jabir told the truth. Well, why is such a possibility not considered with regard to Zahra? She was the daughter of Prophet and she was infallible. Her position was far greater than that of Jabir, who was only a companion of the Prophet.

New let us see what Ibn Hajar Asqalani says in Fath al-Bari:

This tradition proves that the word of a just companion of the Prophet, individually, should be accepted though it may be profitable to him.[5]

For this reason, Abu Bakr did not demand a witness.

Zahra said that the Prophet had bestowed to her the Fadak. So why such difference between the two claims – one his only daughter and another only his companion among so many?

Ayini says in his book Umdat al-Qari Fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari: Jabir is a just man according to the proof of Quran and traditions. Therefore Abu Bakr did not demand a witness. It is not likely that a Muslim would lie on the Prophet, what to say of a companion![6]

How is it that Abu Bakr accepted the claim of Jabir but did not accept the claim of Zahra?

p: 97

Was she lesser than Jabir?

Would she lie about the Prophet? You do not presume that a Muslim would attribute lie to the Prophet.

What is the difference between the two claims?

Why the claim of Zahra is rejected inspite of the rules and witnesses? But the claim of Jabir is accepted without any witness!!”[7]

At that time Zaid bin Thabit was present who reminded him that he was favoring of his slave to lash his own brother. Therefore he imposed penalty instead of lashing.[9]

Still they claim:

“Umar always held justice in his view above everything. He executed justice without any consideration.”[10]

The incidents narrated here show double standards and that justice depended upon his policies.

“When he gave his lash to the Egyptian to scourge Muhammad bin Amr Aas, he said: O, Amir! Are you satisfied now? Is your heart pleased now?

In this way he accused Umar of taking revenge from him and his father for personal reasons.[11]”[12]

“When Ziyad arrived and entered the mosque, elders of Muhajireen and Ansaar came and gathered around him. Umar saw Ziyad and said: God will not belittle any man from Muhajireen by the tongue of Ziyad.[15]

[Ziyad got the message and gave evidence in a way, which exonerated Mughaira.]

Mughaira was saved from death and Umar was glad[16] and shouted: God is greater. All shouted along with him. Then Umar scourged the three witnesses but not Ziyad…[17]”[18]

Allamah Askari narrates from Ibn Abdul Barr that Umar admitted to Mughaira during Hajj rituals:

“I swear by God I don’t think Abu Bakra had lied about you.”[19]

Yet Umar rescued him, which was against justice while Mughaira deserved punishment according to religious law and God’s decree. Still they say:

“In Umar’s view the governor was an individual like others. He too is subject to punishment as others according to God’s Rule.”[20]

“Although he was a ruler of a wide and extended country he was a shrewd, astute and a clever man in executing justice in all cases.”[21]

“Umar bin Khattab used to mention this in public. He said: Now I am the Caliph. I will be serious, severe, harsh and hard towards tyrants and wrongdoers. With regard to good people and pious, I will be kind and affectionate.”![22]

Historical documents show how inattentive Umar was in complying with petitions calling on him for justice:

“Ahnaf bin Qais narrates: On the occasion of a great victory we went to Umar to congratulate him.

Umar asked: Where have you lodged?

We told him such and such place. He got up and came with us to see the place of our lodging. We rode our horses. The horses were too tired, because they had run long.

Umar said: Why didn’t you fear God when you rode the horses? Don’t you know that they have a right upon you? Why didn’t you show mercy to them? Had you come alone they would have grazed.

We replied: We are returning from victory and we hurried to congratulate you and Muslims.

Then he returned and we too accompanied him.

In the meantime, a man approached him and demanded justice from him as he had become a victim of someone’s tyranny.

Umar immediately raised the cane and hit him on his head saying: When Umar is at your disposal you have no business with him, but when he is busy in attending Muslim affairs you come to him asking for justice.

The man went away angry…”[25]

Does this incident not show that Umar, who was so anxious about horses that are animals, was not at all anxious about human beings – especially the oppressed? Animal meant to him more than a man.

The judgment is upon you.

p: 101

[17] Quoted from: Talkhees Dhahabi, Vol. 3, Pg. 448

[18] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pgs. 249-254

[19] Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 253

[20] Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 85; Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 90

[21] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7

[22] Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 195

[23] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7

[24] Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 101

[25] Ibne Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 19; Ibne Jauzi: Tarikh Umar bin Khattab, Pg. 83

This historical document also contains additional incidents that speak of the regret of the Caliphs but the attitude of the Caliphs portrayed in history is against these claims.

They dragged the people to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr in any way possible. In this matter Umar was more rough than others and after him was Qunfudh bin Umair.

The group that set out to take Bay’at from people was anxious to finish the job as early as possible.”[2]

Umar started the job from Saqifah itself.

“Umar says: When they obtained Bay’at from people they attacked Saad bin Ubadah. One person asked him whether he killed Saad. Umar replied that God killed him![3]

According to another narration after Umar said: Kill Saad! He shouted: May God kill him. Then he went at the head of Saad and said:

I want to kick in such a way that you become invalid.[4]”[5]

“At the indication of Umar people kicked Habbab bin Mundhir,[6] filled his mouth with mud[7] and broke his nose.[8]

After a short while another group came and kicked Miqdad.[9]

On the same spot Saad bin Ubadah was about to die because of the kicks he had got.[10]

On that day whoever shouted against them his mouth was filled with mud.[11] There was only one cry, one clamor and one shouting that was constantly heard:

Kill so and so![12] Kill them! We cut your throat…[13]

Umar set free whoever paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, pointing him the direction to go. He did this to impress on the public that job was done and finished.

Afterwards this group consisting of close associates and supporters headed to the lanes and by lanes of the town. Whoever they came across they held a grip on him and dragged him, whether he liked it or not to Abu Bakr and taking his hand touched it to the hand of Abu Bakr. Then they set him free.[14]”[15]

p: 104

There are historical annals that show:

“A group of Arab nomads (Bani Aslam)[16] came to Medina to buy rations. Umar sent word to them to see him. When they came Umar told them that:

If they paid allegiance to Abu Bakr they would be paid the cost of rations. He further suggested them to go in the lanes and streets and invite people to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. He encouraged them to break the head and nose of those who refused.

The narrator says: By God! I saw those rough Arabs tied their waists closely, cloth-pieces of Sanaa on their heads and faces as covering. They took batons in their hands and set out like dogs and forced people to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.”[17]

In the same way some orientalists have analyzed the act and behavior of Bani Aslam Arabs thus:

“Bani Aslam was a branch of Khuzaaya. They were known to be loyal to Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet valued their loyalty. He gave them the status of Muhajireen. He ignored as to whether they had really migrated to Medina or not. A considerable number of them resided close to Medina. As such, they were always ready to help the Prophet. They were known as enemies of Ansaar. Therefore it can be said that they with their huge number proved a force that gave strength to Abu Bakr’s Bay’at. They at once replied positively to the proposal of Umar. They also hit Saad bin Ubadah as an insurgent.”[18]

p: 105

“In the army of Tolaiha were a few men from Asad tribe, which was his own; besides there were few more from the tribe of Fuzara under the command of their own chief Ainat bin Hisn. There was no one from other tribes.”[21]

Therefore their mischief was not as serious as claimed; that their suppression should be a matter of pride for Abu Bakr and that also in the way of service to Islam!

2 – The numerous battles, all of which are fabricated by Saif bin Umar, have no reality at all.

“In this respect, we see battles of imagination in the history of Islam, which are called battles with apostates during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr like: the Battle of Abraq, attack of Zilqissa, apostasy and battle of Tai tribe, apostasy and battle of Umme Zamal, apostasy of the people of Mohra, apostasy of the people of Oman, the first battle with the apostates of Yemen, apostasy and battle of Akhabas, the second battle of apostates of Yemen.”[22]

“Yes, the only thing true and which other historians have also mentioned is that Abu Bakr raised an army and gave the command of Ansaar to Thabit bin Qais, making Khalid bin Waleed the commander of the forces and sent them to confront those who had camped at Buzakha intending to attack the Muslims. After this there was no other battle.

Yes, except for these two Abu Bakr did not appoint anyone else to the command and except for this flag did not raise any flag. He also did not send Khalid bin Saeed [bin Aas] as commander of army to fight apostates of Hamaqtain at the outskirts of Syria. Actually Khalid bin Saeed [bin Aas] was sent with soldiers to Syria.”[23]

p: 107

Accordingly on this basis battles with the Murtads in the time of Abu Bakr and all other battles are short of credit, having no basis. They are all inventions of Saif bin Umar.[24]

“According to a deep research and investigation in this matter it can be said with certainty that: all the matters given in detail about the battle of Abraq and story of Zilqissa, they are all mentioned only by Saif bin Umar. No other historian has said anything about them. It is nothing but fabrication of Saif. There was no apostasy of most of these tribes Saif has blamed. No one camped at Abraq and Zilqissa and neither is there any truth in the story that the apostates were about to attack Medina. Similarly the report that Abu Bakr appointed some persons for defense of Medina is also false. All the four battles of Abu Bakr mentioned by Saif are imaginative ones. He has fabricated all incidents about the victories, his praises, his domination and control over enemy territories. In fact all the persons and places recorded by Saif have no base in reality.”[25]

These stories are invented to give superiority and greatness to Abu Bakr. To show that it was service to Islam and to uplift the Caliph in people’s view.

According to the research of Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari in the 2nd volume of his book, Abdullah bin Saba, all the narrations related to the battle of Abraq are forged and all the events that show the serious problems the apostates posed that the Caliph had to struggle hard to suppress them, are in fact all figments of the imagination of Saif bin Umar.

p: 108

In the same way except for some events related to Zilqissa all are forgeries and unreliable.[26]

The whole story of apostasy of Umme Zamal, People of Oman and Mohra,[27] people of Yemen and Akhabat are fabrications of Saif bin Umar.[28] These stories were invented to give superiority to Abu Bakr and show that it was service to Islam; thus exalting him in people’s view.

Similarly, the apostasy of Tai tribe and their insurgency being crushed during Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is not true. According to historical documents, the Tai tribe had not apostised; in fact they were staunch supporters of Abu Bakr.[29]

On the basis of this all the battles of apostates supposed in the time of Abu Bakr and other battles which are called as victories, are all fabricated and have no historical basis.[30] They are all products of the imagination of Saif Ibne Umar.([31])([32])

3 – The real reason for battle with Muslims was for their not accepting Abu Bakr. They declared them Murtad (Apostates) only to justify their suppression and bloodshed at the hands of officers of Abu Bakr such as Khalid bin Waleed, Akrama bin Abi Jahl and Ziyad bin Labeed.

“Some tribes revolted on the issue of Zakat. They did this because they were against Abu Bakr and his rule. Their reasoning was: Just as Quraish revolted against the will of Prophet, so too do not obey the Quraishite regime of Abu Bakr and his party. The sign of their disobedience was their not paying the tax to central government. By this act they in fact challenged the legitimacy and legality of Abu Bakr’s rule. It stamped a great question mark over it. From here started the battles under name of Battles of Apostates which were actually the battles to confirm their own seat of Caliphate, which had come into being by means of revolt of Quraish immediately after passing away of Prophet. They thought such a way of harsh dealing with the people would blanket their rule by legitimacy.”[33]

p: 109

Saif bin Umar continued to add imaginative wars and battles either under name of Murtads or victories. In fact it was suppression of opponents who refused to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr like the Kinda tribes that lived outside Medina. They called Murtad whoever refused to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr as Caliph. While the fact was that they were not so.[34] But they found no other excuse. In the days of Abu Bakr it is said:

“Associates of Saqifah wanted to show that refusal to accept Abu Bakr as Caliph and not to pay Zakat to him was refusal of the very faith of Islam. So it is infidelity. By so doing, they were making Abu Bakr sacred.”[35]

“The logic of Saqifah people was that whoever opposes Abu Bakr and his government was an infidel and the battles of Ridda against the nearby tribes were based on this policy.”[36]

Some of these tribes were dealt with very harshly. The soldiers of Abu Bakr killed them and destroyed their properties. Most of this bad treatment was not necessary either. Therefore they refused to pay taxes to the collectors of Abu Bakr. For this also they had to pay heavily.[37]

We read the following claim in describing Abu Bakr’s stand in such cases:

“In crushing insurgency and campaigning against the plot of Murtads and the disunity in Islam our lord Abu Bakr followed the same policy which the prophets of God had adopted in their age. Abu Bakr performed the true part of Caliphate. The gratitude and praises together with thanks of Muslims go to him till the Day of Judgment.”![38]

p: 110

Let us scrutinize the behavior of Abu Bakr with those who opposed him; how they were falsely declared as Murtads no matter however staunch Muslims they were.

“The regime of that time started a bloody campaign against opponents of Abu Bakr and killed them all so there remained no opponent.”[39]

“In historical books, it is endeavored to avoid mention of their apostasy but several evidences prove they were not Murtads nor did they refuse Zakat. They refused to pay Zakat only because they did not recognize Abu Bakr a legitimate successor of Prophet.[40]

Some historians and researchers have also explained this matter:

Ibn Katheer says:

Various tribes of Arabs entered Medina in groups. They prayed. But they did not pay Zakat.

Some only refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.[41]

Yaqoobi narrates:

Some groups of Arabs declared their Prophethood. Some became Murtad, some placed crown on their heads.

Some were although not Murtads yet they refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.[42]

Regarding the rules of Murtad (Apostates) Ibn Hazm says:

These men were Muslims. They never departed from faith of Islam. So they were not Murtads. The only thing they did was they refused to pay tax to the person of Abu Bakr. They were killed for this.

Ibn Hazm further adds: The Hanafi and Shafei sect too are in agreement with belief that the decree of Murtad cannot be applied to them. They all were Muslims – within the embrace of Islam. Therefore both these two sects are against the ruling of Abu Bakr.[43]

p: 111

Naubakhti and Saad bin Abdullah Ashari have the following comments:

They were a group unwilling to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. They said they would distribute that sum among poor and needy ones of their own tribe. They said: We shall do this until a real and rightful successor of the Prophet is known to them. This shows that they did not consider Abu Bakr as a rightful successor to Prophet. So were they Murtad?[44]

Tabari also narrates from Abu Mikhnaf: The two tribes Asad and Fuzara said: By God! We will never give Bay’at to Abu Bakr – the successor to Prophet.[45]

In this regard, the well-known Egyptian writer Abbas Mahmood Uqqad writes:

Another group was believer in the very principle of Zakat. But they did not believe nor had any faith in one whom they were supposed to pay Zakat.[46]

Shaykh Muhammad Aale Yasin has performed a scholarly analysis of all narrations regarding Murtads mentioned in Tarikh Tabari surrounding the whole period of Abu Bakr. He rejects all of them because of false reports and lack of authenticity. He comments: There is no text in hand that shows their rejection of the principle of Zakat. When it is thus, there is no ground to prove their turning Murtad (apostates).[47]

He says: Behind the killings on pretext of being Murtad is concealed some other reality. The fact is that the code of Murtad was the only option to Abu Bakr. It gave him a pretext to destroy and kill them as their presence was destructively detrimental to Abu Bakr. Their not paying Zakat could have taken to itself a movement and a movement could have spread far and wide. The consequence was still more dangerous because it could have challenged his Caliphate – that is his occupation of the seat of a Caliph of the Prophet of God. Therefore he had to kill them to rescue himself. Of course the code of Murtad came to his aid.

p: 112

Ali Abdul Razzaq (a contemporary Egyptian writer) says in frankness: There no doubt at all that battles with Murtad was only a political aspect. Abu Bakr had to crush it under the excuse of apostasy, which he did.

They were only opponents of Abu Bakr like other Muslims who did not desire to come under the yoke of Abu Bakr’s rule.

The writer says that the issue of apostasy is the darkest spot of the ground of crimes in the history.[48]

Allamah Askari also in his documentary research has dealt with the sense and the meaning of Murtad, that is denial of faith after having embraced it and the difference how the Prophet looked at it and how he (Abu Bakr) used it as a tool. Thus the Allamah comments:

From what we said so far it comes to light that those accused of being Murtad were actually not apostates. They were only opposed to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate therefore they refused to pay Zakat to him.[49]

The writer of History of Ridda[50] says that Malik bin Nuwairah, Qais bin Asim and Aqra bin Habis collected Zakat and distributed it among their own people.[51] This act of Qais was regarded as a great crime and they said that he was the greatest criminal.[52]

More than this is Ibn Athim’s[53] saying and also Waqadi’s words: They talk of apostasy of the people of Hadhramaut and tribes of Kinda:

Some among these tribes considered Caliphate the right of the Prophet’s house members.

p: 113

Haritha bin Suraqa one of the chiefs of Kinda, said to Ziyad bin Labeed[54] who had come to collect Zakat:

We obeyed the Prophet of God as long as he was alive. Now if one of his House Members comes to power we will obey him. But as for Abu Bakr there is no obligation on us to obey him and he has no commitment towards us.[55]

…Harith bin Muawiyah, one of the chiefs of Bani Tameem, said to Ziyad bin Labeed who had come to collect Zakat: You are asking us to obey one regarding whom we have not pledge or covenant.

Ziyad said: But we have chosen him for us.

Then Harith asked: Just tell me why Caliphate was taken away from the Prophet’s House? On the other hand Quran says that they are more befitting than others to this job.

Zaid answered: Muhajireen and Ansaar know their own affairs better than you.

Harith: No. By God, it is not so. Because of your envy you departed from Household Members of Prophet. I can never accept that the Prophet passed away without nominating anyone in his place.

Ziyad! Get up and go away from here because you are inviting us to a thing, which enrages God.

In the meantime Arfaja bin Abdullah al-Zahali said: By God, Harith is telling the truth. Avoid this man (Ziyad) as his friend, Abu Bakr has no worth to sit in the seat of Caliph. Emigrants and Helpers also are not wiser than the Prophet for the Ummah.

p: 114

Then they dragged Ziyad from there. They wanted to kill him. Ziyad forced the tribe whichever he visited to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. But they responded in a way that was unpleasant to Ziyad. They did not agree with Ziyad’s logic. Therefore Ziyad’s mission failed in the tribes. Finally, Ziyad returned to Medina and reported the results of his visits to Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr became extremely angry. He sent Ziyad again to the same tribes, this time with a force of four thousand soldiers.

Ziyad went to the tribes with the soldiers and also with a concealed motive of revenge. He massacred the tribes of Bani Hind, Bani Aqal, Bani Hujar and Bani Himyar.[56]

Then he confronted other tribes of Kinda. After many battles and attacks which resulted in bloodshed on a wide scale, help reached Ziyad when soldiers of Akrama bin Abi Jahl came to his rescue. Ziyad defeated all of them at Hadhramaut.[57]

Besides these tribes, there are other tribes whose men too were massacred and their properties and belongings looted or destroyed. Their children and womenfolk were made captives. When Yamama people heard that Abu Bakr had become Caliph they refused to recognize him. Abu Bakr sent troops there. Yamama people also refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr because he was in their view not the legitimate Caliph. Abu Bakr found no ground to kill them in order to take revenge of their rejecting his authority. The only way open to him was to declare them apostates. The soldiers massacred them all.[58]

p: 115

The tribe of Bani Salim too was not safe from this killing, plunder, pillage and other atrocities. Khalid bin Waleed under instructions of Abu Bakr burned their menfolk alive. This was such a brutal tyranny that even Umar objected and censured Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr in reply to criticisms said: Khalid is the sword of God.[59]

The inhabitants of Daba, a district between Oman and Bahrain were also massacred by the army of Akrama bin Abi Jahl. Abu Bakr had issued him direct orders to not leave anyone alive. Their properties were plundered. Their sons, daughters and widows were made captives.[60]

There are several other tribes and also groups who came under the category of apostates.

Tabari gives us a list of the tribes in the third volume of his history that apostised after passing away of Prophet.

For instance, he mentions Tai, Asad, Ghatfan, Hawazin, Bani Salim, Bani Amir, people of Yamama, Najd, Bahrain, Amman, Tihama, Yemen, Hadhramaut and Bani Tameem. It is interesting that Tabari has narrated most events from the greatest liar of history, Saif bin Umar.[61] His source was the lies of Saif.[62] Because the sense and meaning of Murtad is obscure and even its extent not known, most cases of apostasy are doubtful and cannot be accepted.”[63]

In a way these cases of Murtad were fabricated, the battles against them too were false. Some were only to provide a ground to crush opponents of Abu Bakr.

It could be said that fabrication of cases of apostates and including them in books like Tarikh Tabari was only to hide the crimes of Abu Bakr’s rule towards Muslims who regard Abu Bakr’s regime illegitimate.

p: 116

In other words, so many cases of apostates in the history of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate were fabricated to suggest to the people what terrible harm they would have caused to Muslim society, thus leading to the conclusion that whatever done was necessary. So the readers will not go after research and on the contrary even praise Abu Bakr and feel a sense of indebtedness to him for his services to Islam. The reader would regard him as a rescuer of Islam from apostasy.

“They were those who did not see Abu Bakr a deserving one to succeed the Prophet as Caliph. Therefore they were not willing to pay tax to him though they had no doubt in Zakat as an obligation.

…people who were massacred in those days had faith in God and His Prophet. They prayed. They did not deny the obligation of Zakat. The only thing was they hesitated to pay tax to Abu Bakr because Abu Bakr’s becoming the Caliph to them was a matter of suspicion.

The Sunni sect too believes that Abu Bakr tried to justify the crimes of Khalid. They refused to pay tax to Abu Bakr, but they did not refuse the very Zakat itself.

In fact, they did a right thing. So they have a reward with their God. Zakat of property should be calculated and paid. But to whom? Only to him who has Guardianship (Wilayat) over them. Such a one can be only Infallible – introduced by God and His Prophet. He must be the legitimate successor of the Prophet. Was Abu Bakr so? He came to power through a plot – Saqifah. But tyranny knows no reasoning. Its language is of force, torture and atrocity.

p: 117

On the other hand in reliable books of Sunni sect such as Sahih of Muslim and Sahih of Bukhari it is mentioned that the blood of those who refused to pay tax to Abu Bakr was not legal to be shed. Their bloodshed was wrong because they were Muslims.

These numerous traditions are partly general and partly conditional.

Neither a battle with them nor killing them could be justified. Abu Bakr has said that Zakat is from the property and it should be paid. But the dispute here is the person or authority who can demand it. Only he can demand who is a guardian of people. It is the Prophet only who can appoint a guardian. Anyone who reaches the seat of Caliph by hook or by crook cannot be a guardian. What is the legitimacy that gives authority to him?

Even if they refused to pay, was it reasonable to wage a war against them? Or kill them? Reason dictates to attend to the grievances and see their reasoning instead of killing them.

Battle with them is against their right of protection of their blood. Mere presumption of Abu Bakr cannot be a ground for their killing.

In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim, it is narrated on the authority of Usamah bin Zaid that: The Prophet sent us to Hirqa.[64] In the morning we attacked the pagans there and defeated them. I and one of Ansaar reached them. When we were among them, one shouted: There is no god except Allah. The Ansaari who was with me left him unhurt, but I killed him. When we returned and reported the event to the Prophet he told me: Usamah! Did you kill him after he had uttered there is no god except Allah?

p: 118

I told the Prophet: I thought he meant refuge by uttering the name of God.

The Prophet repeated his words so much, I wished I were not a Muslim before that day.

Allamah Sharafuddin writes: Usamah wished thus because he thought that all his deeds such as prayers, fasting, being in the company of the Prophet, holy wars, paying Zakat and going to Hajj all have gone in vain. They cannot wipe out the sin of killing a man who had just become a Muslim. He knew that the sin of killing a Muslim had destroyed all his virtuous deeds.

The feelings of Usamah represent his fear that he would not be forgiven or redeemed. For this very reason, he wished that he were a Muslim after that incident of killing as the Prophet has said that Islam washes all sins preceding it.

We think it is enough for the reader to understand the worth of: ‘There is no god but Allah’ and its sayer.

Reliable books by Sunni authors are full of such traditions that show the dignity of Muslim blood.[65]

Accordingly the incident of Usamah clearly indicates that killing a Muslim only because of his not paying Zakat is not allowed and the case becomes more serious if the reason for non-payment is not rebellion but a suspicion on his part about the truth or legitimacy of Caliph. They doubted the right on the part of Abu Bakr to be Caliph. So they were in hesitation to make the payment. Therefore they did not deserve to be killed.”[66]

p: 119

Allamah Sharafuddin has protested in a way that even the Sunni sect concurs with it. He protested for the killing of Malik bin Nuwairah. He writes:

“The crime of Malik bin Nuwairah was his refusal to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. It was at a time when he was occupied in investigation about legality of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate to honor his own commitment to God and His Prophet. It is obvious that the intention of Malik was not to create difference among Muslims nor did he reject Zakat itself nor did he doubt about Islam and its laws. Malik did not want to fight with the Caliph. So it is better to determine the cause first for his non-payment and then decide what to do. It is not so easy to kill a Muslim merely at a pretext. Malik bin Nuwairah in view of the position he had among his people obviously saw it fit to investigate the situation whether the new government that had come into being in Medina and was busy in crushing its opponents and occupied in spotting and eliminating hidden adversaries of Abu Bakr from the scene was really a legitimate government.

That is the only reason why Malik bin Nuwairah abstained from paying Zakat and began to investigate so that he pay to the proper person and thus fulfill his duty properly.

So it was necessary that Abu Bakr and his officials should have given time to Malik to make his decision in the light of his investigations and act accordingly. They should not have dealt with him in such haste.

p: 120

Because he was not a denier of Zakat, he did not differentiate between Zakat and prayer and was not one that considered it necessary to fight Abu Bakr or other Muslims.

This was the reality of Malik and his people’s refusal to pay Zakat.

Malik was not one to wage war among Muslims. Malik even advised his tribe members to preserve their Islam.

He further advised them to disperse and not camp all together at one place lest Khalid may think that they are planning an armed confrontation.”[67]

Conclusively it can be said that:

“The fact is that there was no Murtad at all in the period of Abu Bakr. Those whom Abu Bakr fought were within Islam and none had renounced faith. A few could have been there who had not become Muslims since the beginning itself. A few refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. So how they became Murtad?”[68]

“After Zahra’s martyrdom, the government sent troops to deal with those who were outside Medina as they had not given Bay’at to Abu Bakr.[69]

Even though Abu Bakr’s regime tried to label all their opponents as Murtads and under this excuse fight and kill them, they could not identify all of them as apostates.

The accusation of being a Murtad was the best means to destroy the enemy. So he used this means, which was to his own ends.

But analysis shows that a multitude of the people was not Murtad and did not deserve such loss of life and property even though Caliph’s circular reads:

p: 121

Whoever does not submit to the government should be killed or burnt alive and his women and children should be taken as captives.[70]”[71]

Historical documents show that the plan of Abu Bakr was so harsh and brutal against his opponents that it is said:

A) “Fight them even if they refuse to give a camel’s tether.([72])([73])

B) The circular of the Caliph was thus:

I have given the assignment to this army to kill by sword those who have departed from religion of Islam. Furthermore, they have a mandate to burn them alive and make their widows and children captives…”[74]

Now the question is – after all these scrutinies and analyses can it still be claimed:

“The stand of Abu Bakr was strong and he showed no weakness in his motive of saving the religion of Islam. Where religion of Islam was concerned, he was without any consideration. God had inspired him with such strength. The religion is indebted to him.”[75]

Whenever we recall those strict stands of Abu Bakr towards those who refused to pay Zakat we come to realize his honesty, truth, trustworthiness and straight forwardness in carrying out the mandate vested to him by God.”![76]

“The right was with Abu Bakr in relation to those who did not pay Zakat.”[77]

Please do pay attention to the following statement:

“Abu Bakr’s government did not observe any distinction between a Muslim and an apostate. He dealt with all equally like Arabs of the age of ignorance. When they waged a battle, the victor had a right to take the widows as concubines and make their children captives and confiscate their property.

p: 122

On this ground, when the government suppressed so-called apostates they propagated that they killed non-Muslims. Likewise, they attacked the towns, killed and murdered whomever they liked, captured and arrested some. Their children were enslaved, womenfolk made concubines and belongings they took for themselves.

As a result, a considerable wealth found its way to Medina and was hoarded there.

This process had no compatibility with teachings of Islam. That is why it reflected an unhealthy and undesirable effect in the eyes of many. People considered that the acts the Caliph committed, such as murder, plunder, killing and pillage was part of Islamic teachings. This process influenced to a great extent on the minds of the people to think – rather to believe – that Islam is a religion of sword; and it spread by force.”[78]

Although these crimes and inhumane acts, which are against Islamic teachings and mankind, are recorded in history yet they claim:

“Whatever the Caliph did throughout the period of his Caliphate was in accordance with traditions of Prophet and God’s commandments.”[79]

While the fact is that:

“From what we said it seems that Abu Bakr’s army fought with Muslims who neither drew out swords nor announced a war. Rather they repeatedly declared their Islam and prayed with Muslims in the same row.

Yes, Abu Bakr’s army fought against such men, made them captives, killed them after accusing them of non-payment of Zakat. They did not even ask them to pay the Zakat to see whether they would pay or not.

p: 123

There are still several other motives in these battles. There are ends and aims, hidden, which have no bearing on Zakat nor related to its payment…”[80]

“Khalid claims that Malik bin Nuwairah had renounced Islam. In other words, he had become a Murtad. Khalid’s reasoning was that Malik uttered some words which made him a Murtad.

On the other hand Malik denied having uttered any words at all. Malik had this to say:

I am a Muslim. I have neither amended nor changed any of its regulations. Abu Qatadah and Abdullah bin Umar also attested the statements of Malik, but Khalid refused. He first killed Malik, then ordered Zirar to behead him. After that, Khalid the same night, slept with his widow[91].”[92]

“In Isabah it is narrated from Zubair bin Bikkar on the authority of Ibn Shuhab (Zuhri) that Malik bin Nuwairah had lavish hair. After having killed Malik Khalid ordered that his severed head be placed under the cooking pot. The fire consumed the hair and had not yet reached to the skin that the food was cooked.”[93]

From this historical document we can conclude that Malik was a hairy man. The soldiers placed the severed heads under cooking pots. Malik’s head did not burn completely because the flames that rose up from the hair cooked the food.[94]

Khalid said: O Prophet of God! Shall I cut his throat?

The Prophet said: No. Perhaps this man performs prayers.[95]

How nice it would have been if Khalid had remembered Prophet’s words. If only Khalid had shown some respect to prayers. Did not Malik pray? Why Khalid did not honor prayers of Malik? Khalid disobeyed the Prophet in killing Malik. Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatadah Ansaari gave evidence to Khalid that Malik had performed the Morning Prayer that day. Then on what ground he killed him?”[96]

“According to Yaqubi’s statement in his history, Abu Qatadah went to Abu Bakr and reported the case to him and said: By God, I shall not go anywhere under the command of Khalid. He killed Malik inspite of his being a Muslim.

Tabari too has mentioned that Abu Qatadah was among those who gave evidence that Malik was a Muslim.

Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pgs. 202-203; quoting from: Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 503; Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 337; Tarikh Ibne Kathir, Vol. 6, Pg. 321; Tarikh Abul Fida, Pg. 158

In Tarikh Abil Fida it is mentioned that Abu Bakr and Umar got the news and learnt of the events. Abu Bakr said: I will never execute him (Khalid), because he has erred in his Ijtihaad. I will not sheath the sword that Allah had pulled on them.”[97]

“It is mentioned in several sources such as Wafayaat al-Ayaan, Tarikh Abul Fida and Kanzul Ayaan: When the news of Khalid’s killing Malik and raping his widow reached Abu Bakr and Umar, Abu Bakr said that he would not stone Khalid to death. He is a jurisprudent and has erred in his jurisprudence.

p: 126

Umar asked him to dismiss Khalid.[98]

Abu Bakr said: I will not sheath the sword God has pulled out.”[99]

“Ibn Abil Hadeed writes: Abu Bakr said: Shut up Umar! This is not our first mistake. You better hold your tongue about Khalid.”[100]

We must remark here:

“Abu Bakr during his rule appointed Khalid as the commander of his army in Syria.[101] Then he ordered him in advance to be the commander of forces in Baghdad upon his return from Syria.”[102

]

Khalid was stone-hearted. In the history of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate his record was such:

“When Khalid bin Waleed moved to Buzakha he sent Akhasheh bin Mehsin and Thabit bin Aqram as scouts ahead of the forces. They reached near a place where Tolaiha with his brother had come to evaluate the army of Islam. They accidentally met Khalid’s scouts and killed them.

Tabari narrates from Ibn Kalbi: Khalid with his army passed by the corpse of Thabit and rode on it by mistake. They dead body got trampled under the hooves of horses…”[103]

Two – it is interesting that inspite of these crimes committed by Khalid and murder of Malik in that beastial way they still praise Abu Bakr:

“Elasticity and leniency of Abu Bakr towards Khalid bin Waleed is appreciable. In the view of Abu Bakr the mistake and error of Khalid was ignorable.”[104]

In the end, they add:

“Anas bin Malik says that companions of Prophet were not willing to wage a war against those who refused to pay Zakat. They said that they were performers of prayers. But Abu Bakr pulled out the sword and set out alone. People too followed him…[105]

p: 127

According to the above narration, Abu Bakr was alone. He pulled the sword himself only thus he went. People saw him going alone and were compelled to trot behind him.

According to this report it seems that Abu Bakr himself fought Malik bin Nuwairah. On the other hand all historians write (rather to exculpate Abu Bakr), that Khalid ordered Zirar bin Azwar and he killed Malik cutting off his head.”[106]

“The fact is that Malik was a man of reputation. He was chief of a tribe. At that time Abu Bakr’s rule was still weak and they feared that a little movement could easily topple their Caliphate.

The interior too was shaky. Groups like Bani Hashim and Ali at their head, Khazrij under the leadership of Saad bin Ubadah and Quraish with Abu Sufyan were still their opponents.

So this courageous and honorable man of Bani Tameem regarded as real danger a person who was a few miles from Medina and thought of some way to be safe from him. So he should be by any means and at any pretext be eliminated and the elimination should be such as to serve a lesson to others.

As a result of all this scrutiny, we can say that the real cause of the murder of Malik and one actually responsible of it was Abu Bakr himself – not Khalid.”[107]

“Abu Bakr was very much enraged at Malik bin Nuwairah for not considering him a lawful successor of the Prophet and had given orders to Khalid bin Waleed to kill Malik wherever he was found.”[108]

p: 128

It continued like this until Abu Bakr died and Umar came to power.[112]”[113]

One day Umar saw Saad in a lane of Medina. Umar called him: O, Saad! Saad too replied at once: O, Umar!

The Caliph asked: Are you not the one who used to say such and such? Saad said: Yes, I am that man. Now you have reached to power. By God, I hate your company.

Umar said: One who hates his neighbor changes the place. Not much time passed[114] but that Saad left Medina for Syria in the early days of Umar’s Caliphate…[115]

Balazari writes in his book Ansaab al-Ashraaf:

Saad bin Ubadah did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and left for Syria.

Umar engaged a man, instructed him to go to Syria and persuade Saad to pay allegiance by hook or crook. He asked him to play any trick he knew to get Saad’s acknowledgement to Umar’s Caliphate. In case of failure he asked him to kill Saad by the help of God. The hired man headed to Syria, met Saad in Howaryeen and opened the subject of allegiance. He tried to persuade him to acknowledge Umar’s Caliphate but when he got disappointed he pulled out the arrow from the case that hung at his back and shot him. It immediately cut the main vein and Saad died at once.[116] In the book, Tabsiratul Awaam it is mentioned that Umar had hired Muhammad bin Musailaima Ansaari[117] for this secret job. Muhammad accordingly went to Syria and shot Saad bin Ubadah with an arrow.[118]

p: 130

It is also said that Khalid bin Waleed was also present in Syria at that time and he assisted Muhammad bin Musailaima in eliminating Saad…[119]

Ibn Abde Rabb says: Saad bin Ubadah’s body was found with an arrow in his heart. They spread a rumor that Jinns had killed Saad by two arrows in his heart.[120]”[121]

When news reached Abu Bakr he wrote to Tarifa bin Hajir: The enemy of God, Fujayat, came to me and announced he was a Muslim. He asked me to provide him with a horse and weapon so he can fight the apostates. I provided him the same, but now I hear that this enemy of God is looting Muslims and pagans alike.[127] So you with the help of Muslims under your command arrest or kill him. If you arrest him, bring him to me.

Tarifa bin Hajir headed towards Fujayat. Both met and shooting without aim or target took place. In the meantime, Najba bin Abi al-Mitha got hurt and died. Fujayat understood that Muslims were determined to arrest and execute him. He spoke to Tarifa: You have neither preference nor any superiority over me. You have an assignment from Abu Bakr and I too have orders from him.

Tarifa bin Abi Hajar said: If you are telling the truth put down the weapon and come with me to Abu Bakr.

Fujayat agreed. They both (Fujayat and Tarifa) went to Abu Bakr.

As soon as he saw Fujayat he ordered Tarifa to take him to Baqi and burn him alive.

In another narration Tabari says that Tarifa gathered fuel wood as much as he could and ignited the fire. Then he tied up Fujayat and threw him into the huge flames.

In this regard, Ibn Athir has this to say: Tarifa tied the hands of Fujayat to his neck. Then he was tied by ropes round his body then he threw him into the fire until he died.”[128]

p: 132

[17] Mustafa Dilshad Tehrani: Meeras Rabooda (Usurped inheritance), Pg. 74; quoting from: Al-Jamal, Pg. 199

[18] Wilfred Madelung: Succession to Muhammad, Pg. 55

[19] Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 221

[20] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pg. 56

[21] Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 61

[22] Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 338

[23] Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 47

s

[24] Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 39-46

[25] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 46-47 [Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari has launched a vast research. He has written the outcome of his toil in the second volume of his book Abdullah bin Saba]

[26] Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 43-47

[27] Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 56; we have mentioned actual parts of this incident in this book.

[28] Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 63-77

[29] Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 56 61

[30] There are many other battles in Islam like the wars of Ridda which are also fabricated, like battle of Salasil, Ableh, Mazar, Walja, Alees, Amghishia, Furat Badkhuli, battle of Haseed, battle of Masbagh, battle of Thani, battle of Zameel and battle of Farez. etc.

Refer: Allamah Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 339

[31] Refer: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane,Vol. 2, Pg. 46; Pg. 79 Vol. 1, Pg. 338

[32] When Abu Bakr finished the Ridda issue he deemed it befitting to send his soldiers to Syria. He wrote letters to the people of Mecca, Taif and Yemen and all Arabs of Najd and Hijaz inviting them to Holy war and the spoils that they would attain in Rome. People complied with his invitation in greed of spoils. They started from all corners to meet in Medina.

p: 134

Perusal of these pages clearly shows that the incidents or the battles in the historical books of Sunni sect are only intended to create some greatness for Khalid bin Waleed in a frame of his inhuman behavior. We recommend the work of Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari Abdullah bin Saba and other historical stories Vol. 1, Pg. 329. We further recommend the same source Vol. 2, Pgs. 83-113 for the scrutiny of these battles which the Sunni sect attach great importance to, because in their opinion it is a collection of pride and glory for Khalid bin Waleed – the Commander in the army of Abu Bakr, for the sake of better acquaintance with a real part of the above said battles which is the invention of Saif bin Umar we recommend Vol. 2 of ‘Historical Stories’ Pgs. 88, 91, 100, 101, 112 and 113.

[33] Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 217

[34] Refer: Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 339

[35] Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 218

[36] Ibid. Pg. 221

[37] Refer: Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 215-216

[38] Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, Summer 81, Pg. 19

[39] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 188

[40] For details about the types of apostasy in the view of contemporary historians refer to: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Pgs. 97-102.

p: 135

[41] Quoted from: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 311

[42] Quoted from: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 128

[43] Quoted from: Al-Mahalli, Vol. 11, Pg. 193

[44] Quoted from: Farq-e-Shia (Translation and notes by Dr. Muhammad Jawad Mashkoor), Pg. 7; Al-Maqaalaat wal Farq (Edited with notes by Dr. Muhammad Jawad Mashkoor), Pg. 4.

[45] Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 255.

[46] Quoted from: Al-Majmua al-Kamila, Vol. 1 (Abqarya Abu Bakr), Pg. 306

[47] Quoted from: Nusoos ar-Ridda fit Tarikh at-Tabari, Pg. 91

[48] Quoted from: Al-Islam wa Usool al-Hukm, Pgs. 193-197

[49] Quoted from: Abdullah Ibne Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane, Vol. 1, Pg. 141

[50] [Clive Balansi, a Spanish scholar of 6th century]

[51] Quoted from: Tarikh ar-Ridda, Pg. 10

[52] Quoted from: Majma al-Imthaal, Vol. 2, Pg. 65

[53] It is worthy of mention that at the beginning of his book he says: We have not included these narrations as Shias will use them to prove their stand.

[54] [He was from Khazraj tribe from the clan of Bayaz]

[55] Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pg. 58; Kitab ar-Ridda, Pgs. 171-172

[56] Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 65-66; Kitab ar-Ridda, Pgs. 186 188 (Waqidi

instead of Bani Aqal has written Bani Atik and instead of Bani Himyar he has mentioned Bani Jamr)

[57] Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 66-87

[58] Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 246; Sawaiqul Mohreqa, Pg. 86; Al-Jamal, Pg. 118; Al-Izaah, Pg. 132

[59] Quoted from: Tabaqat, Vol. 7, Pg. 396 (In the account of Khalid bin Waleed); Riyadh an-Nazarah, Vol. 1, Pg. 100

p: 136

[60] Quoted from: Tabaqat, Vol. 7, Pgs. 101-102; Al-Futuh, Pgs. 73-74

[61] For explanation about Saif bin Umar refer to: Khamsoon wa Miya Sahabi Mukhtaliq of Allamah Askari and also Nusoos ar-Ridda fee Tarikh Tabari of Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Aale Yasin, Pgs. 24-29