The best of people are those of my era, then those after, then those after them

Letter 81

Safar 28, 1330

I. Consensus Concluded When Dispute Dissipated.

Sunnis do not deny the fact that the allegiance was not taken after consultation or serious consideration. Rather, they admit that it took place suddenly and unexpectedly. They do not deny going against the wish of the Ansar and their preference of Sa’d, nor in opposing the descendants of Hashim and their followers from the Muhajirun and Ansar who joined the Imam ‘alayh al Salam in his boycott. But they say that the caliphate was finally vested upon Abu Bakr who was accepted by everyone as the Imam; dispute dissipated, hostilities halted, and everyone became determined to support al Siddiq and provide him with counsel in secrecy and in public; therefore, they fought in his wars, they supported him when he concluded a peace treaty, and they carried out his orders. Nobody at all differed in that regard, thus a total consensus was finally reached, and the consignment of caliphate was accomplished; praise be to Allah for having united their word after their dissension, and for unifying their hearts after their discord, Wassalam.

Sincerely,

S

Letter 82

Safar 30, 1330

I. Consensus Was Not Concluded; Dissension Did Not Dissipate

Their consolidation in supporting al Siddiq, and their providing him with counsel in secrecy and in public, is one thing; the validity of the consignment of the caliphate through consensus is quite another. They are not correlated judged by reason or tradition, for ‘Ali and all the infallible Imams from his descendants ‘alayh al Salam have a wellknown policy in supporting the Islamic authority; it is the same whereby we worship Allah. I mention it here in answer to what you have stated. It may be summed up thus:

They believe that the Muslim nation can never rise to glory except through a state that unites its populace, mends any crack in its structure, protects its borders, and safeguards its undertakings. Such a state cannot be established except by subjects who support it with their lives and possessions. If it is possible for such a state to be led by a legitimate statesman who represents in the true sense of the word the government of the Messenger of Allah, then he is the one to be assigned for such a responsibility rather than anyone else. But if this becomes impossible, and the government is usurped by someone else, then the nation has to support him in every issue upon which the dignity and fortitude of Islam hinges, and so do the protection of the borders of the Islamic state, and the safeguarding of its national security.

It is not permissible to divide the Muslims or create discord among them by opposing him; rather, the nation has to treat him, albeit if he is a slave with amputated limbs, the treatment meted to rightful caliphs, entrusting him with the land’s khiraj tax and his share thereof, the zakat of cattle and other items, etc. It has the right to take the same from him through the sale and purchase, as well as all means of property transfers, such as by way of awards, gifts, and the like.

There is no doubt about the clearing of conscience of one who pays him liabilities, as though he is paying them to the Imam of truth, and the rightful caliph. This is the path of ‘Ali and the purified Imams from his descendants ‘alayh al Salam. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has said: “There will be after me favouritism, and unpleasant matters,” as stated in one hadith narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud which is quoted by Muslim on page 118, Vol. 2, of his Sahih, and by many authors of sahihs and sunan. People asked him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “O Messenger of Allah! What do you enjoin one of us who witnesses them to do?” He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam answered: “Perform your obligations, and pray Allah for the attainment of what rightfully belongs to you.” Abu Tharr al Ghifari, may Allah be pleased with him, is also quoted by Muslim in Vol. 2 of his Sahih as saying, “My friend the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam advised me to listen and to obey even [a ruler who is] a slave whose limbs are amputated.” Salamah al Ju’fi is quoted by Muslim and others asking the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “O Messenger of Allah! Suppose we are ruled by those who require us to discharge our duties towards them while they themselves decline to grant us our rights, what do you advise us to do then?” He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam answered him saying, “Listen and obey, for they will bear the burden of their sins, and you will bear yours.” In one particular hadith quoted by Muslim on page 120, Vol. 2, of his Sahih, which is narrated by all authors of books of traditions, Huthayfah al Yemani, may Allah be pleased with him, quotes the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying: “There will be rulers after me who will neither guide according to my guidance, nor follow my Sunnah; and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of the devils’ clad in human form.” Huthayfah asked him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “What shall I do then, O Messenger of Allah, if I happen to witness that?” He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam answered: “You shall listen to the ruler and obey him; if he whips your back and confiscates your property, you will still have [no choice but] to listen and obey.” Similar to this hadith is one narrated by Umm Salamah thus: “There will be [unjust] rulers over you, and you will either acknowledge [their being unjust] or deny it. Those who acknowledge shall be considered innocent, while those who deny it will be saved from chastisement.”[1] They asked him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “Are we not supposed to fight them?” He answered: “No, as long as they uphold their prayers.”

Sahihs are consecutively reported in narrating the above quoted traditions, especially through the purified progeny ‘alayh al Salam. For this reason, the latter remained persevering as they saw eye-sores, and they kept tongue-tied, acting upon these sacred commandments and upon others whereby they were bound. They were enjoined to persevere while suffering as they felt forced to overlook eye-sores, safeguarding the unity of the nation, and keeping it intact. They abided by the gist of these texts while dealing with those who were entrusted with faring with the affairs of the Muslims. While being aware of the fact that they themselves were more worthy of being in their shoes, they tasted the bitterness of colocynth, hoping they might be able one day to lead them to the Right Path. The ascension of those individuals to power was more painful to them than the blows of sharp swords, yet they tolerated it only to fulfill the covenant, discharge the commitment, and carry out their duties as far as the Shari’a is concerned, favouring – while opposing such rulers – to prefer what is most important over what is more important. For this reason, the Commander of the Faithful ‘alayh al Salam tried his best to provide counsel to all three caliphs, exerting himself in providing them with advice.

Whoever acquaints himself with his policy during their epoch will come to know that he, having lost all hope to get his indisputable right to succeed the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, willingly took to reclusion, preferring to make asylum with those in authority. He did not fight them while seeing his promised throne in their grip, nor did he oppose them openly. He did so only in order to maintain the solidification of the nation and safeguard the creed, always keeping the religion’s interest in mind, preferring the life hereafter to this one. He suffered from agonies which nobody else suffered. He was agonized by two calamities: the caliphate in its texts and commandments was earnestly pleading to him in a heart-rending voice on one hand, and, on the other hand, oppressive discord was warning him against a possible mutiny in the peninsula. There was a possible danger of bedouin Arabs renouncing their religion, thus annihilating the Islamic creed. The faith was being threatened by the hypocrites of Medina in whose nature hypocrisy was immersed, and who were aided by the hypocritical Bedouins around them, according to the text of the Book (Qur’an). Nay, the latter party was even worse in disbelief and hypocrisy than the first, so much so that it was better they did not know the limits of what Allah had revealed to His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

The loss of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam emboldened the latter, and Muslims became in the aftermath like frightened cattle in a winter night, surrounded by wolves and ferocious brutes. While their fellows were quite active in their attempts to wipe out the religion of Islam and crush the Muslims, the Romans, the Kisras and others were waiting in anticipation, to the end of the list of such thronging elements that bore grudge against Muhammad, the progeny of Muhammad, and the companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. These parties bore animosity towards and felt jealous of the message of Islam; they desired to demolish its foundations, and undermining its might. In such endeavour, they would be very quick, seeing that they had their golden opportunity in the departure of the Prophet to his Supreme Companion. The chance had ripened then for them to make use of the chaos before Islam had recovered its strength and organization. It was then that the Commander of the Faithful ‘alayh al Salam realized both dangers, and it was only natural that he would sacrifice his own right in order to sustain the religion of Islam, thus preferring the general interest to that of his own. This is how such confusion ended, and the dispute between him and Abu Bakr was suspended, for he dreaded nothing save the disunity of Muslims and was concerned only that the Muslims should have the upper hand. So, he, all members of his household, their supporters from the Immigrants and Ansar, remained patiently tongue-tied even as they saw eye-sores. His speech after the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had departed is very frank in reflecting this attitude, and relevant reports are consecutive through the Imams of the purified progeny.

But the head of the Ansar, Sa’d ibn ‘Abadah, never made asylum with the first two caliphs, and he was never seen in public accompanying either of them during an Eid celebration or on a Friday, and he never subscribed to their views, nor did he ever yield to their orders, till he was assassinated in Huran during the reign of the second caliph, and his assassins claimed that he was killed by the jinns. He made a memorable statement during the saqifa incident, but we see no need to quote it here.[2]

As regarding his friends such as Haban ibn al Munthir[3] and other Ansaris, these succumbed unwillingly, yielding to pressure; so, do you consider the actions dictated by the fear of the sword or the burning by the fire[4] as a belief in the consignment of the allegiance? Or is it a testimony to such “consensus” implied in the statement of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying “My nation shall never commit an error in its consensus of opinion”? Please state your verdict; may Allah reward you, Wassalam.

Sincerely,

Sh

———————————–

[1] This hadith is quoted by Muslim on page 122, Vol. 2, of his Sahih. The meaning of his phrase salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam “Whoever knows it is innocent” is that whoever knew the abomination and identifies it as such will have a path leading to dissociation from its sin and punishment by changing it with his own hand or tongue, but if he cannot, then let him abhor it by his heart.

[2] Sa’d ibn ‘Abadah, Thabit’s father, was one of those present at the taking of the allegiance at ‘Aqaba. He is also a participant in Badr and other battles. He was chief of al Khazraj and their envoy, a generous man and a chief among the Ansar. His statement, to which we have referred, fills books of biographies and histories. Suffices you what Ibn Qutaybah has said in his treatise on Imamate and politics, Ibn Jarir al Tabari in his Tarikh, Ibn al Athir in his Al Kamil, Abu Bakr Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul-’Aiz al Jawhari in his book Al Saqifa, and others.

[3] Habab was one of the chiefs of the Ansar and a hero of Badr and Uhud, a man of feats and a glorious record. He is the one who said: “I am [as strong and firm as] a wooden post rubbed by camels, and a sweet fruit very much coveted. I am the son of a lion in his own den; by Allah, if you so desire, we would go back to wage a war that would grind even youngsters.” He said other much stronger statements, and we thought it would be wiser to refrain from quoting them here.

[4] Their threat to ‘Ali to burn his house is proven by absolute tawatur. Consider what Imam Ibn Qutaybah has said at the beginning of his chapter on Imamate and politics, Imam al Tabari in two places where he discusses the events of the year 11 A.H. in his famous Tarikh, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih al Maliki in his hadith of the saqifa as quoted in Vol. 1, page 134, of Sharh Nahjul Balaghah by al Hamidi al Hadidi, al Mas’udi in Muruj al Thahab quoting ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair when the latter apologized on behalf of his brother ‘Abdullah who almost started setting the houses of the descendants of Hashim on fire because they boycotted his allegiance, al Shahristani who quotes al Nizam while discussing the Nizami group in his book Al Milal wal Nihal. Abu Mikhnaf has dedicated for the narratives related to the saqifa an entire book in which he details what we have summarized here, not to mention the fame and tawatur of this hadith, in addition to these poetic verses by al Hafiz Ibrahim which are famous as the “‘Umeri poem”: A statement ‘Umer said to ‘Ali; so think for a while; Its listener venerate, respect the speaker and bear: “Shall I burn your house and make of its ashes a pile Should you choose to be stubborn and not swear The oath of allegiance, even if and while The Chosen One’s daughter is inside there?” None other than Abu Hafs was the speaker Addressing Adnan’s knight and protector… Thus did they treat the Imam ‘alayh al Salam without whose agreement, consensus according to our view can never be binding; so, we ask all those who are fair-minded how can their “consensus” be binding upon us, since the case is as such?

Discussions

Our previous discussions have accurately outlined the events at Saqifah, establishing that there was no official appointed successor from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, instead the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam left behind selection criteria in addition to the fact that he left behind many hints of whom his preferred candidate would be.

The events at Saqifah solemnized the Caliphate for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, with the general pledge of allegiance occurring the next day. During this time, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and many other Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who were absent at Saqifah subsequently pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The initial resistance shown by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not due to opposition to Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu candidacy but rather their exclusion from the consultative process. Once Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained the situation, they were satisfied and pledged their support. We also contextualized the Khutbah of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and addressed several misconceptions present in ‘Abdul Hussain’s correspondence.

As is often the case in al Muraja’at, a single theme is rarely confined to one round of correspondence but is instead spread over multiple rounds. The allegations raised in the earlier rounds are unpacked and elaborated upon in the later ones. In this context, we shall address the narrative that ‘Abdul Hussain has based his arguments on.

To address the argument presented by ‘Abdul Hussain regarding Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu alleged hostile stance towards Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, we must first emphasize the necessity for reliable evidence. The onus of proof still lies squarely on ‘Abdul Hussain to substantiate his claims about Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah’s attitude. In historical discourse, particularly when discussing such pivotal events, it is crucial to rely on authentic sources and verifiable facts. Since the evidence that has been presented in al Muraja’at thus far has been nothing more than propaganda, we cannot reasonably continue addressing the entire argument under the assumption that what has been cited is reliable.

If we were to momentarily entertain ‘Abdul Hussain’s narrative, simply for the sake of argument, a critical flaw emerges which cannot be ignored. He attempts to invalidate the claim of Ijma’ (consensus) based on the opposition of some of the Ansar. However, what he fails to recognize is that assuming these narrations as true further reinforces the argument against the existence of a Wasiyyah. This is our primary contention.

The concept of a Wasi, or heir-apparent, is fundamentally incompatible with the Ansar’s initial claim for leadership or even their temporary apprehension about appointing a Muhajir as a leader. Whatever ‘Abdul Hussain aims to prove by suggesting Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu opposition to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu invalidates Ijma’ inadvertently highlights a further challenge to ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu claim to succession, and severely weakens the idea of Wasiyyah. This also undermines the argument that the Khutbah at Ghadir Khumm was about the nomination of a successor.

For those who already subscribe to a reliably accurate narrative, this version holds little significance. However, for ‘Abdul Hussain, this contradiction within his argument demonstrates a fundamental flaw: the very sources he relies on to challenge the legitimacy of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu simultaneously disprove his own beliefs. Such is the nature of inventing arguments based on unreliable sources!

The nature of propaganda

The historical narratives crafted by Shia historians and propagandists are designed to tug at the heartstrings of their audiences, weaving a tale of enmity between the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family and his revered Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The portrayal of the Ahlul Bayt as perennial victims of persecution has been their most potent weapon, cunningly exploited through the ritual of sacrificing truth, historical accuracy, and scholarly integrity at the unholy altar of furthering an agenda.

Fabrication of Ahadith and distortion of history is merely one of the many evils which Shi’ism has contributed to the Islamic tradition. The seeds of discord sown by ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ and his followers were watered by the elaborate fictions spun by al Mukhtar al Thaqafi and his followers, and later harvested by Shia narrators and historians. With a bit of imagination they managed to give those stories a spin, especially when they have an admitted advantage of tragic, but historically speaking, actual occurrences of persecution, like the tragedy of Karbala’ and the subsequent hostile attitude towards the Ahlul Bayt by the Nasibis. These horrendous events reinforced the trope of victimisation such that narratives which fed these emotional biases persisted throughout the centuries and formed the basis of ‘enlightenment’.

That being said, the most successful fabrications are those that are insidiously grafted onto true events, skilfully manipulating the narrative and distorting the details of pivotal incidents in early Islamic history. These altered accounts of tragedy frequently depict ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the protagonist who is victimised, while casting his peers among the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the villains.

Recognising the peril posed by such fabrications, the mainstream body of early Muslims dedicated themselves with remarkable precision to accurately preserving the Prophet’s Sunnah and developing a rigorous framework for critically assessing Akhbar (reports), whether legal in nature or historical.

The inconsistency of such fabricated narratives becomes evident through careful scrutiny of their sources. Different individuals, twisting the details of events, across various regions and eras, inevitably produce narratives riddled with contradictions.

Ibn Khaldun rightfully criticises how later generations of historians carelessly transmitted fabrications and embellished narratives into historical accounts. These distortions were then blindly followed and transmitted without critical examination of their authenticity leading to a general proliferation of errors and misconceptions in historical narratives. As a result, thorough investigation and critical analysis of historical accounts became necessary. In his Muqaddamah he states:

إن فحول المؤرخين في الإسلام قد استوعبوا أخبار الأيام وجمعوها وسطروها في صفحات الدفاتر وأودعوها وخلطها المتطفلون بدسائس من الباطل وهموا فيها وابتدعوها وزخارف من الروايات المضعفة لفقوها ووضعوها واقتفى تلك الآثار الكثير ممن بعدهم واتبعوها وأدوها إلينا كما سمعوها ولم يلاحظوا أسباب الوقائع والأحوال ولم يراعوها ولا رفضوا ترهات الأحاديث ولا دفعوها فالتحقيق قليل وطرف التنقيح في الغالب كليل والغلط والوهم نسيب للأخبار وخليل

The eminent historians of Islam have meticulously gathered and documented the events of the days, inscribing them onto the pages of their records and preserving them therein. However, these accounts were later tainted by persons who were like uninvited guests to the tablespread of history, who introduced fabrications and concoctions, weaving in embellished narratives and feeble reports. These distortions were then followed and perpetuated by many subsequent generations, who transmitted them to us as they had received them without examining the causes and contexts of events or scrutinising the authenticity of the accounts. They neither discarded the absurdities nor rejected the falsehoods. Naturally, thorough investigation is rare, and the ability to critically analyse is often lacking; whereas errors and oversights in reports are like relatives and close friends (they are unavoidable).^[1]

Propagandists, however, remain undeterred by such discrepancies, prioritising their agenda over the pursuit of truth. Confident that emotional bias and a compelling presentation will eclipse critical analysis, works like al Muraja’at strive to convince their audience that they have been deceived and present an alternate, revisionist history that purportedly unveils the nefarious past. This particular spin to the narrative, portraying the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family as victims of relentless persecution, serves almost as an emotional anaesthetic which is meant to dull the impact of incontrovertible facts.

The relentless barrage of allegations against the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, depicting them as Machiavellian schemers, induces a type of myopia for the individual who succumbs to them, often naively. Eventually, those eyes become jaundiced on account of these baseless narratives and are blind to the glowing praises that Allah bestows upon the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in the Qur’an, and to their innumerable sacrifices for His din.

The narratives propagated in al Muraja’at from dubious sources depict the events following Saqifah in a way that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, despite his legendary courage and bravery, was dragged from his home and forced to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu at the threat of harm to his family, loss of his own life, and having his home set ablaze, whilst Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is haughtily seated on the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam minbar. Baseless stories like these find acceptance once the target’s guard of reason is down. When a person has succumbed to emotional bias. it becomes easy to conflate the unverifiable events that allegedly occurred on the day of Saqifah, regardless of how unreliable the origins of those narratives are, with the verifiable tragedy like Karbala’.

Saqifah from al Muraja’at’s sources

The particular version that is referenced in al Muraja’at is as follows:

Ahmed ibn Ishaq – Ahmed ibn Sayyar – Sa’id ibn Kathir ibn ‘Ufayr, who allegedly narrates the incident in detail.^[2]

When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, the Ansar gathered at the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah. They said, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has passed away.” Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah then instructed his son Qais, or one of his other sons, saying, “I am unable to speak to the people due to my illness, so relay my words to them.” Sa’d spoke, and his son amplified his voice for the people to hear. Sa’d praised Allah and said:

“You have precedence in the faith and a virtue in Islam unmatched by any other tribe. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam spent over ten years calling his people to worship the Most Merciful and abandon idols. Few among his people believed in him, and they were unable to protect the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, strengthen his faith, or defend him against his enemies. Then Allah chose you for virtue, brought you honour, and granted you faith in Him and His Messenger, and the strength to uphold His religion and fight His enemies. You were the strongest against those who opposed him and the most burdensome to his enemies until they submitted to the command of Allah willingly or unwillingly. Allah then fulfilled His promise to your Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and the Arabs submitted to him by your swords. Allah took His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam while he was pleased with you and you were content. So hold firmly to this matter, for you are the most deserving and worthy of it.”

They all responded in unison, “You have given sound advice and spoken correctly. We will follow your command and appoint you as our leader, as you are a source of satisfaction for us and the believers.”

They continued discussing among themselves, saying, “If the Muhajirun of Quraysh refuse, they will say: ‘We are the Muhajirun and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the first to accept Islam and his kinsmen. Why should you dispute with us over this matter after him?’”

A faction of them said, “If we say, ‘From us, an Amir and from you, an Amir,’ they will never accept it, as they see themselves as the protectors and supporters of the faith due to their migration, and they hold in the Book of Allah what we hold. They count themselves equal to us, but our opinion is that we should not monopolise leadership over them. So let there be an Amir from us and an Amir from them.”

Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah said, “This is the first weakness.”

The news reached ‘Umar, who went to the house of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and found Abu Bakr there. ‘Ali was busy with the funeral preparations for the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The one who brought the news was Ma’n ibn ‘Adi. He said, “Rise up [i.e. deal with the issue at hand].” ‘Umar said, “I am occupied.” Ma’n said, “You must come.” So ‘Umar stood up and went with him. Ma’n told him, “This group of Ansar have gathered in the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah with Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah among them. They are rallying around him, saying, ‘You are the one we trust and your son is the one we trust.’ Some of their leaders are with them. I fear sedition. Consider what you see fit and inform your brothers among the Muhajirun and choose for yourselves. I see a door of discord opening unless Allah closes it.” ‘Umar was greatly disturbed and went to Abu Bakr and said, “Rise.” Abu Bakr said, “I am occupied.” ‘Umar said, “You must come.” They left in haste for the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah, where they found men from the leaders of the Ansar with Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah, who was ill among them.

‘Umar intended to speak to set the stage for Abu Bakr as he feared Abu Bakr might not address some points. ‘Umar was about to speak when Abu Bakr restrained him, saying, “Be patient, and let me speak first. Then speak after me if you must.”

Abu Bakr praised Allah and said, “Allah sent Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with guidance and the true religion. He called to Islam, and Allah turned our hearts and guided us to what He called us to. We, the Muhajirun, were the first to embrace Islam, and the people followed us in that. We are the kin of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and the middle of the Arabs in lineage. No tribe of the Arabs has a relationship with Quraysh except through us. You are the supporters of Allah and His Messenger, and you have supported him. You are our brothers in the Book of Allah, our partners in religion, and in what we have of goodness. You are the dearest and most honoured people to us, and the most deserving of acceptance of Allah’s decree and submission to what He has bestowed upon your brothers among the Muhajirun. You are the ones who prefer others over themselves in times of need. You are the most deserving that this religion should not be corrupted or mixed up at your hands. I call you to Abu ‘Ubaidah and ‘Umar, whom I have approved for this matter, and I see either of them fit for it.”

‘Umar and Abu ‘Ubaidah said, “No one among the people is more deserving than you. You are the companion of the cave, the second of the two, and the one whom the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam commanded to lead the prayer. You are the most deserving of this matter.”

The Ansar said, “By Allah, we do not envy you for the good that Allah has brought to you, nor is there anyone dearer or more pleasing to us than you. However, we fear that after this day we may be dominated by those who are not from us or you. If you appoint a man from among you today, we will accept him and agree that if he passes away, we will choose one from among us. If he passes away, then another from the Muhajirun, and so on, as long as this Ummah exists. This would be more just for the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. An Ansari would watch over a Qurashi, and a Qurashi would watch over an Ansari.”

Abu Bakr said, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent by Allah to unite the Arabs upon their faith. They opposed him and separated from him, but Allah chose the Muhajirun, the first to believe in him, to support him, share his hardships, and endure the difficulties from their people. They were not daunted by their numbers, and they were the first to worship Allah on earth and believe in His Messenger. They are his close relatives and the most entitled to leadership after him. No one disputes with them except a wrongdoer. After the Muhajirun, there is no one who has more precedence and excellence in Islam than you. We are the rulers and you are the ministers. We will not decide on any matter without consulting you, nor will we resolve any issues without you.”

Al Hubab ibn al Mundhir ibn al Jamuh stood up and said, “O Ansar, hold on to your rights and do not let them take away your share. If they refuse, expel them from your land and take control of this matter. You are the people of support and protection, the ones to whom migration was made. You are the companions of the home and faith. By Allah, Allah was not worshipped openly except by you, and prayer was not gathered except in your Masjids. Faith was known only by your swords. Take control of your matter. If they refuse, then let there be an Amir from us and an Amir from them.”

‘Umar said, “Two swords cannot be sheathed together. The Arabs will not accept your leadership while their Prophet is from someone else. The Arabs will not accept anyone to rule them except those in whom the prophethood resides. We have the clear proof and evident authority over those who oppose us. Who can dispute with us in the authority of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his inheritance while we are his close family and clan? None can dispute except one driven by falsehood, indulging in sin, or embroiled in destruction.”

Al Hubab said, “O Ansar, do not listen to this man and his companions. Seize your share of the matter. If they refuse, expel them from your land and take control of this matter. You are the most entitled to it. I am its stump and trunk. By Allah, no one will reject my words without having his nose rubbed in the dirt.”

When Bashir ibn Sa’d al Khazraji saw what the Ansar had agreed upon concerning the leadership of Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah, due to his jealousy towards him he stood up and said, “O Ansar, even though we have precedence, our intention in our striving and Islam was only to please our Lord and obey our Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. We should not seek worldly gains through it. By Allah, the Quraysh are more entitled to this matter, and I will not dispute with them over this matter. Fear Allah and do not dispute with them or oppose them.”

Abu Bakr stood up and said, “This is ‘Umar and Abu ‘Ubaidah . Pledge allegiance to either of them.” They both said, “By Allah, we will not take leadership over you while you are among us. You are the best of the Muhajirun, the companion of the cave, and the one whom the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam commanded to lead the prayer, the best act of worship. Extend your hand so that we may pledge allegiance to you.”

When he extended his hand and they were about to pledge allegiance to him, Bashir ibn Sa’d preceded them and pledged allegiance. Al Hubab ibn al Mundhir said to him, “O Bashir, may your hands wither! By Allah, nothing forced you to do this except envy for your cousin.”

When the Aws saw that a leader from the Khazraj had pledged allegiance, Usayd ibn Hudayr, the leader of the Aws, stood up and pledged allegiance, out of envy for Sa’d and rivalry over the leadership. The Aws all pledged allegiance when Usayd did. Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah was carried while he was ill and brought to his house. He refused to pledge allegiance that day and afterwards. ‘Umar intended to force him to pledge allegiance, but it was suggested that he should not, as it might lead to a conflict where Sa’d and his people would resist until the Khazraj fought, and if the Khazraj fought, the Aws would join them, leading to chaos. So they left him. He did not pray with their prayers, join their congregation, or follow their judgements. Had he found supporters, he would have fought them. He remained in this state until Abu Bakr died. Then ‘Umar met him during his Caliphate while he was on horseback, and ‘Umar was on a camel. ‘Umar said to him, “How is it, O Sa’d?” Sa’d said, “How is it, O ‘Umar?” ‘Umar said, “Are you the one I know you to be?” Sa’d said, “Yes, I am.” Then he said to ‘Umar, “By Allah, no one is more disliked by me than you, and I would have left this place if not for you.”

Sa’d did not stay long after that until he went to Syria and died in Huran, having never pledged allegiance to anyone—not to Abu Bakr, not to ‘Umar, nor to anyone else.

The people gathered around Abu Bakr and most of the Muslims pledged allegiance to him that day. The Banu Hashim gathered at the house of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, along with Zubair, who considered himself one of the Banu Hashim. ‘Ali used to say, “Zubair remained one of us, the people of the house, until his sons grew up and diverted him from us.”

The Banu Umayyah gathered around ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan, and the Banu Zuhrah gathered around Sa’d and ‘Abdur Rahman. ‘Umar and Abu ‘Ubaidah came to them and said, “Why do I see you hesitant? Stand up and pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr. The people and the Ansar have pledged allegiance to him.” ‘Uthman and those with him stood up and pledged allegiance, as did Sa’d and those with him.

‘Umar went with a group to the house of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, among them Usayd ibn Hudayr and Salamah ibn Aslam. He said to them, “Go and pledge allegiance.” They pledged allegiance to him. Zubair came out with his sword. ‘Umar said, “Seize the dog!” Salamah Ibn Aslam seized the sword from his hand and struck it against the wall. Then they took him and ‘Ali along with the Banu Hashim. ‘Ali said, “I am the servant of Allah and the brother of His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” They brought him to Abu Bakr, and he was told, “Pledge allegiance.” ‘Ali said, “I am more entitled to this matter than you. I will not pledge allegiance to you while you are more entitled to pledge allegiance to me. You took this matter from the Ansar and argued with them on the basis of your closeness to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and they gave you leadership and handed over the emirate to you. I argue with you on the same basis. Be just with us if you fear Allah and acknowledge for us the same as the Ansar acknowledged for you. Otherwise, you are oppressing us knowingly.”

‘Umar said, “You will not be left alone until you pledge allegiance.”

‘Ali said, “Take advantage, O ‘Umar, for you have a share in it. Strengthen his leadership today so that he may return it to you tomorrow. By Allah, I will not accept your word, nor will I pledge allegiance.”

Abu Bakr said, “If you do not pledge allegiance to me, I will not force you.”

Abu ‘Ubaidah said, “O Abu al Hassan, you are young, and these are the elders of Quraysh, your people. You do not have their experience and knowledge of affairs. I do not see anyone stronger than Abu Bakr for this matter, nor more enduring and knowledgeable of it. Accept this matter for him, for we are pleased with you, and if you live long, you will be fit for this matter due to your merit, lineage, precedence, and jihad.”

‘Ali said, “O Muhajirun, by Allah, do not take the authority of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam out of his house and his family to your houses and your families. Do not deprive his family of their position among the people and their rights. By Allah, O Muhajirun, we, the people of the house, are more entitled to this matter than you. Was there not among us the one who recited the Book of Allah, the jurist in the religion of Allah, the scholar of the Sunnah of Allah, the one who knew the affairs of the people? By Allah, he is among us. Do not follow your desires, lest you go astray from the truth.”

Bashir ibn Sa’d said, “If the Ansar had heard these words from you, O ‘Ali, before pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr, no two would have differed over you. But they have already pledged allegiance.”

‘Ali went back to his house and did not pledge allegiance until Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha passed away, after which he pledged allegiance.

The account of Saqifah presented here and elsewhere in al Muraja’at tells a markedly different story. The footnotes in al Muraja’at reference only selected snippets of the incident, creating the illusion that the version found in Sahih al Bukhari matches the version related in piece-meal by ‘Abdul Hussain. This particular version is found in Kitab al Saqifah wa Fadak by Abu Bakr al Jawhari and Ibn Abi al Hadid’s commentary on Nahj al Balaghah. The details of his version is treated as fact in al Muraja’at. However, even these versions need to be carefully edited by ‘Abdul Hussain since they contain some details that damage his narrative.

Ibn Abi al Hadid’s commentary reproduces the incident directly from al Jawhari’s Kitab al Saqifah. Another reference for the incident is the Tarikh of Ibn Jarir, where it is related via multiple accounts through different chains.

Al Jawhari’s Kitab al Saqifah wa Fadak contains numerous narrations with a series of different chains of transmission. One of the many issues with this reference is that the author himself, Abu Bakr Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Jawhari, happens to be relatively unknown. Not much is known about him aside from his mention in al Tusi’s al Fihrist and his authorship of Kitab al Saqifah, which allows us to infer his Shia affiliation and approximate his era.^[3]

Information about him is extremely limited, and what little is known is mostly inferred, assuming the book attributed to him is indeed his. There is no explicit documentation of his teachers; rather, it is assumed that the names he cites at the beginning of an isnad are his teachers.

At first glance, the individual narrators of this version might not raise concerns regarding their credibility. However, it seems this entire chain is an invented one grafted onto an existing fabricated version of the events at Saqifah. This specific isnad, meaning each link, is unique to this work and does not appear in other sources.

Add to this, the fact that Sa’id ibn Kathir, the highest narrator in the chain, passed away in 226 A.H^[4] which creates a gap of over two centuries between him and the occurrence of Saqifah. So, even if this chain were genuine, it remains unreliable due to the significant interruption. The fact that this isnad is exclusive to this work strongly suggests it was fabricated to lend the incident a veneer of credibility, making it seem as though it originates from a non-Shia source.

Imam al Dhahabi, when addressing misplaced statements that appear to discredit him, cites two Ahadith for which he has been criticised, attributing the error in one of them to another narrator in that chain.^[5] However, he does not mention this incident as one of the Ahadith for which he was criticised which is another strong indicator of the fact that it is not something that he actually narrated, but a forgery that was attributed to him.

At the beginning of this book, there appears another distorted incident with a similar isnad, except that in that version the isnad has some additional details:

Ahmed ibn Ishaq – Ahmed ibn Sayyar – Sa’id ibn Kathir ibn ‘Ufayr – his narrators – ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman …^[6]

It is evident that there are many missing links between Sa’id ibn Kathir and any Sahabi. The incident related by this chain discusses the army of Usamah radiya Llahu ‘anhu which the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prepared just before his demise. Again, this version is also a forgery since it mentions Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu by name as one of those whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam placed under Usamah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu command. We know this to be incorrect since the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam personally appointed Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to lead the Muslims in prayer during his final illness. How is it possible that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was commissioned to set off on a journey with Usamah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and still lead the Muslims in prayer?

Finally, pay attention to the name of the final narrator in this chain, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman. His name will feature in the version of al Tabari. It would appear—and Allah knows best—that the narration in Kitab al Saqifah by al Jawhari was actually forged based off the version of al Tabari.

The second reference for the incident at Saqifah was from Ibn Jarir al Tabari. The incident of Saqifah is discussed separately at two places in the Tarikh of al Tabari. The version of events that is alluded to in al Muraja’at is as follows:

ذكر الخبر عما جرى بين المهاجرين والأنصار فِي أمر الإمارة فِي سقيفة بني ساعدة

هشام بن محمد عن أبي مخنف قال حدثنى عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن بن أبي عمرة الأنصاري أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لما قبض اجتمعت الأنصار في سقيفة بني ساعدة … فلما أتى أبو بكر بذلك قال له عمر لا تدعه حتى يبايع فقال له بشير بن سعد إنه قد لج وأبى وليس بمبايعكم حتى يقتل وليس بمقتول حتى يقتل معه ولده وأهل بيته وطائفة من عشيرته فاتركوه فليس تركه بضاركم إنما هو رجل واحد فتركوه وقبلوا مشورة بشير بن سعد واستنصحوه لما بدا لهم منه فكان سعد لا يصلي بصلاتهم ولا يجمع معهم ويحج ولا يفيض معهم بإفاضتهم فلم يزل كذلك حتى هلك أبو بكر

The Account of the Dispute Between the Muhajirun and the Ansar Regarding Leadership at the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah

Hisham Ibn Muhammad related from Abu Mikhnaf, who said: ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi ‘Amrah al Ansari reported that when the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, the Ansar gathered at the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah…

When Abu Bakr was informed of this, ‘Umar said to him, “Pester him until he pledges the oath!”

But Bashir ibn Sa’d said, “He has refused; he has made up his mind, and he wouldn’t pledge the oath to you even if he were killed; and he would not be killed without his children, family, and a party of his kinsmen being killed with him. So leave him alone; leaving him will not harm you, he is only one man.”

So they left him alone, accepting the advice of Bashir ibn Sa’d and consulting him whenever it seemed right.

Sa’d [ibn ‘Ubadah] would not participate in their daily prayers or congregate with them for Friday prayer; He would perform Hajj but he would not accompany them on Hajj nor depart from ‘Arafah with them. He continued in this manner until Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu passed away.^[7]

In case it has gone unnoticed, we have truncated this narration due to its considerable length and its substantial similarities with the version found in Kitab al Saqifah. The differences are more pronounced in the Arabic text, where the other version uses more explicit terms to illustrate the alleged hostility between the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In addition to this it highlights the trope of hostility between the Ansar who pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who supported Sa’d’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu proposal. The other reason for presenting a truncated version was that our main objective in citing the narration in the Tarikh of al Tabari is to point out issues with the isnad, which we believe to be the actual isnad.

Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’ib al Kalbi is a well-known chronicler and genealogist. However, he stands accused of forging reports by a long list of scholars, some who are even not known for narrator criticism, indicating that his mendacity was a matter of public knowledge.

Imam Ahmed states, “He was merely a storyteller and genealogist. I never thought anyone would narrate from him.”^[8]

Al Daraqutni considered him suspected of forgery and worthy of his narrations being abandoned.^[9]

Ibn ‘Asakir confirmed that he was a Rafidi and unreliable.^[10]

Ibn Hajar quotes the famous Shia chronicler and historian, Yahya ibn Abi Tayy, stating that he was considered an Imami Shia.^[11] Ibn Hajar then goes on to clarify the misconception that Ibn Ma’in considered him reliable, since he actually deemed him unreliable and unfit for narrating Hadith. Additionally, he confirms that al ‘Uqayli, Ibn Jarud, and Ibn al Sakan have all deemed Hisham unreliable. Both al Asma’i and Abu al Faraj al Asbahani have concluded that Hisham ibn al Kalbi was suspected of lying and fabricating stories.^[12]

Al Asbahani quotes the well-known poet, Abu Yaqub al Khuraymi, who characterises Hisham ibn al Kalbi as a distinguished genealogist and a prolific purveyor of Mathalib, a genre devoted to defamatory narratives. Known for his penchant for exaggerated criticism. It is said that whenever he encountered Haytham ibn ‘Adi he would melt like lead [out of happiness, owing to their shared common interest in historical forgeries].^[13]

Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya al Azdi al Kufi was a Shia Imami historian from Kufah, known for his works on early Islamic conquests and battles. He authored many historical texts, but hadith scholars deemed his narrations unreliable, often citing his reliance on unknown individuals earning him his reputation as a forger and liar.

Al Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar both agree in their assessment of him, “A ruined historian who cannot be trusted.”^[14]

Ibn Hajar adds, “Abu Hatim and others abandoned him [on suspicion of forgery].”

Al Daraqutni says, “Weak!”

Ibn Ma’in says, “He is definitely not reliable.” Elsewhere he said, “He is nothing!” Indicating the severity of his weakness.

Ibn ‘Adi says, “He is a zealous Shia and a chronicler of their narratives.”^[15]

Abu ‘Ubaid al Ajurri said, “I asked Abu Dawood about him, and he dusted his hands [in disapproval], saying, ‘Who would even ask about this [person]?’”^[16]

Al ‘Uqayli counts him amongst the weak narrators.^[17]

Both these narrators are reason enough not to accept this narration. However, when we consider that the narration has been transmitted with an interrupted chain, it adds to the problems.

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi ‘Amrah al Ansari is not a Sahabi; his grandfather was. The details about him are fairly sparse. He has entries in both al Tarikh al Kabir by al Bukhari^[18] and al Jarh wa al Ta’dil^[19] by Ibn Abi Hatim, but neither source provides any commentary on his reliability.

Ibn Hibban includes him under the generation after the Tabi’in (Atba’ al Tabi’in) in his Thiqat^[20], but does not explicitly grade him as a reliable narrator. Ibn Hibban’s methodology is to assume a narrator is reliable unless there is evidence to the contrary. Consequently, even without an explicit commendation, Ibn Hibban might include such a narrator in his Thiqat. Such narrators rank below those whom he explicitly credits. This position is unique to Ibn Hibban and almost all the experts of narrator criticism do not consider a majhul (unknown) narrator reliable by default.

In elaborating on the varying degrees of Ibn Hibban’s vetting of narrators, Sheikh ‘Abdur Rahman al Mu’allimi points out that not all endorsements of Ibn Hibban carry the same weight. He categorises Ibn Hibban’s gradings into five levels:

The highest, where Ibn Hibban explicitly praises the narrator’s precision and reliability.

The second, involving Ibn Hibban’s own teachers whom he knew personally.

The third, covers well-known narrators with extensive transmissions, indicating Ibn Hibban’s familiarity with their work.

The fourth, where context reveals Ibn Hibban’s thorough understanding of the narrator.

The fifth, which applies to our narrator, is where Ibn Hibban’s inclusion lacks precedent and his conclusion is not endorsed by other experts.^[21]

It is not the status of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Ansari that our immediate concern lies. Instead, we can safely conclude that even if he were a reliable narrator, the chain of transmission from him is interrupted, and the missing source remains uncertain, making it unreliable. Given the polemical nature of this particular point, it warrants greater scepticism, especially as it contradicts the account of ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who was both an eyewitness and a participant in the events. Furthermore, ‘Umar related his version in the presence of numerous Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, none of whom questioned his narrative.

The point we wish to highlight concerns the common narrator, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi ‘Amrah, and our assertion that the version in Kitab al Saqifah is a forgery. It is a known practice among forgers to manipulate historical narratives, not necessarily by altering the content of an incident, but by attaching a fabricated isnad to a pre-existing report, regardless of its reliability. This method creates the illusion of an alternative mode of transmission. Often, forgers would invent a narrator and then attribute the isnad to this fictitious person. The unknown status of such a narrator provided a guise, at least in their minds, for the forged isnad to pass unnoticed. This practice provides context and valuable insight into the importance that Hadith critics place on the continuity and reliability of the isnad, insisting that it must both be uninterrupted and only include known, credible narrators.

Ibn Jarir’s caveats

Ibn Jarir, like any astute historian, placed caveats to his work on history. He did not want anyone to accept whatever material he included uncritically. On the contrary, he was meticulous in citing his source for almost every incident that he mentioned so that the researcher would be able to investigate for themselves what the status of any said report was. Ibn Jarir’s concern was to be comprehensive and collect as much material and details as he could, leaving the scrutiny to capable readers.

وليعلم الناظر في كتابنا هذا أن اعتمادي في كل ما أحضرت ذكره فيه مما شرطت أني راسمه فيه إنما هو على ما رويت من الأخبار التي أنا ذاكرها فيه والآثار التي أنا مسندها إلى رواتها فيه دون ما أدرك بحجج العقول واستنبط بفكر النفوس إلا اليسير القليل منه إذ كان العلم بما كان من أخبار الماضين وما هو كائن من أنباء الحادثين غير واصل إلى من لم يشاهدهم ولم يدرك زمانهم إلا بأخبار المخبرين ونقل الناقلين دون الاستخراج بالعقول والاستنباط بفكر النفوس فما يكن في كتابي هذا من خبر ذكرناه عن بعض الماضين مما يستنكره قارئه أو يستشنعه سامعه من أجل أنه لم يعرف له وجها في الصحة ولا معنى في الحقيقة فليعلم انه لم يؤت في ذلك من قبلنا وإنما أتى من قبل بعض ناقليه إلينا وإنا إنما أدينا ذلك على نحو ما أدي إلينا

Let the reader of this book know that my reliance in all that I have included in it, according to the conditions I set forth, is based solely on the reports I have narrated and the traditions I have attributed to their transmitters, rather than what has been derived through rational arguments or extracted through intellectual inferences, except for a very limited portion. This is because knowledge of past events and future occurrences cannot be attained by those who did not witness them or did not live in their times except through the reports of informants and the transmission of narrators, rather than through rational deductions or intellectual inference. Therefore, if any account in this book is met with disapproval by the reader or is found problematic by the listener because it seems to lack authenticity or truth, let it be known that the fault does not lie with us, but rather with some of the transmitters who conveyed it to us since we have merely relayed it as it was conveyed to us.^[22]

This incident is also narrated in a similar manner by al Waqidi in his work Kitab al Riddah. As previously discussed, al Waqidi is considered an unreliable narrator, suspected of fabricating reports and distorting historical narratives.^[23] The existence of a version of this nature in a work by someone like al Waqidi only reinforces the notion that this version of events is the result of propaganda and lacks historical integrity.

Whilst we do not accept these versions, they provide us with some details that are conveniently omitted in al Muraja’at:

قال ثم أرسل أبو بكر إلى علي فدعاه فأقبل والناس حضور فسلم وجلس ثم أقبل على الناس فقال لم دعوتني فقال له عمر دعوناك للبيعة التي قد اجتمع عليها المسلمون فقال علي يا هؤلاء إنما أخذتم هذا الأمر من الأنصار بالحجة عليهم والقرابة لأبي بكر لأنكم زعمتم أن محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم منكم فأعطوكم المقادة وسلموا إليكم الأمر وأنا أحتج عليكم بالذي احتججتم به على الأنصار نحن أولى بمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم حيا وميتا لأنا أهل بيته وأقرب الخلق إليه فإن كنتم تخافون الله فانصفونا واعرفوا لنا في هذا الأمر ما عرفته لكم الأنصار قال فقال له عمر إنك أيها الرجل لست بمتروك أو تبايع كما بايع غيرك فقال علي إذن لا أقبل منك ولا أبايع من أنا أحق بالبيعة منه فقال له أبو عبيدة بن الجراح والله يا أبا الحسن إنك لحقيق لهذا الأمر لفضلك وسابقتك وقرابتك غير أن الناس قد بايعوا ورضوا بهذا الشيخ فارض بما رضي به المسلمون فقال له علي كرم الله وجهه يا أبا عبيدة أنت أمين هذه الأمة فاتق الله في نفسك فإن هذا اليوم له ما بعده من الأيام وليس ينبغي لكم أن تخرجوا سلطان محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم من داره وقعر بيته إلى دوركم وقعور بيوتكم ففي بيوتنا نزل القرآن ونحن معدن العلم والفقه والدين والسنة والفرائض ونحن أعلم بأمور الخلق منكم فلا تتبعوا الهوى فيكون نصيبكم الأخس قال فتكلم بشير بن سعد الأنصاري فقال يا أبا الحسن أما والله لو أن هذا الكلام سمعه الناس منك قبل البيعة لما اختلف عليك رجلان ولبايعك الناس كلهم غير أنك جلست في منزلك ولم تشهد هذا الأمر فظن الناس أن لا حاجة لك فيه والآن فقد سبقت البيعة لهذا الشيخ وأنت على رأس أمرك قال فقال له علي ويحك يا بشير أفكان يجب أن أترك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيته فلم أجبه إلى حفرته وأخرج أنازع الناس بالخلافة قال فأقبل عليه أبو بكر فقال يا أبا الحسن إني لو علمت أنك تنازعني في هذا الأمر ما أردته ولا طلبته وقد بايع الناس فإن بايعتني فذلك ظني بك وإن لم تبايع في وقتك هذا وتحب أن تنظر في أمرك لم أكرهك عليه فانصرف راشدا إذا شئت قال فانصرف علي إلى منزله فلم يبايع حتى توفيت فاطمة ثم بايع بعد خمس وسبعين ليلة من وفاتها وقيل بعد ستة أشهر والله أعلم أي ذلك كان

Then Abu Bakr sent for ‘Ali and summoned him. He came while the people were present, greeted them, and sat down. Then he turned to the people and said, “Why have you summoned me?”

‘Umar replied, “We have called you for the pledge of allegiance which the Muslims have agreed upon.”

‘Ali said, “O people, you took this matter from the Ansar with the argument of your kinship to Abu Bakr, claiming that Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was from you. Thus, they yielded to you and handed over the leadership. I now argue with you based on the same reasoning you used against the Ansar. We are closer to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in both life and death, for we are his family and the closest of people to him. If you fear Allah, then be just with us and recognise our rights in this matter as the Ansar did for you.”

‘Umar responded, “You will not be left alone until you pledge allegiance as others have done.”

‘Ali replied, “Then I will not accept from you, nor will I pledge allegiance to one who is less deserving of it than I am.”

Abu ‘Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah said, “By Allah, O Abu al Hassan, you are indeed worthy of this matter due to your merit, precedence, and kinship. However, the people have already pledged allegiance to this sheikh (Abu Bakr), so be content with what the Muslims have agreed upon.”

‘Ali responded, “O Abu ‘Ubaidah, you are the trustworthy one of this nation, so fear Allah regarding yourself. This day will have its consequences in the days to come. It is not appropriate for you to remove the authority of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from his home and the depths of his house to your homes and your houses. In our houses, the Qur’an was revealed, and we are the source of knowledge, jurisprudence, religion, Sunnah, and obligations. We are more knowledgeable about the affairs of the people than you are. Do not follow your desires, for then your share will be the lesser one.”

Then Bashir ibn Sa’d al Ansari spoke, saying, “O Abu al Hassan, by Allah, if the people had heard this from you before the pledge, not a single man would have differed with you, and all the people would have pledged allegiance to you. But you sat in your house and did not attend to this matter, so the people thought you had no interest in it. Now the pledge has been given to this sheikh, and you are at the forefront of your matter.”

‘Ali replied, “Woe to you, O Bashir. Should I have left the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his house unburied and gone out to dispute with the people over the succession?”

Then Abu Bakr said, “O Abu al Hassan, if I had known that you would dispute with me over this matter, I would not have sought it nor desired it. The people have pledged allegiance. If you now pledge allegiance to me, that is what I expect of you. If you do not wish to pledge now and prefer to consider your matter, I will not force you. Go in peace if you wish.”

So ‘Ali returned to his home and did not pledge allegiance until Fatimah passed away. Then he pledged allegiance seventy-five nights after her death, or it is said after six months. Allah knows best which of the two is correct.^[24]

Even the fabricated versions disprove ‘Abdul Hussain’s claim that the Ahlul Bayt were coerced into submission. These accounts unequivocally state that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu neither threatened nor forced ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If they tolerated Sa’d’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu purported isolation to the extent that he neither prayed with them in congregation nor attended ‘Arafah with them—a notion so absurd that we leave it to ‘Abdul Hussain’s disciples to explain—how is it conceivable that they would compel ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the rest of the Ahlul Bayt into submission? The very premise undermines the narrative promoted in al Muraja’at, exposing its inherent inconsistencies and contradictions.

Furthermore, in the alleged disputation between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, not once does ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu mention the Khutbah at Ghadir Khumm, nor does he ever reference his own supposed Wasiyyah. If the Wasiyyah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were as significant as ‘Abdul Hussain claims, enough to slander ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha and accuse her of concealing the Wasiyyah out of hatred for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; is it remotely conceivable that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have been too humble to bring it up in the heated exchange? After all, was he not the very one who, in the Masjid of Kufah, reminded those present of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam words, “Whomsoever considers me his Mawla, then ‘Ali is also his Mawla”? If the Wasiyyah existed, it would have been the cornerstone of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu argument. The absence of any mention of the Wasiyyah in this context instead reaffirms our assessment: that the historical narrative as presented in al Muraja’at is based on untruths and it has been meticulously crafted to support a predetermined conclusion appealing to emotion instead of facts.

The only other alternative is one which any Allah fearing Muslim shudders to even consider. The notion that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, who were known for their piety and dedication, would blatantly ignore the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam repeated instructions; this is not only farfetched but also deeply nefarious. It implies a deep level of betrayal and disobedience that is incompatible with the established character and actions of the Prophet’s Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum who sacrificed their lives and wealth to please Allah and to further His cause.

Such an assumption casts a dark shadow over the community founded by the Final Messenger of Allah, Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and questions the integrity of those who are lauded with praise in the Qur’an for their role in the establishment and spread of Islam. Whilst we take the views in al Muraja’at at face value; it is no secret that Shia Hadith literature contains reports that make severe and unspeakable accusations against the Prophet’s Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu alleged policy with his opponents

‘Abdul Hussain attempts to downplay the significance of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu by presenting it in a different light. He emphasises the historical view that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu only reconciled six months after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise, suggesting that this was not a genuine pledge of allegiance but rather a pragmatic strategy to avoid disturbing the unity of the Muslim community. He argues that the actions of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu were motivated by a desire to maintain cohesion among Muslims, rather than an acknowledgment of Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu legitimate Caliphate. Naturally, the texts from his own sources have refuted this claim as we have demonstrated in earlier correspondence.

We shall turn our attention towards the policy of expediency attributed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and juxtapose it with the doctrinal statements upheld by Shia scholars. These doctrines are purportedly supported by narrations traced back to the Imams and are cited from Shia sources.

Commenting on the station of Imamah and the concomitant belief in it, the 8th-century polemicist and renowned Shia scholar, Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli, whose extensive contributions to Shia legal discourse and theology are celebrated and highly regarded, has the following to say:

الإمامة لطف عام والنبوة لطف خاص لإمكان خلو الزمان من نبي حي بخلاف الإمام و إنكار اللطف العام شر من إنكار اللطف الخاص

Imamah is a universal grace, whereas prophethood is a specific grace. [This distinction is based on the premise that] there can be periods without a living Prophet, but never without an Imam. Denying the universal grace [Imamah] has worse consequences than denying the specific grace [Prophethood].^[25]

In essence, he is asserting that the failure to acknowledge the Imam of a given era is more grievous than denying the Prophethood of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If this statement seems severe, one should consider the following narration cited by the celebrated Safavid scholar, Mulla Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi, whose reputation is widely acknowledged among the Imamis. In his monumental work, Bihar al Anwar, he cites the following narration:

عن أبي علي الخرساني عن مولى لعلي بن الحسين عليه السلام قال كنت معه عليه السلام في بعض خلواته فقلت إن لي عليك حقا ألا تخبرني عن هذين الرجلين عن أبي بكر و عمر فقال كافران كافرمن أحبهما

Abu ‘Ali al Khurasani relates from a freed-slave of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam, who said: I was with him ‘alayh al Salam in one of his private moments, and I asked: “It is my right over you that you to tell me [the truth] about these two men: Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.”

He replied, “They are disbelievers, and whoever loves them is also a disbeliever.”^[26]

Continuing this line of thought is his student, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri, who unashamedly writes:

لم نجتمع معهم على إله ولا نبي ولا علي إمام وذلك أنهم يقولون إن ربهم هو الذي كان محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم نبيه و خليفته بعده أبو بكر و نحن لا نقول بهذا الرب ولا بذلك النبي بل نقول إن الرب الذي خليفة نبيه أبو بكر ليس ربنا ولا ذلك النبي نبينا

We do not share the same God, Prophet, or Imam with them. They assert that their Lord is the one who appointed Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as His Prophet and whom Abu Bakr was his successor. However, we do not recognize this Lord nor that Prophet. Instead, we declare that the Lord whose Prophet’s successor is Abu Bakr is not our Lord, nor is that Prophet our Prophet.^[27]

These perspectives are neither isolated nor did they emerge out of a vacuum; they are deeply rooted in early Shia beliefs. The significance of Imamah is so profound that Twelver Shi’ism not only excommunicates Sunnis over this essential doctrine but also extends this excommunication to nearly every other Shia sect that diverges from their specific views on the Imams. One of their prominent early scholars, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, articulates this uncompromising stance:

واعتقادنا فيمن جحد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والأئمة من بعده أنه بمنزلة من جحد نبوة الأنبياء واعتقادنا فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الأئمة أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع الأنبياء ثم أنكر نبوة نبينا محمد ﷺ

Our belief regarding one who denies the Imamah of Amir al Mu’minin [‘Ali] and the Imams after him is that he is akin to one who denies the prophethood of all the prophets. And our belief regarding one who acknowledges Amir al Mu’minin but denies even a single Imam after him is that he is akin to one who believes in all the prophets but then denies the prophethood of our Prophet Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.^[28]

This addresses the status of Imamah and the severe consequences of not recognising the uninterrupted succession of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. What about the alleged policy of maintaining public order?

Let us examine the inconsistency in the claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Imams adopted a policy of expediency solely for the welfare of the Ummah. If such were indeed their policy, one would expect a consistent message across Shia sources advocating for unity and public order. However, we find quite the opposite. The Imams, as quoted in authoritative works like al Kafi, instructed their followers not to submit to the authority of ‘illegitimate’ rulers.

This conversation, which is allegedly attributed to Imam Jafar al Sadiq, tells us something entirely different:

محمد بن يحيى عن محمد بن الحسين عن محمد بن عيسى عن صفوان بن يحيى عن داود بن الحصين عن عمر بن حنظلة قال سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن رجلين من أصحابنا بينهما منازعة في دين أو ميراث فتحاكما إلى السلطان وإلى القضاة أيحل ذلك قال من تحاكم إليهم في حق أو باطل فإنما تحاكم إلى الطاغوت وما يحكم له فإنما يأخذ سحتا وإن كان حقا ثابتا له لأنه أخذه بحكم الطاغوت وقد أمر الله أن يكفر به قال الله تعالى يريدون أن يتحاكموا إلى الطاغوت وقد أمروا أن يكفروا به قلت فكيف يصنعان قال ينظران إلى من كان منكم ممن قد روى حديثنا ونظر في حلالنا وحرامنا وعرف أحكامنا فليرضوا به حَكَماً فإني قد جعلته عليكم حاكما فإذا حكم بحكمنا فلم يقبله منه فإنما استخف بحكم الله وعلينا رد والراد علينا الراد على الله وهو على حد الشرك بالله قلت فإن كان كل رجل اختار رجلا من أصحابنا فرضيا أن يكونا الناظرين في حقهما واختلفا فيما حكما وكلاهما اختلفا في حديثكم قال الحكم ما حكم به أعدلهما وأفقههما وأصدقهما في الحديث وأورعهما ولا يلتفت إلى ما يحكم به الآخر قلت فإن هما عدلان مرضيان عند أصحابنا لا يفضل واحد منهما على الآخر فقال ينظر إلى ما كان من روايتهم عنا في ذلك الذي حكما به المجمع عليه من أصحابك فيؤخذ به من حكمنا ويترك الشاذ الذي ليس بمشهور عند أصحابك فإن المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه وإنما الأمور ثلاثة أمر بين رشده فيتبع وأمر بين غيه فيجتنب وأمر مشكل يرد علمه إلى الله وإلى رسوله قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله حلال بين وحرام بين وشبهات بين ذلك فمن ترك الشبهات نجا من المحرمات ومن أخذ بالشبهات ارتكب المحرمات وهلك من حيث لا يعلم قلت فإن كان الخبران عنكما مشهورين قد رواهما الثقات عنكم قال ينظر فما وافق حكمه حكم الكتاب والسنة وخالف العامة فيؤخذ به ويترك ما خالف حكمه حكم الكتاب والسنة ووافق العامة قلت جعلت فداك أرأيت إن كان الفقيهان عرفا حكمه من الكتاب والسنة ووجدنا أحد الخبرين موافقا للعامة والآخر مخالفا لهم بأي الخبرين يؤخذ قال ما خالف العامة ففيه الرشاد فقلت جعلت فداك فإن وافقهما الخبران جميعا قال ينظر إلى ما هم إليه أميل حكامهم وقضاتهم فيترك ويؤخذ بالآخر قلت فإن وافق حكامهم الخبرين جميعا قال إذا كان ذلك فأرجئه حتى تلقى إمامك فإن الوقوف عند الشبهات خير من الاقتحام في الهلكات

Muhammad ibn Yahya narrates — from Muhammad ibn al Hussain — from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa — from Safwan ibn Yahya — from Dawood ibn al Hussain — from ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah, who said:

I asked Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam about two men from our companions [Shia] who have a dispute concerning a debt or inheritance and they seek a ruling from the government or the judges. Is this permissible?

He said, “Whoever seeks a judgement from them in matters of right or wrong, indeed, seeks judgement from the Taghut. Whatever judgement is given to him, is an unlawful gain, even if it is rightfully theirs, because they took it by the judgement of the Taghut and Allah has commanded to disbelieve in it. Allah says, ‘They wish to refer legislation to the Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it.’”

I said, “What should they do then?”

He said, “They should look to one among you who has narrated our hadith, has examined our lawful and unlawful, and knows our rulings. Let them accept him as a judge, for I have appointed him as a judge over you. If he judges by our judgement and it is not accepted, then it is as if the judgement of Allah was taken lightly, and we are the ones rejected, and whoever rejects us rejects Allah, which is akin to associating partners with Allah.”

I said, “If each man chooses a person from among our companions and they accept them to judge their case, but they differ in their judgements and each one disagrees on your hadith?”

He said, “The judgement is what is given by the one who is more just, more knowledgeable, more truthful in narrating, and more pious. Do not consider the judgement of the other.”

I said, “What if both are just and acceptable to our companions, and neither is preferred over the other?”

He said, “Look at what is narrated from us on the matter they ruled on that is agreed upon by your companions, and take it from our ruling, leaving the singular (shadh) which is not well-known among your companions, for the agreed-upon has no doubt in it. Matters are of three types: a matter that is clear in its guidance and is followed, a matter that is clear in its error and is avoided, and a matter that is unclear and is referred to Allah and His Messenger. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘The lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear, and between them are doubtful matters. Whoever avoids the doubtful matters saves his religion and honour. Whoever indulges in doubtful matters falls into the unlawful unknowingly.’”

I said, “What if both narrations from you are well-known and reported by reliable narrators?”

He said, “He will see what conforms to the Book and the Sunnah and contradicts the ‘Ammah [Ahlus Sunnah], and take it; and leave what opposes the ruling of the Book and the Sunnah but conforms to the ‘Ammah.”

I said, “May I be sacrificed for you, what if both jurists know its ruling from the Book and the Sunnah, and we find one of the narrations agreeing with the ‘Ammah and the other opposing them. Which one should we take?”

He said, “Take what opposes the ‘Ammah, for therein is guidance.”

I said, “May I be sacrificed for you, what if both narrations agree with the ‘Ammah?”

He said, “Look at what their judges and rulers are inclined towards, and leave it. Take the other.”

I said, “What if both narrations are agreed upon by their judges?”

He said, “If it is like that, postpone it until you meet your Imam, for waiting in doubt is better than rushing into destruction.”^[29]

The Imam explicitly commands his followers to reject the judgement of tyrants and to seek rulings only from those who adhere to their teachings and laws. Therefore, the claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Imams after him adopted a policy of expediency to maintain public order does not hold up under scrutiny when we consider the fact that these instructions are found in Shia sources themselves.

Since ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not oppose the Khalifas before him, yet he decisively fought against those who opposed him during his own Caliphate it is clear that he recognised their appointments as valid and did not contest their leadership. Given that even ‘Abdul Hussain acknowledges the amicable relationship between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Khalifas before him, we are compelled to accept that his pledge was indeed a pledge of allegiance and not simply a pragmatic policy.

‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledging after six months

Imam al Bayhaqi addresses this misconception and clarifies that ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledge to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu occurred twice. Initially with the general Bay’ah and then a second time after the passing of his wife, Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. He points out that ‘Ali’s temporary seclusion was not out of resentment but rather due to the specific issue of inheritance, which was later resolved. In addressing the allegation of ‘Ali delaying his pledge, he correctly points out that this is not originally from ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, but instead from Imam al Zuhri, who assumed the matter thus.

In al Bayhaqi’s professional estimation, this is a case where narrators conflated different sources. He states:

والذي روى أن عليا لم يبايع أبا بكر ستة أشهر ليس من قول عائشة إنما هو من قول الزهري فأدرجه بعض الرواة في الحديث في قصة فاطمة رضي الله عنها وحفظه معمر بن راشد فرواه مفصلا وجعله من قول الزهري منقطعا من الحديث

وقد روينا في الحديث الموصول عن أبي سعيد الخدري ومن تابعه من أهل المغازي أن عليا بايعه في بيعة العامة التي جرت في السقيفة ويحتمل أن عليا بايعه بيعة العامة كما روينا في حديث أبي سعيد الخدري وغيره ثم شجر بين فاطمة وأبي بكر كلام بسبب الميراث إذ لم تسمع من رسول الله ﷺ في باب الميراث ما سمعه أبو بكر وغيره فكانت معذورة فيما طلبته وكان أبو بكر معذورا فيما منع فتخلف علي عن حضور أبي بكر حتى توفيت ثم كان منه تجديد البيعة والقيام بواجباتها كما قال الزهري ولا يجوز أن يكون قعود علي في بيته على وجه الكراهية لإمارته ففي رواية الزهري أنه بايعه بعد وعظم حقه ولو كان الأمر على غير ما قلنا لكانت بيعته آخر خطأ ومن زعم أن عليا بايعه ظاهرا وخالفه باطنا فقد أساء الثناء على علي وقال فيه أقبح القول وقد قال علي في إمارته وهو على المنبر ألا أخبركم بخير هذه الأمة بعد نبيها ﷺ قالوا بلى قال أبو بكر ثم عمر ونحن نزعم أن عليا كان لا يفعل إلا ما هو حق ولا يقول إلا ما هو صدق وقد فعل في مبايعة أبي بكر ومؤازرة عمر ما يليق بفضله وعلمه وسابقته وحسن عقيدته وجميل نيته في أداء النصح للراعي والرعية وقال في فضلهما ما نقلناه في كتاب الفضائل فلا معنى لقول من قال بخلاف ما قال وفعل وقد دخل أبو بكر الصديق على فاطمة في مرض موتها وترضَّاها حتى رضيت عنه فلا طائل لسخط غيرها ممن يدعي موالاة أهل البيت ثم يطعن على أصحاب رسول الله ﷺ ويهجن من يواليه ويرميه بالعجز والضعف واختلاف السر والعلانية في القول والفعل وبالله العصمة والتوفيق

The narrative about ‘Ali not pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months is not actually from the words of ‘Aisha but rather from al Zuhri. Some narrators mistakenly included it in the hadith concerning Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. Ma’mar ibn Rashid preserved the account accurately, narrating it as al Zuhri’s statement, separate from the actual hadith.

In the uninterrupted hadith narrated by Abu Sa’id al Khudri, and others from the people of Maghazi, it is recorded that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledged allegiance during the general pledge at Saqifah. It is plausible that ‘Ali initially pledged allegiance as part of this general pledge, as indicated in the hadith of Abu Sa’id al Khudri. A subsequent dispute arose between Fatimah and Abu Bakr over the inheritance, as she had not heard from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam what Abu Bakr and others had heard. Both were excused for their respective stances. ‘Ali refrained from visiting Abu Bakr until Fatimah passed away. Following her death, he renewed his pledge and fulfilled its obligations, as al Zuhri mentioned.

It is incorrect to suggest that ‘Ali’s seclusion was due to his dissatisfaction with Abu Bakr’s leadership. Al Zuhri’s narration states that he later pledged allegiance and acknowledged Abu Bakr’s rightful position.

Those who claim that ‘Ali pledged outwardly while opposing inwardly have severely misrepresented him, attributing the worst actions to him. ‘Ali, during his own leadership, declared from the minbar, “Shall I not tell you about the best of this Ummah after its Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?” They said, “Indeed,” and he replied, “Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar.”

We assert that ‘Ali did only what was right and spoke only what was true. His actions in pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr and supporting ‘Umar were fitting for his virtue, knowledge, precedence, good belief, and noble intention in providing sincere advice to the leader and the community. He acknowledged their virtues, as we have recorded in our book, Kitab al Fada’il, leaving no room for contrary assertions.

Furthermore, Abu Bakr visited Fatimah during her illness, seeking her satisfaction until she was content with him. Therefore, the dissatisfaction of others besides her, who claim to support the Ahlul Bayt but disparage the Companions of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, holds no merit. They invariably accuse those whom they claim to support with weakness, inconsistency, and duplicity. True protection and success lie with Allah.^[30]

It is almost as if al Bayhaqi adumbrated the kind of propaganda that would be promoted in titles like al Muraja’at.

Unjust Rulers

The attempt to rationalise the amicable stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the subsequent Khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum by equating it to the obedience required under tyrannical rulers raises a number of issues.

Firstly, shamelessly equating their era to periods of unjust rule predicted by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is not only historically inaccurate but also inadvertently portrays ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Imams after him as lacking the courage to oppose what they purportedly believed to be a grave injustice—the violation of the Wasiyyah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and complete disregard of the explicit appointment (Nass).

Such a portrayal starkly contrasts with the legendary courage of Asad Allah al Ghalib, the Victorious Lion of Allah, a term by which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is affectionately known. Had there been a genuine usurpation of his divinely appointed legacy, it would be inconceivable for him and the Imams after him to remain silent. Their silence and cooperation, as accurately depicted in historical records, confirm an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his successors rather than a reluctant submission to injustice. More than this is the fact that they are on record accepting the validity of the Khalifas before ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and speaking favourably about them.

Moreover, ‘Abdul Hussain’s argument inadvertently undermines both the notion of Nass and Wasiyyah. If he conceded the authenticity of the Ahadith advocating obedience to unjust rulers, then we must question the very premise of divine appointment for the station of succession and leadership. The purpose of Nass or Wasiyyah is to provide clear, divine guidance to the Ummah on who its leaders are. However, if the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instructed obedience to rulers regardless of their justice, it cannot be reconciled with the idea of a divinely appointed, infallible leader whose authority stems directly from divine mandate.

In essence, ‘Abdul Hussain’s argument fails to recognise the mutually exclusive premise of Nass or Wasiyyah versus the prophetic guidance to obey unjust rulers. If there had been a specific Wasiyyah, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would have undoubtedly directed the Ummah to oppose any usurpers of this divine appointment, much like how the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum dealt with the false claimant of Prophethood in Yamamah.

So using such narrations to justify an alleged policy of expediency for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and still maintaining the argument of Wasiyyah is not only an insult to his legacy, and that of the Ahlul Bayt, but also to the intelligence of the discerning reader.

The claim that Ahl al Hall wa al ‘Aqd is only the Ahlul Bayt

In his composite arguments, ‘Abdul Hussain attempts to undermine the significance of Saqifah, suggesting that it was a plan of convenience orchestrated by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu ‘Ubaidah, who supposedly took advantage of the situation and manipulated the Ansar into acceptance. This happened while the real decision-makers were absent, gathered at the home of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. We have already addressed the origins of ‘Abdul Hussain’s narrative sufficiently, obviating the need to further point out its unreliability. Now, we present evidence from a source that ‘Abdul Hussain himself frequently cites and appears to hold in high regard: Nahj al Balaghah.

In a letter ascribed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Nahj al Balaghah, he says the following:

أنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان على ما بايعوهم عليه فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إمامًا كان ذلك لله رضي فإن خرج عن أمرهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ما خرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين وولاه الله ما تولى

Indeed those who pledged allegiance to me are the same as those who pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, on the same terms they pledged to them. Therefore, neither the present has the right to choose nor the absent the right to reject. The matter of consultation is exclusively for the Muhajirun and the Ansar. If they agree on a man and appoint him as their leader, their decision is in accordance with Allah’s pleasure. However, if anyone opposes their decision by way of criticism or innovation, they must be brought back to compliance. If they refuse, they are fought for deviating from the path of the believers, and Allah will turn them back to what they turned away from.^[31]

The significance of this quotation is beyond description. Firstly, it is from a source highly respected by ‘Abdul Hussain, a source he frequently cites to support his arguments. Secondly, it establishes the basis upon which the Caliphate of all four Khalifas were founded: Shura. Thirdly, it unequivocally identifies the Muhajirun and Ansar as the Ahl al Hall wa al ‘Aqd in their era. Fourthly, and perhaps most significantly, it shows that ‘Ali himself radiya Llahu ‘anhu accepted the Caliphate of those before him on this basis and that he upheld this principle by fighting those who opposed him on the same grounds during his Caliphate as well. This directly challenges any spin that ‘Abdul Hussain was trying to put on the narrative when he brought up the attitude of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu towards the Khalifas who preceded him, explaining it away that it was nothing more than being pragmatic and adopting diplomacy when it suited him regardless of doctrine or principle.

The resolute nature of the Truth

Regardless of how masterfully constructed the lies of Shia propagandists happen to be, they inevitably crumble under the weight of historical scrutiny. The early Muslims’ unwavering commitment to preserving the truth and developing a robust methodology for verifying reports ensures that the legacy of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum remains untarnished by these attempts at revisionist history. However, this requires an open mind, fairness, and an objective critical framework.

To this end we can defer to Ibn Khaldun once again:

وكثيرا ما وقع للمؤرخين والمفسرين وأئمة النقل من المغالط في الحكايات والوقائع لاعتمادهم فيها على مجرد النقل غثا أو سمينا ولم يعرضوها على أصولها ولا قاسوها بأشباهها ولا سبروها بمعيار الحكمة والوقوف على طبائع الكائنات وتحكيم النظر والبصيرة في الأخبار فضلوا عن الحق وتاهوا في بيداء الوهم والغلط

Historians, Qur’an commentators, and prolific narrators often fall into errors in their accounts and narratives. This stems from their uncritical reliance on transmitted material, without investigating whether these reports are accurate or flawed. They fail to subject these reports to core principles, compare events with similar occurrences, scrutinise them with a measure of wisdom, understand the nature of phenomena, and exercise critical insight and discernment in evaluating the reports. [Without such measures] they have strayed from the path of truth, leading them into a wasteland of illusion and mistakes.^[32]

Notice that Ibn Khaldun is not referring to propagandists who deliberately embellish stories, omit significant details, or fabricate events entirely. Instead, he is highlighting how some renowned historians and Tafsir experts, due to a lack of critical methodology, might have included reports popularised by unscrupulous narrators and how these reports have survived over time.

What would be the core principles for an investigation about the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Companions? Given the existence of two competing narratives, the objective arbitrator must be the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides us objective insight whether the actions of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Companions should be interpreted as depicted in al Muraja’at or if the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum are exemplars—admittedly not infallible yet still worthy of emulation—whose actions need to be contextualised in light of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mission.

The second core principle, and this has been a standard feature in our responses thus far, is to investigate the status of the narrators of the incidents in mention.

The third core principle, which ‘Abdul Hussain has pre-empted and which we have dealt with, is to investigate the interactions between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the other Companions during the period between the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise and ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu appointment as the legitimate Khalifah following the assassination of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

The manner of interaction and quotations that have featured in references that ought to be respected by even ‘Abdul Hussain, dispel the narrative forwarded by him. We are then left only with the conclusion that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, like his brothers from the Ansar and Muhajirun, willingly accepted Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the Prophets salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam successor and that he did not claim succession nor did he claim any Wasiyyah.

NEXT⇒ LETTER 83 and 84 

[1] Muqaddamat Ibn Khaldun, vol. 1 pg. 6.

[2] Kitab al Saqifah, pg 52-64.

[3] Al Fihrist al Tusi, pg 84.

[4] Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 11 pg. 40.

[5] Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 2 pg. 147.

[6] Kitab al Saqifah, pg. 40.

[7] Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 3 pg. 218-223.

[8] Kitab al ‘Ilal, vol. 1 pg. 243.

[9] Al Du’afa’, pg. 173.

[10] Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 4 pg. 304.

[11] Lisan al Mizan, vol. 8 pg. 339.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Al Aghani, vol. 10 pg. 40.

^[14] Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 3 pg. 419, biography no. 6992; Also Lisan al Mizan, vol. 4 pg. 430.

^[15] Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 3 pg. 419-420.

[16] Lisan al Mizan, vol. 4 pg. 431.

^[17] Al Du’afa’ by al ‘Uqayli, vol. 4 pg. 18-19, biography no. 1572.

[18] Al Tarikh al Kabir, vol. 5 pg. 136.

[19] Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, vol. 5 pg. 96.

[20] Al Thiqat, vol. 7 pg. 45.

[21] Al Tankil, vol. 1 pg 437-438.

[22] Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 1 pg. 8.

[23] See discussions under Letter 34.

[24] Kitab al Riddah, pg. 32-46.

[25] Kitab al Alfayn, pg. 3.

[26] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 72 pg. 137.

[27] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 2 pg. 279.

[28] Al I’tiqadat, pg. 111.

[29] Al Kafi, vol. 1 pg. 67-68.

[30] Kitab al I’tiqad, pg 353.

[31] Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 336-337.

[32] Muqaddamat Ibn Khaldun, vol. 1 pg. 13.