believer after me.

How would the Ahl al-Sunnah have interpreted it?

What about this one:

أبو بکر ولی کل مؤمن بعدی

Abu Bakr is the wali of every believer after me.

Or this:

أبو بکر أخی وصاحبی ووارثی ووزیری

Abu Bakr is my brother, and my companion, and my inheritor and my wazir.

We have absolutely no doubt that the Ahl al-Sunnah would cite these statements as unassailable proofs of Abu Bakr’s legitimate khilafah over the Ummah immediately after the Messenger of Allah. However, as we have discussed in our second book, On the Khilafah of ‘Ali over Abu Bakr, the above ahadith and similar others actually exist with reliable chains in the Sunni books – except that instead of “Abu Bakr”, it is the name of Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, ‘alaihi al-salam, that is mentioned in them. This is why the Ahl al-Sunnah do not like, and always struggle against, them.

When we quote the actual ahadith with the name of ‘Ali to our Sunni brothers, they usually instinctively respond with a tired counterargument: the Prophet deputized Abu Bakr to lead the salat during his fatal illness. To them, that, in a weird way, is a stronger, and more explicit, proof of khilafah than any of the ahadith about ‘Ali! Apparently, the world is indeed a very strange place. When the Messenger of Allah said “ ‘Ali is my khalifah over every believer after me”, Sunnis think he was NOT naming ‘Ali as his khalifah! But, when he allegedly appointed Abu Bakr to lead salat as

p: 2

he had similarly appointed many others before him – to our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah - he was somehow naming him his khalifah!

In this book, we are thoroughly investigating the Sunni reports on the alleged leadership of salat by Abu Bakr during the fatal illness of the Messenger. We will be analyzing the bewildering contradictions between the so-called “sahih” Sunni ahadith on the claim; and we will be questioning the historicity of the whole episode. In particular, we will be examining the correct implications of leadership in salat, according to orthodox Sunni Islam. Does it indicate superiority? Does it confer the khilafah? Do our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah really have any case, even if the tale about Abu Bakr had been true?

We seek Allah’s Help in this effort, and we implore Him to forgive us all our mistakes in it, and to accept it as a worthy act of ‘ibadah. And may Allah send His salawat and barakat upon our master, Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah, and upon his purified offspring.

appointed as a khalifah would lead the Muslims in salat, as he once made Ibn Umm Maktum a khalifah, and also ‘Ali once, to lead the salat. He equally appointed others apart from them both as khalifahs at other times.

However, during his absence or illness, he never appointed anyone as khalifah except Abu Bakr – neither ‘Ali nor anyone else. And his appointment of al-Siddiq as khalifah to lead salat is mutawatir, and authentically narrated in the Sahih books, and the Sunan books, and the Musnad books through many routes.(1)

Basically, our Shaykh confesses to the following points:

1. Abu Bakr was NOT the first or the only to lead Muslims in salat in the mosque of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, in Madinah.

2. Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, and Ibn Umm Maktum, raḍiyallahu ‘anhu, were among those Sahabah, raḍiyallahu ‘anhum, who also led the Muslims in salat in that mosque on the order of the Messenger of Allah.

But, our Shaykh then proceeds to make some garbled remarks:

i. Abu Bakr was the only one ever deputized to lead salat in the mosque of the Prophet during his absence from Madinah.

ii. He was also the only one ever commanded to lead the salat in that mosque during the Messenger’s illness.

Somehow, Ibn Taymiyyah thinks that these were “exclusive merits” of his first khalifah, Abu Bakr. But, when the Messenger of Allah appointed Imam ‘Ali, Ibn Umm Maktum and others as khalifahs over his Madinah, was he then not also “absent” from the city?!

p: 4

The Shaykh himself answers:

وکان إذا سافر عن المدینه استخلف من یستخلفه یصلی بالمسلمین

Whenever he (the Prophet) LEFT MADINAH on a journey, he would appoint a khalifah (to govern the city on his behalf). Whoever he appointed as a khalifah would lead the Muslims in Salat

With this admission, one wonders: on what basis then was Abu Bakr the only one ever appointed khalifah to lead salat in Madinah during the Prophet’s absence? How on earth did that submission of Ibn Taymiyyah even ever make any sense to him at all?! Why do these people suddenly lose their simple logic whenever discussions involving Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib come up?

As for our Shaykh’s insistence on the “uniqueness” of Abu Bakr’s khilafah in salat during the Prophet’s illness, then, there are two issues. One, as we will demonstrate in this book, there is NO reliable proof of it - to begin with! All that our Sunni brothers can muster together are nothing but a set of severely contradictory riwayat which only muddle up the entire picture. Such kinds of irreconcilable reports are never accepted as valid testimonies. Two, even if it is agreed, for the sake of argument, that Abu Bakr ever led the salat on the order of the Prophet, then there is very little “merit” in it for him, if any at all. He then would have been a khalifah in salat only, which was the weakest form of khilafah. He would have had no authority whatsoever to give commands

p: 5

to the Muslim soldiers, or to administer the Muslim society, or to pass judgments in disputes. Basically, he had no administrative, military or judicial authority in his alleged khilafah. By contrast, when Amir al-Muminin was made the khalifah of Madinah by the Messenger during the Battle of Tabuk, the former had full authority to lead Muslims in salat in the Prophet’s mosque, command the Muslim armed forces stationed with him in the city, administer the affairs of its inhabitants and give judgments in any disputes that arose among them! How can anyone rationally consider the largely empty khilafah of Abu Bakr as superior to that of ‘Ali? How do these people reason?

The issue of Abu Bakr’s alleged appointment as prayer-leader is usually raised by our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah in debates over khilafah. Their logic always is – since the Prophet deputized Abu Bakr to lead the salat in his mosque, then he was automatically declaring the latter, implicitly, as his khalifah after his death. However, even Ibn Taymiyyah is unable to completely ignore the fallacy of this mainstream Sunni premise:

لیس کل من یصلح للاستخلاف فی الحیاه علی بعض الأمه یصلح إن یستخلف بعد الموت فإن النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم استخلف فی حیاته غیر واحد و منهم من لا یصلح للخلافه بعد موته

Not all who are qualified to be appointed khalifahs during the lifetime (of the Muslim ruler) over part of the Ummah are equally qualified to be appointed as khalifahs after the death (of the ruler).

p: 6

The Prophet, peace be upon him, appointed during his lifetime many people as khalifahs, and among them were those who were not qualified for the khilafah after his death.(1)

Imam for whoever is able to stand.” So, we will be examining the landmark reports in it in this investigative research.

of Allah, peace be upon him, then drew the curtain, and we were unable to see him until he died.(1)

This report explicitly states that the Messenger of Allah was unable to lead the Sahabah in salat for a total of four days – the initial three days and his day of death. Basically, he did not participate in salat with the Muslims in his mosque throughout the last four days of his lifetime.

– Ya’qub b. Ibrahim b. Sa’d – my father – Salih – Ibn Shihab – Anas b. Malik:

Abu Bakr led them in salat during the fatal illness of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, UNTIL IT WAS A MONDAY and they had stood in congregational rows PERFORMING salat. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, drew aside the curtain of the room and looked at us while he was standing. His face was like the page of the mushaf. Then, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, felt happy and smiled. And we were confounded with joy DURING THE SALAT due to the coming out of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Abu Bakr stepped back upon his heels to continue the salat in the congregational row, thinking that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, had come out for the salat. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, gestured to them with his hand to “complete your salat”. Then, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, entered and drew the curtain.

He (Anas) said: The Messenger of Allah breathed his last ON THAT VERY DAY of his.(1)

This hadith is interesting. Anas made it absolutely clear that they were already performing the salat (فی الصلاه), in their congregational rows, before the appearance of the Prophet. Yet, the Sahabah were able, during salat, to see the Messenger of Allah draw the curtain, to view his bright face and his happy smile, to witness

p: 10

how Abu Bakr stepped back, to notice how the Prophet’s hand gesture to him, and to look at him returning to his room. What kind of salat was that?! Where were they really looking during the prayer? Were they even concentrating at all?

Muslim has this further riwayah as well:

وحدثنیه عمرو الناقد وزهیر بن حرب قالا حدثنا سفیان بن عیینه عن الزهری عن أنس قال آخر نظره نظرتها إلی رسول الله علیه وسلم کشف الستاره یوم الاثنین

‘Amr al-Naqid and Zuhayr b. Harb – Sufyan b. ‘Uyaynah – al-Zuhri – Anas:

The last glance which we had of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was when he drew the curtain aside ON MONDAY.(1)

Therefore, the Prophet did not participate in congregational salat on Monday, the day of his death. He also did not pray in his mosque throughout the three days before that. That means that he stopped leading his Sahabah on Thursday, most probably in its afternoon or evening. So, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, he did not come out to his followers at all. On Monday, the day he died, he showed himself to them but did not join them in the salat. The direct implication of all this is that his last ever salat with his Sahabah was offered on Thursday.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) agrees with our conclusions:

قلنا فعلی هذا یکون آخر صلاه صلاها معهم الظهر کما جاء مصرحا به فی حدیث عائشه المتقدم، ویکون ذلک یوم الخمیس لا یوم السبت ولا یوم الأحد کما حکاه البیهقی

p: 11

عن مغازی موسی بن عقبه وهو ضعیف

We say: based upon this, the last salat which he performed with them would be Zuhr, as it is explicitly reported in the foregoing hadith of ‘Aishah, and that would be on Thursday – and not on Saturday or Sunday as al-Bayhaqi quoted from Maghazi of Musa b. ‘Uqbah, and it (i.e. that submission of Musa) is ḍa’if.(1)

Imam al-Salihi al-Shami (d. 942 H) has a backup for him:

قال الحافظ :اختلف فی مده مرضه، فالأکثر علی أنه ثلاثه عشر یوما وقیل :بزیاده یوم وقیل :بنقصه .وقیل :تسعه أیام رواه البلاذری عن علی رضی الله تعالی عنه وقیل :عشره، وفیه جزم سلیمان التیمی، وکان یخرج إلی الصلاه إلا أنه انقطع ثلاثه أیام .قال فی العیون :أمر رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم أن یصلی بالناس فصلی بهم فیما روینا سبع عشره صلاه

Al-Hafiz (Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani) said: “There is disagreement about the length of his (i.e. the Prophet’s fatal) illness. The majority are of the opinion that it lasted thirteen days. Some say: it was a day more. Some say: it was a day less.” Some also say: it was nine days. This opinion was narrated from ‘Ali, may Allah the Most High be pleased with him, by al-Baladhari. Some say: it lasted ten days. This was explicitly stated by Sulayman al-Tamimi.

He (the Prophet) used to come out for the salat (throughout his illness) except that he missed three days.

The author of al-‘Uyun said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ordered that he (Abu Bakr)

p: 12

lead the people in salat, and he led them in seventeen salats, according to what was narrated to us.”(1)

One glaring omission from Anas’ reports is that of any explicit order from the Prophet concerning Abu Bakr’s leadership of salat. As such, we do not know – from Anas’ narrations – whether he led the Sahabah in salat from Thursday till Monday on the order of the Messenger of Allah or not. What is clear from them, however, is that the Prophet was allegedly pleased with Abu Bakr’s leadership of salat when he saw it on the Monday of his demise. This is also the best – based upon Anas’ reports above – that can be said about Abu Bakr’s leadership of salat for the three previous days: that the Prophet knew about it, and silently approved it by not objecting. Nothing more can be claimed from those texts. Of course, an approval is not always the same thing as an order.

؟ قلنا لا وهم ینتظرونک یا رسول الله فقال ضعوا لی ماء فی المخضب ففعلنا فاغتسل ثم ذهب لینوء فأغمی علیه ثم أفاق فقال أصلی الناس ؟ قلنا لا وهم ینتظرونک یا رسول الله فقال ضعوا لی ماء فی المخضب ففعلنا فاغتسل ثم ذهب لینوء فأغمی علیه ثم أفاق فقال أصلی الناس ؟ فقلنا لا وهم ینتظرونک یا رسول الله

قالت والناس عکوف فی المسجد ینتظرون رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم لصلاه العشاء الآخره

قالت فأرسل رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم إلی أبی بکر أن یصلی بالناس فأتاه الرسول فقال إن رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم یأمرک أن تصلی بالناس فقال أبو بکر وکان رجلا رقیقا یا عمر صل بالناس قال فقال عمر أنت أحق بذلک

قالت فصلی بهم أبو بکر تلک الأیام ثم إن رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم وجد من نفسه خفه فخرج بین رجلین أحدهما العباس لصلاه الظهر وأبو بکر یصلی بالناس فلما رآه أبو بکر ذهب لیتأخر فأومأ إلیه النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم أن لا یتأخر وقال لهما أجلسانی إلی جنبه فأجلساه إلی جنب أبو بکر وکان أبو بکر یصلی وهو قائم بصلاه النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم والناس یصلون بصلاه أبی بکر والنبی صلی الله علیه السلام قاعد

قال عبیدالله فدخلت علی عبدالله بن عباس فقلت له ألا أعرض علیک ما حدثتنی عائشه عن مرض رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم ؟ فقال هات فعرضت حدیثها علیه فما أنکر منه شیئا غیر أنه قال أسمت لک الرجل الذی کان مع العباس؟ قلت لا قال هو علی

Ahmad b.

p: 14

‘Abd Allah b. Yunus – Zaidah – Musa b. Abi ‘Aishah – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah:

I visited ‘Aishah and said to her, “Would you tell me about the illness of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him?” She replied, “Yes, I will. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was seriously ill, and he asked, ‘Have the people performed salat?’ We said, ‘No, they are waiting for you (to lead them), O Messenger of Allah’. He said, ‘Put some water for me in the tub’. We complied. So, he performed ablution. Then, he was about to move with difficulty but fainted. Then, he woke up and said, ‘Have the people performed salat?’ We said, ‘No. They are waiting for you, O Messenger of Allah.’ He said, ‘Put some water for me in the tub’. We complied. So, he performed ablution. Then, he was about to move with difficulty but fainted. Then, he woke up and said, ‘Have the people performed salat?’ We said, ‘No. They are waiting for you, O Messenger of Allah.’ He said, ‘Put some water for me in the tub’. We complied. So, he performed ablution. Then, he was about to move with difficulty but fainted. Then, he woke up and said, ‘Have the people performed salat?’ We said, ‘No. They are waiting for you, O Messenger of Allah.’

She (‘Aishah) said, “The people were standing in the mosque waiting for the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, FOR THE ‘ISHA PRAYER.”

She (‘Aishah) said, “Then, the

p: 15

Messenger of Allah sent a messenger to Abu Bakr to tell him to lead the people in salat. When the messenger (of the Prophet) got to him, he said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, orders you to lead the people in salat.’ So, Abu Bakr, who was a man of tenderly feelings, said, ‘O ‘Umar, lead the people in salat.’ ‘Umar replied, ‘You are more entitled to that.’

She (‘Aishah) said, ‘So, Abu Bakr led them in salat during those days. THEN, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, felt some relief and he went out, supported by two men, one of whom was al-‘Abbas, FOR THE ZUHR PRAYER while Abu Bakr was already leading the people in salat. When Abu Bakr saw him, he began to move backwards. But the Prophet, peace be upon him, indicated to him not to move backwards. He also told them both (i.e. the two men with him), ‘Sit me beside Abu Bakr.’ Therefore, they sat him beside Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was performing salat while standing, and he was following the salat of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the people were following the salat of Abu Bakr. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was sitting.”

‘Ubayd Allah said: I visited ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas and said to him, “Should I tell you what ‘Aishah told me concerning the illness of the Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Tell.” So, I presented her hadith to him, and he did not deny

p: 16

anything from it, except that he asked, “Did she tell you the name of the other man who was with al-‘Abbas?” I said, “No”. He said, “He was ‘Ali.”(1)

But, ‘Aishah has only blown up everything here! The Messenger of Allah became unable to lead salat on Thursday, according to the hadith of Anas. In this report of ‘Aishah, that was at the time of the ‘Isha prayer – and not Zuhr as al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir wants us to believe. That ‘Isha prayer, as well as the subsequent salats for a few days, were led by Abu Bakr on the explicit order of the Prophet. These are claims of ‘Aishah which are missing in the reports of Anas. But, according to Anas, the Messenger of Allah never again joined the Muslims in salat once Abu Bakr started leading.

By contrast, ‘Aishah claimed that her blessed husband actually took over the leadership of salat from her father after some “days”! In the Arabic, the word ayam is used for the days of Abu Bakr’s leadership after the initial ‘Isha. That word is plural, and refers to at least three days. This means that Abu Bakr led the salats on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Then, the Prophet of Allah intervened in his salat and took over from him on Monday. Here, Anas and ‘Aishah clash again. He submitted that the Messenger never participated in congregational salat on the Monday of his death, while she insisted that her husband did in the Zuhr prayer of

p: 17

that day!

Allah became seriously ill, Bilal came to summon him to salat. He said, “Ask Abu Bakr to lead the people in salat.”

She said: I said, “O Messenger of Allah! Verily, Abu Bakr is a tenderly man. If he stood in your place, he would not be able to make the people hear anything. You should instead order ‘Umar.” He said, “Ask Abu Bakr to lead the people in salat.”

She said: “So, I told Hafsah my statement to him, ‘Abu Bakr is a tenderly man. If he stood in your place, he would not be able to make people hear anything. You should instead order ‘Umar.” She told him. On that, the Messenger of Allah said, “You are like the women who gathered around Yusuf. Ask Abu Bakr to lead the people in salat.”

She said: “Therefore, Abu Bakr was asked to lead the people in salat.” She said: “As he (Abu Bakr) began the salat, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, felt some relief. So, He got up and moved, supported by two men, and his feet dragged on the ground.

She said: “When he entered the mosque, Abu Bakr heard his sound. He moved backwards, but the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, indicated to him to ‘stand in your place.’ The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, then came and sat on the left side of Abu Bakr.”

She said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was leading the people in salat in a sitting

p: 19

posture. Abu Bakr was following the salat of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in a standing posture and the people were following the salat of Abu Bakr.(1)

The contradictions between this report and Exhibit C above are tremendous:

1. According to Exhibit C, Bilal did not come to summon the Prophet for salat. In Exhibit D, he came.

2. According to Exhibit C, the Messenger of Allah attempted to join the Muslims in the mosque but fainted three times. In Exhibit D, the Prophet did not faint at all, and made no attempt whatsoever to join his followers in his mosque.

3. According to Exhibit C, the Prophet only ordered Abu Bakr to lead the salat after three failed attempts to do so by himself. In Exhibit D, he gave the order immediately Bilal came to him, without making any attempt to lead the salat by himself.

4. According to Exhibit C, the Prophet sent a specific messenger to Abu Bakr to lead the Salat. Moreover, Abu Bakr too offered the “honour” to ‘Umar, who politely turned it down. However, in Exhibit D, the Messenger of Allah did not send any specific messenger to Abu Bakr. Rather, he only gave a general order to inform Abu Bakr to lead the salat. Besides, Abu Bakr did not offer the “honour” to ‘Umar.

5. According to Exhibit C, ‘Aishah did not object to the Prophet’s order to Abu Bakr to lead the salat. However, in Exhibit D, she allegedly fiercely objected to it.

6. According to Exhibit C,

p: 20

after the Prophet’s order to Abu Bakr to lead the salat, he continued to do so for days, till Monday before the Messenger of Allah felt a relief and “took over” an already ongoing salat from him. In Exhibit D, the Prophet felt a relief and “took over” from Abu Bakr, on that same Thursday, only minutes after giving his order to him to lead the salat! ‘Aishah’s “frantic” objection to Abu Bakr’s appointment, especially the text of her arguments - as narrated in Exhibit D - shows that Abu Bakr had never led Muslims in salat before then!

7. According to Exhibit C, Abu Bakr led the salat for several days before the Prophet’s intervention. By contrast, in Exhibit D, Abu Bakr did not even lead a single salat before the take-over!

8. According to Exhibit C, the Messenger – on his order - was taken by two men to the side of Abu Bakr. But, in Exhibit D, the Prophet went to the left side of Abu Bakr by himself, with no support.

What exactly are we supposed to believe from all these terrible contradictions?!

لما استعز برسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم وأنا عنده فی نفر من المسلمین دعاه بلال إلی الصلاه فقال مروا من یصلی للناس فخرج عبد الله بن زمعه فإذا عمر فی الناس وکان أبو بکر غائبا فقلت یا عمر قم فصل بالناس فتقدم فکبر فلما سمع رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم صوته وکان عمر رجلا مجهرا قال " فأین أبو بکر ؟ یأبی الله ذلک والمسلمون یأبی الله ذلک والمسلمون " فبعث إلی أبی بکر فجاء بعد أن صلی عمر تلک الصلاه فصلی بالناس .

‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad al-Nufayli – Muhammad b. Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – al-Zuhri – ‘Abd al-Malik b. Abi Bakr b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hisham – his father – ‘Abd Allah b. Zam’a:

When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was seriously ill, and I, with a number of Muslims, was with him, Bilal summoned him to salat. He said, “Tell SOMEONE to lead the people in salat.” So, ‘Abd Allah b. Sam’a went out (into the mosque), and found ‘Umar. Meanwhile, Abu Bakr was absent. I said, “O ‘Umar! Get up and lead the people in salat.” Therefore, he stepped forward and made the takbir (thereby starting the congregational salat). When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, heard his voice, and ‘Umar was a man with a loud voice, he (the Prophet) said, “Where is Abu Bakr? Allah and the Muslims forbid that (i.e. the leadership of ‘Umar in salat). Allah and the Muslims reject that.”

p: 22

As such, he sent a messenger to Abu Bakr. HE CAME AFTER ‘UMAR HAD PERFORMED THAT SALAT. Then, he (Abu Bakr) led the people in salat (again).(1)

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) comments:

حسن صحیح

Hasan sahih.(2)

Abu Dawud also records a supplementary report, which gives further details:

حدثنا أحمد بن صالح ثنا ابن أبی فدیک قال حدثنی موسی بن یعقوب عن عبد الرحمن بن إسحاق عن ابن شهاب عن عبید الله بن عبد الله بن عتبه أن عبد الله بن زمعه أخبره بهذا الخبر قال لما سمع النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم صوت عمر قال ابن زمعه خرج النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم حتی أطلع رأسه من حجرته ثم قال " لا لا لا لیصل للناس ابن أبی قحافه " یقول ذلک مغضبا .

Ahmad b. Salih – Ibn Abi Fudayk – Musa b. Ya’qub – ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Ishaq – Ibn Shihab – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Utbah – ‘Abd Allah b. Zam’a:

When the Prophet, peace be upon him, heard the voice of ‘Umar, the Prophet, peace be upon him, went out until his head appeared from his room. Then, he said, “No. No. No. Certainly, it is the son of Abu Quhafah (i.e. Abu Bakr) that shall lead the people in salat.” He was saying it in a state of ANGER.(3)

Al-Albani says:

صحیح

Sahih(4)

It is interesting. Is it not? The Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, allegedly knew that it was haram for anyone other than Abu Bakr to lead the salat. Yet, he ordered them to tell “someone” to do so?!

p: 23

Was it not his mission to “deliver the message clearly”?(1) So, what was he allegedly angry about exactly? According to this Sunni riwayah, it was the Prophet himself who caused the confusion – and may Allah protect us from such blasphemous thoughts! So, logically, none was to blame except him. Thus, why was he angry, and at whom? What is this drama which the Ahl al-Sunnah have attributed to the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds?! In any case, this report of Ibn Zam’a opens a new can of worms for our Sunni brothers, which severely complicate an already horrible situation.

فعرفه وکان جهیر الصوت فقال رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم ألیس هذا صوت عمر قالوا بلی قال یأبی الله جل وعز ذلک والمؤمنون مروا أبا بکر فلیصل بالناس قالت عائشه یا رسول الله ان أبا بکر رجل رقیق لا یملک دمعه وانه إذا قرأ القرآن بکی قالت وما قلت ذلک الا کراهیه ان یتأثم الناس بأبی بکر ان یکون أول من قام مقام رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم فقال مروا أبا بکر فلیصل بالناس فراجعته فقال مروا أبا بکر فلیصل بالناس انکم صواحب یوسف

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – ‘Abd al-A’la – Ma’mar – al-Zuhri – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah – ‘Aishah:

When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, became ill in the house of Maymunah, he sought the permission of his wives to stay in my house during his illness. So, they permitted him. Then, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, came out (of Maymunah’s room) supported by al-‘Abbas and another man and his feet were dragging on the ground.

‘Ubayd Allah said: “Ibn ‘Abbas asked, ‘Do you know that man? He was ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. But, ‘Aishah did not like him.’”

Al-Zuhri (narrating from ‘Ubayd Allah from ‘Aishah) reported: The Prophet, peace be upon him, said while he was (still) in the house of Maymunah to ‘Abd Allah b. Zam’a, “Tell THE PEOPLE to perform the salat.” So, he met ‘Umar b. al-Khattab and said, “O ‘Umar! Lead the people in salat.” Therefore, he led them

p: 25

in salat. Then, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, heard his voice and recognized him, as he was someone with a loud voice. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Is that not the voice of ‘Umar?” They said, “Yes, it is.” He said, “Allah the Almighty and the believers forbid that. Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in salat.” ‘Aishah said, “O Messenger of Allah, verily, Abu Bakr is a tenderly man. He cannot control his tears. As he recites the Qur’an, he cannot help weeping.”

She (‘Aishah) said: “I did not say that except through worry that the people may take an evil omen with Abu Bakr, that he would become the first to occupy the position of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.” He said, “Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in salat.” But, I dissuaded him. He said (again), “Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in Salat. You are like the women around Yusuf.”(1)

Shaykh al-Arnaut says:

إسناده صحیح علی شرط الشیخین

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs(2)

So, it was before the Prophet moved to the house of ‘Aishah. This was during the initial stages of his fatal illness, at the start of his inability to join the congregational salats. That apparently was on Thursday. Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) records another hadith which confirms this:

حدثنا محمد بن رافع وعبد بن حمید (واللفظ لابن رافع) قالا حدثنا عبدالرزاق أخبرنا معمر قال قال الزهری وأخبرنی عبیدالله بن

p: 26

عبدالله بن عتبه أن عائشه أخبرته قالت أول ما اشتکی رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم فی بیت میمونه فاستأذن أزواجه أن یمرض فی بیتها وأذن له قالت فخرج وید له علی الفضل بن عباس وید له علی رجل آخر وهو یخط برجلیه فی الأرض فقال عبیدالله فحدثت به ابن عباس فقال أتدری من الرجل الذی لم تسم عائشه ؟ هو علی

Muhammad b. Rafi’ and ‘Abd b. Hamid – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – al-Zuhri - ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Utbah – ‘Aishah:

“It was in the house of Maymunah that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, first fell ill. He asked permission from his wives to stay in my house during his illness. They granted him permission.”

She said: “Then, he went out with one of his hands over (the shoulder of) ‘al-Faḍl b. ‘Abbas and the other hand on (the shoulder of) another man. His feet dragged on the earth.

‘Ubayd Allah said: “I narrated it to Ibn ‘Abbas and he said, ‘Do you know the man whose name ‘Aishah did not mention? He was ‘Ali.”(1)

There is a fresh contradiction in these last two reports of ‘Aishah. In the first, she claimed that the partner of Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, when he was supporting the Messenger of Allah out of Umm al-Muminin Maymunah’s room was al-‘Abbas. In the second, she said that the same partner was al-Faḍl b. al-Abbas! That, apparently, is an irreconcilable contradiction.

One cannot help but notice the strange inconsistencies between the reports

p: 27

of Zam’a and Exhibit F on the one hand and the other reports of ‘Aishah and Anas (in the last chapter) on the other:

1. In one report, the Prophet gave the order that Abu Bakr - specifically naming him - should lead the salat immediately when Bilal came to him. However, in other reports, the Messenger only said, “Tell someone to lead the people in salat” or “Tell the people to perform the salat” without naming Abu Bakr.

2. In some reports, ‘Umar was mistakenly chosen, by Ibn Zam’a or another messenger of the Prophet, to lead the salat, and he (‘Umar) did so, before Abu Bakr. In other reports, ‘Umar was never selected for leadership of the salat by any messenger of the Prophet, and he (‘Umar) never led it.

3. In one report, after Abu Bakr’s designation as the prayer leader, he went ahead to offer the position to ‘Umar, who politely turned it down. By contrast, according to other reports, Abu Bakr never offered the position to ‘Umar. Rather, ‘Umar himself had already held the position, by mistake, before him! So, it would have been illogical to ask him to lead the same salat again.

4. By one report, Abu Bakr was one of those waiting in the mosque for the Messenger of Allah in the evening of Thursday. The messenger of the Prophet came to him in the mosque, while ‘Umar too was present with him, to convey the order to lead. Meanwhile, in other reports, Abu Bakr was

p: 28

absent from the mosque, while the other Muslims were waiting for salat! Where was he? What could he possibly be doing where he was? The messenger of the Prophet had to quickly locate him to bring him into the mosque so that he could take over from ‘Umar who was already leading the salat by mistake. But, before Abu Bakr arrived, ‘Umar had already finished.

At this point, let us make a final recap of the some of the words of ‘Aishah concerning that same event, about that same ‘Isha prayer of that same Thursday. This is the first one:

قالت والناس عکوف فی المسجد ینتظرون رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم لصلاه العشاء الآخره

قالت فأرسل رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم إلی أبی بکر أن یصلی بالناس فأتاه الرسول فقال إن رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم یأمرک أن تصلی بالناس فقال أبو بکر وکان رجلا رقیقا یا عمر صل بالناس قال فقال عمر أنت أحق بذلک

قالت فصلی بهم أبو بکر تلک الأیام

She (‘Aishah) said, “The people were standing in the mosque waiting for the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, FOR THE ‘ISHA PRAYER.

She (‘Aishah) said, “So, the Messenger of Allah sent a messenger to Abu Bakr to tell him to lead the people in salat. When the messenger (of the Prophet) got to him, he said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, orders you to lead the people in salat.’ So, Abu Bakr, who was a man of tenderly feelings, said, ‘O ‘Umar,

p: 29

lead the people in salat.’ ‘Umar replied, ‘You are more entitled to that.’

She (‘Aishah) said, ‘So, Abu Bakr led them in salat DURING THOSE DAYS.

This is her second claim on that same event:

فأمروا أبا بکر یصلی بالناس قالت فلما دخل فی الصلاه وجد رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم من نفسه خفه فقام یهادی بین رجلین ورجلاه تخطان فی الأرض قالت فلما دخل المسجد سمع أبو بکر حسه ذهب یتأخر فأومأ إلیه رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم قم مکانک فجاء رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم حتی جلس عن یسار أبی بکر قالت فکان رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم یصلی بالناس جالسا وأبو بکر قائما یقتدی أبو بکر بصلاه النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم ویقتدی الناس بصلاه أبی بکر

She said: “Therefore, Abu Bakr was asked to lead the people in salat.” She said: “As he (Abu Bakr) began the salat, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, felt some relief. So, He got up and moved, supported by two men, and his feet dragged on the ground.

She said: “When he entered the mosque, Abu Bakr heard his sound. He moved backwards, but the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, indicated to him to ‘stand in your place.’ The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, then came and sat on the left side of Abu Bakr.”

She said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was leading the people in Salat in a sitting posture.

Here, we have her third:

فقال النبی صلی

p: 30

الله علیه و سلم وهو فی بیت میمونه لعبد الله بن زمعه مر الناس فلیصلوا فلقی عمر بن الخطاب فقال یا عمر صل بالناس فصلی بهم فسمع رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم صوته فعرفه وکان جهیر الصوت فقال رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم ألیس هذا صوت عمر قالوا بلی قال یأبی الله جل وعز ذلک والمؤمنون مروا أبا بکر فلیصل بالناس

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said while he was (still) in the house of Maymunah to ‘Abd Allah b. Zam’a, “Tell the people to perform the salat.” So, he met ‘Umar b. al-Khattab and said, “O ‘Umar! Lead the people in salat.” Therefore, he led them in salat. Then, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, heard his voice and recognized him, as he was someone with a loud voice. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Is that not the voice of ‘Umar?” They said, “Yes, it is.” He said, “Allah the Almighty and the believers forbid that. Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in Salat.”

What exactly are we supposed to believe, O Umm al-Muminin ‘Aishah?

ورسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم فی الصف خلفه

Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Khuzaymah – Muhammad b. Bashar – Badal b. al-Muhabbar – Shu’bah – Musa b. Abi ‘Aishah – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah – ‘Aishah:

Abu Bakr led the people in salat while the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was in the congregational row BEHIND him.(1)

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) comments:

صحیح

Sahih(2)

And, Shaykh al-Arnaut concurs:

إسناده صحیح علی شرط البخاری

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of al-Bukhari.(3)

Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) also documents:

حدثنا محمود بن غیلان حدثنا شبابه [بن سوار] عن شعبه عن نعیم بن أبی هند عن أبی وائل عن مسروق عن عائشه قال صلی رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم خلف أبی بکر فی مرضه الذی مات فیه قاعدا

Mahmud b. Ghilan – Shubabah b. Sawar – Shu’bah – Na’im b. Abi Hind – Abu Wail – Masruq – ‘Aishah:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, performed salat in a sitting posture BEHIND Abu Bakr during his fatal illness.(4)

Al-Tirmidhi says:

حدیث عائشه حدیث حسن صحیح غریب

The hadith of ‘Aishah is hasan sahih gharib.(5)

‘Allamah al-Albani comments too:

صحیح

Sahih(6)

When did this take place? At the best, one may only attempt to fix it either in the ‘Isha prayer of Thursday or in the Zuhr of Monday, the Prophet’s last day. By the narration of Anas, the Messenger of Allah did not step into the mosque at all on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday preceding his death. So, we are left with only the evening of Thursday, when he first stopped

p: 32

leading the salat and the Monday of his demise. According to one report of ‘Aishah, the Messenger of Allah took over the ‘Isha on Thursday, shortly after giving the order to Abu Bakr to lead it. But, in another narration by her, the Prophet actually never intervened in that ‘Isha at all, and Abu Bakr led it and all subsequent salats till the Zuhr of the following Monday. Yet, even on that Monday, Abu Bakr only prayed beside him as a surrogate Imam. As such, there really is nowhere to place this new claim of ‘Aishah – that her father was our Prophet’s Imam – within the possible timeframe.

However, Anas b. Malik made a frantic attempt to save her! Imam Ibn Hibban documents:

أخبرنا عمر بن محمد الهمدانی قال حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهیم بن سوید الرملی قال حدثنا أیوب بن سلیمان قال حدثنی أبو بکر بن أبی أویس عن سلیمان بن بلال عن حمید الطویل عن ثابت البنانی عن أنس بن مالک قال آخر صلاه صلاها رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم مع القوم فی ثوب واحد متوشحا به برد قاعدا خلف أبی بکر

‘Umar b. Muhammad al-Hamdani – Ishaq b. Ibrahim b. Suwayd al-Ramli – Ayub b. Sulayman – Abu Bakr b. Abi Uways – Sulayman b. Bilal – Humayd al-Tawil – Thabit al-Banani – Anas b. Malik:

The last salat performed by the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, with the people was done in a single garment wrapped around him in a sitting posture BEHIND Abu Bakr.(1)

‘Allamah al-Albani comments:

صحیح

Sahih(2)

Shaykh

p: 33

al-Arnaut agrees:

إسناده صحیح

Its chain is sahih(1)

Imam al-Tirmidhi also records:

حدثنا عبد الله بن أبی زیاد شبابه بن سوار حدثنا محمد بن طلحه عن حمید عن ثابت عن أنس قال صلی رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم فی مرضه خلف أبی بکر قاعدا فی ثوب متوشحا به

‘Abd Allah b. Abi Ziyad - Shubabah b. Sawar – Muhammad b. Talhah – Humayd – Thabit – Anas:

He (the Prophet), peace be upon him, during his illness, performed salat in a sitting posture BEHIND Abu Bakr, wrapped in a garment.(2)

Al-Tirmidhi comments:

هذا حدیث حسن صحیح

This hadith is hasan sahih(3)

‘Allamah al-Albani agrees:

صحیح الإسناد

Its chain is sahih(4)

So, it was the last congregational salat of the Prophet, after all. But, even Anas’ intervention rescues nothing! We still do not know when that last salat was. Anas himself narrated that the final congregational salat of the Messenger of Allah – and it was led by him, obviously before the ‘Isha prayer - was on Thursday, followed by three days when he never stepped into the mosque at all. On the Monday of his departure, he came into the mosque, but did not join the congregational salat. He retreated into his room, and that was the very last time his Sahabah saw him alive. He apparently died shortly after his appearance. Basically, it is practically impossible to fix his alleged salat behind Abu Bakr anywhere within his lifetime!

There is another similarly unfixable riwayah by this same ‘Aishah, concerning the same period. Imam al-Nasai (d. 303 H) records:

أخبرنا محمود بن غیلان

p: 34

قال حدثنی أبو داود قال أنبأنا شعبه عن موسی بن أبی عائشه قال سمعت عبید الله بن عبد الله یحدث عن عائشه رضی الله عنها أن رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم أمر أبا بکر أن یصلی بالناس قالت وکان النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم بین یدی أبی بکر فصلی قاعدا وأبو بکر یصلی بالناس والناس خلف أبی بکر

Mahmud b. Ghilan – Abu Dawud – Shu’bah – Musa b. Abi ‘Aishah – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah – ‘Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her:

“The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ordered Abu Bakr to lead the people in Salat.”

She said: “The Prophet, peace be upon him, was IN FRONT of Abu Bakr, and he performed the salat in a sitting posture while Abu Bakr led the people in salat and the people were behind Abu Bakr.(1)

‘Allamah al-Albani declares about it:

صحیح

Sahih(2)

Where does this belong? Was it the ‘Isha prayer of the Messenger’s last Thursday? Well, ‘Aishah herself had also narrated that he led that salat, sitting beside her father! Of course, Anas denied completely the Prophet’s participation in that Isha’ prayer or any other, from that period, till his death! ‘Aishah also claimed in another report that the Prophet did not join the ‘Isha prayer on that Thursday! But, what about the salat on the Monday of his death? Still, the problem adamantly persists. ‘Aishah had narrated that her blessed husband led that salat beside Abu Bakr! He neither stayed in front of her father, nor behind

p: 35

him. Therefore, it is once more impossible to fix another riwayah of Umm al-Muminin ‘Aishah within the lifetime of her master and prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi.

Understandably, the ‘ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah are very disturbed by these grave, irreconcilable inconsistencies in ‘Aishah’s, and of course Anas’, reports. Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) himself is unable to hide this fact:

ورواه مسلم بن إبراهیم عن شعبه بلفظ أن النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم صلی خلف أبی بکر أخرجه بن المنذر وهذا عکس روایه أبی موسی وهو اختلاف شدید ووقع فی روایه مسروق عنها أیضا اختلاف فأخرجه ابن حبان من روایه عاصم عن شقیق عنه بلفظ کان أبو بکر یصلی بصلاته والناس یصلون بصلاه أبی بکر

Muslim b. Ibrahim narrated from Shu’bah with the wording, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, performed salat behind Abu Bakr”. Al-Mundhir recorded it. This is in contrast to the narration of Abu Musa, AND IT IS A SEVERE CONTRADICTION. Moreover, there is A FURTHER CONTRADICTION in the report of Masruq. It is recorded by Ibn Hibban in the report of ‘Asim, from Shaqiq from him (i.e. Masruq) with the wording, “Abu Bakr was following his salat (i.e. that of the Prophet), and the people were following the salat of Abu Bakr.”(1)

So, what answer do the Sunni ‘ulama have to these contradictions? They, of course, attempted to devise a way out, as ‘Allamah al-Albani explains, after quoting the contradictory stories:

ففی هذه الروایه أن النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم کان إماما بخلاف الأولی؛ ففیها أنه کان مقتدیا، وقد اختلف

p: 36

العلماء فی التوفیق بین الروایات علی وجوه ذکرها الحافظ فی " الفتح" ؛ أولاها أن النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم صلی صلاتین فی المسجد؛ کان فی إحداهما مأموما، وفی الأخری إماما. وإلیه ذهب ابن حزم فی "المحلی" (3/47)، والبیهقی ، وقبله ابن حبان

In this report, it is stated that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was the Imam (in the salat), in contradiction to the first one which states that he was a follower (in the salat). The ‘ulama are in disagreement over the methods to harmonize the two reports. Al-Hafiz mentioned them (i.e. those methods) in al-Fath. The first of them is that the Prophet, peace be upon him, performed two salats in the mosque. In one of them, he was a follower (of Abu Bakr), and in the other, he was the Imam (of Abu Bakr). This was the opinion of Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla (3/47) and al-Bayhaqi, and before him, Ibn Hibban.(1)

The ‘Allamah does not cite any other of those methods. This suggests that he most probably considers the two-salat “solution” as the strongest possibility. But, does it really help the Sunni case? Apparently, it does not. Even if we ignore Anas’ claim that the Messenger of Allah never participated in congregational salat in his mosque since the last Thursday of his fatal illness, it is still impossible to fix his alleged salat behind Abu Bakr anywhere within his lifetime! No matter where it stays, it clashes with some other “sahih” ahadith of the Ahl al-Sunnah and

p: 37

creates a new commotion. Besides, even finding a comfortable seat for that riwayah (about Abu Bakr’s leadership of the Prophet) does not in any way resolve the innumerable, severe contradictions in the various reports about the Messenger of Allah’s last congregational prayers and his alleged order(s) to Abu Bakr to lead in salat.

would have been impossible. However, if he was qualified, it would, in that case, be at least possible. Then, additional, unquestionable evidence would become admissible to establish its factual occurrence.

So, was Abu Bakr qualified to lead the Messenger of Allah in salat? Moreover, was he equally qualified to lead the Sahabah in salat in the Prophet’s mosque?

The answer to the first question is in this verse:

یا أیها الذین آمنوا لا تقدموا بین یدی الله ورسوله واتقوا الله إن الله سمیع علیم

O you who believe! Do not lead in front of Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.(1)

This effectively makes it absolutely haram to lead the Prophet of Allah in anything – including in battles and salat. Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) also states:

حکی ذلک القاضی عیاض قال ولا یصح لأحد أن یؤم جالسا بعده صلی الله علیه وسلم قال وهو مشهور قول مالک وجماعه أصحابه قال وهذا أولی الأقاویل لأنه صلی الله علیه وسلم لا یصح التقدم بین یدیه فی الصلاه ولا فی غیرها ولا لعذر ولا لغیره

That is narrated from Qaḍi ‘Iyaḍ. He said, “It is not correct for anyone to lead in salat in a sitting posture other than him, peace be upon him.” He said, “And this is the famous statement of Malik and the majority of his companions.” He said, “And this is the most correct of the opinions, because it is NOT correct to lead in front of him in salat or in anything else, whether due to an excuse

p: 39

or otherwise.”(1)

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H), while relating the submissions of Qaḍi Iyaḍ, reports:

واحتج أیضا بأنه صلی الله علیه وسلم إنما صلی بهم قاعدا لأنه لا یصح التقدم بین یدیه لنهی الله عن ذلک

He cited as proof also the fact that he, peace be upon him, led them in salat in a sitting posture, because it is NOT correct to lead in front of him, due to the prohibition of that by Allah.(2)

In simpler words, it was absolutely impossible that Abu Bakr ever led Muhammad in salat or in any anything else. Allah has totally forbidden that; and so, Abu Bakr was NOT qualified in any way or by any means to lead the Messenger in salat or in any other situation or circumstance. Even Abu Bakr too realized this, as documented by Imam Muslim (d. 261 H):

قال أبو بکر ما کان لابن أبی قحافه أن یصلی بین یدی رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم

Abu Bakr said, “It is NOT for the son of Abu Quhafah (i.e. Abu Bakr) to lead salat in front of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.”(3)

So, all the reports about how the Prophet was led in salat by Abu Bakr or anyone else from this Ummah are fallacious and hold no truth at all. The Book of Allah rejects them, and Abu Bakr too denounced them. There is also an element of high blasphemy in those ahadith. The only way Abu Bakr could have legitimately led the Messenger of Allah in salat was

p: 40

if the latter had lost or forfeited his risalah (messengership) and had become inferior to the former in many areas.

Moreover, we ask our Sunni brothers: who was the ruler of Madinah at that moment when – as your sect claims - Abu Bakr led the Prophet in salat? Was it the Messenger? Or, was it Abu Bakr? This question is crucial in the light of some authentic narrations in your books. For instance, Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) records:

حدثنا هناد حدثنا أبومعاویه عن الأعمش عن إسماعیل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبی مسعود أن رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم قال لا یؤم الرجل فی سلطانه ولا یجلس علی تکرمته إلا بإذنه

Hanad – Abu Mu’awiyah – al-A’mash – Isma’il b. Raja - Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “No one can lead a man in salat in his place of authority, and no one can sit in his place of honour except with his permission.”(1)

Al-Tirmidhi says:

هذا حدیث حسن صحیح

This hadith is hasan sahih(2)

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) also comments:

صحیح

Sahih(3)

Imam al-Nasai (d. 303 H) also documents:

أخبرنا إبراهیم بن محمد التیمی قال حدثنا یحیی بن سعید عن شعبه عن إسماعیل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبی مسعود قال قال رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم لا یؤم الرجل فی سلطانه ولا یجلس علی تکرمته إلا بإذنه

Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Taymi – Yahya b. Sa’id – Shu’bah – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of

p: 41

Allah, peace be upon him, said: “No one can lead a man in salat in his place of authority, and no one can sit in his place of honour except with his permission.”(1)

And ‘Allamah al-Albani declares again:

صحیح

Sahih(2)

So, if the Prophet of Allah was really still the amir of the Muslims at that moment, then Abu Bakr was further disqualified from ever leading him in salat ! Whoever insists that Abu Bakr was his Imam is telling us that he (the Messenger) had lost authority over Madinah. Meanwhile, the authority of the Prophet was, and still is, tied to his risalah, among others. As such, if he had lost authority over Madinah, then he must have lost all his divine ranks. The direct implication of this is – the only way Abu Bakr could have been the Prophet’s Imam was if the latter was no longer a messenger of Allah, at the least! Therefore, whoever claims that Abu Bakr led him in salat has thereby rejected his (i.e. the Prophet’s) risalah! There is simply no second way to it.

In other ahadith, the Messenger of Allah mentions some other conditions with farther reaching implications. Imam Muslim records:

وحدثنا أبو بکر بن أبی شیبه وأبو سعید الأشج کلاهما عن أبی خالد قال أبو بکر حدثنا أبو خالد الأحمر عن الأعمش عن إسماعیل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبی مسعود الأنصاری قال قال رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم یؤم القوم أقرؤهم لکتاب الله فإن کانوا فی القراءه سواء فأعلمهم بالسنه فإن

p: 42

کانوا فی السنه سواء فأقدمهم هجره فإن کانوا فی الهجره سواء فأقدمهم سلما ولا یؤمن الرجل الرجل فی سلطانه ولا یقعد فی بیته علی تکرمته إلا بإذنه

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah and Abu Sa’id al-Ashja’ – Abu Khalid: Abu Bakr – Abu Khalid al-Ahmar – al-A’mash – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “The people should be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them. But, if they are equal in recitation, then the one who is the most knowledgeable among them concerning the Sunnah. If they are equal regarding the Sunnah, then the earliest of them to do the hijrah. If they are equal in the hijrah, then the earliest of them to embrace Islam. No man can lead another in salat in a place where the latter has authority, or sit in his place of honour in his house without his permission.”(1)

There is need to quickly highlight a point here. Where someone is the ruler or administrator of a place, as long as he is a Muslim, none can lead him in salat in it. He is the automatic Imam, even if he is not the best of them in Qur’anic recitation, or in knowledge of the Sunnah. His political authority overrides all the other set conditions. However, where none in the mosque is the ruler of its area, then the various criteria are examined in the specified order.

p: 43

Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) confirms:

وفی روایه مسلم لا یؤمن الرجل الرجل فی سلطانه ... ولذا کان ابن عمر یصلی خلف الحجاج وصح عن ابن عمر أن إمام المسجد مقدم علی غیر السلطان

In the report of (Imam) Muslim, it is stated “No man can lead another in salat in a place where the latter has authority.”... This was why Ibn ‘Umar used to offer salat behind al-Hajjaj. It is also authentically narrated that Ibn ‘Umar stated that the Imam of the mosque leads (only) the non-ruler.(1)

These facts reveal that leadership in salat is no indicator of superiority before Allah at all. Ibn ‘Umar was superior – in the eyes of Sunni Islam – over al-Hajjaj in all ways and by all means. So, even a drunken Sunni governor can validly be the Imam for a saint of Allah. The other criteria in the hadith are of the same effect as well. The best reciter in the Ummah, who is the most qualified to lead the salat after the ruler or governor, may – just like the executive leader - not necessarily be the best of the Muslims, or their most knowledgeable. Something we wonder about though is – how many of the Sunni kings, sultans, emirs, presidents and sheikhs today lead salat in their grand mosques?

Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) also documents:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا محمد بن جعفر ثنا شعبه عن إسماعیل بن رجاء قال سمعت أوس بن ضمعج یقول سمعت أبا مسعود یقول قال لنا رسول الله

p: 44

صلی الله علیه و سلم یؤم القوم أقرؤهم لکتاب الله تعالی وإقدمهم قراءه فان کانت قراءتهم سواء فلیؤمهم أقدمهم هجره فان کانوا فی الهجره سواء فلیؤمهم أکبرهم سنا ولا یؤمن الرجل فی أهله ولا فی سلطانه ولا یجلس علی تکرمته فی بیته الا ان یأذن له أو بإذنه

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father – Muhammad b. Ja’far – Shu’bah – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said to us: “The people should be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah the Most High among them. But, if their recitations are equal, then the earliest of them in hijrah should lead them in salat. If they are equal in the hijrah, then the oldest of them should lead them in salat. No man can be led in salat among his family members or in a place where he has authority, or none can sit in his place of honour in his house without his permission.”(1)

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

إسناده صحیح علی شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim(2)

It is undisputed that Abu Bakr was not the ruler over the Messenger of Allah at any point in time. Therefore, he was automatically and absolutely disqualified from ever leading his Prophet in salat. Besides, was Abu Bakr a better reciter of the Qur’an than the Messenger of Allah? Was he more knowledgeable of the Sunnah than the Prophet? Did Abu Bakr do the hijrah

p: 45

before him? Was he older than his Messenger? Did he accept Islam before his Prophet? We ask – on what basis exactly was Abu Bakr ever qualified lead the Master and Best of all creation in salat? Apparently, there is none, and there can never be any! As such, all the Sunni riwayat about how he supposedly was the Imam of the Messenger are only Sunni exaggerations and hallucinations!

Interestingly, Abu Bakr was equally unqualified to lead even the other Sahabah! In order to be qualified, he had to be their best reciter. But, was he? Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) records the answer of ‘Umar:

حدثنا عمرو بن علی حدثنا یحیی حدثنا سفیان عن حبیب عن سعید بن جبیر عن ابن عباس قال قال عمر رضی الله عنه: أقرؤنا أبی وأقضانا علی

‘Amr b. ‘Ali – Yahya – Sufyan – Habib – Sa’id b. Jubayr – Ibn ‘Abbas:

‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The best reciter among us is Ubayy, and the best judge among us is ‘Ali.”(1)

‘Allamah al-Albani has equally copied the Prophetic confirmation of this:

عن أنس بن مالک، أن رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم قال :أرحم أمتی بأمتی أبو بکر وأشدهم فی دین الله عمر وأصدقهم حیاء عثمان وأقضاهم علی بن أبی طالب. وأقرؤهم لکتاب الله أبی بن کعب.

Narrated Anas b. Malik:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “The most merciful of my Ummah to my Ummah is Abu Bakr. The most severe of them in the religion of Allah is ‘Umar. The most shy

p: 46

of them is ‘Uthman. And the best judge among them is ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. And the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them is Ubayy b. Ka’b.”(1)

صحیح

Sahih.(2)

So, it was not Abu Bakr?! Therefore, it was Ubayy who was qualified for the leadership of the salat and NOT Abu Bakr! With the presence of Ubayy among the Sahabah, Abu Bakr – the first Sunni khalifah – was thereby disqualified from leading either the Prophet or his followers in salat in the grand mosque of Madinah. With this, all the reports about Abu Bakr’s leadership of the salat drown in the Sunni ocean of fabrications. The Messenger of Allah would never place the wrong rod in the right hole – neither by nepotism nor by mistake. The Sunnah is that the best reciter should lead in salat – unless where the ruler is present. Abu Bakr was neither the best reciter nor the ruler. Those facts alone terminate the entire story.

(piety) and knowledge – or one of their worst. Leadership in salat has nothing to do with righteousness or spiritual superiority. A lot of Sunni ahadith testify to this. We have discussed some of them in the last chapter. Let us briefly quote a few more before proceeding. Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا یحیی بن سعید ثنا هشام قال ثنا قتاده عن یونس بن جبیر عن حطان بن عبد الله الرقاشی ان الأشعری صلی بأصحابه صلاه... فقال الأشعری ...ان نبی الله صلی الله علیه و سلم خطبنا فعلمنا سنتنا وبین لنا صلاتنا فقال أقیموا صفوفکم ثم لیؤمکم أقرؤکم

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Yahya b. Sa’id – Hisham – Qatadah – Yunus b. Jubayr – Hittan b. ‘Abd Allah al-Raqashi:

Al-Ash’ari led his companions in a salat ... So, al-‘Ashari said, “... Verily, the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, gave us a sermon and taught us our Sunnah, and explained to us our salat. So, he said, ‘Establish your congregational rows. Then, the best reciter among you should be your Imam.’”(1)

Shaykh al-Arnaut says:

إسناده صحیح علی شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.(2)

Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) also documents:

حدثنا قتیبه بن سعید حدثنا أبو عوانه عن قتاده عن أبی نضره عن أبی سعید الخدری قال قال رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم إذا کانوا ثلاثه فلیؤمهم أحدهم وأحقهم بالإمامه أقرؤهم

Qutaybah b. Sa’id – Abu ‘Awanah – Qatadah – Abu Naḍrah – Abu Sa’id al-Khudri:

The

p: 48

Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “Whenever there are three persons, one of them should be their Imam. The most entitled to be the Imam among them is the best reciter among them.(1)

Imam Ahmad again records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا عبد الرزاق أنا بن جریج قال لی عبد الملک ان أنس بن مالک قال عن النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم قال یؤم القوم أقرؤهم للقرآن

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Abd al-Malik – Anas b. Malik:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Qur’an among them.”(2)

Al-Arnaut submits:

صحیح لغیره

It is sahih li ghayrihi(3)

The Sahabah too put this into practice. Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) documents such an instance:

حدثنا إبراهیم بن المنذر قال حدثنا أنس بن عیاض عن عبید الله عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال : لما قدم المهاجرون الأولون العصبه موضع بقباء قبل مقدم رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم کان یؤمهم سالم مولی أبی حذیفه وکان أکثرهم قرآنا

Ibrahim b. al-Mundhir – Anas b. ‘Iyaḍ – ‘Ubayd Allah – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

When the earliest Muhajirun came to al-‘Usbah, a place in Quba, before the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, used to lead them in salat, and he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them.(4)

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) comments about this hadith:

قوله) وکان أکثر هم قرآنا (إشاره

p: 49

إلی سبب تقدیمهم له مع کونهم أشرف منه وفی روایه للطبرانی لأنه کان أکثرهم قرآنا

His statement (and he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them) is an indicator towards their reason for making him their leader (in salat) despite that they were of more noble statuses than him. In the report of al-Tabarani, it is narrated: “because he was the most knowledgeable of them of the Qur’an)(1)

The explanation is confirmed by this riwayah of Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 H):

حدثنا ابن نمیر عن عبید الله عن نافع عن ابن عمر أن المهاجرین حین أقبلوا من مکه نزلوا إلی جنب قباء فأمهم سالم مولی أبی حذیفه لأنه کان أکثرهم قرآنا فیهم أبو سلمه بن عبد الأسد وعمر بن الخطاب.

Ibn Numayr – ‘Ubayd Allah – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

When the Muhajirun fled Makkah, they camped near Quba and Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, led them in salat because he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them. Among them were Abu Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Asad and ‘Umar b. al-Khattab.(2)

Grading another hadith with this same exact chain, ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) declares:

وهذا إسناد صحیح علی شرط الشیخین

This chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs.(3)

Al-Bukhari further records:

حدثنا عثمان بن صالح حدثنا عبد الله بن وهب أخبرنی ابن جریج أن نافعا أخبره أن ابن عمر رضی الله عنهما أخبره قال کان سالم مولی أبی حذیفه یؤم المهاجرین الأولین وأصحاب النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم فی مسجد قباء فیهم أبو بکر وعمر وأبو سلمه وزید

p: 50

وعامر بن ربیعه

‘Uthman b. Salih – ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb – Ibn Jurayj – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him:

Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, used to lead the earliest Muhajirun and the Sahabah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in Salat in the mosque of Quba. Among them were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Abu Salamah, and Amir b. Rabi’ah.(1)

So, the most senior Muhajirun – including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar – unanimously appointed Salim, a freed slave, as their Imam in salat pending the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, because he was more knowledgeable of the Qur’an than all of them. This, obviously, was in line with the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Salim was a freed slave. But, the ‘ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah actually allow leadership in salat by even serving slaves and bastards too, as long as they are the best in Qur’anic recitation, as al-Hafiz declares:

وإلی صحه إمامه العبد ذهب الجمهور وخالف مالک ... وإلی صحه إمامه ولد الزنا ذهب الجمهور

The majority (of the scholars) accepted the correctness of leadership in salat by a slave. But, (Imam) Malik objected.... Also, the majority accepted the correctness of leadership in salat by a bastard.(2)

The supreme Salafi fiqh council in Saudi Arabia and across the world, al-Lajnah al-Daimah, also states:

تصح إمامه العبد وولد الزنا فی الصلاه، إذا کان کل منهما أهلا لذلک، من جهه الدین؛ لعموم قوله :یؤم القوم أقرؤهم لکتاب الله " ولا نعلم دلیلا یمنع ذلک.

The leadership of the slave

p: 51

or the bastard in salat is correct, as long as each of them is qualified for it, from the religious aspect, due to the generality of his (i.e. the Prophet’s) statement, “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them.” We do not know any proof forbidding that.(1)

Even a small child can lead his grandfathers in salat, according to the same council:

تصح إمامه الصبی الذی یعقل الصلاه؛ لقول النبی) ص" (یؤم القوم أقرؤهم لکتاب الله "

The leadership of salat by a small child, who understands salat, is correct, due to the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them.”(2)

As such, if the Messenger of Allah ever truly designated Abu Bakr as Imam in salat during the former’s fatal illness – and he never did – then it would have been only because he considered him as having the best recitation among the Sahabah – nothing more, nothing less. Most importantly, even if Abu Bakr had been a bastard – and he was NOT – he would still have been appointed Imam in salat over the Sahabah by the Prophet at that point in time, according to Sunni Islam, as long as he had the best Qur’anic recitation among them. The problem however is that Abu Bakr was never the overall best reciter among his colleagues.

So, he was unqualified, and therefore

p: 52

could never have been appointed as Imam during the period of the illness. Still, even if he had been qualified and had been designated, it would have indicated absolutely nothing of spiritual status or choice for the khilafah after the Messenger.

However, the ‘ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah go to desperate lengths in exaggerating about the event – which, in the first place, is narrated only in severely contradictory reports. For instance, Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) claims about the alleged leadership of the Sahabah in salat by Abu Bakr:

فیه فوائد منها فضیله أبی بکر الصدیق رضی الله عنه وترجیحه علی جمیع الصحابه رضوان الله علیهم أجمعین وتفضیله وتنبیه علی أنه أحق بخلافه رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم من غیره ومنها أن الإمام إذا عرض له عذر عن حضور الجماعه استخلف من یصلی بهم وأنه لا یستخلف إلا أفضلهم

There are benefits from it. Among them is the excellence of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, and his preference over all the Sahabah, riḍwanullah ‘alaihim ajma’in, and his overall superiority and his notice that he (Abu Bakr) was more entitled to the khilafah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, than anyone else. Among them (i.e. the benefits) is that the Imam, if he has an excuse for not attending the congregational prayer, he should deputize someone to lead them in salat, and that he cannot deputize except the best of them.(1)

For Allah’s sake, where exactly did he get all that? We are certain that this

p: 53

same Nawawi and his followers would object to these words about Salim – the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, concerning his leadership over Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the other Sahabah in salat:

There are benefits from it. Among them is the excellence of Salim, may Allah be pleased with him, and his preference over all the Sahabah, riḍwanullah ‘alaihim ajma’in, and his overall superiority and a notice that he (Salim) was more entitled to the khilafah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, than anyone else.

It is amusing how almost everything about Abu Bakr – whether true or not – is easily interpreted by the Ahl al-Sunnah as “evidence” of his “excellence”, “superiority” and “khilafah”. Sometimes, the ridiculousness of such submissions gets to extreme lengths, as in this case of his alleged leadership in salat. For instance, they claim that Abu Bakr’s leadership in salat over the Sahabah was evidence of his overall superiority above them. Of course, such a conclusion actually contradicts the authentic Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. Nonetheless, did Abu Bakr not lead the Prophet in salat according to Sunnis? So, did the Messenger consider himself to have lost his overall superiority over Abu Bakr? Moreover, Abu Bakr allegedly offered the leadership of the salat to ‘Umar. Was he then admitting thereby the superiority of ‘Umar over himself?

which creates a new major crisis for the official Sunni narrative. Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) records:

حدثنا خالد بن مخلد حدثنا سلیمان قال حدثنی عبد الله بن دینار عن عبد الله بن عمر رضی الله عنهما قال : بعث النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم بعثا وأمر علیهم أسامه بن زید فطعن بعض الناس فی إمارته فقال النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم إن تطعنوا فی إمارته فقد کنتم تطعنون فی إماره أبیه من قبل وایم الله إن کان لخلیقا للإماره وإن وکان لمن أحب الناس إلی وإن هذا لمن أحب الناس إلی بعده

Khalid b. Makhlad – Sulayman – ‘Abd Allah b. Dinar – ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, sent troops and appointed Usamah b. Zayd as their amir (commander). But, some people criticized his appointment as amir. Then, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “If you criticize his appointment as amir, you used to criticize the appointment of his father as amir before. I swear by Allah, he (Usamah’s father) deserved the appointment as amir indeed, and he used to be one of the most beloved persons to me, and now this (Usamah) is certainly one of the most beloved persons to me after him.”(1)

Dr. al-Bagha has some comments on this narration:

)فطعن (قدح وتکلم فیها) .بعض الناس (وکان أشدهم فی هذا عیاش ابن أبی ربیعه المخزومی رضی الله عنه .

(criticized) disparaged and condemned. (Some people) the most severe of them in this was ‘Ayyash b. Abi Rabi’ah al-Makhzumi,

p: 55

may Allah be pleased with him.(1)

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) also has these words on the hadith:

قوله) باب بعث النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم أسامه بن زید فی مرضه الذی توفی فیه( إنما أخر المصنف هذه الترجمه لما جاء أنه کان تجهیز أسامه یوم السبت قبل موت النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم بیومین

His statement (Chapter on the Appointment of Usamah b. Zayd by the Prophet, peace be upon him, during his Fatal Illness): The author (i.e. al-Bukhari) has only given this biography a late timing due to what is narrated that the mobilization of Usamah (for war) was on Saturday, two days before the death of the Prophet.(2)

This was well into the period when Abu Bakr was supposed to be leading the salat! What is going on here? Well, al-Hafiz has some more information:

وکان ممن انتدب مع أسامه کبار المهاجرین والأنصار منهم أبو بکر وعمر وأبو عبیده وسعد وسعید وقتاده بن النعمان وسلمه بن أسلم فتکلم فی ذلک قوم منهم عیاش بن أبی ربیعه المخزومی فرد علیه عمر

Among those conscripted with Usamah were senior Muhajirun and Ansar, among them Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Abu ‘Ubaydah, Sa’d, Sa’id, Qatadah b. al-Nu’man, and Salamah b. Aslam. So, a group criticized that, among them ‘Ayyash b. Abi Rabi’ah al-Makhzumi, and ‘Umar opposed him.(3)

So, the Messenger of Allah deployed Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as ordinary foot soldiers under the command of Usamah, just two days before his death. This is huge indeed.

Elsewhere, al-Hafiz submits further:

قال بن سعد ولد أسامه فی الاسلام ومات النبی صلی الله علیه

p: 56

وسلم وله عشرون سنه وقال بن أبی خیثمه ثمانی عشره وکان أمره علی جیش عظیم

Ibn Sa’d said: “Usamah was born during the Islamic era, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, died while he (Usamah) was twenty years old.” Ibn Abi Khaythamah said, “He was eighteen years old”. He (the Prophet) made him the amir (commander) of a huge army.(1)

Usamah was old enough only to be a grandson of Abu Bakr. He was barely a teenager. Yet, the Messenger of Allah, in his divinely-inspired wisdom, made him the amir over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Besides that, Usamah was amir just a few days before the Prophet’s death, during the most serious phase of his fatal illness when he was no longer able to appear in the mosque. The direct implications of this are clear:

1. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were under the command of Usamah. Therefore, they both were supposed to be at the army camp, and Usamah was their appointed Imam in salat as long as their deployment lasted.

2. The Messenger never intended either Abu Bakr or ‘Umar to be his khalifah. Otherwise, he would not have sent them away from Madinah during what obviously were his very last days on the earth.

3. The story of Abu Bakr’s leadership of salat in the Prophet’s mosque is false. If Abu Bakr was in Madinah, it was only because he had mutinied from the Islamic army. Mutineers are never rewarded with any form of leadership in Islam.

Understandably, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728

p: 57

H) was very disturbed:

قال الرافضی التاسع أن رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم قال جهزوا جیش أسامه وکرر الأمر بتنفیذه وکان فیهم أبو بکر وعمر وعثمان ولم ینفذ أمیر المؤمنین لأنه أراد منعهم من التوثب علی الخلافه بعده فلم یقبلوا منه

والجواب من وجوه أحدها المطالبه بصحه النقل فإن هذ لا یروی بإسناد معروف ولا صححه أحد من علماء النقل ومعلوم أن الاحتجاج بالمنقولات لا یسوغ إلا بعد قیام الحجه بثبوتها وإلا فیمکن أن یقول کل أحد ما شاء

الثانی أن هذا کذب بإجماع علماء النقل فلم یکن فی جیش أسامه لا أبو بکر ولا عثمان وإنما قد قیل إنه کان فیه عمر وقد تواتر عن النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم أنه استخلف أبا بکر علی الصلاه حتی مات وصلی أبو بکر رضی الله عنه الصبح یوم موته وقد کشف سجف الحجره فرآهم صفوفا خلف أبی بکر فسر بذلک فکیف یکون مع هذا قد أمره أن یخرج فی جیش أسامه

The Rafiḍi said: “The ninth (point) is that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “Mobilize the army of Usamah” and repeatedly gave the order for its dispatch. And among them (i.e. the soldiers under Usamah) were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman. But, he did not conscript Amir al-Muminin, because he (the Prophet) intended to prevent them (i.e. those in the army) from jumping over the khilafah after him. But, they did not accept it from him”.

The answer is from a number of angles. One of them is request for evidence of the authenticity of the report. This is

p: 58

because this (claim) is not narrated with any known chain, and none of the scholars of narrations ever declared it authentic. It is, of course, known that the use of reports as evidence is not permissible except after providing proof of their authenticity. Otherwise, everyone would say whatever he likes.

The second (answer) is that this (report) is a lie by the consensus of the scholars of narrations. Therefore, neither Abu Bakr nor ‘Uthman was in the army of Usamah. It is only said that ‘Umar was in it. Meanwhile, it has been narrated in mutawatir reports from the Prophet, peace be upon him, that he deputized Abu Bakr to lead the salat until he (the Prophet) died. Moreover, Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, performed the Subh (early morning) prayer of the day of his (i.e. the Prophet’s) death. He (the Prophet) had drawn the curtain of the room, and saw them in congregational rows behind Abu Bakr, and he was pleased with that. So, with this, how could he (i.e. the Prophet) have ordered him (i.e. Abu Bakr) to go out with the army of Usamah?(1)

Here, our Shaykh has muddled things up. First and foremost, according to the “sahih” hadith of ‘Aishah, the Messenger – during his lifetime - literally took over the salat from Abu Bakr, thereby effectively terminating the latter’s alleged appointment (assuming it ever existed). It was the Zuhr prayer of that Monday, and that was the last recorded salat of the Prophet.

p: 59

As such, Abu Bakr’s prayer leadership – even if it had been true – was cut off before the Messenger’s death.

Besides, Ibn Taymiyyah submitted that the reports about Abu Bakr’s conscription into Usamah’s army had no known chains. How true was this claim? Our Shaykh further stated that all the Sunni scholars of narrations, without a single exception, from the time of the Prophet up to his own lifetime, had explicitly declared those same narrations as “a lie”. So, we should be able to easily harvest from hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of ancient Sunni books tons of statements to that effect.

The truth, however, is the opposite. Malik b. Anas (d. 179 H), Ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181 H), al-Shafi’i (d. 204 H), al-Tayalisi (d. 204 H), ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani (d. 211 H), al-Humaydi (d. 219 H), Ibn Ja’d (d. 230 H), Ibn Sa’d (d. 230 H), Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 H), Ibn Rahwayh (d. 238 H), Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241 H), al-Darimi (d. 255 H), al-Bukhari (d. 256 H), Muslim (d. 261 H), Ibn Majah (d. 273 H), Abu Dawud (d. 275 H), Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 H), al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H), Ibn Abi ‘Asim (d. 287 H), al-Bazzar (d. 292 H), al-Nasai (d. 303 H), Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 H), al-‘Aqili (d. 322 H), Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327 H), Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H), al-Tabarani (d. 360 H), al-Daraqutni (d. 385 H), Ibn Shahin (d. 385 H), al-Hakim (d. 403 H), al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 H), al-Baghdadi

p: 60

(d. 463 H), Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 H), al-Khawarazmi (d. 568 H), Ibn Asakir (571 H), and al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) did NOT declare riwayat about Abu Bakr’s conscription into Usamah’s army as “a lie” in any of their books! In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah – from all indications – was the first ever human being to describe them as “a lie”.

Further exposing the “lie” of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is this report by Imam Ibn Asakir:

أخبرنا أبو بکر وجیه بن طاهر أنا أبو حامد الأزهری أنا أبو محمد المخلدی أنا المؤمل بن الحسن نا أحمد بن منصور نا أبو النضر هاشم بن القاسم نا عاصم بن محمد عن عبید الله بن عمر عن نافع عن ابن عمر أن رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم استعمل أسامه بن زید علی جیش فیهم أبو بکر وعمر فطعن الناس فی عمله فخطب النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم الناس ثم قال قد بلغنی أنکم قد طعنتم فی عمل أسامه وفی عمل أبیه قبله وإن أباه لخلیق للإماره وإنه لخلیق للأمره یعنی أسامه وإنه لمن أحب الناس إلی فأوصیکم به

Abu Bakr Wajih b. Tahir – Abu Hamid al-Azhari – Abu Muhammad al-Makhladi – al-Muammal b. al-Hasan – Ahmad b. Mansur – Abu al-Naḍr Hashim b. al-Qasim – ‘Asim b. Muhammad – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Umar – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, appointed Usamah b. Zayd as the commander over an army WHICH INCLUDED ABU BAKR AND ‘UMAR. But, the people criticized his appointment. So, the Prophet, peace be upon

p: 61

him, addressed the people, and then said: “News has reached me that you have criticized the appointment of Usamah and the appointment of his father before him. His father deserved the appointment as amir, and he too deserves the appointment as amir, that is Usamah. He is also one of the most beloved people to me. Therefore, I advise you concerning him.(1)

We know that – contrary to the wild claim of Ibn Taymiyyah – the narration actually has a known chain of transmission! So, what is its authenticity? Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) states about the first narrator:

وجیه بن طاهر ابن محمد بن محمد بن أحمد، الشیخ العالم العدل، مسند خراسان، أبو بکر، أخو زاهر الشحامی النیسابوری

Wajih b. Tahir b. Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Ahmad, the Shaykh, the scholar, the trustworthy, the top scholar of Khurasan, Abu Bakr, brother of Zahir, al-Shahami, al-Naysaburi.(2)

Concerning the second narrator, al-Dhahabi similarly declares:

الأزهری :العدل، المسند، الصدوق، أبو حامد، أحمد بن الحسن بن محمد ابن الحسن بن أزهر الأزهری، النیسابوری، الشروطی، من أولاد المحدثین.

Al-Azhari: the trustworthy, the top scholar, the highly truthful, Abu Hamid, Ahmad b. al-Hasan b. Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. Azhar al-Azhari, al-Naysaburi, al-Shuruti, from the descendants of hadith scholars.(3)

So, what about the third narrator? Al-Dhahabi has this verdict about him too:

المخلدی :الإمام الصادق المسند، أبو محمد، الحسن بن أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن بن علی بن مخلد بن شیبان المخلدی النیسابوری العدل

Al-Makhladi: The truthful Imam, the top scholar, Abu Muhammad, al-Hasan b. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. ‘Ali b. Mukhlid b.

p: 62

Shayban al-Mukhlidi al-Naysaburi, the trustworthy.(1)

Then, we proceed to the fourth narrator, and the words of al-Dhahabi concerning him:

المؤمل بن الحسن ابن عیسی بن ماسرجس المولی، الرئیس الامام المحدث المتقن، صدر خراسان، أبو الوفاء الماسرجسی النیسابوری.

Al-Muammal b. al-Hasan b. ‘Isa b. Masarjisa the freed slave, the leader, the Imam, the hadith scientist, the extremely precise narrator, the foremost in Khurasan, Abu al-Wafa al-Masarjisi al-Naysaburi.(2)

The fifth narrator is like that too, as stated by al-Hafiz:

أحمد بن منصور بن سیار البغدادی الرمادی أبو بکر ثقه حافظ طعن فیه أبو داود لمذهبه فی الوقف فی القرآن

Ahmad b. Mansur b. Sayyar al-Baghdadi al-Ramadi, Abu Bakr: Thiqah (trustworthy), a hadith scientist. Abu Dawud criticized him due to his opinion of neutrality concerning (the creation of) the Qur’an.(3)

Imam al-Dhahabi confirms:

الرمادی :الامام الحافظ الضابط، أبو بکر، أحمد بن منصور بن سیار بن معارک، الرمادی البغدادی.

Al-Ramadi: the Imam, the hadith scientist, the accurate narrator, Abu Bakr, Ahmad b. Mansur b. Sayyar b. Mu’arik, al-Ramadi al-Baghdadi.(4)

Al-Hafiz has these words on the sixth narrator as well:

هاشم بن القاسم بن مسلم اللیثی مولاهم البغدادی أبو النضر مشهور بکنیته ولقبه قیصر ثقه ثبت

Hashim b. al-Qasim b. Muslim al-Laythi, their freed slave, al-Baghdadi, Abu al-Naḍr, well-known with his kunya and nickname Qaysar: Thiqah (trustworthy), thabt (accurate).(5)

About the seventh narrator, al-Hafiz proceeds:

عاصم بن محمد بن زید بن عبد الله بن عمر بن الخطاب العمری المدنی ثقه

‘Asim b. Muhammad b. Zayd b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar b. al-Khattab al-‘Umari al-Madani: Thiqah (trustworthy).(6)

He equally states concerning the eighth narrator:

عبید الله بن عمر بن حفص بن عاصم بن

p: 63

عمر بن الخطاب العمری المدنی أبو عثمان ثقه ثبت

‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Umar b. Hafs b. ‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. al-Khattab al-‘Umari al-Madani, Abu ‘Uthman: Thiqah (trustworthy), thabt (accurate).(1)

And, with regards to the last narrator, he declares:

نافع أبو عبد الله المدنی مولی ابن عمر ثقه ثبت فقیه مشهور

Nafi’, Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Madani, freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar: Thiqah (trustworthy), thabt (accurate), a well-known jurist.(2)

So, the chain is fully connected and all the narrators are trusted people. Therefore, it is sahih, or at least hasan.

Furthermore, there is a mutaba’ah for Asim b. Muhammad, documented by Imam al-Bazzar:

حدثنا محمد بن حسان الأزرق، حدثنا أبو النضر، حدثنا عاصم بن عمر، عن عبید الله بن عمر، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر أَن النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم استعمل أسامه بن زید علی جیش فیهم أبو بکر وعمر فطعن الناس فی عمله ، فخطب النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم فقال قد بلغنی أنکم طعنتم فی عمل أسامه وفی عمل أبیه من قبله، وإن أباه کان خلیقا للإماره وإنه لخلیق للإماره یعنی أسامه وإنه لمن أحب الناس إلی وإنی أوصیکم به أحسبه قال خیرا.

Muhammad b. Hassan al-Azraq – Abu al-Naḍr – ‘Asim b. ‘Umar – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Umar – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, appointed Usamah b. Zayd as commander over an army which included Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So, people criticized his appointment. As a result, the Prophet, peace be upon him, delivered a sermon and said, “News has reached me that you criticized the appointment of Usamah and the appointment

p: 64

of his father before him. Verily, his father deserved the appointment as amir, and he too deserves the appointment as amir, that is Usamah. He is also one of the most beloved of mankind to me. I advise you to think good of him.”(1)

Al-Bazzar comments:

وهذا الحدیث لا نعلم رواه عن عبید الله بن بن عمر إلا عاصم بن عمر، وإنما یعرف من حدیث موسی بن عقبه ، عن سالم، عن أَبِیه.

We do not know anyone who has narrated this hadith from ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Umar except ‘Asim b. ‘Umar, and it is only known through the hadith of Musa b. ‘Uqbah, from Salim, from his father.(2)

The mistake of al-Bazzar is apparent. ‘Asim b. Muhammad also narrated it from ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Umar, apart from Asim b. ‘Umar. Obviously, al-Bazzar did not have sufficient information concerning the transmission of this hadith. In fact, his mistake becomes clearer when we consider his statement that the narration is known only through the hadith of Musa b. ‘Uqbah. If, by the hadith of this Musa, he meant the narration on Usamah’s army without the explicit mention of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (and this is most likely al-Bazzar’s position), then certainly he was in error, as ‘Abd Allah b. Dinar also related that. In any case, the misjudgements of scholars are never accepted as proofs in academic researches.

In the chain of ‘Asim b. ‘Umar above, we already know that Abu al-Naḍr, ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Umar and Nafi’ were thiqah (trustworthy). So, we are left with

p: 65

only Muhammad b. Hassan al-Azraq and ‘Asim b. ‘Umar to investigate. Well, al-Azraq too is thiqah (trustworthy) according to al-Hafiz:

محمد بن حسان بن فیروز الشیبانی الأزرق أبو جعفر البغدادی التاجر أصله من واسط ثقه

Muhammad b. Hassan b. Fayruz al-Shaybani al-Azraq, Abu Ja’far al-Baghdadi al-Tajir, his root was from Wasit: Thiqah (trustworthy).(1)

However, as confirmed by al-Hafiz, ‘Asim b. ‘Umar was weak:

عاصم بن عمر بن حفص بن عاصم بن عمر بن الخطاب العمری أبو عمر المدنی ضعیف من السابعه وهو أخو عبید الله العمری.

‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. Hafs b. ‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. al-Khattab al-‘Umari, Abu ‘Umar al-Madani: Ḍa’if (weak). He was from the seventh (tabaqah), and he was the brother of ‘Ubayd Allah al-‘Umari.(2)

Yet, the chain of al-Bazzar is sahih li ghayrihi due to the corroboration of ‘Asim b. ‘Umar by ‘Asim b. Muhammad, from ‘Ubayd Allah in the riwayah of Ibn Asakir.

Finally, Imam Ibn Sa’d has a third report:

حدثنا عبد الوهاب بن عطاء العجلی قال أخبرنا العمری عن نافع عن بن عمر أن النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم بعث سریه فیهم أبو بکر وعمر استعمل علیهم أسامه بن زید فکان الناس طعنوا فیه أی فی صغره فبلغ ذلک رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم فصعد المنبر فحمد الله وأثنی علیه وقال إن الناس قد طعنوا فی إماره أسامه وقد کانوا طعنوا فی إماره أبیه من قبله وإنهما لخلیقان لها وإنه لمن أحب الناس إلی آلا فأوصیکم بأسامه خیرا

‘Abd al-Wahhab b. ‘Ata al-‘Ijli – al-‘Umari – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, deployed an army. Among them were

p: 66

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. He appointed Usamah b. Zayd over them as their commander. So, people criticized it, that was his young age. News of that reached the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Therefore, he climbed the pulpit, thanked Allah and extolled Him, and said, “People have criticized the appointment of Usamah as amir. They had earlier criticized the appointment of his father as amir before him. Yet, both of them (i.e. Usamah and his father) deserve it (i.e. the commandership), and he (Usamah) is one of the most beloved of mankind to me. Verily, I advise you to be good to Usamah.(1)

We know about Nafi’ already. So, we only have to investigate the first and second narrators. Al-Hafiz says about the first narrator:

عبد الوهاب بن عطاء الخفاف أبو نصر العجلی مولاهم البصری نزیل بغداد صدوق ربما أخطأ أنکروا علیه حدیثا فی العباس یقال دلسه عن ثور

‘Abd al-Wahhab b. ‘Ata al-Khaffaf, Abu Nasr al-‘Ijli, their freed slave, al-Basri, a resident of Baghdad: Saduq (very truthful), maybe he made mistakes. They denied a hadith from him about al-‘Abbas. It is said that he narrated it in an ‘an-‘an manner from Thawr.(2)

The second narrator is al-‘Umari. His name is ‘Abd Allah. Al-Hafiz declares concerning him:

عبد الله بن عمر بن حفص بن عاصم بن عمر بن الخطاب أبو عبد الرحمن العمری المدنی ضعیف عابد

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar b. Hafs b. ‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. al-Khattab, Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-‘Umari al-Madani: Ḍa’if (weak), a great worshipper of Allah.(3)

However, this defect in the

p: 67

chain of Ibn Sa’d is removed by the corroboration of ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar by ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Umar. Both have transmitted the same report from the same Nafi’. As such, the sanad of Ibn Sa’d is hasan li ghayrih due to al-Khaffaf.

So, there is a sahih li dhatihi (i.e. independently sahih) or hasan li dhatihi (i.e. independently hasan) chain for the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar which places Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in the army of Usamah. There is another, which is sahih li ghayrihi (i.e. sahih by corroboration), ad there is a third that is hasan li ghayrihi (i.e. hasan by corroboration). Each of these chains sufficiently establishes the fact that both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were conscripts under Usamah’s command. Of course, the army of Usamah was mobilized on Saturday, two days before the final breath of the Messenger of Allah.

Among the Sunni scholars of narrations, one of their earliest to affirm this fact was ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr. Imam Ibn Hibban says concerning him:

عروه بن الزبیر بن العوام القرشی أخو عبد الله بن الزبیر أمهما أسماء بنت أبی بکر الصدیق من فقهاء المدینه وأفاضل التابعین وعباد قریش

‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwam al-Qurshi, the brother of ‘Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr. Their mother was Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq. He was one of the jurists of Madinah, and one of the best of the Tabi’in, and one of the devout worshippers from Quraysh.(1)

Al-Hafiz, who grades him “thiqah” (trustworthy)(2), further states that he narrated from many of the Sahabah, including his

p: 68

father (al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwam), his mother Asma bint Abi Bakr, Umm al-Muminin ‘Aishah, Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, ‘alaihi al-salam, Zayd b. Thabit, Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn ‘Umar, Usamah b. Zayd, Abu Ayub al-Ansari, Abu Hurayrah, Umm Salamah, and Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ansari(1). Apparently, ‘Urwah was no small fish in Sunni hadith scholarship. So, did he really claim that the report – which states that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were part of Usamah’s army - was “a lie”, as alleged by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah?

Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah records his clear testimony here:

حدثنا عبد الرحیم بن سلیمان عن هشام بن عروه عن أبیه أن رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم کان قطع بعثا قبل موته وأمر علیهم أسامه بن زید، وفی ذلک البعث أبو بکر وعمر

‘Abd al-Rahim b. Sulayman – Hisham b. ‘Urwah – his father (‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr):

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, deployed an army before his death and appointed Usamah b. Zayd as the amir over them. In that army were Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.(2)

The first narrator is thiqah (trustworthy), as stated by al-Hafiz:

عبد الرحیم بن سلیمان الکنانی أو الطائی أبو علی الأشل المروزی نزیل الکوفه ثقه

‘Abd al-Rahim b. Sulayman al-Kanani or al-Tai, Abu ‘Ali al-Ushil al-Maruzi, a resident of Kufah: Thiqah (trustworthy).(3)

Hisham too, the son of ‘Urwah, was like that, according to al-Hafiz:

هشام بن عروه بن الزبیر بن العوام الأسدی ثقه فقیه ربما دلس

Hisham b. ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwam al-Asadi: Thiqah (trustworthy), a jurist, maybe he did tadlis.(4)

So, the chain is sahih up

p: 69

to ‘Urwah. Shaykh Dr. Asad confirms this while treating another riwayah:

حدثنا أبو بکر بن أبی شیبه حدثنا عبد الرحیم بن سلیمان عن هشام بن عروه عن أبیه عن عائشه... إسناده صحیح

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah – ‘Abd al-Rahim b. Sulayman – Hisham b. ‘Urwah – his father – ‘Aishah ... Its chain is sahih.(1)

He actually believed the incident to have been true, and had taught it to his son! So, basically, the following claims of Ibn Taymiyyah are false:

1. The hadith mentioning Abu Bakr in the army of Usamah is false.

2. All the Sunni scholars of narrations, up till his time, had each explicitly declared that hadith to have been “a lie”.

3. The hadith does not have any known chain of narration.

The truth, as we have proved through Allah’s Grace, is below:

1. That hadith has been narrated by one independently sahih or hasan chain.

2. It has also been narrated by one sahih li ghayrihi chain, as well as another which is hasan li ghayrihi.

3. No scholar before Ibn Taymiyyah ever called the hadith “a lie” – not a single one!

4. Instead, ‘Urwah, who was one of the greatest scholars of narrations in Sunni Islam affirmed that both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were really in the army of Usamah!

So, Abu Bakr was conscripted into the army of Usamah during the Prophet’s fatal illness. Moreover, it was only the despatch of the army for war that occurred on Saturday, two days before the Messenger’s death. The army itself had been formed long

p: 70

before then. Al-Hafiz comes in once again:

قوله) باب بعث النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم أسامه بن زید فی مرضه الذی توفی فیه (إنما أخر المصنف هذه الترجمه لما جاء أنه کان تجهیز أسامه یوم السبت قبل موت النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم بیومین وکان ابتداء ذلک قبل مرض النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم فندب الناس لغزو الروم فی آخر صفر ودعا أسامه فقال سر إلی موضع مقتل أبیک فأوطئهم الخیل فقد ولیتک هذا الجیش ... فبدأ برسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم وجعه فی الیوم الثالث فعقد لأسامه لواء بیده فأخذه أسامه فدفعه إلی بریده وعسکر بالجرف وکان ممن انتدب مع أسامه کبار المهاجرین والأنصار منهم أبو بکر وعمر ... ثم أشتد برسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم وجعه فقال أنفذوا بعث أسامه

His statement (Chapter on the Appointment of Usamah b. Zayd by the Prophet, peace be upon him, during his Fatal Illness): The author (i.e. al-Bukhari) has only given this biography a late timing due to what is narrated that the mobilization of Usamah (for war) was on Saturday, two days before the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Meanwhile, the beginning of that was before the illness of the Prophet, peace be upon him. He had delegated people to go to war with Rome at the end of Safar and called Usamah and said, “Go to the place where your father was martyred. Equip them with the horses, for I have appointed you as the wali of this army....”

Then, the illness of the Messenger of Allah

p: 71

began on the third day (of the next month, Rabi’ al-Awwal), and he passed the flag to Usamah, who in turn passed to Buraydah. Solders were (camped) at al-Jurf. Among those conscripted with Usamah were senior Muhajirun and Ansar, among them Abu Bakr, ‘Umar ... Then, the illness of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, became serious, and he said, “Dispatch the army of Usamah.”(1)

The Prophet of Allah died on the 12th of Rabi’ al-Awwal. His formation of the army of Usamah occurred in the end of the preceding month – Safar - before his fatal illness. On the 3rd day of Rabi’ al-Awwal, nine days from his death, he passed the flag of war to Usamah, the commander. His soldiers were already at their military camp at al-Jurf. He included the senior Muhajirun and Ansar in the army, and made Usamah – a teenager – their amir. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were among the soldiers under him. The Messenger’s illness became very serious on Thursday, such that he was unable to lead the ‘Isha prayer of its evening. On the following Saturday – two days before his demise - he gave an order for the dispatch of the army for war.

Both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were soldiers under Usamah in this expedition. So, they were supposed to be with their colleagues at al-Jurf. But, they both jumped camp and stayed in Madinah instead! This, undeniably, was in unmistakable disobedience to the Command of Allah and His Messenger.

p: 72

This made them mutineers. Interestingly, our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah want us to believe that one of these mutineers was then rewarded by the Rasul with leadership of the salat in his mosque?! How is that even logical? Moreover, their only evidence are only a bunch of warring reports, each of them slashing the throat of the other! Besides, Abu Bakr was NOT even qualified to lead either the Messenger or the Sahabah in salat, to begin with! Why then would the Prophet of Allah appoint an unqualified mutineer as salat leader for his obedient, qualified disciples?

الله بن عبد الله بن عتبه بن مسعود عن ابن عباس قال : کنت أقرئ رجالا من المهاجرین منهم عبد الرحمن بن عوف فبینما أنا فی منزله بمنی وهو عند عمر بن الخطاب فی آخر حجه حجها إذ رجع إلی عبد الرحمن فقال لو رأیت رجلا أتی أمیر المؤمنین الیوم فقال یا أمیر المؤمنین هل لک فی فلان ؟ یقول لو قد مات عمر لقد بایعت فلانا فوالله ما کانت بیعه أبی بکر إلا فلته فتمت فغضب عمر ثم قال إنی إن شاء الله لقائم العشیه فی الناس فمحذرهم هؤلاء الذین یریدون أن یغصبوهم أمورهم … فجلس عمر علی المنبر فلما سکت المؤذنون قام فأثنی علی الله بما هو أهله ثم قال أما بعد … إنه بلغنی قائل منکم یقول والله لو قد مات عمر بایعت فلانا فلا یغترن امرؤ أن یقول إنما کانت بیعه أبی بکر فلته وتمت ألا وإنها قد کانت کذلک ولکن الله وقی شرها ولیس فیکم من تقطع الأعناق إلیه مثل أبی بکر من بایع رجلا من غیر مشوره من المسلمین فلا یتابع هو ولا الذی تابعه تغره أن یقتلا وإنه قد کان من خبرنا حین توفی الله نبیه صلی الله علیه و سلم أن الأنصار خالفونا واجتمعوا بأسرهم فی سقیفه بنی ساعده وخالف عنا علی والزبیر ومن معهما واجتمع المهاجرون إلی أبی بکر فقلت لأبی بکر یا أبا بکر انطلق بنا إلی إخواننا هؤلاء من الأنصار فانطلقنا نریدهم فلما دنونا منهم لقینا منهم رجلان صالحان فذکرا ما تمالأ علیه القوم فقالا أین تریدون یا معشر المهاجرین ؟ فقلنا نرید إخواننا هؤلاء من الأنصار فقالا لا

p: 74

علیکم أن لا تقربوهم اقضوا أمرکم فقلت والله لنأتینهم فانطلقنا حتی أتیناهم فی سقیفه بنی ساعده فإذا رجل مزمل بین ظهرانیهم فقلت من هذا ؟ فقالوا هذا سعد بن عباده فقلت ما له ؟ قالوا یوعک فلما جلسنا قلیلا تشهد خطیبهم فأثنی علی الله بما هو أهله ثم قال أما بعد فنحن أنصار الله وکتیبه الإسلام وأنتم معشر المهاجرین رهط وقد دفت دافه من قومکم فإذا هم یریدون أن یختزلونا من أصلنا وأن یحضنونا من الأمر . فلما سکت أردت أن أتکلم وکنت قد زورت مقاله أعجبتنی أردت أن أقدمها بین یدی أبی بکر وکنت أداری منه بعض الحد فلما أردت أن أتکلم قال أبو بکر علی رسلک فکرهت أن أغضبه فتکلم أبو بکر فکان هو أحلم منی وأوقر والله ما ترک من کلمه أعجبتنی فی تزویری إلا قال فی بدیهته مثلها أو أفضل منها حتی سکت فقال ما ذکرتم فیکم من خیر فأنتم له أهل ولن یعرف هذا الأمر إلا لهذا الحی من قریش هم أوسط العرب نسبا ودارا.

‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Abd Allah – Ibrahim b. Sa’d – Salih – Ibn Shihab – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Utbah b. Mas’ud – Ibn ‘Abbas:

I used to teach qirat to some men from the Muhajirun, among them were ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf. So, while I was in his house in Mina, and he was with ‘Umar b. al-Khattab during the last Hajj which he performed, ‘Abd al-Rahman came to me and said, “If only you had seen a man who came to Amir al-Muminin today, saying: ‘O Amir al-Muminin!

p: 75

What do you say about so-and-so? He says, “When ‘Umar dies, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so, for, I swear by Allah, the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was nothing but an error and it succeeded.”’ So, ‘Umar became angry. Then, he said, ‘Insha Allah, I will stand before the people tonight and will warn them against these people who want to usurp their affairs…”.

So, ‘Umar sat on the pulpit, and when the muezzins became silent, he stood up. He praised Allah as He deserved. Then he said:

“Now then … I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, ‘I swear by Allah, when ‘Umar dies, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so.’ One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an error and it succeeded. NO DOUBT, IT WAS SURELY LIKE THAT. However, Allah saved from its EVIL. And there is none amongst you towards whom throats are slit like Abu Bakr. Whosoever pledges allegiance to anyone without consultation with the Muslims, then neither that person nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, is to be supported. Rather, they both should be killed.

And, verily, there was someone who informed us when Allah took the life of His Prophet, peace be upon him, that the Ansar opposed us and gathered, all of them, at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah; and ‘Ali, al-Zubayr and whoever was with them both, also opposed us; and the Muhajirun gathered towards Abu

p: 76

Bakr.

.

So, I said to Abu Bakr, ‘O Abu Bakr! Let us go to these brothers of ours from the Ansar’. As a result, we went, seeking them. When we approached them, two righteous men from them met us, and informed us of the final decision of the people, and both of them said, ‘O group of Muhajirun, where are you going?’ Then, we said, ‘We are going to these brothers of ours from the Ansar.’ They said, ‘You should not go near them. Decide your affair.’ So, I said, ‘I swear by Allah, we will go to them.’ Therefore, we went until we reached them at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah. There was a wrapped man amongst them. Then, I said, ‘Who is that?’ They said, ‘This is Sa’d b. ‘Ubadah.’ Then, I said, ‘What is wrong with him?’ They said, ‘He is sick.’

After we had sat for a little period, their speaker testified. He praised Allah as He deserved. Then, he said, ‘Now then, we are the Ansar (Helpers) of Allah and the battalion of Islam, and you Muhajirun are a small group. Some people from your people have come, seeking to cut us off from our root and to prevent us from authority.’ When he became silent, I intended to talk and I had prepared a speech which I really loved. I intended to deliver it in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, ‘Wait

p: 77

a while’, and I hated to make him angry.

Therefore, Abu Bakr spoke, and he was more patient and more dignified than I was. I swear by Allah, he did not miss a sentence that I really loved from my prepared speech, except that he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously, until he fell silent. So, he said, ‘What you stated about yourself in terms of good things, you truly deserve it. And this authority will never be recognized except for this living person from Quraysh. They are the best of the Arabs in terms of lineage and family.’”(1)

‘Umar, who told his staunchly pro-Abu Bakr version of what happened, nonetheless gives us insights into the state of the Ummah immediately after the death of its Prophet. The Sahabah were divided into three political camps:

(a) the camp of Abu Bakr and his supporters;

(b) the camp of ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, supported by al-Zubayr, and their supporters; and

(c) the camp of the Ansar.

The Ansar held the military advantage, being the overwhelming majority of the Islamic soldiers. The Muhajirun were only a small group, with little or no numerical or military significance. Yet, they were nonetheless divided into the opposing camps of Abu Bakr and ‘Ali. What we get from all this, is that the Ansar – who had numerical and military strength – were united while the Muhajirun – despite their serious numerical and military disadvantages – were divided.

Naturally, whoever controlled the Ansar would hold the real political

p: 78

and military powers. ‘Umar was well aware of this. Therefore, instead of going to the camp of ‘Ali to resolve the political dispute, he took the party of Abu Bakr to the Ansar, to try to win them over. Moreover, looking at the arguments of Abu Bakr against the Ansar, one understands fully why he would never have gone to ‘Ali anyway, even if the latter had had the numerical and military advantages. Abu Bakr argued on the strengths of lineage and family. The tribe of Quraysh were of the best human lineage, and they were the best family. So, the Muslims – especially those in other parts of Arabia – would never recognize the rule of a khalifah from the Ansar. This tactic was clearly to make the Ansar see the futility of their political efforts. They were not from Quraysh, and the generality of the Muslims would never accept the rule of a non-Qurayshi. The strategy worked, and the Ansar backed down, and supported Abu Bakr instead.

As for ‘Ali, he was also from Quraysh. As such, Abu Bakr’s arguments about lineage and family would not have worked in his case. In fact, they would have backfired terribly. Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) documents that the Messenger of Allah had declared the Banu Hashim as the best of Quraysh:

حدثنا محمد بن مهران الرازی ومحمد بن عبدالرحمن بن سهم جمیعا عن الولید قال ابن مهران حدثنا الولید بن مسلم حدثنا الأوزاعی عن أبی عمار شداد أنه سمع واثله بن الأسقع

p: 79

یقول سمعت رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم یقول إن الله اصطفی کنانه من ولد إسماعیل واصطفی قریشا من کنانه واصطفی من قریش بنی هاشم واصطفانی من بنی هاشم

Muhammad b. Mihran al-Razi and Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Sahm – al-Walid b. Muslim – al-Awza’i – Abu ‘Ammar Shaddad – Wathilah b. al-Asqa’:

I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saying: “Verily, Allah chose Kinanah from the children of Isma’il, and chose Quraysh from Kinanah, and He chose Banu Hashim from Quraysh, and He chose me from Banu Hashim”.(1)

Commenting on this hadith, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) states:

وهذا کله بناء علی أن الصلاه والسلام علی آل محمد وأهل بیته تقتضی أن یکونوا أفضل من سائر أهل البیوت وهذا مذهب أهل السنه والجماعه الذین یقولون بنو هاشم أفضل قریش وقریش أفضل العرب والعرب أفضل بنی آدم وهذا هو المنقول عن أئمه السنه کما ذکره حرب الکرمانی عمن لقیهم مثل أحمد وإسحاق وسعید بن منصور وعبد الله بن الزبیر الحمیدی وغیرهم وذهبت طائفه إلی منع التفضیل بذلک کما ذکره القاضی أبو بکر والقاضی أبو یعلی فی المعتمد وغیرهما و الأول اصح فإنه قد ثبت عن النبی صلی الله علیه و سلم فی الصحیح أنه قال لأن الله اصطفی کنانه من ولد إسماعیل واصطفی قریش من کنانه واصطفی هاشما من قریش واصطفانی من بنی هاشم

All of this is based upon the fact that sending salat and salam upon the family of Muhammad and his Ahl al-Bayt establishes absolutely that they are better than all other people. And this is

p: 80

the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, who say that Banu Hashim are the best of Quraysh, and that Quraysh are the best of the Arabs, and that Arabs are the best of the Children of Adam. This is narrated from the Imams of the Sunnah - as Harb al-Kirmani mentioned from those who met them - such as Ahmad, Ishaq, Sa’id b. Mansur, ‘Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr al-Humaydi and others. A group are of the opinion that superiority cannot be established through that, as stated by al-Qaḍi Abu Bakr, and by al-Qaḍi Abu Ya’la in al-Mu’tamad, and others. However, the first opinion is more correct, for it is authentically narrated in the sahih hadith that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “Verily, Allah chose Kinanah from the children of Isma’il, and chose Quraysh from Kinanah, and He chose Hashim from Quraysh, and He chose me from Banu Hashim”(1)

Meanwhile, Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib was from Banu Hashim like the Messenger, while Abu Bakr was not. Therefore, in terms of lineage, ‘Ali was superior to Abu Bakr.

Moreover, Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) further records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا أبو نعیم عن سفیان عن یزید بن أبی زیاد عن عبد الله بن الحرث بن نوفل عن المطلب بن أبی وداعه قال قال العباس بلغه بعض ما یقول الناس قال فصعد المنبر فقال من أنا قالوا أنت رسول الله فقال أنا محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب ان الله خلق الخلق فجعلنی فی خیر خلقه وجعلهم فرقتین

p: 81

فجعلنی فی خیر فرقه وخلق القبائل فجعلنی فی خیر قبیله وجعلهم بیوتا فجعلنی فی خیرهم بیتا فأنا خیرکم بیتا وخیرکم نفسا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Abu Na’im – Sufyan – Yazid b. Abi Ziyad – ‘Abd Allah b. al-Harith b. Nawfal – al-Mutalib b. Abi Wada’ah – al-‘Abbas:

The words of some people reached him. So, he climbed the pulpit and asked, “Who am I?” They answered, “You are the Messenger of Allah.” So, he said, “I am Muhammad, the son of ‘Abd Allah, the son of ‘Abd al-Mutalib. Verily, Allah created the creation and put me among the best of His creation. He made them into two groups, and put me in the best group. He created the tribes and put me in the best tribe. He created homes and put me among those of them with the best home. So, I am of the best home among you, and I am of the best personality among you.”(1)

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

حسن لغیره

It is hasan due to supporting evidence(2).

‘Allamah al-Albani also says concerning the hadith:

صحیح

Sahih(3)

Here, we know that Quraysh – the tribe of Muhammad – is the best of all tribes. Of course, Banu Hashim are the best of the clans of Quraysh. Also, we equally know from the hadith that the house of Muhammad – his family – is the best of all families. ‘Ali belonged to this same house of the Prophet, and Abu Bakr did not. So, ‘Ali beat Abu Bakr completely on

p: 82

lineage and family. No wonder, Abu Bakr made no attempt to go to him. Instead, he rushed to the camp with weaker claims in terms of lineage and family, and defeated them on both accounts.

Interestingly, the fact that the Ansar submitted to Abu Bakr’s arguments about lineage and family shows that the generality of the Sahabah considered both as the primary criteria for the khilafah. Moreover, the fact that they would not recognize the authority of any khalifah from the Ansar - however pious, knowledgeable and competent - reveals that they viewed the khilafah only as a dynasty, the dynasty of the offspring of Quraysh. In order to make this clearer, if the Ahl al-Sunnah were to choose a khalifah today, they would only pick a man from Quraysh even if there are millions of far better candidates within the Ummah from the other tribes and races. This tells that the most very first criterion for leadership in Sunni Islam is the tribe of the ruler; and that is exactly why it is a dynasty.

The Prophet of Allah also limited the khilafah to a specific family within the Quraysh. Therefore, if you are not from that family, you are not a legitimate khalifah. Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 H) reports:

أبو داود عمر بن سعد عن شریک عن الرکین عن القاسم بن حسان عن زید بن ثابت یرفعه قال : إنی ترکت فیکم الخلیفتین کاملتین :کتاب الله وعترتی، وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتی یردا علی الحوض.

Abu Dawud ‘Umar b. Sa’d –

p: 83

Sharik – al-Rukayn – al-Qasim b. Hassan – Zayd b. Thabit – the Prophet:

“I have left behind over you the two all-comprehensive khalifahs: the Book of Allah and my offspring. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.”(1)

The annotators declare:

والحدیث صحیح

The hadith is sahih.(2)

Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (d. 287 H) has recorded it as well:

ثنا أبو بکر، ثنا عمرو بن سعد أبو داود الحفری، عن شریک، عن الرکین عن القاسم بن حسان، عن زید بن ثابت قال قال رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم: إنی تارک فیکم الخلیفتین من بعدی، کتاب الله وعترتی أهل بیتی وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتی یردا علی الحوض.

Abu Bakr – ‘Amr b. Sa’d Abu Dawud al-Hafari – Sharik – al-Rukayn – al-Qasim b. Hassan – Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “I am leaving behind over you the two khalifahs after me: the Book of Allah and my offspring, my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.”(3)

And ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) states:

حدیث صحیح.

It is a sahih hadith.(4)

Apparently, if you are not from the offspring of Muhammad, from his Ahl al-Bayt, you are nothing but an illegitimate khalifah. It is that simple and straightforward. Abu Bakr, without any doubt, was NOT from the offspring of the Prophet, neither by blood nor by special designation. As for ‘Ali, he was specially included within that blessed offspring by the Messenger himself, on the Command of Allah,

p: 84

for the specific purpose of the khilafah. Ibn Abi ‘Asim (d. 287 H) again documents:

ثنا محمد بن المثنی، حدثنا یحی بن حماد، عن أبی عوانه، عن یحیی بن سلیم أبی بلج عن عمرو بن میمون، عن ابن عباس قال: قال رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم لعلی: أنت منی بمنزله هارون من موسی إلا أنک لست نبیا وأنت خلیفتی فی کل مؤمن من بعدی.

Muhammad b. al-Muthanna – Yahya b. Hammad – Abu ‘Awanah – Yahya b. Sulaym Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun – Ibn ‘Abbas: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said to ‘Ali: “You are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that you are not a prophet. And you are my khalifah over every believer after me.”(1)

Dr. al-Jawabirah says:

اسناده حسن.

Its chain is hasan.(2)

And ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) backs him:

إسناده حسن

Its chain is hasan.(3)

So, obviously, the Prophet had already fully settled the issues of al-khilafah before he died:

(a) ‘Ali was the first khalifah immediately after him;

(b) then, the khilafah passes, after ‘Ali, to the children of Fatimah till the Day of al-Qiyamah.

This was the Decree of Allah, and it shall be in force till the end of our planet. Clearly, there was never any vacancy in the khilafah at all, and there will never be. The very moment that the Messenger of the Lord departed, all his powers, authorities and leadership responsibilities naturally passed to Amir al-Muminin, his publicly designated successor. However, Allah had also revealed to His Prophet that

p: 85

the Ummah generally would betray ‘Ali after him. Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) records:

حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أحمد الجمحی بمکه ثنا علی بن عبد العزیز ثنا عمرو بن عون ثنا هشیم عن إسماعیل بن سالم عن أبی إدریس الأودی عن علی رضی الله عنه قال إن مما عهد إلی النبی صلی الله علیه وسلم أن الأمه ستغدر بی بعده

Abu Hafs ‘Umar b. Ahmad al-Jamhi – ‘Ali b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz – ‘Amr b. ‘Awn – Hushaym – Isma’il b. Salim – Abu Idris al-Awdi – ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him:

“Verily, part of what the Prophet, peace be upon him, told me is that the Ummah would soon betray me after him.”(1)

Al-Hakim says:

هذا حدیث صحیح الإسناد

This hadith has a sahih chain.(2)

Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) agrees:

صحیح

Sahih(3)

Al-Hakim also reports:

عن حیان الأسدی سمعت علیا یقول قال لی رسول الله صلی الله علیه وسلم إن الأمه ستغدر بک بعدی وأنت تعیش علی ملتی وتقتل علی سنتی من أحبک أحبنی ومن أبغضک أبغضنی وإن هذه ستخضب من هذا یعنی لحیته من رأسه

Narrated Hayyan al-Asadi:

I heard ‘Ali saying: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said to me: “Verily, the Ummah will soon betray you after me; and you will live upon my religion, and you will be killed upon my Sunnah. Whoever loves you loves me, and whoever hates you hates me. Verily, this will soon be painted from this”, he meant: his beard (will be drained with blood) from his head.(4)

Then he again declares:

صحیح

Sahih(5)

And al-Dhahabi, once more, concurs with him:

صحیح

Sahih(6)

Al-Hafiz Ibn

p: 86

Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852 H) copies as well:

حدثنا الفضل هو أبو نعیم ، ثنا فطر بن خلیفه ، أخبرنی حبیب بن أبی ثابت، قال: سمعت ثعلبه بن یزید، قال :سمعت علیا رضی الله عنه، یقول : والله إنه لعهد النبی الأمی صلی الله علیه وسلم: سیغدرونک من بعدی

Al-Faḍl, Abu Na’im – Fitr b. Khalifah – Habib b. Abi Thabit – Tha’labah b. Yazid:

I heard ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, saying: “I swear by Allah, verily, the Ummi Prophet, peace be upon him, told me: “They will soon betray you after me.”(1)

The Salafi annotator, ‘Abd Allah al-Shahri, comments:

فالحدیث حسن لغیره

The hadith is hasan li ghayrihi.(2)

And they did betray him immediately after the death of the Messenger of Allah, exactly as prophesied. The Ansar opted to take advantage of their numerical and military powers by installing one of their members, instead of pledging allegiance to the divinely designated khalifah. They were staging a coup. But, they did not succeed, thanks to the early intervention of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Meanwhile, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar themselves were supposed to be on their way to faraway Palestine at that very moment, as foot soldiers under the command of Usamah. They both however defied the Prophet’s conscription order, and refused to leave al-Madinah or to join the marching army. Moreover, rather than pledging allegiance to the khalifah of the Messenger, the duo successfully won the Ansar to their side and seized the political khilafah! To use contemporary terms, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, with

p: 87

the backing of the Ansar, staged a successful coup against ‘Ali, who had earlier been declared khalifah by Muhammad himself – apparently, on the Order of Allah. No wonder, Imam ‘Ali called both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar traitors and dishonest liars. Imam Muslim quotes ‘Umar saying to him (i.e. ‘Ali) and ‘Abbas:

فلما توفی رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم قال أبو بکر أنا ولی رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم ... فرأیتماه کاذبا آثما غادرا خائنا والله یعلم إنه لصادق بار راشد تابع للحق ثم توفی أبو بکر وأنا ولی رسول الله صلی الله علیه و سلم وولی أبا بکر فرأیتمانی کاذبا آثما غادرا خائنا

When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, died, Abu Bakr said: “I am the wali of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him” ... So both of you (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) thought him (i.e. Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, A TRAITOR and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was really truthful, pious, rightly-guided and a follower of the truth. Abu Bakr died and I became the wali of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and the wali of Abu Bakr. So both of you thought me to be a liar, sinful, A TRAITOR and dishonest.(1)

But, is that why someone said this:

لو قد مات عمر لقد بایعت فلانا فوالله ما کانت بیعه أبی بکر إلا فلته فتمت

When ‘Umar dies, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so, for, I swear by Allah, the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr

p: 88

was nothing but an error and it succeeded.

It was undeniably an “error”. However, it succeeded. In other words, it was illegal. The Ummah should not have done it. But, it succeeded and gave him power nonetheless. So, the people obeyed him. What is more interesting here is ‘Umar’s response to this statement:

ألا وإنها قد کانت کذلک ولکن الله وقی شرها

No doubt, IT WAS SURELY LIKE THAT. However, Allah saved from its EVIL.

This is the man, who was the most instrumental in bringing Abu Bakr to power, confessing that the pledge of allegiance given to him was surely an “evil” error. However, according to him, Allah saved from its “evil”. So, that somehow justifies it, in his view! But, has Allah really saved the Ummah from the “evil” of the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr? When one considers how it has divded us into sects, some killing the others because of it, then one sees that its “evil” clearly still lives with us.

Meanwhile, even though the word used faltah (فلته) truly means “error”(1), the Ahl al-Sunnah do not like that meaning. They prefer one of its other meanings, as al-Hafiz does:

قوله) فوالله ما کانت بیعه أبی بکر إلا فلته (بفتح الفاء وسکون اللام بعدها مثناه ثم تاء تأنیت أی فجأه

His statement (I swear by Allah, the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was nothing but a faltah), meaning a SURPRISE.(2)

In other words, the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was “a surprise” to the generality of the

p: 89

Sahabah. When they heard about it, they wondered: how come? Well, even this meaning of faltah, which the Sunnis prefer, still supports our position. Why was the rise of Abu Bakr to power “a surprise”, as ‘Umar himself testified? If he had been leading the Sahabah in salat, and this had somehow translated into his appointment as khalifah-designate, why then would anyone find the pledge of allegiance given to him surprising?

After all, all the Sahabah would have been expecting him to assume the khilafah, if the Sunni claims had been true. In fact, it would have been the other way round: they would have been surprised if anyone else, other than Abu Bakr, had received the pledge of allegiance. So, apparently, the Sahabah were NOT expecting Abu Bakr to be the khalifah immediately after the Messenger of Allah. This was why it was “a surprise” to them when they heard his name being linked with the khilafah! However, he had already secured the allegiance of the Islamic army, and literally held the military power of the Ummah. Therefore, the Sahabah were presented with only a fiat accompli.

But, this definition of al-Hafiz does not explain the evil nature of Abu Bakr’s authority. The fact that something is a “surprise” does not necessarily make it “evil”. By contrast, when it is “illegal”, then it is necessarily “evil”. ‘Umar himself described the pledge of allegiance sworn to Abu Bakr with evil:

ألا وإنها قد کانت کذلک ولکن الله وقی شرها

No doubt, IT WAS

p: 90

SURELY LIKE THAT. However, Allah saved from ITS EVIL.

These words of ‘Umar are extremely significant, indeed. He was the staunchest supporter and defender of Abu Bakr’s rule. The fact that even he qualified that same regime of his role model with “evil” reveals that the matter was so glaring that denying it would do no good. He instead merely offered a blind defence: Allah saved from “its evil”. Of course, its evil still rules the world of Islam today – with rapidly growing sectarian killings spreading everywhere. Everything, all this evil, stemmed from the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr, by the Ansar, at Saqifah on that fateful day.

‘Umar also added:

وإنها قد کانت کذلک ولکن الله وقی شرها ولیس فیکم من تقطع الأعناق إلیه مثل أبی بکر من بایع رجلا من غیر مشوره من المسلمین فلا یتابع هو ولا الذی تابعه تغره أن یقتلا

No doubt, it was surely like that. However, Allah saved from its evil. And there is none amongst you towards whom throats are slit like Abu Bakr. Whosoever pledges allegiance to anyone without consultation with the Muslims, then neither that person nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, is to be supported. Rather, they both should be killed.

Here, he mentioned the exact method through which Abu Bakr came to power. ‘Umar, his colleagues and the Ansar pledged allegiance to him without consulting the other Muslims. The son of al-Khattab then recommended the death sentence for whosoever achieved the khilafah again through the

p: 91

“Abu Bakr” method. Such a khalifah and all his supporters should be executed. This is very telling, especially on the meaning of faltah in the athar. If the “Abu Bakr” method had been legal, then whosoever adopted it would not have deserved death. So, it was illegal, and therefore “an error”, which bore “evil” for this Ummah.

In any case, whether faltah is translated as “error” or “surprise”, the direct implication is still that the Sahabah were not expecting Abu Bakr to become their khalifah. Imagine: would this have been the case if all those Sunni claims about Abu Bakr – including his alleged leadership of salat and its overstretched implications – had been true?

Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih Abi Dawud (Kuwait: Muasassat al-Gharas li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1423 H)

7. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghir wa Ziyadatuhu (Al-Maktab al-Islami)

8. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani]

9. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim]

10. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H)

11. Abu al-Fida Isma’il b. Kathir al-Dimashqi, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah (Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1408 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri]

12. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi]

13. Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Habat Allah b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Asakir al-Shafi’i, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri]

14. Abu Bakr ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Shaybah, Musnad Ibn Abi Shaybah (Riyadh: Dar al-Watan; 1st edition, 1418 H) [annotators: ‘Adil b. Yusuf al-‘Azazi and Ahmad b. Farid al-Mazidi]

15. Abu Bakr Ahmad b. ‘Amr b. ‘Abd al-Khaliq al-Bazzar, Musnad al-Bazzar (Madinah al-Munawwarah: Maktabah al-‘Ulum wa al-Hukm; 1st edition) [annotator: ‘Adil b. Sa’d]

16. Abu Bakr b. Abi ‘Asim, Ahmad b. ‘Amr b. al-Ḍahhak b. Mukhlid al-Shaybani, Kitab al-Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st edition, 1400 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir

p: 93

al-Din al-Albani]

17. Abu Dawud Sulayman b. al-Ash’ath al-Sijistani al-Azdi, Sunan (Dar al-Fikr) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani]

18. Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban b. Ahmad al-Tamimi al-Busti, Mashahir ‘Ulama al-Amsar (Dar al-Wafa li al-Taba’at wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Marzuq ‘Ali Ibrahim]

19. Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban b. Ahmad b. Hibban b. Mu’adh b. Ma’bad al-Tamimi al-Darimi al-Busti, Sahih Ibn Hibban bi Tartib Ibn Balban (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 2nd edition, 1414 H) [annotators: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani and Shu’ayb al-Arnaut]

20. Abu Ya’la Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Muthanna al-Mawsili al-Tamimi, Musnad (Damascus: Dar al-Mamun li al-Turath; 1st edition, 1404 H) [annotator: Dr. Husayn Salim Asad]

21. Abu Zakariyah Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1407 H)

22. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1415 H) [annotators: Shaykh ‘Adil Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Mawjud and Shaykh ‘Ali Muhammad Ma’uḍ]

23. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Matalib al-‘Aliyah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-Thamaniyyah (Riyadh: Dar al-‘Asimah; 1st edition, 1420 H) [annotator: ‘Abd Allah b. Zafir b. ‘Abd Allah al-Shahri]

24. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata]

25. Dr. Rohi Baalbaki, al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li al-Malayin; 7th edition, 1995 CE)

26. Fatawa al-Lajnah al-Daimah li al-Buhuth al-‘Ilmiyyah wa al-Ifta, compiled and arranged by Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Duwaysh

27. Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan (Ithaca, New York:

p: 94

Spoken Languages Services; 3rd edition, 1976 CE)

28. Muhammad b. Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Beirut: Dar al-Sadir)

29. Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Salihi al-Shami, Subul al-Huda al-Rashad fi Sirah Khayr al-‘Ibad (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1414 H) [annotators: ‘Adil Ahmad ‘Abd al-Mawjud and ‘Ali Muhammad Ma’ud]

30. Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Asl Sifat Salat al-Nabi (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1427 H)

31. Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah (Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1417 H)

32. Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 9th edition, 1413 H)

33. Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1404 H)

34. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ah wa al-Nashr; 2nd edition)

p: 95