---

The answers of al-Sayyid al-Sadr were clear and convincing, but it was very difficult for a person like me to comprehend them. Twenty-five years of my life had been based on the idea of glorifying and respecting the Companions of the Prophet, especially the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Messenger of Allah commanded us to follow their teachings, in particular Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar al-Farooq, but I had never heard their names mentioned since I arrived in Iraq. Instead, I heard strange names that I had never come across before, and that there were twelve Imams, and a claim that the Messenger of Allah had stated before his death that Imam Ali should be his successor. How could I believe all that (that all Muslims and the Companions of the Prophet- who was the best of people -, after the death of the Prophet agreed to stand against Ali - may Allah honour him) when we had been taught from childhood that the Companions of the Prophet - may Allah bless them all - respected Ali and knew very well what kind of man he was. They knew that he was the husband of Fatima al-Zahra and the father of al-Hasan and al-Husayn and the gate to the city of knowledge.

Our Master Ali knew the quality of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, who became a Muslim before anybody else, and accompanied the Prophet to the cave, as is mentioned by Allah, the Mighty, in the Qur'an, and whom the Messenger of Allah charged with the leadership of the prayers during his illness, and said about him, if I was taking a very close friend, I would have chosen Abu Bakr." Because of all that, the Muslims elected him as their caliph. Imam Ali knew the position of our master Umar, with whom Allah glorified Islam, and the Messenger of Allah called him al-Farooq, he who separates right from wrong. Also Imam Ali knew the position of our master Uthman, in whose presence the angels of the Merciful felt shy, and who organized al-Usrah's army, and who was named by the Messenger of Allah as "Dhu al-Nurayn", the man who is endowed with two lights. How could our brothers al-Shia ignore or pretend to ignore all that, and make these personalities just ordinary characters subject to all worldly whims and greed so that they deviated from the right path and disobeyed the orders of the Messenger after his death. This was inconceivable since we know that these people used to hasten to execute the orders of the Messenger; they killed their sons and fathers and members of their tribes for the sake of glorifying Islam and its ultimate victory. He who would kill his father and son for the sake of Allah and His Messenger could not be subject to worldly and transitory ambitions such as the position of Caliph, and ignoring the orders of the Messenger of Allah.

Yes, because of all that I could not believe all the Shia were saying, in spite of the fact that I was convinced about many things. I remained in a state of doubt and perplexity: doubtful because of what the Shii learned scholars Ulama said to me, which I found sensible and logical; and perplexed because I could not believe that the Companions of the Prophet - may Allah bless them all - would sink to such a low moral stand and become ordinary people like us, neither sharpened by the light of the Message nor able to be enlightened by Muhammad. O my God, how could that be? Could the Companions of the Prophet be at the level described by the Shia? The important thing is that doubt and perplexity were the beginning of weakness and the realization that there were many hidden issues to be uncovered before reaching the truth.

My friend came, then we travelled to Karbala, and there I lived the tragedy of our master al-Husayn in the same way his followers, and only then did I know that he had not died an ordinary death. People tend to crowd around his grave like butterflies and cry with such sorrow and grief that I have never seen before, as if al-Husayn had just been martyred. I heard speakers who aroused the feelings of people when describing the incident at Karbala, accompanied by crying and wailing, and soon the listener loses control of himself and collapses. I cried and cried and let myself go as if crushed, and felt a relief that I had never experienced before that day; I felt that I had been in the ranks of al- Husayn's enemies and had suddenly changed sides to be one of his followers who sacrificed themselves for his sake. The speaker was reciting the story of al-Hurr, who was one of the commanders in charge of fighting al-Husayn, who stood in the middle of the battlefield shaking like a leaf, and when one of his friends asked him, "Are you afraid of death?" He answered, "No, by Allah, but I am choosing between heaven and hell." Then he kicked his horse and went towards al-Husayn and asked, "Is there a repentance, O son of the Messenger of Allah?"

When I heard that, I could not control myself and fell on the floor crying and felt as if I was in the position of al-Hurr, asking al-Husayn, "Is there a repentance, O son of the Messenger of Allah? Forgive me O son of the Messenger of Allah. The voice of the speaker was so moving that people started crying and wailing, and when my friend heard my cries, he embraced me, like a mother embracing her child, and started crying and calling, "O Husayn...O Husayn..."

These were moments, during which I learnt that meaning of real crying and felt that my tears washed my heart and body from the inside, and then I understood the meaning of the Messenger's saying: If you knew what I know, you would have laughed little and cried more.

I was depressed throughout the day, although my friend tried to re-assure me and cheer me up by offering me some refreshments, but I had lost my appetite completely. I asked him to repeat the story of the martyrdom of al-Husayn, for I did not know much about it except the fact that our religious leaders told us that the enemies of Islam killed our masters Umar, Uthman and Ali, and that the same enemies killed our master al-Husayn; and that is all we knew. In fact we used to celebrate Ashura, as one of the festival days of Islam; alms were distributed and various types of food were cooked and the young boys went to their elders who gave them money to buy sweets and toys.

However, there are a few customs in some villages during Ashura: people do not light fires or do any kind of work. People do not get married or celebrate a happy occasion. We usually accept them at face value without any explanation given, and strangely enough, our religious leaders talk to us about the greatness of Ashura and how blessed it is.

After that we went to visit the grave of al-Abbas, the brother of al-Husayn. I did not know who he was, but my friend informed me about his bravery. We also met many pious religious leaders whose names I cannot recall in detail, but I can still recall their surnames: Bahr al-Ulum, al-Sayyid al-Hakim, Kashif al-Ghita, al-Yasin, al-Tabatabai, al- Feiruzabadi, Asad Haidar, and others, who honoured me with their company.

They are truly pious religious leaders, possessing all the signs of dignity and respect, and the Shia population respect them and give them one fifth of their incomes.

Through these donations they manage the affairs of the religious schools, open new schools, establish presses and assist students who come to them from all over the Islamic world.

They are independent and not connected in any way with the rulers; unlike our religious leaders who would not do or say anything without the approval of the authorities, who pay their salaries and appoint them, and remove them whenever they want.

It was a new world that I had discovered, or rather, Allah had discovered for me. I started to enjoy it having previously kept away from it, and gradually blended with it after I had opposed it. I gained new ideas from this new world, and it inspired me with the quest for knowledge and research until I reached the desired truth which always comes to mind whenever I read the saying of the prophet: The sons of Israel were divided into seventy-one groups, and the Christians were divided into seventy-two groups, and my people will be divided into seventy-three groups, all of which, except one group will end up in Hell.

Here is not the place to talk about the various religions which claim to be the right one and that the rest are wrong, but I am surprised and astonished whenever I read this saying. My surprise and astonishment is not at the saying itself, but at those Muslims who read it and repeat it in their speeches and brush over it without analyzing it or even attempting to find out which the group is going to be saved and which are going to be doomed.

The interesting thing is that each group claims that it is the saved one. At the end of the saying came the following: "Who are they, O Messenger of Allah?" He answered, "Those who follow my path and the path of my Companions." Is there any group that does not adhere to the Book [Qur'an] and Sunnah (the prophetic tradition), and is there any Islamic group that claims otherwise? If Imams Malik or Abu Hanifah or al-Shafii or Ahmed ibn Hanbel were asked, wouldn't each and everyone of them claim that he adheres to the teachings of the Qur'an and the Right Sunnah'?'

These are the Sunni Madhahib, in addition to the various Shii-groups, which I had believed at one time to be deviant and corrupt. All of them claim to adhere to the Qur'an and the correct Sunnah which has been handed down through Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophets Family) who knew best about what they were saying. Is it possible that they are all right, as they claim? This is not possible, because the Prophets saying states the opposite, unless the saying is invented or fabricated. But that is not possible either, because the saying is accepted by both the Shia and Sunnis. Is it possible that the saying has no meaning? God forbid that His Messenger (saw) could utter a meaningless and aimless saying, as he only spoke words of wisdom. Therefore we are left with one possible conclusion: that there is one group which is on the right path, and that the rest are wrong. Thus, the saying tends to make one confused and perplexed, but in the meantime it encourages research and study by those who want to be saved.

Because of that, I became doubtful and perplexed after my meeting with the Shia, for who knows, they might be saying the truth! So should I not study and investigate?

Islam, through the Qur'an and Sunnah ordered me to study, investigate and to compare, and Allah - the Most High said:

And (as for) those who strive hard for Us, We will most certainly guide them in Our ways (Holy Qur'an 29:69).

He also said: Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; these are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding (Holy Qur'an 39:18)

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,

Study your religion until it is said that you are mad.

Therefore research and comparison are legal obligations for every responsible person.

Having reached this decision and resolution, and with this promise to myself and my Shii friends from Iraq, I embraced them and bade them farewell, full of sorrow since I liked them and they liked me. I felt that I had left dear and faithful friends who had sacrificed their time in order to help me. They did it out of their own choice and asked for nothing except the approval of Allah, Praise be to Him. The Prophet (saw) said, "If Allah chooses you to guide one man (to the right path), then that is worth more than all the riches on earth."

I left Iraq having spent twenty days among the Imams and their followers, and the time had passed like a nice dream from which the sleeper was loathe to awake. I left Iraq feeling sorry for the brevity of this period. and sorry to leave dear friends who were full of love for Ahl-al-Bayt.

I left Iraq for the Hijaz seeking the House of Allah and the grave of the Master of the First and the Last (saw).

 

I was very grateful for the books which I organized and kept in a special place, which called the library. I rested for a few days, and received the time-table for the new academic year, and found out that I had to work for three consecutive days, and that for the rest of the week I was off-duty.

I started reading the books, so I read "The Beliefs of al-Imamiyya" and "The Origin and Principles of al-Shia", and felt that my mind was at ease with the beliefs and ideas of the Shia. Then I read "al-Murajaat [correspondences]" by al-Sayyid Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi. As soon as I read the first few pages, I became engrossed in it and could not leave it unless it was necessary, and even took it with me to the institute. I was surprised at the straight forward clarity of the Shii scholar when he solved problems that appeared complicated to the Sunni scholar from al-Azhar. I found my objective in the book, because it is not like any ordinary book where the author writes whatever he likes without criticism or discussion, for "al-Murajaat" is in the form of a dialogue between two scholars, who belong to a different creed, and are critical of each other's statement. Both base their analysis on the two important references for all Muslims: The Holy Qur'an and the Right Sunnah which is approved in Sihah al-Sittah. I found that there was something common between myself and the idea of the book: for I was an investigator searching for the truth, and was willing to accept it wherever it was found. Therefore I found this book immensely useful, and I owe it a great deal.

I was astonished when I found him talking about the refusal of some of the Companions to comply with the orders of the Prophet(saw), and he gave many examples, including the incident of "Raziyat Yawm al-Khamis (The Calamity of Thursday)", for I could not imagine that our master Umar ibn al-Khattab had disagreed with the orders of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and accused him of Hajr (talking irrationally), and I thought at the beginning that it was just a story from the Shia books. However, I was even more astonished when I noticed that the Shii scholar made his reference to the incident in the "Sahih of al-Bukhari" and the "Sahih of Muslim".

I travelled to the Capital, and from there I bought the "Sahih of al-Bukhari", the "Sahih of Muslim", the "Mosnad of Imam Ahmed", the "Sahih of al-Tirmidhi", the "Muwatta of Imam Malik" and other famous books. I could not wait to get back to the house and read these books, so throughout the journey between Tunis and Gafsah I sat in the bus looking through the pages of al-Bukhari's book searching for the incident of "The great misfortune of Thursday" and hoping that I would never find it.

Nevertheless, I found it and read it many times; and there it was, exactly as it has been cited by al-Sayyid Sharaf al-Din.

I tried to deny the incident in its entirety, and could not believe that our master Umar had played such a dangerous role; but how could I deny it since it was mentioned in our Sihahs; the Sihahs of al-Sunnah, in whose contents we are obliged to believe, so if we doubt them or deny some of them, it means that we abandon all our beliefs. If the Shia scholar had referred to their books, I would not have believed what he said, but he was referring to the Sihahs of al-Sunnah, which could not be challenged, because we are committed to believe that they are the most authentic books after the Book of Allah. Therefore, the issue is a compelling one, because if we doubt these Sihahs we are left with hardly any of the rules and regulations of Islam to rely on. This is because the rules and regulations which are mentioned in the Book of Allah take the form of general concepts rather than details. We are far from the time of the Message, and have thus inherited the rules of our religion through our fathers and grandfathers with the help of these Sihahs, which cannot be ignored. As I was about to embark on long and difficult research, I promised myself to depend only on the correct Hadiths that are agreed by both the Shia and the Sunnah, and that I would drop all the sayings which are mentioned exclusively by one group or the other. Only through this just method could I keep myself safe from emotional factors, sectarian fanaticism and national tendencies. In the meantime I would be able to pass through the road of doubt and reach the mountain of certainty, and that is the correct path of Allah.

 

ne of the most important studies which I consider to be the cornerstone for all the studies that lead to the truth is the research into the life of the Companions, their affairs, their deeds and their beliefs; because they were the foundations of everything, and from them we took the principles of our religion, and they enlightened our darkness, so that we can see the rules of Allah. Many Muslim scholars- convinced of the above - embarked on the study of the lives and deeds of the Companions, among them: "Usd al-Ghabah fi Tamyeez al-Sahabah", and "al-Isabah fi Maarifat al-Sahabah", and "Mizan al-I'tidal" and various other books which look critically and analytically at the lives of the Companions, but all from the point of view of the Sunnis.

There is a slight problem here, and that is that most of the early scholars wrote in the way which suited the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers who were well known for their opposition to Ahl al-Bayt and all their followers. Therefore, it is not fair to depend on their works alone without reference to the works of the other Muslim scholars who were persecuted and ultimately killed by these governments simply because they were followers of Ahl al-Bayt and the cause behind the revolutions against the oppressive and deviant authorities.

The main problem with all that was the Companions themselves, for they disagreed about the wish of the Messenger of Allah (saw) to write them a document which would help them to remain on the right path until the Day of Judgement. This disagreement deprived the Islamic nation of a unique virtue, and has thrown it into darkness until it was divided and plagued with internal quarrels and finally ended up as a spent force.

It was they who disagreed on the issue of the Caliphate [the successorship of the Prophet], and were divided between a ruling and an opposing party, thus dividing the nation into the followers of Ali and the followers of Muawiyah. It was they who differed in the interpretations of the Book of Allah and the sayings of His Messenger, which led to the creation of the various creeds, groups and subgroups; and from them came many scholars of scholastic theology and schools of thoughts and philosophies inspired by political ambitions with one aim in mind and that was to obtain power.

The Muslims would not have been divided and in disagreement had it not been for the Companions, for every disagreement that has been created in the past, or is being created at the present time is due to their disagreement about the Companions. There is one God, one Qur'an, one Messenger and one Qiblah, and they all agree on that, but the disagreement among the Companions started on the first day after the death of the Messenger (saw), in the Saqifah [house] of Bani Saidah, and has continued up to the present day, and will continue for as long as Allah wills it.

Through my discussions with the Shiite scholars, I discovered that, in their views, the Companions were divided into three categories:

The first category included the good Companions who knew Allah and His Messenger truly well, and they acclaimed him [the Messenger] to the last moments of their lives. They were truly his friends by words and deeds, and they never abandoned him, but rather stood their ground with him. Allah - the most High - praised them in many places in His Holy Book, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) also praised them in many places. This group of Companions are mentioned by the Shia with reverence and respect, they are also mentioned by the Sunnis with the same reverence and respect.

The second category were the Companions who embraced Islam and followed the Messenger of Allah (saw) either through choice or through fear, and they always showed their gratitude to the Messenger of Allah (saw) for their Islam. However, they hurt the Messenger of Allah (saw) on a few occasions, and did not always follow his orders, in fact they often challenged him and challenged the clear text with their points of view, until Allah, through the Holy Qur'an, had to intervene by rebuking them or threatening them. Allah exposed them in many Qur'anic verses, also the Messenger of Allah (saw) warned them in many of his sayings. The Shia mention this group of Companions only because of their deeds, and without respect or reverence.

The third type of Companions were the hypocrites who accompanied the Messenger of Allah (saw) to deceive him. They pretended to be Muslims but inside themselves they were bent on blasphemy and on deceiving Islam and the Muslims as a whole. Allah has revealed a complete Surah in the Qur'an about them, and mentioned them in many other places, and promised them the lowest level in Hell. Also the Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned them and issued warnings about them, and even informed some of his close friends about their names and characteristics. The Shia and the Sunnis agree in cursing this group of Companions and have nothing to do with them.

There was a special group of Companions who distinguished themselves from the others by being relatives of the Prophet (saw), in addition to having possessed ethical and spiritual virtues and personal distinctions from Allah and His Messenger that no one else was honoured with. These were Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet's Family) whom Allah cleansed and purified, and ordered us to pray for them in the same way as he ordered us to pray for His Messenger. He made it obligatory for us to pay them one fifth of our income, and that every Muslim must love them as a reward for the Muhammadan Message. They are our leaders and we must obey them; and they are people firmly rooted in knowledge who know the interpretation of the Holy Qur'an and they know the decisive verses of it, as well as those verses which are allegorical.

They are the people of al-Dhikr whom the Messenger of Allah equated with the Holy Qur'an in his saying "the two weighty things" (al-Thaqalayn), and ordered us to adhere to them [2], He equated them to Noah's Ark: whoever joined it was saved, and whoever left it drowned [3]. The Companions knew the position of Ahl al-Bayt and revered them and respected them. The Shia follow them and put them above any of the Companions, and to support that they have many clear texts as proofs.

The Sunnis respect and revere the Companions but do not accept the above classification and do not believe that some of the Companions were hypocrites, rather, they see the Companions as being the best people after the Messenger of Allah. If they classify the Companions then it would be according to their seniority and their merits and their services to Islam. They put the Rightly Guided Caliphs in the first class, then the first six of the ten who were promised with heaven, according to them. Therefore when they pray for the Prophet (saw) and his household they attach with them all the Companions without exception.

This is what I know from the Sunni scholars, and that is what I heard from the Shii scholars regarding the classification of the Companions; and that is what made me start my detailed study with the issue of the Companions. I promised my God - if He led me on the right path - to rid myself from emotional bias and to be neutral and objective and to listen to what the two sides said, then to follow what was best, basing my conclusions on two premises:

1. A sound and a logical premise: that is to say that I would only depend upon what everybody is in agreement with, regarding the commentary on the Book of Allah, and the correct parts of the honourable Sunnah of the Prophet.

2. The mind: for it is the greatest gift that Allah has given to human beings, and through it He honoured them and distinguished them from the rest of creation. Thus, when Allah protests about what His worshippers do, He asks them to use their minds in the best possible way, and He says: Do they not understand? Do they not comprehend? Do they not see? . . .etc."

Let my Islam primarily be the belief in Allah, His angels, His Books and His messengers; and that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger; and that the Religion of Allah is Islam; and that I will never depend on any of the Companions, regardless of his relation to the Messenger or his position, for I am neither Umayyad nor Abbasid nor Fatimid, and I am neither Sunni nor Shii, and I have no enmity towards Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman or Ali or even Wahshi, the killer of our master al-Hamzah, as long as he became a Muslim, and the Messenger of Allah forgave him. Since I had forced myself into this study in order to reach the truth, and since I had rid myself, sincerely, from all my previous beliefs, I decided to start, with the blessing of Allah, by considering the attitudes of the Companions.

[2].

Kanz al Ummal, vol 1 p 44
Ahmed's Musnad, vol 5 p 182

 

[3].

al Mustadrak, al Hakim (al Dhahabi's abridged), vol 3 p 151
Al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234

The Companions at the Peace Treaty of al Hudaibiyah

Briefly the story is as follows:

In the sixth year after the Hijrah (emigration of the Prophet from Mecca to Madinah), the Messenger of Allah with one thousand and four hundred of his Companions marched towards Mecca to do the Umrah. They camped in "Dhi al-Halifah" where the Prophet (saw) ordered his Companions to put down their arms and wear the Ihram (white gowns worn especially for the purpose of the pilgrimage and the Umrah), then they dispatched al-Hady (an offering for sacrifice) to inform Quraysh that he was coming as a visitor to do the Umrah and not as a fighter. But Quraysh, with all its arrogance, feared that its reputation would be dented if the other Arabs heard that Muhammad had entered Mecca by force. Therefore, they sent a delegation led by Suhayl ibn Amr ibn Abd Wadd al-Amiri to see the Prophet and ask him to turn back that year, but said that they would allow him to visit Mecca for three days the year after. In addition to that, they put down some harsh conditions, which were accepted by the Messenger of Allah as the circumstances warranted such acceptance, and as revealed to him by his God, Glory and Might be to Him.

A few of the Companions did not like the Prophet's action and opposed him very strongly, and Umar ibn al-Khattab came and said to him, "Are you not truly the Prophet of Allah?" He answered,"Yes, I am." Umar asked, "Are we not right and our enemy wrong?" The Prophet answered, "Yes." Umar asked, "Why do we then disgrace our religion?" The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "I am the Messenger of Allah and I will never disobey Him and He is my support." Umar asked, "Did you not tell us that we would come to the House of Allah and go around it?" The Prophet answered, "Yes, and did I tell you that we were coming this year?" Umar answered, "No." The Prophet said, "Then you are coming to it and going around it." Umar later went to Abu Bakr and asked him, "O Abu Bakr, is he not truly the Prophet of Allah?" He answered, "Yes." Umar then asked him the same questions he had asked the Messenger of Allah, and Abu Bakr answered him with the same answers and added, "O Umar he is the Messenger of Allah, and he will not disobey his God, Who is his support, so hold on to him."

When the Prophet had finished signing the treaty, he said to his Companions "Go and slaughter (sacrifices) and shave your heads." And by Allah one of them stood up until he had said it three times. When nobody obeyed his orders, he went to his quarters, then came out and spoke to no one, and slaughtered a young camel with his own hands, and then asked his barber to shave his head. When the Companions saw all that, they went and slaughtered (sacrifices), and shaved one another, until they nearly killed one another [4].

This is the summary of the story of peace treaty of al-Hudaibiyah, which is one of the events whose details both the Shia and Sunnah agree upon, and it is cited by many historians and biographers of the Prophet such as al-Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Saad, al-Bukhari and Muslim.

I stopped here, for I could not read this kind of material without feeling rather surprised about the behaviour of those Companions towards their Prophet. Could any sensible man accept some people's claims that the Companions, may Allah bless them, always obeyed and implemented the orders of the Messenger of Allah (saw), for these incidents expose their lies, and fall short of what they want! Could any sensible man imagine that such behaviour towards the Prophet is an easy or acceptable matter or even an excusable one! Allah, the Almighty, said:

But no! By your God! They do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not and any straightness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission. (Holy Qur'an 4:65)

Did Umar ibn al-Khattab succumb to them and find no difficulty in accepting the order of the Messenger (saw)? Or was he reluctant to accept the order of the Prophet? Especially when he said, "Are you not truly the Prophet of Allah? Did you not tell us? ..." etc, and did he succumb after the Messenger of Allah gave him all these convincing answers? No he was not convinced by his answers, and he went and asked Abu Bakr the same questions. But did he succumb after Abu Bakr answered him and advised him to hold on to the Prophet? I do not know if he actually succumbed to all that and was convinced by the answers of the Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr! For why did he say about himself, "For that I did so many things..". Allah and His Messenger know the things which were done by Umar.

Furthermore, I do not know the reasons behind the reluctance of the rest of the Companions after that, when the Messenger of Allah said to him, "Go and slaughter [sacrifices] and shave your heads." Nobody listened to his orders even when he repeated them three times, and then in vain.

Allah, be praised! I could not believe what I had read. Could the Companions go to that extent in their treatment of the Messenger. If the story had been told by the Shia alone, I would have considered it a lie directed towards the honourable Companions. But the story has become so well known that all the Sunni historians refer to it. As I had committed myself to accept what had been agreed on by all parties, I found myself resigned and perplexed. What could I say? What excuse could I find for those Companions who had spent nearly twenty years with the Messenger of Allah, from the start of the Mission to the day of al-Hudaibiyah, and had seen all the miracles and enlightenment of the Prophethood? Furthermore the Qur'an was teaching them day and night how they should behave in the presence of the Messenger, and how they should talk to him, to the extent that Allah had threatened to ruin their deeds if they raised their voices above his voice.

[4].

Sahih, Bukhari, Book of al Shurut, Chapter: Al Shurut fi al Jihad vol 2 p 122

---

 

The Companions and the Raziyat Yawm al Khamis
(The Calamity of Thursday)

Briefly the story is as follows:

The Companions were meeting in the Messenger's house, three days before he died. He ordered them to bring him a bone and an ink pot so that he could write a statement for them which would prevent them from straying from the right path, but the Companions differed among themselves, and some of them disobeyed the Prophet and accused him of talking nonsense. The Messenger of Allah became very angry and ordered them out of his house without issuing any statement.

This is the story in some details:

Ibn Abbas said: Thursday, and what a Thursday that was! The Messenger's pain became very severe, and he said, "Come here, I will write you a document which will prevent you from straying from the right path." But Umar said that the Prophet was under the spell of the pain, and that they had the Qur'an which was sufficient being the Book of Allah. Ahl al-Bayt then differed and quarrelled amongst themselves, some of them agreeing with what the Prophet said, while others supported Umar's view. When the debate became heated and the noise became louder, the Messenger of Allah said to them, "Leave me alone."

Ibn Abbas said: The disaster was that the disagreement among the Companions prevented the Messenger from writing that document for them [5].

The incident is correct and there is no doubt about its authenticity, for it was cited by the Shii scholars and their historians in their books, as well as by the Sunni scholars and historians in their books. As I was committed to consider the incident, I found myself bewildered by Umar's behaviour regarding the order of the Messenger of Allah. And what an order it was! "To prevent the nation from going astray", for undoubtedly that statement would have had something new in it for the Muslims and would have left them without a shadow of doubt.

Now let us leave the points of view of the Shia, that is that the Messenger wanted to write the name of Ali as his successor, and that Umar realized this, so he prevented it. Perhaps because they do not convince us initially with that hypothesis. But can we find a sensible explanation to this hurtful incident which angered the Messenger so much that he ordered them to leave, and made Ibn Abbas cry until he made the stones wet from his tears and called it a "great disaster"? The Sunnis say that Umar recognized that the Prophet's illness was advancing, so he wanted to comfort him and relieve him from any pressure.

This type of reasoning would not be accepted by simple-minded people, let alone by the scholars. I repeatedly tried to find an excuse for Umar. but the circumstances surrounding the incident prevented me from finding an excuse. Even if I changed the words "He is talking nonsense" - God forbid - to "the pain has overcome him", I could not find any justification for Umar when he said, "You have the Qur'an, and it is sufficient being the Book of Allah." Did he know the Qur'an better than the Messenger of Allah, for whom it was revealed? Or was the Messenger of Allah - God forbid - unaware of what he was? Or did he seek, through his order, to create division and disagreement among the Companions - God forbid. Even if the Sunni reasoning was right, then the Messenger of Allah would have realized the good will of Umar and thanked him for that and perhaps asked him to stay, instead of feeling angry at him and telling them to leave his house. May I ask why did they abide by his order when he asked them to leave the room and did not say then that he was "talking nonsense"? Was it because they had succeeded in their plot to prevent the Prophet from writing the document, so that there was no need for them to stay any longer? Thus, we find them creating noise and difference in the presence of the Messenger, and divided into two parties: one agreeing with the Messenger of Allah about writing that document, while the other agreed with Umar "that he was talking nonsense".

The matter is not just concerned with Umar alone, for if it was so, the Messenger of Allah would have persuaded him that he could not be talking nonsense and that the pain could not overcome him in matters of the nation's guidance and of preventing it from going astray. But the situation became much more serious, and Umar found some supporters who seemingly had a prior agreement on their stand, and so they created the noise and the disagreement among themselves and forgot, or perhaps pretended to forget, the words of Allah - the Most High:

O You who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive (Holy Qur'an 49:2).

In this incident they went beyond raising their voices and talking loud to accusing the Messenger of Allah of talking nonsense - God forbid - then they increased their noise and differences until it became a battle of words in his presence.

I think the majority of the Companions were with Umar, and that is why the Messenger of Allah found it useless to write the document, because he knew that they would not respect him and would not abide by the command of Allah by not raising their voices in his presence, and if they were rebellious against the command of Allah, then they would never obey the order of His Messenger.

Thus, the wisdom of the Messenger ruled that he was not to write the document because it had been attacked during his lifetime, let alone after his death.

The critics would say that he was talking nonsense, and perhaps they would doubt some of the orders he passed whilst on his death-bed, for they were convinced that he was talking nonsense.

I ask Allah for forgiveness, and renounce what has been said in the presence of the holy Messenger, for how could I convince myself and my free conscience that Umar ibn al-Khattab was acting spontaneously, whereas his friends and others who were present at the incident cried until their tears wet the stones, and named the incident "the misfortune of the Muslims". I therefore decided to reject all the justifications given to explain the incident, and even tried to deny it so that I could relax and forget about the tragedy, but all the books referred to it and accepted its authenticity but could not provide sound justification for it.

I tend to agree with the Shii point of view in explaining the incident because I find it logical and very coherent.

I still remember the answer which al-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr gave me when I asked him, "How did our master Umar understand, among all the Companions what the Messenger wanted to write, namely the appointment of Ali as his successor- as you claim - which shows that he was a clever man?"

Al-Sayyid al-Sadr said: Umar was not the only one who anticipated what the Messenger was going to write. In fact most of the people who were present then understood the situation the same way as Umar did, because the Messenger of Allah had previously indicated the issue when he said, "I shall leave you with two weighty things: the Book of Allah and the members of my Family (Ahl al-Bayt) and their descendants, if you follow them, you will never go astray after me." And during his illness he said to them, "Let me write you a document, if you follow its contents, you will never go astray." Those who were present, including Umar, understood that the Messenger of Allah wanted to reiterate, in writing, what he had already said in Ghadir Khum, and that was to follow the Book of Allah and Ahl al-Bayt and that Ali was the head of it. It was as if the holy Prophet (saw) was saying, "Follow the Qur'an and Ali." He said similar things on many occasions, as has been stated by many historians.

The majority of Quraysh did not like Ali because he was young and because he smashed their arrogance and had killed their heroes; but they did not dare oppose the Messenger of Allah, as they had done at the "Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah', and when the Messenger prayed for Abdullah ibn Abi al- Munafiq, and on many other incidents recorded by history. This incident was one of them, and you see that the opposition against writing that document during the Prophets illness encouraged some of those who were present to be insolent and make so much noise in his presence.

That answer came in accordance with what the saying meant. But Umar's statement, "You have the Qur'an, and it is sufficient, being the Book of Allah" was not in accordance with the saying which ordered them to follow the Book of Allah and the Household [Ahl al-Bayt] together. It looks as if he meant to say, "We have the Book of Allah, and that is sufficient for us, therefore there is no need for Ahl al-Bayt." I could not see any other reasonable explanation to the incident other than this one, unless it was meant to say, 'Obey Allah but not His Messenger." And this argument is invalid and not sensible. If I put my prejudices and my emotions aside and base my judgement on a clean and free mind, I would tend towards the first analysis, which stops short of accusing Umar of being the first one to reject the Prophet's Tradition (al-Sunnah) when he said, "It is sufficient for us, being the Book of Allah".

Then if there were some rulers who rejected the Prophet's Traditions claiming that it was "contradictory", they only followed an earlier example in the history of Islam. However, I do not want to burden Umar alone with the responsibility for that incident and the subsequent deprivation of the nation of the guidance. To be fair to him, I suggest that the responsibility should be borne by him and those Companions who were with him and who supported him in his opposition to the command of the Messenger of Allah.

I am astonished by those who read this incident and feel as if nothing happened, despite that it was one of the "great misfortunes" as Ibn Abbas called it. My astonishment is even greater regarding those who try hard to preserve the honour of a Companion and to correct his mistake, even if at the cost of the Prophet's dignity and honour and at the cost of Islam and its foundations.

Why do we escape from the truth and try to obliterate it when it is not in accordance with our whims . . . why do not we accept that the Companions were human like us, and had their own whims, prejudices and interests, and could commit mistakes or could be right?

But my astonishment fades when I read the Book of Allah in which He tells us the stories of the prophets- may Allah bless them and grant them peace - and the disobedience they faced from their people despite all the miracles they produced .. Our God! Make not our hearts to deviate after thou hast guided us aright, and grant us from Your Mercy; surely You are the Most Liberal Giver.

I began to understand the background to the Shia's attitude towards the second Caliph, whom they charge with the responsibility for many tragic events in the history of Islam, starting from "Raziyat Yawm al-Khamis" when the Islamic nation was deprived of the written guidance which the Messenger wanted to write for them. The inescapable fact is that the sensible man who knew the truth before he encountered the men seeks an excuse for the Shias in this matter, but there is nothing we can say to convince those who only judge truth through men.

[5].

Sahih, Bukhari, Chapter: About the saying of the sick, vol 2
Sahih, Muslim, End of the book of al Wasiyyah, vol 5 p 75
Musnad, Ahmed, vol 1 p 335, vol 5 p 116
Tarikh, Tabari, vol 3 p 193
Tarikh, Ibn al Athir, vol 2 p 320

---

 

The Companions in the Military Detachment under Usamah

 

The story in brief is as follows:

The Prophet (saw) organized an army to be sent to Asia Minor two days before his death. He appointed Usamah ibn Zayd ibn Haritha, (who was eighteen years old), as its commander in chief, then the holy Prophet attached some important men, both Muhajireen and Ansar, to this expedition, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Obaydah and other well-known Companions. Some people criticized the Prophet for appointing Usamah as the commander in chief of that army, and asked how could he have appointed so young a man as their commander. In fact the same people had previously criticized the Prophet for appointing Usamah's father as an army commander before him. They went on criticizing until the Prophet became so angry that he left his bed, feverish and with his head bandaged, with two men supporting him and his feet barely touching the ground (may my parents be sacrificed for him). He ascended the pulpit, praised Allah highly then said,

O People ! I have been informed that some of you object to my appointing Usamah as commander of the detachment. You now object to my appointing Usamah as commander in chief as you objected to me appointing his father commander in chief before him. By Allah, his father was certainly competent for his appointment as commander in chief and his son is also competent for the appointment [6].

Then he exhorted them to start without further delay and kept saying,

"Send the detachment of Usamah; deploy the detachment of Usamah, send forward the detachment of Usamah." He kept repeating the exhortations but the Companions were still sluggish, and camped by al-Jurf.

Events like that made me ask, "What is this insolence towards Allah and His Messenger? Why all that disobedience towards the orders of the blessed Messenger who was so caring and kind to all the believers?"

I could not imagine, nor indeed could anybody else, an acceptable explanation for all that disobedience and insolence. As usual, when I read about those events which touch on the integrity of the Companions, I try to deny or ignore them, but it is impossible to do so when all the historians and scholars, Shia and Sunnis, agree on their authenticity.

I have promised my God to be fair, and I shall never be biased in favour of my creed, and will never use anything but the truth as my criterion. But the truth here is so bitter, and the holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "Say the truth even if it is about yourself, and say the truth even if it is bitter..." The truth in this case is that the Companions who criticized the appointment of Usamah disobeyed all the clear texts that could not be doubted or misinterpreted, and there is no excuse for that, although some people make flimsy excuses in order to preserve the integrity of the Companions and "the virtuous ancestors". But the free and sensible person would not accept such feeble excuses, unless he is one of those who cannot comprehend any saying, or is perhaps one of those who are blinded by their own prejudice to the extent that they cannot differentiate between the obligatory task that must be obeyed and the prohibition that must be avoided. I thought deeply to find an acceptable excuse for those people, but without success. I read the points of view of the Sunnis which provide us with an excuse based on the fact that these people were the elders of Quraysh, and were among the early followers of Islam, whereas Usamah was a young man who had not fought in the decisive battles that gave Islam its glory, such as Badr, Uhud and Hunayn; and that he was a young man with no experience of life when the Messenger of Allah appointed him military commander. Furthermore, they thought that human nature, by its inclination, makes it difficult for elderly people to be led by young men, therefore they [i.e. the Companions] criticized the appointment and wanted the Messenger of Allah to appoint a prominent and respectable Companion.

It is an excuse which is not based on any rational or logical premise, and any Muslim who reads the Qur'an and understands its rules must reject such an excuse, because Allah- the Almighty - says: "Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back" (Holy Qur'an 59:7).

"And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying" (Holy Qur'an 33:36).

So what kind of an excuse could any rational person accept after reading all these clear texts, and what can I say about people who angered the Messenger of Allah, when they knew that the Messenger's anger is Allah's anger. They accused him of talking "nonsense", and they shouted and disagreed in his presence when he was ill (may my parents be sacrificed for him), until he ordered them to leave his room. That did not seem to be enough for them, and instead of returning to the right path and asking Allah's forgiveness for what they had done to His Messenger, and asking the Messenger for forgiveness as the Qur'an taught them, they went on criticizing him, despite all the care and kindness he had for them. They did not appreciate him or respect him, and two days after having accused him of talking "nonsense", they criticized him for appointing Usamah as military commander. They forced him to come out in the appalling condition which the historians describe. Due to the severity of his illness, he had to walk with the support of two men, then he had to swear by Allah that Usamah was a competent commander for the army. Furthermore, the Messenger informed us that they had criticized him previously for appointing his father as a commander, which indicates that these people had had many previous confrontations with him, and that they were not willing to obey his orders or accept his judgement, rather, they were prepared to oppose him and confront him, even if such behaviour went against the rules of Allah and His Messenger.

What leads us to believe that there was open opposition (to the orders of the Prophet), was that in spite of all the anger shown by the Messenger of Allah, and the fact that he himself tied the flag with his noble hand to the post and commanded them to march immediately, they were sluggish and reluctant to move, and did not go until he had died (may my parents be sacrificed for him). The Prophet(s.a.w.) died feeling sorry for his unfortunate nation, which he feared would go backwards and end up in hell, and no one would be saved except a few, and the Messenger of Allah described them as a handful.

I am surprised that those Companions angered the Prophet on that Thursday and accused him of talking "nonsense", and said, "It is sufficient for us that we have the Book of Allah", when the Holy Qur'an states:"Say if you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you" (Holy Qur'an 3:31). As if they were more knowledgeable about the Book of Allah and its rules than he to whom it had been revealed. There they were, two days after that great misfortune, and two days before he [the holy Prophet] went up to meet his High Companion, angering him even more by criticizing him for appointing Usamah, and not obeying his orders. Whereas he was ill and bed-ridden in the first misfortune, in the second one he had to come out, with his head bandaged and covered by a blanket and supported by two men with his feet barely on the ground, and address them from the top of the pulpit. He started his speech with the profession of the unity of Allah and praised Him in order to make them feel that he was not talking nonsense, then he informed them about what he knew regarding their criticism of his orders. Furthermore, he reminded them of an incident which had occurred four years previously, in which he was criticized by them. After all that, did they really think that he was talking nonsense or that his illness had overcome him so that he was unaware of what he was saying?

Praise and thanks be to You, Allah, how did these people dare oppose Your Messenger. They disagreed with him when he signed the peace treaty, they opposed him very strongly even when he ordered them to make the sacrifice and shave their heads, and even repeated it three times although no one cared to obey; and again they pulled him by his shirt to prevent him from praying for Abdullah ibn Ubay and said to him, "Allah forbade you from praying for the hypocrites!" As if they were teaching him what had been revealed to him, when You said in Your Holy Qur'an: "We have revealed to you the reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them" (Holy Qur'an 16:44).

And You said: "We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you"(Holy Qur'an 4:105).

And You said, and Your saying is the truth: "We have sent among you a messenger from among you who recites to you Our Verses and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know" (Holy Qur'an 2:151).

I am astonished at those people who put themselves in a position higher than that of the Prophet. On one occasion they disobeyed his orders, and on another occasion they accused him of talking nonsense, and then talked loudly and without respect in his presence. They criticized him for appointing Zayd ibn Harithah to the military command, and after him his son Usamah. How could they leave the scholars in any doubt, after all this evidence, that the Shia are right when they put a question mark on the position of some of the Companions, and show their resentment towards these positions purely out of respect and love for the Messenger and the members of his Household.

I have mentioned only four or five of these controversial issues to be brief and to use them as examples, but the Shii scholars could recount hundreds of situations in which the Companions contradicted the clear texts. In all this the Shia refer to sources written in books by Sunni scholars.

When I look at a number of positions taken by a few of the Companions with regard to the Messenger of Allah, I stand astonished; not because of the attitudes of those Companions alone, but because of the position of the Sunni scholars who gave us the impression that the Companions were always right and could not be criticized. Thus they prevented any researcher from reaching the truth and left him puzzled in the midst of all these contradictions.

In addition to the examples that I have mentioned above, I will bring some more in order to establish a better picture of those Companions, so that we may understand the position of the Shia towards them.

According to al-Bukhari in his Sahih, Vol. 4 Page 47, section "The virtue of Patience when one is hurt" and the words of the Almighty "...And those who are patient, surely they will be rewarded", in the Book of Conduct he said:

Al-Amash told us that he heard Shaqiq saying that Abdullah told him: Once the Holy Prophet divided something among a group of men, as he used to do, when one man from al-Ansar stood up and said, "This division is not for the sake of Allah." I said, "For my part, I shall have a word with the Prophet (s.a.w.)." So I went to see him, and I found him with his Companions. I explained my grievances, and the Prophet's face changed and showed signs of anger, and I wished that I had not told him, then he said: "Moses was hurt more than that but he was patient."

Al-Bukhari mentioned in the same book - i.e. the book of Conduct - in the chapter concerning smiling and laughter that Anas ibn Malik was heard saying: I was walking with the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) who was wearing a Najrani cloak with a rather thin edge to it, and suddenly a man approached him and pulled harshly at his cloak. Anas continued: I looked at the side of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and noticed that as a result of that harsh pull, the edge of the cloak went up to his shoulder, then the man said, 'O Muhammad, give me some of what you have from Allah's wealth!" The Prophet turned to him and laughed, then he ordered his Companions to pay him something.

Al-Bukhari also mentioned the following incident in the Book of Conduct and put it in the chapter concerning "He who does not face people with blame", he said: Aisha said that the Prophet (s.a.w.) did something and made it permissible, but no one followed what the Prophet did. The Prophet (s.a.w.) happened to hear about it, so he decided to address the people. He first thanked Allah then said: "What is the matter with people who refrain from the thing I did? By Allah, I know more than any of them about Allah, and I fear Him most... !"

When we look deeply at incidents like those above we find that the Companions put themselves on a higher level than the Prophet, and thought that he was wrong and they were right. Furthermore, there were some historians who deliberately corrected the position of the Companions, even if that contradicted the action taken by the Prophet, and showed them at a level of knowledge and piety higher than that of the Prophet. As is the case when they judge the Prophet wrong in the case of the Prisoners of War at the battle of Badr, so it appears that Umar ibn al-Khattab was right. They also tell wrong stories, such as the following saying attributed to the people: If Allah decided to inflict a disaster on us, no one will escape except Ibn al-Khattab. In other words, they were saying, "If it was not for Umar, the Prophet would have perished." God protect us from such a corrupt and shameful belief, and he who adheres to this kind of belief is surely far from Islam, and ought to review his thinking or rid himself of the devil.

Allah - the most High - said:

"Have you considered him who takes his low desire for his God, and Allah has made him err having knowledge and has set a seal upon his hear and his heart and put a covering upon his eye. Who can then guide him after Allah? Will not they be mindful?" (Holy Qur'an 45:23)

I believe that those who think that the Prophet (s.a.w.) was subject to his emotions to the extent that he deviated from the right path and made a judgement not for the cause of Allah, or those who refrained from doing things which were done by the Messenger of Allah thinking that they were more knowledgeable and more pious than the Messenger, do not deserve any respect or appreciation from the Muslims. They were put at the same level as the angels, as the best people in the whole of creation after the Messenger of Allah, so that Muslims are obliged to follow them and take them as an example, just because they were the Companions of the Messenger of Allah.

That contradicts the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah, who pray for Muhammad and his family, and then add all the Companions. If Allah - praise be to Him the Most High - appreciated them and put them in their correct position and ordered them to pray for His Messenger and the purified members of his family, they should have submitted and known their place with Allah. Why should we then put them in a position which is higher than they deserve. and equate them with those people whom Allah has elevated and preferred above all people?

Let me then conclude that the Umayyads and the Abbasids, who opposed-Ahl al-Bayt and exiled them and killed them with their followers, got the gist of that distinguished position and recognized its danger for them. For if Allah - praise be to Him - would not accept the prayers of a Muslim unless he prays for them (Ahl al-Bayt): how could they justify their opposition to them. Therefore, they attached the Companions to Ahl al-Bayt in order to give the impression to the public that they are equal.

Especially when we know that their masters and dignitaries were Companions who bought some other Companions known to have weak personalities and asked them to distribute fabricated sayings (of the Prophet) in praise of the Companions and the next generation, and in particular those who reached the position of Caliphs (i.e. the Umayyad and Abbasid) and they were the direct reason behind them attaining this position and becoming rulers over all the Muslims. History is the best witness to what I am saying: Umar ibn al-Khattab, who was well known for his strictness towards his governors whom used to dismiss them on mere suspicions, was quite gentle towards Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and never disciplined him. Muawiyah was appointed by Abu Bakr and confirmed by Umar throughout his life, who never even rebuked him or blamed him, despite the fact that many people complained about Muawiyah and reported him for wearing silk and gold, which was prohibited to men by the Messenger of Allah. Umar used to answer these complaints by saying, "Let him be, he is the Kisra (king) of the Arabs." Muawiyah continued in the governorship for more than twenty years without being touched or criticized, and when Uthman succeeded to the caliphate of the Muslims, he added to his authority further districts and regions, which enabled him to a mass great wealth from the Islamic nation and to raise armies to rebel against the Imam (Leader) of the nation and subsequently take the full power by force and intimidation. Thus he became the sole ruler of all Muslims, and later forced them to vote for his corrupt and alcohol drinking son Yazid, as his heir and successor.

This is a long story so I will not go into its details in this book, but the important thing is that we should understand the mentality of those Companions who reached the position of caliph and facilitated the establishment of the Umayyad state in a direct way, so as to please Quraysh which did not want to see both the Prophethood and the caliphate in the House of Bani Hashim(7). The Umayyad state had the right, or indeed was obliged to thank those who had facilitated its establishment, most of all the "story tellers" whom it hired to tell tales about the virtues of their masters. In the meantime it elevated them to a higher place than that of their enemies, Ahl al-Bayt, simply by inventing virtues and merits, which if (may Allah witness) examined under the light of logical and legal evidence mostly disappear, unless there is something wrong with our minds or we have started believing in contradictions.

For example, we hear so much about Umar's justice which the "story-tellers" attributed to him. It was even said about him "You ruled with justice, therefore you can sleep." It has also been said that Umar was buried in a standing position so that justice would not die with him, . . . and you could go on and on talking about Umar's justice. However, the correct history tells us that when Umar ordered that grants should be distributed among the people during the twentieth year of al-Hijrah, he did not follow the tradition of the Messenger of Allah, nor did he confine himself to its rules. The Prophet (s.a.w.) distributed the grants on an equal basis among all Muslims and did not differentiate between one person and another, and Abu Bakr did the same throughout his caliphate. But Umar introduced a new method. He preferred the early converts to Islam to those who came later. He preferred al-Muhajireen (immigrants from Mecca to Medinah) from Quraysh to other Muhajireen. He preferred all the Muhajireen to al-Ansar (followers of Prophet Muhammad in Medinah who granted him refuge after the Hijra). He preferred the Arabs to the non-Arabs. He preferred the freeman to the slave(8). He preferred (the tribe of) Mudar to (the tribe of) Rabia for he gave three hundred to the former and two hundred to the latter(9). He also preferred al-Aws to al-Khazraj. (10)

Where is the justice in all this differentiation, O people who have minds?

We also hear so much about Umar's knowledge, to the extent he was described as the most knowledgeable Companion, and it has been said about him that he agreed with his God on many ideas that were revealed in various Qur'anic verses, and that he disagreed with the Prophet about them. But the correct history tells us that Umar did not agree with the Qur'an, even after it had been revealed. When one of the Companions asked him one day during his caliphate, "O Commander of the Believers, I am unclean, but I cannot find water to wash." Umar answered, "Do not pray." Then Ammar ibn Yasir had to remind him about Tayammum [ritual cleaning with earth], but Umar was not convinced, and said to Ammar, "You are responsible only for the duties which have been assigned to you"(11).

Where is Umar's knowledge regarding the Tayammum verse which had been revealed in the Book of Allah, and where is Umar's knowledge of the Tradition of the Prophet (s.a.w.) who taught them how to do Tayammum as well as Wudu [ritual ablution]. Umar himself confessed on many occasions that he was not a scholar, and that all people, even women were more knowledgeable than him, and he was heard saying many times, "If it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished." And throughout his life he did not know the rule of al-Kalalah [relatives of the dead excluding the son and the father], although he passed various different judgements about it, as history witnesses.

We also hear a great deal about the courage and physical strength of Umar, and it has been said that Quraysh feared the day when Umar became a Muslim, and that Islam became even stronger when he entered the religion. It has also been said that Allah glorified Islam with Umar, and that the Messenger of Allah did not call for Islam openly until after Umar had become a Muslim.

But the correct historical references do not seem to indicate that courage, and history does not mention one famous or even ordinary person who has been killed by Umar in a dual or a battle like Badr and Uhud or al-Khandaq. In fact the correct historical references tell us exactly the opposite; they tell us that he escaped with the fugitives in Uhud, and escaped on the day of Hunayn, and that when the Messenger of Allah sent him to take the city of Khayber he returned defeated. He was never even the leader in the military detachments in which he served, and in the last one (that of Usamah) he was put under the charge of young Usamah ibn Zayd. So where is all that courage compared to these historical facts ... O people who have minds?

We also hear about Umar's piety and his great fear of Allah, to the extent of crying. It has been said that he was afraid of being accountable before Allah if a mule tumbled in Iraq because he did not pave the road for it. But the correct historical sources tell us that he was a rough man who lacked piety and did not hesitate to beat a man until he bled because he asked him about a Qur'anic verse, and even that women used to miscarry their babies out of fear when they saw him. Why did he not fear Allah when he raised his sword and threatened anybody who said that Muhammad had died, and he swore by Allah that he had not died, rather, he had gone to talk to his God in the same way as Moses did. Then he threatened to kill whoever said that Muhammad was dead(12).

Why did he not fear Allah when he threatened to burn Fatimah al-Zahra's house if those who refrained from voting for the successorship of the caliphate did not come out(13)? It has been said that when he was told that Fatimah was inside, he answered, "So what!" He violated the Book of Allah and the Tradition of the Prophet and passed rules and judgements during his caliphate which contradicted the texts of the Holy Qur'an and the noble Tradition of the Prophet (s.a.w.)(14).

So where was all that piety and fear of Allah in all these bitter and sad historical facts, O good worshippers of Allah? I took this great and famous Companion as an example, and I have summarized a great deal to avoid prolongation, but if I wanted to talk in some detail, I could have filled many volumes. But as I said I have mentioned these historical references as examples and not for specific reasons.

What I have mentioned is a small amount, but it gives us a clear indication as to the mentalities of the Companions and the contradictory attitudes of the Sunni scholars and historians. For on the one hand they forbid people from criticizing them or doubting their intentions, but on the other hand they write in their books things that make people doubt their deeds and criticize them.

I wish the Sunni scholars had not written about these matters in such a way that it clearly sullies the dignity of the Companions and ruins their integrity. If they had not we would have been spared all that confusion.

I still remember meeting a scholar from al-Najaf whose name was Asad Hayder (author of "Al-lmam al-Sadiq wa al- Madhahib al-Arbaah") and as we were talking about the Sunnis and the Shia he told me a story about his father. He (i.e. the father) had met a Tunisian scholar from al-Zaytunah during the pilgrimage season some fifty years ago, and started a debate about the Imamate of Ali - may Allah's peace be upon him - and his eligibility to the succession for the caliphate. The Tunisian scholar listened attentively as the other man mentioned four or five reasons. When he had finished, the scholar from al-Zaytunah asked him, "Have you got any other reasons?" The man answered, "No." Then the Tunisian scholar said, "Get your rosary out and start counting, then he listed some hundred reasons that my father had not known before.

Shaykh Asad Hayder added, "If the Sunnis read what is in their books, then they would say similar things to what we are saying and we would not have any differences between us for a long time."

By my life! It is the inevitable truth, if only man would liberate himself from his blind prejudice and his arrogance and submit to the clear proof.

 

First of all, I must say that Allah - praise be to Him the Most High - commended, in many places in His Holy Book, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah who loved. obeyed and followed the Messenger without personal greed and without opposition or arrogance, and only wanted the acceptance of Allah and His Messenger; those Companions have pleased Allah and He pleased them, and that is the way for those who fear Allah.

This group of the Companions are appreciated by the Muslims because of their attitudes towards the Prophet (saw) and their works with him, therefore they are liked and respected by all Muslims, and they are appreciated whenever people mention their names.

My study does not concern itself with this group of Companions who are respected by both the Sunnis and the Shia, nor is it concerned, with those who were well known for their hypocrisy, and who are cursed by all Muslims, Shia and Sunnis, whenever their names are mentioned.

However, my study is concerned with the group of Companions about whom the Muslims have expressed different views. There are verses in the Holy Qur'an where they are rebuked and threatened because of their attitudes in certain positions, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) warned them on many occasions, and warned other people about them.

The outstanding differences between the Shia and the Sunnis is concerned with this group of Companions, because the Shia criticize their sayings and deeds and complain about their justice, whereas they are respected by the Sunnis, in spite of their contradictions. My study is concerned with this group of the Companions because through it I will be able to reach the truth, or part of it. I say that, so that no one may think that I have neglected the Quranic verses which commend the Companions to the Messenger of Allah, and that I exposed the verses which criticize them. In fact through my research I discovered that some verses contain praise for the Companions, but if you read in between the lines you find that they contain criticism of them, and vice versa.

I shall not write here about all the hard work that I have done in the past three years in preparing this study, but I will confine myself to some Qur'anic verses as examples, and not for any specific reason. For those who want to go further, I advise them to research and compare, as I did, in order that they may find the Right Faith by themselves, and through their own work. That is what Allah wants for everybody, and that is what the conscience of each individual wants. Thus, one would achieve an absolute conviction that will not be shaken by any storm. After all, the divine guidance which results from personal conviction is far better than that which comes as a result of external factors.

Allah - the Most High - says in praise of His Prophet (saw): "And found you unable to see [the way] then He showed you the way" [Holy Qur'an 93:7]. That is He found you searching for the truth, so He led you to it.

He also said: "And those who strive hard for Us, We will guide them in Our ways" [Holy Qur'an 29:69].

1. The turning back verse

Allah - the Most High - says in His Glorious Book: "And Muhammad is no more than a messenger, the messengers have already passed away before him, if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least, and Allah will reward the grateful." Allah, the Great, has told the truth [Holy Qur'an 3:144].

This Qur'anic verse is clear about how the Companions will turn back upon their heels, and only a few will stand their ground, as the above Qur'anic verse indicated in the expression of Allah about them. Those who stand their ground and do not turn back are the grateful, for the grateful are only a small minority, as in the words of Allah- the Most High: "And very few of My servants are grateful" [Holy Quran 34:13].

Also there are many sayings of the Holy Prophet (saw) which explain the "turning back", and we will refer to some of them, and even if Allah - the Most High - did not specify the punishment of those who turned back on their heels in this Qur'anic verse: He glorified the grateful who deserve His reward. However, it is important to know that those who turned back on their heels do not deserve the reward of Allah and His forgiveness, as has been emphasized by the Messenger of Allah (saw) in many of his sayings, some of we will discuss - if Allah wills - in the course of this book. We could not explain the Qur'anic verse with reference to Tulayha, Sujah and al-Aswad al-Ansi, out of respect for the Companions, because the above-mentioned Companions have turned back and abandoned Islam, and even claimed the prophecy during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allahs who fought them and finally defeated them. Nor indeed can we explain the Qur'anic verse with reference to Malik Ibn Nuwayrah and his followers, who refused to pay Zakat (alms) in the time of the caliph Abu Bakr, for many reasons. They refused to pay al-Zakat (alms) and give it to Abu Bakr because they wanted to wait and see what happened, for they had accompanied the Messenger of Allah on his farewell pilgrimage, and voted for Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib at Ghadir Khum after the Messenger of Allah appointed him as Caliph after him, and indeed Abu Bakr himself voted for Ali. Therefore, they were astonished when a messenger from the caliph came to tell them the news of the holy Prophet's death and at the same time asked them to pay Zakat in the name the new caliph, Abu Bakr. It is a case in which history does not want to go too deep, for the sake of the Companion's honour. Furthermore, Malik and his followers were Muslims according to the testimony of Umar and Abu Bakr themselves and other Companions who disapproved of Khalid ibn al-Walid's killing of Malik. History testifies that Abu Bakr paid compensation for Malik's death to his brother Mutammem out of the Muslim's treasury, and apologized for his killing. It is well established that the apostate must be killed, and no compensation be paid out of the Muslim's treasury for his killing, and no apologies issued for killing him.

The important thing is that the "turning back" verse refers to the Companions who lived with the Messenger of Allah in al-Medinah al- Munawwarah, and indicates the immediate "turning back" after the Prophet's death. The Prophet's sayings explain all these things in such a clear way, that no one could doubt it. We shall deal with these matters soon, if Allah wills. History also testifies for the "turning back" that happened after the death of the Messenger of Allah, and when we view the events which took place among the ranks of the Companions we notice that only a few managed to come out unscathed.

2. The Holy War [Jihad] Verse

Allah - the Most High - said: "O You who believe, what (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah 's way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the Hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the Hereafter is but little. If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things" (Holy Qur'an 9:38-39).

This Qur'anic verse is clear about the reluctance of the Companions to go and fight in the Holy War [Jihad], and how they chose to be content with the life on earth, in spite of their knowledge of its short duration. Their action warranted a rebuke and a threat from Allah - the Almighty - that a terrible torture was awaiting them, and that He would change them for others who were true believers.

The threat to change them came in many Qur'anic verses which indicate clearly that they showed their reluctance to fight in al-Jihad- Holy War - more than once, and Allah- the Most High - says: "And if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, they will not be like you" (Holy Qur'an 47:38).

Also the Almighty says: O You who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer, this is Allah's grace, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing (Holy Qur'an 5:54).

If we want to investigate the Qur'anic verses which emphasize this issue and talk about the classification of the Companions, which the Shia advocate, then we would need a special book for it. The Holy Qur'an expressed all that in the most direct and eloquent way: Let there arise out of you a nation, inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong, and these it is that shall be successful.

And be not like those who became divided and disagreed after receiving clear signs, and these it is that shall have a grievous chastisement.

On the day, some faces will be white (lit up) and some faces will be black (in the gloom), to those whose faces will be black (will be said): Did you reject the faith after accepting it? Taste then the chastisement for rejecting the faith. But those whose faces will be white, they will be in Allah's mercy, therein to dwell" (Holy Qur'an 3:106-107).

These Qur'anic verses, as every intelligent scholar knows, are addressing the Companions, and warning them of the division and disagreement among themselves after they have already been shown the Right Path. They also tell them that a great torture is awaiting them, and divide them in two groups: The first group: when they will be resurrected on the Day of Judgement, everyone of them would have a white face, and those are the grateful who deserve the mercy of Allah. The second group: when they will be resurrected on the Day of Judgement, everyone of them would have a black face, and those are the apostates, whom Allah - the Almighty - promised the great torture.

It is well-known that the Companions were divided after the death of the Messenger of Allah. They disagreed among themselves to such an extent that they fought each other bloody wars which led to the regression and the backwardness of the Muslims and made them easy target for their enemies. The above Qur'anic verse could not be interpreted in any other way except that which is readily accepted by people.

3. The Submissiveness

Allah - the most High - said: "Has not the time yet come for those who believe that their hearts should be submissive for the remembrance of Allah and what has come down of the truth? And [that] they should not be like those who were given the book before, but the time became prolonged to them, so their hearts hardened, and most of them are transgressors". (Holy Qur'an 57:16).

In al-Durr al-Manthur by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, the author says: when the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) came to al-Medinah and started to enjoy a higher standard of living after having lived through many hardships, they seemed to slow down, so they were punished for that, and hence the verse "Has not the time yet come for those who believe" was revealed. Another version of the story, which came from the Prophet (saw), was that Allah- the Most High- found some reluctance in the Muhajereen seventeen years after the first revelation of the Holy Qur'an, and therefore Allah revealed the verse "Has not the time yet come for those who believe". If those Companions - who are the best people according to the Sunnis - did not feel humble before the name of Allah or His right revelation of seventeen years, so that Allah found them slowing down, and rebuked and warned them for their hardened hearts which were leading them to corruption, we cannot blame the people of Quraysh who only entered Islam in the seventh Hijri year after the conquest of Makkah.

These were some examples which I have selected from the Glorious Book of Allah which give us clear indications that not all the Companions were right, as the Sunnis believe.

If we study the sayings of the Prophet (saw), then we will find many more examples, but just to be brief, I shall refer to some of those examples and the interested reader may further his own knowledge if he so wishes.

 

1. The hadith of the Pool

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: As I was standing, there came a group of people whom I recognized, and a man stood between the group and myself, then said: "Let us go." I said, "Where to?" He said, "To Hell, by Allah!" I asked, "What have they done?" He answered, "They turned back after you had departed, and I expect only a few will reach salvation."[15]

[15]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 94-99, 156, vol 3 p 32
Sahih, Muslim, vol 7 p 66

The Messenger of Allah (saw) also said:

I shall arrive at the pool before you, and he who passes by me will drink, and whoever drinks from it will never feel thirsty. There will come to me people that I know and they know me, but we shall be separated, then I shall say, "My companions." An answer shall come, "You do not know what they did after you left." Then I shall say, "Away with those who changed after me."

When we look deeply at the various sayings that have been referred to by the Sunnis in their books, we will have no doubt that most of the Companions changed or even became apostates after the departure of the Messenger of Allah, except a few who were considered to be the minority. The above sayings could not be applied to the third type [of Companions], for they were the hypocrites, and the text states: I shall say, "My companions."

These sayings confirm and explain the Holy Qur'anic verses that we mentioned earlier on, which talked about their retreat and their apostasy and the terrible torture awaiting them.

2. The hadith of the Competition of the World

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

I lead you and am your witness, and by Allah I now look at my pool and have been given the keys to the treasures of the earth [for the earth's keys], and by Allah I am not worried that you become polythiest after me, but I am worried that you will compete for it" [16]

[16]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 100-101

The Messenger of Allah (saw) was right. They competed for this world to the extent that they fought against each other, and each party accused the other of blasphemy. Some of the famous Companions were eager to collect gold and silver, and historians such as al-Masudi in Muruj al-Dhahab" and al-Tabari and others stated that the wealth of al-Zubayr on its own came to fifty thousand Dinars and a thousand horses with one thousand slaves and many holdings in Basra al-Kufa Egypt and many other places [17].

[17]

Muruj al Dhahab, al Masudi, vol 2 p 341

The agricultural products from Iraq alone brought Talhah one thousand Dinars every day, and perhaps more than that.

Abdul Rahman ibn Awf had one hundred horses, one thousand camels and ten thousand sheep. After his death, quarter of his wealth which was divided among his wives came to eighty four thousand Dinars. [18]

[18]

Same as 17

Uthman ibn Affan left on the day of his death one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars apart from an enormous wealth of land, cattle and villages.

Zayd ibn Thabit left an amount of gold and silver that had to be broken by hammers! Apart from money and agricultural holdings which came to one hundred thousand Dinars. [19]

[19]

Same as 17

These were just a few historical examples. since we do not want to go into detailed analysis of their importance at the moment, we only mentions them as a proof and support of the sayings, that they [these companions] were more interested in the present life.

 

1. Their testimony that they themselves have changed the tradition of the Prophet

Abu Saeed al-Khudari said: On the first days of 'Id al-Fitr [breaking the fast of Ramadan] and 'Id al-Adha [celebrating the end of the Pilgrimage], the first thing the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to do was to say his prayers in the mosque, then he went to see the people, who sat in rows in front of him, and then he started to deliver advice or orders or even finalize outstanding issues, and after all that he would leave. Abu Saeed added: The situation continued to be like that, until one day, either Fitr or Adha, I went with Marwan, who was the governor of al-Medinah. When we arrived at the mosque, which had a new pulpit built by Kathir ibn al-Salt, Marwan headed for the pulpit (before praying), so I pulled him by his clothes, but he pushed me and went up on to the pulpit. He addressed the people before he prayed, so I said to him, "By Allah you have changed it." He replied, "O Abu Saeed, what you know has gone." I said, "By Allah, what I know is better than what I do not know." Marwan then said, "People did not sit for us after the prayers, so I put [it] before the prayers". [20]

[20]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 122 (al Idayn book)

I looked for the reasons which led those Companions to change the Sunnah [the tradition] of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and found that the Umayyads (and most of them were Companions of the Prophet) and Muawiah ibn Abi Sufian (writer of the revelation, as he was called) in particular used to force people to swear at Ali ibn Abi Talib and curse him from the pulpits of the mosques, as most of the historians have mentioned in their books.

Muslim, in his Sahih, wrote in a chapter entitled, "The virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib", the following: Muawiah ordered his governors everywhere to take the curse [of Ali ibn Abi Talib] as tradition, and that all the speakers must include it in their speeches. When some of the Companions protested very strongly against such a rule, Muawiah ordered their killing and burning. Among the famous Companions who were killed at the order of Muawiah were Hijr ibn Adi al-Kindi and his followers, because they protested and refused to curse Ali, and some of them were buried alive.

Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book "Caliphate and Kingdom": Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: Muawiah had four features, and if he had only one of them, it would have been considered a great sin:

1. Making decisions without consulting the Companions, who were the light of virtues.
2. Designating his son as his successor. His son was a drunkard, corrupt and wore silk.
3. He claimed Ziyad [as his son], and the Messenger of Allah said, "There is offspring for the honourable woman, but there is nothing for the whore."
4. His killing of Hijr and his followers. Woe unto him from Hijr and the followers of Hijr. [21]

[21] al Khilafah wa al Mulk, Syed Abul A'la Maududi, p 106

There were some good Companions who used to dash out of the mosque immediately after the prayers so that they did not have to listen to the speeches which always ended with the cursing of Ali. For that reason the Umayyads changed the tradition of the Messenger of Allah. They put the speech before the prayers, so that people listened to it against their will.

What kind of Companions were these people! They were not afraid of changing the tradition of the Messenger of Allah, or even the laws of Allah, in order to reach their wicked and low objectives and to satisfy their sinister desires. They cursed a man whom Allah had kept cleansed and purified, and made it obligatory for people to pray for him in the same way as they prayed for His Messenger. Furthermore, Allah and His Messenger made it obligatory for people to love him, and the Prophet (saw) said, "Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy" [22].

[22]

Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 61

But these Companions changed the rules and said, "We heard, but we disobey." And instead of loving him, praying for him and obeying him, they swore at him and cursed him for sixty years, as has been mentioned in the history books.

Whereas the Companions of Moses plotted against Aaron and tried to kill him, some of the Companions of Muhammad killed his Aaron and pursued his sons and followers everywhere. They removed their names from the Diwan (account books of the treasury) and prohibited anyone to be named after them. As if that was not enough for them, they cursed him and forced the faithful Companions to do so unjustly and by force.

By Allah! I stand astonished and perplexed when I read in our Sihahs how much the Messenger of Allah loved his "brother" and cousin Ali and how he put him above all the Companions, and even he said, "You are to me as Aaron was to Moses, but there will be no prophet after me." [23]

He also said the following things about Ali:

"You are from me, and I am from you" [24].

"Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy" [25].

"I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate" [26].

"Ali is the master of all the believers after me"[28].

"Whoever accepted me as his master, then he should also accept Ali as his master. O Allah be friendly with his friends, and be enemy to his enemy" [28]

 

[23]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 305
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 356
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 109

 

[24]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 76
Sahih, Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300
Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44

 

[25]

Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 61Sunan, al Nasai, vol 6 p 117Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 8 p 306

[26]

Sahih, Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 201
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 126

 

[27]

Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 5 p 25
Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 134
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 296

 

[28]

Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 362
Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 109
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281

If we study all the virtues that the Prophet (saw) attributed to Ali, which have been mentioned and approved by our scholars in their books, then we would need to write a whole book.

So, how did the Companions ignore all these texts, swear at him, plot against him, curse him from the pulpits of the mosques and then fight against him and finally kill him?

I tried in vain to find a reason for the behaviour of those people, but found nothing except the love of this life and the competition for it, in addition to the tendency to apostatize and turn back on their heels. I have also tried to attach the responsibility to a group of bad Companions and some hypocrites, but regrettably those were only a few among the famous and the important. The first who threatened to burn his house - with its inhabitants - was Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the first who fought him were Talhah, al-Zubayr, Aishah bint Abi Bakr - Umm al-Mumineen, Muawiah ibn Abi Sufian, Amr ibn al-'Aas and many others.

I am astonished, and my astonishment will never end, and any responsible free thinker would agree with me, as to how the Sunni scholars agree on the righteousness of all the Companions and ask for the blessings of Allah to be upon them and pray for all of them without exception, although some of them say: "Curse Yazid, and no further." But where is Yazid amongst all these tragedies which no religion or logic could approve? I appeal to the Sunni people, if they truly follow the Prophet's tradition, to ask themselves how they could accept somebody to be righteous when the laws of the Holy Qur'an and the Prophetic tradition judge him as being corrupt, an apostate and an unbeliever. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "He who insults Ali, insults me. He who insults me, insults Allah. And he who insults Allah, Allah will throw him into Hell" [29]. If that is the punishment for those who insult Ali, one wonders about the punishment of those who fought him and ultimately killed him. What are our scholars' opinions regarding all these facts, or are their hearts locked solid?! Say, O God please protect us from the tricks of the devil.

[29]

Mustadrak, hakim, vol 3 p 121
Khasais, al Nasai, p 24
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 6 p 33
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 81
al Riyadh al Nadira, Tabari, vol 2 p 219
Tarikh, as Suyuti, p 73

2. The Companions even made changes in Prayers

Anas ibn Malik said: I knew nothing during the lifetime of the Prophet(saw) better than the prayer. He said: Have you not lost what you have lost in it? Al-Zuhri said: I went to see Anas ibn Malik in Damascus, and found him crying, I asked him, "What is making you cry?" He answered, "I have known nothing but these prayers, and they have been lost." [30]

[30]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 134

I would like to make it clear that it was not the followers who implemented the changes after all the intrigues and civil wars, rather it was the caliph Uthman who first made changed in the Prophet's tradition regarding the prayers.

Also Umm al-Mumineen Aishah was involved in these changes. Al-Bukhari and Muslim, both stated in their books that the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed two prayers at Mina, and Abu Bakr after him, then Umar and Uthman who later performed four prayers. [31]

[31]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 154
Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 260

Muslim also stated in his book that al-Zuhri asked 'Urwah, "Why did Aishah complete her prayers during the journey?" He answered, "She improvised in the same way as Uthman did." [32]

[32]

Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 134

Umar used to improvise and interpret the clear texts of the Prophet's tradition, and even the Holy Qur'anic texts. Like he used to say: two pleasures were allowed during the life of the Messenger of Allah, but now I disallow them and punish those who commit them, I tell the person who is in a state of ritual impurity, or cannot find water not to pray. That was in spite of the words of Allah - the Most High - in Surat al-Maidah: "If you do not find water, then use clean sand."

Al-Bukhari stated in his book, in a chapter which deals with ritual impurity: I heard Shaqiq ibn Salmah saying: I was with Abdullah and Abu Musa, and Abu Musa asked, "What do you say about a man who is unclean but cannot find water?" Abdullah answered, "He should not pray until he finds water." Abu Musa then asked, "What do you think about what the Prophet said to Ammar [regarding the issue of impurity] when Ammar asked him?" Abdullah said, "For that reason Umar was not satisfied with [that]." Abu Musa said, "Forget about what Ammar said, but what do you say about the Qur'anic verse?" Abdullah did not know what to say, but he justified his stance by saying, "If we let them do that, then whenever the water becomes cold, they avoid using it to clean themselves, and instead they use sand. I said to Shaqiq, "Abdullah is most certainly hated for that." He said, "Yes". [33]

[33]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 54

3. The Companions Testify against themselves

Anas ibn Malik said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to al-Ansar: You will notice after me some great selfishness, but be patient until you meet Allah and His Messenger by the pool. Anas said: We were not patient. [34]

[34]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 135

Al-Ala ibn al-Musayyab heard his father saying: I met al- Bara ibn Azib - may Allah honour them both - and said to him, "Bless you, you accompanied the Prophet (saw) and you voted for him under the tree." He said, "My son, you do not know what we have done after him" [35].

[35]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 32

This early Companion, who was one of those who voted for the Prophet under the tree, and who received the blessing of Allah, for Allah knew what was in their hearts, testifies against himself and his companions that they did not keep the tradition. This testimony is confirmation of what the Prophet (saw) talked about and predicted in that his Companions would break with his tradition and fall back on their heels.

How could any sensible person, after all this evidence, believe in the righteousness of all the Companions, as the Sunnis do?

He who believes that, is definitely reversing the order of logic and scholarship, and there will be no intellectual criteria for the researcher to use in his quest for the truth.

4. The testimony of the Shaykhan against themselves

In a chapter entitled "The virtues of Umar ibn al-Khattab", al-Bukhari wrote in his book: "When Umar was stabbed he felt great pain and Ibn Abbas wanted to comfort him, so he said to him, "O Commander of the Believers, you accompanied the Messenger of Allah and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was very pleased with you. Then you accompanied Abu Bakr, and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was pleased with you. Then you accompanied their companions and you were a good companion to them, and if you left them, they would remember you well." He said, "As for the companionship of the Messenger of Allah and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah- the Most High - has granted to me. As for the companionship of Abu Bakr and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah - Glory be to Him - has granted to me. But the reason you see me in pain is for you and your companions. By Allah, if I had all the gold on earth I would use it to ransom myself from the torture of Allah - Glory and Majesty be to Him - before I saw Him. [36]

[36]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 201

He has also been quoted as saying the following, "I wish I was my family's sheep. They would have fattened me up to the maximum. When they were visited by friends, they would have killed me and roasted part of me, and made qadid (meat cut into strips and dried) from the other part of it, then they would have eaten me, and lastly, they would have relieved me with their bowle evacuation ... I wish I had been all that, rather than a human being." [37]

[37]

Minhaj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 131
Hilyat al Awliya, Ibn Abi Nuaym, vol 1 p 52

Abu Bakr apparently said a similar thing to the above. He looked at a bird on a tree, then said, "Well done bird ... You eat the fruits, you stand on the trees and you are not accountable to anybody nor indeed can anybody punish you. I wish I was a tree by the road, and that a camel would come along and eat me. then relieve me with his bowel evacuation ... I wish that I had been all that, rather than a human being." [38]

[38]

Tarikh, Tabari, p 41al Riyadh al Nadira, vol 1 p 134Kanz al Ummal, p 361Minhaj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 120

He also said, I wish that my mother had not given birth to me ... I wish I was a straw in the mud. [39] These are some texts that I used just as examples and not for any specific reason.

[39]

Tarikh, Tabari, p 41
al Riyadh al Nadira, Tatabri, vol 1 p 134
Kanz al Ummal, p 361
Minhaj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 120

And this is the Book of Allah which gives the good news to the worshippers of Allah who believe in Him: "Now surely the friends of Allah - they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. Those who believe and fear (Allah). They shall have good news in this world's life and in the Hereafter, there is no changing in the words of Allah; that is the great achievement" (Holy Qur'an 10:62-64).

Allah also says: "(As for) those who say, our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying, "Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised. We are your guardians in this world's life and in the Hereafter, and you shall have therein what your souls desire and you shall have therein what you ask for. An entertainment by the Forgiving, the Merciful" (Holy Our'an 41:30-32).

How could the two Shaykhs. Abu Bakr and Umar, wish that they were not from the human race, which Allah honoured and put it above all His creation? Even the ordinary believer, who keeps on the straight path during his lifetime, receives the angels to tell him about his place in heaven, and that he should not fear the torture of Allah, nor be depressed about his legacy in life, and that he has the good news while he is in this life before reaching the life Hereafter. Then how could the great Companions, who are the best of creation after the Messenger of Allah (so we have been taught), wish they were excrement or a hair or a straw when the angels had given them the good news that they would go to heaven? They could not have wished to have all the gold on earth to ransom themselves from the torture of Allah before meeting Him.

Allah - the Most High - said: "And if every soul that has done injustice had all that is in the earth, it would offer it for ransom, and they will manifestly regret when they see the chastisement and the matter shall be decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt unjustly" (Holy Quran 10:54).

Allah also said: "And had those who are unjust all that is in the earth and the like of with it, they would certainly offer it as ransom (to be saved) from the evil of the punishment on the day of resurrection; and what they never thought of shall become plain to them from Allah. And the evil (consequences) of what they wrought shall become plain to them, and the very thing they mocked at shall beset them" (Holy Qur'an 39:47-48).

I wish sincerely that these Qur'anic verses did not involve great Companions like Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar al-Faruq ... But I often pause when I read these texts so that I can look at some interesting aspects of their relations with the Messenger of Allah (saw), and how that relation went through many turmoils. They disobeyed his orders and refused him his wishes, even in the last moments of his blessed and honourable life, which made him so angry that he ordered them all to leave his house and to leave him. I also recall the chain of events that took place after the death of the Messenger of Allah, and the hurt and lack of recognition that afflicted his daughter al-Zahra. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Fatimah is part of me, he who angers her angers me" [40].

[40]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 206

Fatimah said to Abu Bakr and Umar: I ask you in the name of Allah - the Most High - did you not hear the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying, "The satisfaction of Fatimah is my satisfaction, and the anger of Fatimah is my anger, he who loves my daughter Fatimah loves me, and he who satisfies Fatimah satisfies me, and he who angers Fatimah angers me?" They said, "Yes, we heard it from the Messenger of Allah (saw)." Then she said, "Therefore, I testify before Allah and the angels that you have angered me and did not please me, and if I meet the Prophet I will complain to him about you."[41]

[41]

al Imamah Was Siyasah, Ibn Qutaybah, vol 1 p 20
Muhammad Baqir as Sadr, Fadak in History, p 92

Let us leave this tragic story for the time being, but Ibn Qutaybah, who is considered to be one of the great Sunni scholars, and was an expert in many disciplines and wrote many books on Qur'anic commentary. Hadith Linguistics, grammar and history might well have been converted to Shiism, as somebody I know once claimed when I showed him Ibn Qutaybah's book "History of the Caliphs".

This is the type of propaganda that some of our scholars use when they lose the argument. Similarly al-Tabari was a Shi'ite, and al-Nisa'i, who wrote a book about the various aspects of Imam Ali, was a Shiite, and Taha Husayn, a contemporary scholar who wrote "Al-Fitnah al-Kubra" and other facts, was also a Shi'ite!

The fact is that all of these were not Shiites, and when they talked about the Shia, they said all sorts of dishonourable things about them, and they defended the fairness of the Companions with all their might. But the fact is that whenever a person mentions the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and admits to the mistakes that were committed by the famous Companions, we say that he has become a Shiite. And if you say in front of them, when you mention the Prophet, "May Allah bless him and his Family" or say, "Ali, may Allah's peace be upon him" then you are branded a Shiite. According to that premise, one day, during a debate, I asked one of our scholars, "What do you think of al-Bukhari?" He said, "He is one of the leading authorities in Hadith (the Prophetic tradition) and we consider his book to be the most correct book after the Book of Allah, as all our scholars agree." I said to him, "He is a Shiite." He laughed and said, "God forbid that Imam al-Bukhari be a Shiite." I said, "Did you not say that whoever says Ali, may Allah's peace be upon him, is Shiite?" He answered, "Yes." Then I showed him and those who were with him al-Bukhari's book, and in many places when Ali's name appears, he put "May Allah's peace be upon him" as well as the names of Fatimah and al-Husayn. The man did not know what to say. [42]

[42]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 127, 130, vol 2 p 126, 205

Let us return to the incident mentioned by Ibn Qutaybah in which Fatimah allegedly was angered by Abu Bakr and Umar. If I doubt the authenticity of that story, then I could not doubt the authenticity of al-Bukhari's book, which we consider to be the most correct book after the Book of Allah. As we have committed ourselves to the fact that it is correct, then the Shiites have the right to use it in their protestation against us and force us to keep to our commitment, as is only fair for sensible people. In his book, al-Bukhari writes in a chapter entitled "The virtues of the relatives of the Messenger of Allah" the following: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Fatimah is part of me, and whoever angers her angers me." Also in a chapter about "The Khaybar Raid" he wrote: According to Aishah, Fatimah- may Allah's peace be upon her - daughter of the Prophet, sent a message to Abu Bakr asking him for her share of the inheritance of the Messenger of Allah, but he refused to pay Fatimah anything of it. Fatimah became so angry at Abu Bakr that she left him and never spoke to him before her death. [43]

[43]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 39

The final result is one, al-Bukhari mentioned it briefly and Ibn Qutaybah talked about it in some detail, and that is: the Messenger of Allah (saw) is angry when Fatimah is angry, and he is satisfied when Fatimah is satisfied, and that she died while she was still angry with Abu Bakr and Umar.

If al-Bukhari said: She died while she was still angry at Abu Bakr, and did not speak to him before she died, then the end result is quite clear. If Fatimah is "the leading lady among all the ladies" as al-Bukhari declared in the section al-Isti'dhan, and if Fatimah is the only lady in this nation whom Allah kept clean and pure, then her anger could not be but just, therefore Allah and His Messenger get angry for her anger. Because of that Abu Bakr said, "May Allah - the Most High - save me from His anger and Fatimah's anger." Then he cried very bitterly when she said, "By Allah, I will curse you in every prayer that I do." He came out crying and said, "I do not need your pledge of allegiance and discharge me from my duties." [44]

[44]

Tarikh al Khulafa, Ibn Qutaybah, vol 1 p 20

Many of our historians and scholars admit that Fatimah - may Allah's peace be upon her - challenged Abu Bakr in many cases such as the donations, the inheritance and the shares of the relatives, but her challenge was dismissed, and she died angry at him. However, our scholars seem to pass over these incidents without having the will to talk about them in some detail, so that they could as usual, preserve the integrity of Abu Bakr. One of the strange things that I have read regarding this subject, is what one of the writers said after he had mentioned the incident in some detail: God forbid that Fatimah should claim something that does not rightly belong to her, and God forbid that Abu Bakr denied her rights.

The writer thought that through this weak reasoning, he would be able to solve the problem and convince the researchers. He appears to be saying something similar to the following: God forbid that the Holy Qur'an should say anything but the truth, and God forbid that the sons of Israel should worship the calf. We have been plagued with scholars who say things that they cannot comprehend, and believe in the object and its antithesis, simultaneously. The point is that Fatimah claimed and Abu Bakr dismissed her claim, so she was either a liar - God forbid - or Abu Bakr treated her unjustly. There could be no third solution for the case, as some of our scholars would wish.

Logical reasoning and traditional proofs prevent the Mistress of Ladies from being accused of lying, due to the confirmation of her father (s) in his saying: "Fatimah is a part of me, and whoever hurts her hurts me." Hence, intuitively, whoever lies does not deserve this kind of statement (of honor) by the Messenger of Allah (saw). Therefore, the saying itself is a clear indication of her infallibility. The purification verse from the Holy Qur'an is another indication of her infallibility, and it was revealed in her honour and the honour of her husband and her two sons, as Aishah herself testified [45]. Hence, there is nothing left for sensible people but to accept the fact that she was unjustly treated, and that she was easy to be branded a liar by somebody who was willing to let her burn unless the remaining people in her house came out to vote for him. [46]

[45]

Sahih, Muslim, vol 7 p 121, 130

[46]

Tarikh al Khulafa, vol 1 p 20

Because of all that, she - may Allah's peace be upon her - refused entry to Abu Bakr and Umar when they asked her permission. Even when Ali allowed them to enter, she turned her face to the wall and refused to look at them [47]. Furthermore, before she died, she asked to be buried secretly, and at night, so that none of them could be present at her funeral [48], and to this day, the grave of the Prophet's daughter is unknown.

[47]

Tarikh al Khulafa, vol 1 p 20

[48]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 39

I would like to ask why our scholars remain silent about these facts, and are reluctant to look into them, or even to mention them. They give us the impression that the Companions are like angels, infallible and sinless, and when you ask them why the caliph of the Muslim's Uthman was murdered, they would say: It was the Egyptians - and they were not believers - who came and killed him, thus ends the subject with two words.

When I had the opportunity to carry out research into history, I found that the main figures behind the killing of Uthman were the Companions themselves, and that Aishah led them, calling for his death publicly and saying: "Kill Na'thal (the old fool), for he was not a believer." [49]

[49]

Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 407
Tarikh, Ibn Athir, vol 3 p 206
Lisan al Arab, vol 14 p 193
Taj al Arus, vol 8 p 141
Al Iqd al Farid, vol 4 p 290

Also we know that Talhah, al-Zubayr, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and other famous Companions besieged him in his house and prevented him from having a drink of water, so that they could force him to resign. Furthermore, the historians inform us that they did not allow his corpse to be buried in a Muslim cemetery, and that he was finally buried in "Hashsh Kawkab" without washing the corpse and without a shroud.

O Allah, praise be to You, how could they tell us that he was unjustly killed, and that those who killed him were not Muslims. This is another case similar to that of Fatimah and Abu Bakr: Uthman was either unjustly treated, therefore we may pass judgement on those Companions who killed him or those who participated in his killing that they were criminal murderers because they unlawfully killed the caliph of the Muslims, and threw stones at his funeral, and humiliated him when he was alive and then when he was dead; or that the Companions killed him because he committed certain deeds which were not compatible with Islam, as the historical sources tell us.

There is no third option, unless we dismiss the historical facts and accept the distorted picture that the Egyptians, who were not believers, killed Uthman. In both cases there is a definite rejection of the common belief that all the Companions were right and just, without exception, for either Uthman was unjust or his killers were not just, but all of them were Companions, and hence our proposition becomes void. Therefore we are left with the proposition of the followers of Ahl al-Bayt, and that is that some of the Companions were right and some others were wrong.

We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it. How could Umm al-Mumineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: "And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours" (Holy Qur'an 33:33).

We may also ask, how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk. Seemingly these people are trying to convince us that that incident - if it was true - namely Ali's advice to the Prophet to divorce Aishah, was sufficient for her to disobey the orders of her God and her husband, the Messenger of Allah. She rode a camel that the Messenger of Allah forbade her from riding and warned her about the barking of al-Hawab's dogs [50], she travelled long distances from al-Medinah to Mekka then to Basrah, she permitted the killing of innocent people and started a war against the commander of the believers and the Companions who voted for him, and she caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims, according to the historians [51]. She did all that because she did not like Ali who advised the Prophet to divorce her. Nevertheless the Prophet did not divorce her so why all this hatred towards Imam Ali? History has recorded some aggressive stances against Ali that could not be explained and these are some of them. When she was on her way back from Mekka Aishah was informed that Uthman was killed, so she was delighted, but when she learnt that people had voted for Ali to succeed him she became very angry and said, "I wish the sky would collapse on the earth before Ibn Abi Talib succeeds to the caliphate." Then she said, "Take me back." Thus she started the civil war against Ali, whose name she never liked to mention, as many historians agree.

[50]

al Imamah was Siyasah

[51]

Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir and other historians who wrote about the events in the Year 36 A.H

Had Aishah heard the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy? [52]. To the extent that some of the Companions used to say, "We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali." Had Aishah not heard the saying of the Prophet: Whoever accepts me as his master, then Ali is his master? Undoubtedly she heard all that, but she did not like it, and she did not like mentioning his name, and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah. [53]

[52]

Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 48

[53]

Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir, who wrote about the events in the Year of 40 Hijri

Let us move on, for I do not want to discuss the life of Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, but I have tried to show how many of the Companions violated the principles of Islam and disobeyed the orders of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and it suffices to mention the following incident which happened to Aishah during the civil war, and on which all historians tend to agree. It has been said that when Aishah passed by the waters of al-Hawab and heard the dogs barking, she remembered the warning of her husband, the Messenger of Allah, and how he prevented her from being the instigator of "al-Jamal" war. She cried, then she said, "Take me back . take me back!" But Talhah and al- Zubayr brought fifty men and bribed them, then made them testify that these waters were not al-Hawab's waters. Later she continued her journey until she reached Basrah. Many historians believe that those fifty men gave the first falsified testimony in the history of Islam. [54]

[54]

Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir and other historians who wrote about the events of the Year 40 A.H

O Muslims! You who have enlightened minds ... assist us in solving this problem. Were these truly the honourable Companions, of whom we were always led to believe in their righteousness, and that they were the best people after the Messenger of Allah (saw)! How could they give a falsified testimony when the Messenger of Allah considered it to be one of the great sins, whose punishment is Hell.

The same question crops up again. Who was right and who was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Aishah and her followers and Talhah and al-Zubayr and their followers were wrong. There is no third possibility. But I have no doubt that the fair researcher would take Ali's side and dismiss Aishah and her followers who instigated the civil war that devastated the nation and left its tragic marks to the present day.

For the sake of further clarification, and for the sake of my own satisfaction I mention here what al-Bukhari had to say in his book about the civil war. When Talhah, al-Zubayr and Aishah travelled to Basrah, Ali sent Ammar ibn Yasir and al-Hasan ibn Ali to al-Kufah. On their arrival, they went to the mosque and addressed the congregation, and we heard Ammar saying, "Aishah had gone to Basrah ... and by Allah she is the wife of your Prophet in this life and the life hereafter, but Allah, the Most High, is testing you to know whom you obey: Him or her." [55]

[55]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 161

Also al-Bukhari wrote in his book a chapter about what went on in the houses of the Prophet's wives: Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he indicated the house where Aishah was living, then said, "There is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... from where the devil's horns come out ..." [56]

[56]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 128

Al-Bukhari wrote many strange things in his book about Aishah and her bad manners towards the Prophet to the extent that her father had to beat her until she bled. He also wrote about her pretention towards the Prophet until Allah threatened her with divorce... and there are many other stories but we are limited by space.

After all that I ask how did Aishah deserve all that respect from the Sunnis; is it because she was the Prophet's wife? But he had so many wives, and some of them were better than Aishah, as the Prophet himself declared [57]. Or perhaps because she was Abu Bakr's daughter! Or maybe because she played an important role in the denial of the Prophet's will for Ali, and when she was told that the Prophet recommended Ali, she said, "Who said that? I was with the Prophet (saw) supporting his head on my chest, then he asked me to bring the washbowl, as I bent down he died, so I cannot see how he recommended Ali [58]. Or is it because she fought a total war against him and his sons after him, and even intercepted the funeral procession of al-Hasan - Leader of the Heaven's youth - and prevented his burial beside his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, and said "Do not allow anybody that I do not like to enter my house."

[57]

Sahih al Tirmidhi
al Istiab, Ibn Abd al Barr, Biography of Safiyya

[58]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 68

She forgot, or maybe ignored the Messenger of Allah's sayings about him and his brother, "Allah loves those who love them, and Allah hates those who hate them," Or his saying, "I am at war with those who fight against you, and I am at peace with those who appease you." And there are many other sayings in their honour. No wonder, for they were so dear to him!

She heard many more sayings in honour of Ali, but despite the Prophet's warning, she was determined to fight him and agitate the people against him and deny all his virtues. Because of that, the Umayyads loved her and put her in a high position and filled the books with her virtues and made her the great authority for the Islamic nation because she had half of the religion.

Perhaps they assigned the second half of the religion to Abu Hurayrah, who told them what they wanted to hear, so they bestowed on him various honours: they gave him the governorship of al-Medinah, they gave him al-Aqiq palace and gave him the title of "Rawiat al-lslam" - the transmitter of Islam. He made it easy for the Umayyads to create a completely new religion which took whatever pleased them and supported their interests and power from the Holy Qur'an and the tradition of the Prophet. Inevitably, such a religion lacked any seriousness and became full of contradictions and myths, hence most of the facts were buried and replaced by lies. Then they forced the people to believe in these lies so that the religion of Allah became a mere joke, and no one feared Allah as much as they feared Muawiah. When we ask some of our scholars about Muawiah's war against Ali, who had been acknowledged by al-Muhajireen and al-Ansar, a war which led to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shiites and left it scarred to this very day, they simply answer by saying, "Ali and Muawiah were both good Companions, and both of them interpreted Islam in his own way. However, Ali was right, therefore he deserves two rewards, but Muawiah got it wrong, therefore, he deserves one reward. It is not within our right to judge for them or against them, Allah- the Most High - said: "This is a people that have passed away, they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did" (Holy Qur'an 2:134).

Regrettably, we provide such weak answers that neither a sensible mind nor a religion, nor indeed a law would accept. O Allah, I am innocent of idle talk and of deviant whims. I beg You to protect me from the devil's touch.

How could a sensible mind accept that Muawiah had worked hard to interpret Islam and give him one reward for his war against the leader of all Muslims, and for his killing of thousands of innocent believers, in addition to all the crimes that he committed? He was known among the historians for killing his opponents through feeding them poisoned honey, and he used to say, "Allah has soldiers made of honey."

How could these people judge him as a man who worked hard to promote Islam and give him a reward for that, when he was the leader of a wrong faction? There is a well known Hadith of the Prophet, and most of the scholars agree its authenticity, "Woe unto Ammar .. he will be killed by the wrong faction." And he was killed by Muawiah and his followers.

How could they judge him as a promoter of Islam when he killed Hijr Ibn Adi and his companions and buried them in Marj Adhra in the Syrian desert because they refused to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib?

How could they judge him a just Companion when he killed al-Hasan, leader of the Heaven's youth, by poisoning him?

How could they judge him as being correct after he had forced the nation to acknowledge him as a caliph and to accept his corrupt son Yazid as his successor, and to change the Shurah [consultative] system to a hereditary one? [59]

[59]

Read Khilafat o Mulukiyat by Syed Abul A'la Maududi

How could they judge him as a man who had worked hard to promote Islam and to reward him, after he forced the people to curse Ali and Ahl al- Bayt, the Family of the chosen Prophet, and killed those Companions who refused to do so, and made the act of cursing Ali a tradition? There is no power but in Allah, the Most High, the Great.

The question crops up over and over again. Which faction was right, and which faction was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Muawiah and his followers were wrong, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained everything.

In both cases, the proposition of the righteousness of all the Companions does not hold ground and is incompatible with logic. There are many examples for all these subjects. and if I want to study them in detail and discuss them for all their aspects, then I would need volumes. But I wanted to be brief in this study so I mentioned a few examples, but thank Allah, for they have been enough to refute the claims of my people who froze my mind for a period of time, and prevented me from looking at the Hadith (prophetic tradition) and the historical events with an analytical view, using the intellect and the legal yard-sticks which the Holy Qur'an and the honourable Prophet's tradition taught us to do.

Therefore, I shall rebel against myself and rid myself of the dust of prejudice with which they engulfed me. I shall free myself from all the chains and fetters that I have been tied with for more than twenty years, and say, "I wish my people knew that Allah has granted me forgiveness and made me among the honourable people. I wish my people could discover the world they know nothing about. but nevertheless oppose."

 

 

---

I stayed unsettled and perplexed for three months, even when I was asleep, my mind was overwhelmed by doubts and fears about myself regarding the Companions whose lives I was researching. I found many astonishing contradictions in their behaviour, because throughout my life I had received an education based on the respect and the veneration of those sages who would hurt anybody that spoke badly about them or disrespected them in their absence, even if they were dead.

I had read once in "Hayat al-Haywan al-Kubra" by alDamiri [60]: There was a man riding in a Caravan with his friend, and during the journey he kept insulting Umar, and his friend tried to prevent him from doing so. When he was in the toilet, a black snake bit him, and he died immediately. When they dug his grave, they found a black snake inside it; they dug another one, and the same thing happened. Every time they dug a new grave, they found a snake inside it. Then a learned man told them, "Bury him anywhere you wish, even if you dig the whole earth, you will find a black snake. This is because Allah wants to chastise him in this life before the hereafter, for insulting our master Umar."

[60]

Hayat al Haywan al Kubra, al Damiri

Thus, while I was forcing myself through this difficult research, I felt fearful and confused, especially as I had learnt in al-Zaytuna that the best caliphs were Abu Bakr al-Siddiq then Umar ibn al-Khattab al-Farooq, whom Allah will use to divide right from wrong. After that comes Uthman ibn Affan Dhul-Noorayn, from whom the angels of the Merciful felt shy, and after him comes Ali ibn Abi Talib, the gate to the city of knowledge. After these four come the remaining six of the ten who were promised Paradise, and they are Talhah, al-Zubayr, Sa'ad, Sa'eed, Abdul-Rahman, and Abu Ubaydah. After them come all the Companions, and after we were recommended of the Holy Qur'anic verse "We do not differentiate between any of His messengers" as a premise on which we should base the assumption that we should not differentiate in our respect for all the Companions.

Because of that I feared for myself, and asked my Lord for forgiveness on many occasions, and indeed I wanted to leave the issues that made me doubtful about the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, and then made me doubtful about my own religion.

During that period, and throughout my conversations with a few learned people, I found many contradictions that could not be accepted by sensible people, and then they started to warn me that if I continued with my research about the Companions, Allah would take His grace from me and finish me off.

Their continuous stubbornness and their denial of whatever I said, coupled with my scientific mind and eagerness to reach the truth, forced me to resume the research, because I felt an inner force urging me to do so.

 

I said to one of our scholars: When Muawiah killed the innocent and disgraced the honourable, you judge him as being an interpreter of Islam who got it wrong, and therefore has one reward. When Yazid killed the descendants of the Messenger and authorized the sacking of al-Medinah al-Munawwarah by his army, you judge him as an interpreter of Islam who got it wrong, and therefore has one reward. Some of you even said about him that "al-Husayn was killed by the sword of his grandfather." Why should I not then interpret Islam through this study, which is forcing me to doubt the intentions of the Companions and to blow the cover of some of them. which would not be equated with killings done by Muawiah and Yazid of the Prophet's family? If I am right I deserve two rewards, and if I am wrong, I would have only one reward. However, my criticism of the Companions is not for the sake of insulting them or cursing them, but it is a means through which I hope to reach the truth. Who is the right group, and who is the wrong group. This is my duty and the duty of each Muslim, and Allah - praise be to Him - knows what is inside ourselves. The scholar then answered me, ' O my son, Ijtihad (the interpretation of Islamic religion) has not been allowed for some time."

l asked, "Who disallowed it?"

He said, "The four Imams."

I said liberally, "Thanks be to Allah! Since neither Allah disallowed it, nor His Messenger or the rightly guided caliphs, whom we are ordered to follow, then there are no restrictions on me to interpret Islam, as they did.

He said, "You may not interpret Islam unless you know seventeen disciplines, among them: Tafsir [commentary on the Holy Qur'an], Linguistics, Grammar, Sarf [Morphology], Rhetoric, Hadiths [ Prophetic traditions], History and others."

I interjected by saying, "My Ijtihad is not to show the people the rules of the Qur'an and the Prophet's tradition, or to be a religious leader of a new creed. Nay! All that I want to know is who is right and who is wrong. For example, to know whether Imam Ali was right or Muawiah, I do not need to master seventeen disciplines. All I need to do is to study the life and works of each one of them to know the truth.

He said, "Why do you want to know all that?" "This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did" [Holy Qur'an 2:134]

I asked, "Do you read Tusaloon [the Arabic word for Questioned] with Dammah [the vowel point upon the letter ta] or with Tasaloon with Fathah [the vowel] point a]?"

He said, "Tusaloon, with Dammah."

I said, Thanks be to Allah, if it was with Fathah, then there would be no research. As it is written with Dammah, then it means that Allah - praise be to Him - will not make us accountable for what they have done, similarly, He, the Most High, said,: "Each soul is pledged to what ever it has earned" [Holy Qur'an 74:38].

Also He said: "There is nothing for man except what he has strived for." [Holy Qur'an 53:39].

And the Holy Qur'an urged us to know about the earlier nations and to learn lessons from their histories. Also, Allah told us about the Pharaohs, Haman, Nimrod, Quaroon, and about the early prophets and their nations, not for the sake of pleasure, but to show us what is right and what is wrong. As for your question as to why I want to know all that? Because it is important for me to know all that. Firstly, to know who is the friend of Allah. so that I may befriend him, and to know who is the enemy of Allah, so that I may oppose him, and that is what the Qur'an asked me, or indeed, ordered me to do.

Secondly, it is important for me to know how I should worship Allah and draw near to Him by obeying His commands, in the way He - the Majesty - wants them to be, not as Malik or Abu Hanifah or any other interpreter of Islam wants them to be.

I found that Malik does not prefer the saying of "In the name of Allah the most Merciful and the most Compassionate" during the prayers, whereas Abu Hanifah considers it a "must". Others say that the prayers are not valid without them. Because prayers are a pillar of Islam, if accepted other deeds would be accepted; but if they were rejected. other deeds would be rejected. Therefore, I do not want my prayers to be invalid. The Shiites say that during the ablution we must rub our feet with wet hands, whereas the Sunnis say that we must wash them. But when we read the Holy Qur'an we find "rub your hands and feet" which is clear about the rubbing. So how do you expect any sensible Muslim to accept this and reject the other without research and analysis?"

He said, "You can take what you like from each creed, because all of them are Islamic creeds, and all of them came from the Messenger of Allah."

I said, l am afraid that I may become one of those about whom Allah said:

"Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for his god and Allah has made him err having knowledge and has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering upon his eye. Who can then guide him after Allah? Will you not then be mindful?" [Holy Qur'an 45:23].

Sir, I do not think that all the four lslamic religious schools (Madhahib) are correct, as long as one of them allows something while the other forbids it; and it does not seem logical for one thing to be allowed and frobidden simultaneously. The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not question the rules of the Holy Qur'an because they are revelation:

And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy. [Holy Qur'an 4:82].

Because of the vast differences between the four religious Islamic schools, they cannot be from Allah or from His Messenger, for the Messenger did not contradict the Holy Qur'an.

When the scholarly Shaykh found my argument logical and sound, he said, "I advise you, for the sake of Allah, that no matter how doubtful you may be, do not doubt the rightly guided caliphs, because they are the four pillars of Islam, if one of them collapses, the whole building will collapse."

I said, "God forbid Sir, but what about the Messenger of Allah if those people were the pillars of Islam?"

He said, "The Messenger of Allah is that building He is the whole of Islam."

I smiled when I heard his analysis, and said, "I ask Allah for forgiveness, yet again! Sir, you are saying, indirectly, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) would not be able to stand without the support of those four, whereas Allah - the Most High says: "He it is Who sent His messenger with guidance and a true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness" [Holy Qur'an 48:28].

He sent Muhammad with the Message and did not involve any of the other four, or anybody else, and Allah said with regard to this: "We have sent among you a messenger from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifes you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know." [Holy Qur'an 2:151].

He said, "That is what we have learnt from our religious leaders and teachers, and we did not argue about what they taught us, as you the new generation do today. You doubt everything, even the religion itself. This is one sign of the nearness of the Hour - that is the Day of Judgement - and the Messenger of Allah said: the Hour will come as a result of the evil in people."

I said, "Sir, why all this exaggeration? God forbid if I doubt the religion, I believe in Allah, Who is unique and Has no partner. I believe in His angels, Books and Messengers. I believe in our master Muhammad as His servant and Messenger, and that he is the best of all the prophets and the last of the messengers, and that I am one of the Muslims. So how could you accuse me of all that?"

He said, "I accuse you of more than that, because you doubt our masters Abu Bakr and Umar, and the holy Prophet said: If the faith of my nation and the belief of Abu Bakr were put on a balance, the faith of Abu Bakr would have weighed heavier. The holy Prophet also said in honour of Umar: I was shown my nation, and each one of them was wearing a shirt that came to the chest, and I was shown Umar and he was pulling his shirt. They said: O Messenger of Allah! How do you interpret this? He said: The Religion.

And you come today, in the fourteenth century (Hijri) and doubt the righteousness of the Companions and especially Abu Bakr and Umar. Don't you know that the people of Iraq are the people of disunity, blasphemy and hypocrisy!"

What could I say to this man who claimed knowledge and scholarship, and who became so arrogant that he changed a well structured dialogue into a disordered talk full of lies and propaganda. He said it in front of people who admired him, and I noticed that their faces lit up with excitement and evil.

I quickly went home and brought back two books, "al-Muwatta of Imam Malik" and "The Sahih of al-Bukhari". Then said, "Sir, what made me doubt Abu Bakr was the Messenger of Allah himself." I opened al-Muwatta and read: He said to the martyrs of Uhud, "Those, I bear witness against." Abu Bakr then said, "O Messenger of Allah, are we not their brothers? Did we not become Muslims as they did? Did we not fight as they did?"

The Messenger replied, "Yes, but I do not know what you are going to do after me."

On hearing that, Abu Bakr cried bitterly and said, "We are going to alter many things after your departure." [61]

[61]

Muwatta, Malik, vol 1 p 307 
Maghazi, al Qawidi, p 310

After that I opened the "Sahih" of al-Bukhari and read: Once Umar ibn al-Khattab came to Hafsah and found with her Asma bint Umays. When he saw her, he asked, "Who is she?" Hafsah answered, "Asma bint Umays." Umar said, "Is she that Ethiopian?" Asma replied, "Yes." He said, "We emigrated [that is to say from Mecca to Medinah] before you, so we are more entitled to the Messenger of Allah than you." She became very angry, then she said, "No, by Allah, you were with the Messenger of Allah, who fed your hungry people and advised the ignorant among you; whereas we were in a foreign land, in Abyssinia, for the sake of Allah and His Messenger, and whenever I ate or drank anything, I remembered the Messenger of Allah (saw) and we were hurt, and we were frightened. By Allah I will mention this to the Prophet without Iying, adding anything or deviating from the subject." When the Prophet came, she said, "O Prophet of Allah, Umar said such and such." He asked, "What did you say to him?" She answered, "Such and such." He said, "I am not more entitled to him than to you." He and his companions had one emigration, but you, people of the ship, had two emigrations." She said, "I found Abu Musa and the people of the ship coming to me in groups and asking me about the Hadith, very much delighted with what the Prophet (saw) had said to them." [62]

[62]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 307

After having read the Hadiths, the looks on the faces of the scholarly Shaykh and that of the audience changed. They looked at each other and waited for the scholar, who was too shocked at what he had heard, to reply. All he did was to raise his eye brows, as a sign of astonishment and then said, "O my God grant me more knowledge."

I said, "If the Messenger of Allah (saw) was the first to doubt Abu Bakr, and did not bear witness against him, because the Messenger did not know what would happen after him; and if the Messenger of Allah did not approve of the preference of Umar over Asma bint Umays, but indeed preferred her to him; then it is within my right to doubt and not to have a preference for anybody until I know the truth. Evidently, these Hadiths contradict and nullify all the known Hadiths in favour of Abu Bakr and Umar, because they are more realistic than these which mention their alleged virtues."

The audience said, "How could that be?" I said, "The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not bear witness against Abu Bakr and said: I do not know what they will do after me! This sounds very reasonable. History has proved that, and the Holy Qur'an and history bear witness that they did change after him. Because of that Abu Bakr cried for he changed and angered Fatimah al-Zahra, daughter of the Messenger as we explained before, and he changed until he repented and wished that he was not a human being. As for the Hadith: If the faith of my nation and the faith of Abu Bakr were put on balance, the faith of Abu Bakr would weigh heavier", it is invalid and implausible. It is not possible for the faith of a man, who spent forty years of his life believing in polytheism and worshipping idols, to be greater than the faith of the entire nation of Muhammad, which has many God-fearing and pious people and martyrs and Imams, who spent all their lives fighting for the sake of Allah.

How could Abu Bakr fit into this Hadith? If it was true, he would not, in later life have finished that he was not a human being. Further, if his faith was greater than the faith of the entire nation of Muhammad, Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the leading lady, would not have been angry at him or asked Allah to punish him in each prayer she prayed."

The scholar did not say anything, but some of the men said, "By Allah! This Hadith made us doubtful". Then the scholar said to me, "Is that what you wanted? You have made these people doubt their religion." It sufficed me that a man from the audience replied by saying, "No, he is right. we have not read a whole book in our life, we followed you blindly and without any argument, and now it appears to us that what al-Hajj has been saying is right, and it is our duty to read and research!" Other people agreed with him, and that was a victory for truth and justice. It was not victory by force, but by logical deduction and proof. Allah says: "Say, bring your proof, if you are telling the truth" [Holy Qur'an 27:64].

That is what encouraged me to undertake the study and opened the door for me, so I entered it in the name of Allah by Allah and tracing the footsteps of the followers of the Messenger of Allah. I hope that Allah, praise be to Him, the Most High, grants me success and enlightenment, for He promised to enlighten anyone who searches for the truth, and He does not break His promises.

The study went on for three years, because I often re-read the books, right from the first page to the last.

I read "al-Muraja'at" by Imam Sharaf al-Din several times, since it opened new horizons for me and enlightened me and pleased me for the love and the fellowship of Ahl al-Bayt.

I read "al-Ghadeer" by Shaykh al-Amini three times because of the clear cut facts it contained. I also read Fadak in History" by al- Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and al-Saqifah" by Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Muzaffar, which explained so many vague issues.

I read "al-Nass wal Ijtihad" - the Text and the Interpretation - and became more convinced. Then I read "Abu Hurayra" by Sharaf al-Din and Shaykh al-Mudira" by Shaykh Mahmud Abu Rayyah al-Misri, and learnt that the Companions who changed after the departure of the Messenger of Allah were two types. The first, changed the rules. because of its power and authority. The second, changed the rules by attributing false Hadiths to the Messenger of Allah.

I read lmam al-Sadiq the four Madhhabs" by Asad Haydar and learnt about the differences between gifted knowledge and acquired knowledge. I also learnt about the differences between Allahs wisdom which He grants to whom He pleases, and the intrusion on knowledge and the belief of personal interpretation (of Islam) which kept the nation away from the spirit of Islam.

I read more books by al-Sayyid Ja'far Murtada al-Amili, and al-Sayyid Murtada al-Askari, and Al Sayyid Al-Khusi,and al-Sayyid al-Tabatabai, and Shaykh Muhammad Amin Zain al-Din, and al-Fayroozabadi, and Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu'tazili in his commentary on "Nahj al-Balagha", and Taha Husayn's "al-Fitna al-Kubra".

From the history books I read the following Annals written by al-Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, al-Masudi and al-Ya'qubi. And I read more, until I became convinced that the Shia Imamiyya were right.

Thus, with the help of Allah, I boarded Ahl al-Bayt's ship and sought their fellowship, because I found - thanks be to Allah - the alternative to the Companions, who, to the best of my knowledge, regressed and only a few of them were saved.

I exchanged them for the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, the Prophet's Family, whom Allah cleansed and purified and made it our duty to seek their fellowship.

The Shiites are not, as some of our religious scholars claim, the Persians and the Magus whose power and glory were destroyed by Umar in al-Qadisiyyah war, and that is why they hate them!

My answer to these who are ignorant is that following the creed of the Prophet's Family is not restricted to the Persians, for there are Shiites in Iraq, Hijaz, Syria, Lebanon, and all of them are Arabs. In addition to that, there are Shi'tes in Pakistan, India, Africa, America, and all of those are neither Arabs nor Persians.

If we confine ourselves to the Shiites of Iran, the issue becomes clearers because I found that the Persians believe in the leadership of the twelve Imams, all of whom were Arabs from Quraysh from Bani Hashim, the family of the Prophet(saw). If the Persians were prejudiced and hated the Arabs, as some people claim, they would have been taken Salman al-Farisi as their Imam, for he was a great Companion and respected by both Shiites and Sunnis. On the other hand I found that most of the leading Sunni Imams were Persians, such as Abu Hanifa, al-Nisa'i, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina, al-Farabi and many others. If the Shiites were all Persians who rejected Umar ibn al-Khattab because he destroyed their power, then how can we explain the rejection of the Arabs who were not Persians? Therefore, this is an illogical claim. These people refused Umar because of his role in excluding the Commander of the Believers, Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the caliphate after the departure of the Messenger of Allah, and because of the tragic civil wars and decline of this nation. It is high time that the truth was unveiled to everv free-thinking scholar so that he may refute the allegation without any prior animosity. It is true that the Shiites, whether they were Arabs or Persians or any other nationality, followed closely the Qur'anic Texts and the tradition of the Messenger of Allah and his Family, and refused to accept the alternative despite the oppressive policies of the Umayyads and later the Abbasids for seven centuries. During that period, they pursued the Shiites everywhere; they killed them, they made them homeless, they denied them their rightful grants. they removed their cultural and intellectual heritage and they spread all sorts of rumours about them in order to keep people away from them. The legacy of these policies is still felt up to the present day.

However, the Shiites stood their ground, remained patient and took the blame for their commitment to Allah and they are paying the price of their defiance to this very day. I challenge any of our religious scholars to enter a debate with their religious scholars without coming out of it overwhelmed by their enlightened way.

Yes, I found the alternative, and thanks be to Allah Who guided me to this. because I would not he there without His Guidance. Thanks and praise be to Allah Who led me to the saved group, for which I was eagerly searching.

I have no doubt that the commitment to Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is the commitment to the unbroken link - the link to Allah. There are many sayings by the Messenger of Allah agreed by all Muslims, which bear witness to that. The sensible mind is, perhaps, the best proof for anybody who is prepared to listen. Ali was the most knowledgeable companion and certainly the bravest, as the entire nation testified. This is a sufficient condition to support the lawful claim of Ali, alone and no one else, to the succession of the caliphate.

Allah the Most High said: 'And their prophet said to them, "Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. " They said, "How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than him, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth?" He said, "Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample giving, knowing." [Holy Qur an 2:247].

And the Messenger of Allah said. "Ali is from me, and I am from Ali, and he is the master of every believer after me." [63]

[63]

Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 296
Khasai's, al Nisai, p 87
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 110

Al-Zamakhshari said in some of his poetry:

Doubt and differences have increased. Every one claims that he is the right way. But I have committed myself to: there is no other god but Allah. and my love to Ahmed (Muhammad) and Ali. A dog won the love of the companions of the cave, how could I be ever distressed with the love of the Prophet's Family.

Yes I found the alternative, praise be to Allah. and I became a follower of - after the Messenger of Allah - The Commander of the Believers, master of all guardians, leader of the chosen elite, the victorious lion of Allah Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib; and the two masters of Heaven's youth, and the Prophet's two followers, Imam Abu Muhammad al-Hasan al-Zaki, and Imam Abu Abdullah al-Husayn; and the daughter of al-Mustafa (Muhammad), mother of the Imams. the essence of the Message, she, for whom Allah feels angry if she is angered. the most honourable lady Fatimah al-Zahra.

I have changed Imam Malik for the leader of all Imams, and teacher of the nation, Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq.

I have committed myself to the nine infallible men from the posterity of al-Husayn, Imams of all Muslims and the good friends of Allah. I have changed the Companions who turned back on their heels, like Muawiah, Amr ibn al-As, al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba, Abu Hurayra, Ikrima, Ka'b al-Ahbar and others, for the grateful Companions who never broke the promise they gave to the Prophet, like Ammar ibn Yasir, Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad. Khuzayma ibn Thabit - Dhu al-Shahadetain - and others, and praise be to Allah for this enlightenment.

I have changed the religious leaders of my people, who discouraged us from thinking and whose majority followed the rules and the sultans, throughout time. I changed them for the devoted religious leaders of the Shia who never closed the opportunity for studying and interpreting Islam, and who neither rose to oppose nor submitted to the oppressive rulers.

Yes, I changed dogmatic beliefs, full of contradictions for new enlightened and liberal ones based on logical deductions and reasoning.

As they say now a days "I have washed my brain" of the dirt that had accumulated over thirty years; lies of the Umayyads. I purified it with the ideology of the infallibles, those whom Allah cleansed and purified. I have done that for the remainder of my life.

O Allah ... please let us live our lives following their footsteps, and let our nation follow their tradition, and gather us with them, for Your Prophet (saw) said: Man is placed together with those whom he loves.

Thus I have returned to my origin. For my father and uncles used to talk to us about our family tree. and often told us that we were from al-Sada (plural of Sayyid: a descendant of the Prophet) who escaped from Iraq under Abbasid pressure and found refuge in North Africa until they settled in Tunisia where their marks remain up to the present day. There are many people like us in North Africa who are descendants from the purified posterity, and are called "Sada", but they went astray through the oppression of the Umayyads and the Ahbasids, and now they have nothing of the truth except the people's respect for them. Priase be to Allah for his guidance ... and praise be to Allah for my enlightment and for opening my eyes to see the truth.

 

The reasons behind my enlightenment are many, but I shall only mention a few of them here:

1. The text regarding the succession to the Caliphate

I have committed myself, before embarking on this study, to never depending on any reference unless it is considered authentic by the two parties, and to discarding those references that are solely referred to by only one of the parties.

Thus, I shall investigate the idea regarding the preference between Abu Bakr and Ali ibn Abi Talib, and that the succession of the caliphate was by written text [Dictate] for Ali, as the Shiites claim, and not by election and Shura [consultation] as the Sunnis claim.

Any researcher in this subject, if he considers nothing but the truth, will find that the text in support of Ali is very clear, like the following saying by the Messenger of Allah: Whoever considers me his master, then Ali is his master. He said it at the end of the Farewell Pilgrimage, when it was confirmed that Ali would succeed, and many people congratulated him on that, including Abu Bakr and Umar who were among the well-wishers, and who were quoted as having said to the Imam, Well done, Ibn Abi Talib, overnight you have become a master of all the believers." [64]

[64]

Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
Siyar al Amin, al Ghazali, p 12
Tadhkirat al Awas, Ibn al Jawzi, p 29
Al Riyadh al Nazarah, al Tabari, vol 2 p 169
al Bidayah wan Nihayah, vol 5 p 212
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 2 p 50
Tafsir, al Razi, vol 3 p 63
al Hawi lil Fatawi, al Suyuti, vol 1 p 112

This text has been agreed on by both Shiites and Sunnis, and in fact I have only referred in this study to some Sunni references. and not to all of them, for they are so many.

If the reader wants more information, he may read "al- Ghadir" by al-Amini (thirteen Volumes) in which the writer classifies the sayings of the Prophet according to the Sunnis.

As for the alleged popular election of Abu Bakr on "The Day of al-Saqifah" and his subsequent acclamation in the mosque; it seems that it was just an allegation without foundation. How could it be by popular agreement when so many people were absent during the acclamation? People like: Ali, al-Abbas, most of the house of Bani Hashim, Usama ibn Zayd, al-Zubayr, Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Ammar ibn Yasir, Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman, Khuzayma ibn Thabit, Abu Burayd al-Aslami, al-Bura ibn Azib, Abu Ka'b, Sahl ibn Hanif, Saad ibn Ubada, Qays ibn Saad, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Jabir ibn Saad, Khalid ibn Saad, and many others. [65]

[65]

Tarikh, al Tabari
Ibn al Athir
Suyuti
Baghdadi

So where was that alleged popular agreement? The absence of Ali alone from the acclamation is sufficient to criticize that meeting because he was the only candidate for the caliphate, nominated by the Messenger of Allah, on the assumption that there was no direct text regarding such a nomination.

The acclamation of Abu Bakr was without consultation, in fact it took the people by surprise, especially when the men in charge of the Muslim affairs were busy preparing for the funeral of the Messenger of Allah. The citizens of al-Medinah were shocked by the death of their Prophet, and then they forced the acclamation [66] on the people. and even threatened to burn the house of Fatima if those who were absent from the acclamation refused to leave it. So how could we say that the acclamation was implemented through consultation and popular agreement?

[66]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 18

Umar ibn al-Khattab himself testified that that acclamation was a mistake - may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil -, and that whoever repeated it should be killed, or he might have said that if someone called for a similar action there would he no acclamation for him or for those who acclaimed him. [67]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 127

Imam Ali said about that acclamation: By Allah, Ibn Abi Quhafa has got it! And he knows that my position [regarding the caliphate] is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone! The torrent flows from me, and the bird will never reach me! [68]

[68]

Sharh, Muhammad Abduh, vol 1 p 34, Sermon as Shaqshaqiyah

Saad ibn Ubada, a prominent man from al-Ansar, attacked Abu Bakr and Umar on the day of "al-Saqifah", and tried hard to keep them away from the caliphate, but could not sustain his efforts, for he was ill and unable to stand, and after al-Ansar paid homage to Abu Bakr, Saad said: "By Allah I shall never pay homage to you until I cast my last arrow at you, and pierce you with my lance, and attack you with my sword, with all the power in my hand, and fight you with all the members of my family and clan. By Allah, even if all the Jinns [invisible beings] and the human beings gathered to support you, I will never acclaim you, until I meet my God." He never prayed with them, he never sat in their company, he never performed the pilgrimage with them, and if he found a group of people willing to fight them, he would give them all his support, and if somebody acclaimed him to fight them, he would have fought them. He remained thus until he died in Syria during the caliphate of Umar. [69]

[69]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 17

If that was a mistake (may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil) as Umar put it (and he was one of its architects, and knew what happened to the Muslims as a result of it), and if that succession to the caliphate was illegal (as Imam Ali described it when he said that he was the lawful nominee for it), and if that acclamation was unjust (as according to Saad ibn Ubada the leader of al-Ansar who left al-Jamaah because of it), and if that acclamation was unlawful due to the absence of the leading figures of the Companions, including al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, so what is the evidence and proof which supports the legality of the Abu Bakr's succession to the caliphate?

The answer, is that there is no evidence or proof with the Sunnis and al-Jamaah.

Therefore, what the Shiites say regarding this issue is right, because it has been established that the Sunnis have the text which proves the succession of Ali to the caliphate, but they deliberately misinterpret it to maintain the Companion's honour. Thus, the just and fair person has no choice but to accept the text, especially if he knows the circumstances that surrounded the case. [70]

[70]

al Saqifah wal Khulafah by Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood
al Saqifah by Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar

2. The disagreement between Fatimah and Abu Bakr

The subject is agreed upon by the two parties, and the fair and sensible person has no choice but to judge Abu Bakr as being wrong, that is if he did not admit his injustice and bad treatment of the leading lady.

Anyone who cares to follow the events of that tragedy and studies its various facts will recognize that Abu Bakr deliberately hurt al-Zahra and denied her argument so that she could not protest against him - supported by the texts of al-Ghadir and others - regarding the lawful right for her husband and cousin to the succession of the caliphate. There are many indications that have been mentioned by historians which lead us to believe in accounts of these events, this is one of them:

Al-Zahra - may Allah's peace be upon her - went around the meeting places of al-Ansar, asking for support for her cousin and husband and they said, "O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, we have already acclaimed that man, and if your husband and cousin had approached us before him, we would have supported him." Ali - may Allah honour his face - said, "Would I leave the Messenger of Allah (saw) in his house unburied and go to argue with people about his authority?" Fatimah said, "Abu al-Hasan did what was expected from him, and for what they did Allah will hold them responsible and accountable." [71]

[71]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 19
Shahrah, Ibn al Hadid

If Abu Bakr was wrong, either unintentionally or through good-will, Fatimah al-Zahara would have persuaded him; but she was angry with him, because he refused to accept her argument and rejected her testimony and the testimony of her husband. She became so angry, she even prevented him in her will from being present at her funeral. When she died, her husband buried her secretly during the night. [72]

[72]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 36
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 72

As for her secret burial (as) during the night, it is worth mentioning here, that during my years of research and investigation, I went to al-Medinah to check for myself certain points, then I discovered the following:

Firstly, the grave of al-Zahra is unknown and nobody knows exactly where it is; some say it is in the Prophet's chamber, others say it is in her house opposite the Prophet's chamber, and there are people who think that it might be in al-Baqi', in the midst of Ahl al-Bayt's graves.

This is the first fact that I deduced: al-Zahra (as) wanted the Muslims, through generations to come, to know why she asked her husband to bury her secretly during the night, and that not one of them attend her funeral ! Thus, every Muslim could reach certain interesting facts when researching into historical events.

Secondly, I discovered that the visitor who wants to visit Uthman ibn Affan's grave has to go a long way until he reaches the end of al-Baqi', and there he finds it by a wall. By contrast, he will find the burial places of most of the Companions at the beginning of al-Baqi', near the entry. Even Malik ibn Anas, the famous jurist, who was a follower of the Followers, is buried near the burial places of the Messenger's wives. It became clear to me what the historians meant when they said that he was buried in "Hash Kawkab". which was Jewish land, because the Muslims refused to bury him in the Baqi' of the Messenger of Allah. When Muawiya seized power, he bought that land from the Jews and included it in al-Baqi', so that it contains the grave of his cousin Uthman. He who visits al-Baqi' today will see this fact very clearly.

It is astonishing to know that Fatimah al-Zahra (as) was the first of the Prophet's children to die after him, and at the most there were six months between the departure of the father and his daughter, and despite that, she was not buried beside her father.

Fatimah al-Zahra, as I mentioned earlier, stated in her will that she should be buried secretly, therefore, she was not buried beside her father. But what about her son, al-Hasan, why was he not buried beside his grandfather? Aisha (Umm al-Mumineen) prevented that. When al-Husayn brought his brother to bury him by his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, Aisha rode a mule and went around saying, "Do not bury someone I do not love in my house." Then, the houses of Bani Umayya and Hashim stood opposite each other ready to fight, but al-Husayn told her that he would only take the coffin of his brother around the grave of their grandfather then he would bury him in al-Baqi'. That was because Imam al-Hasan requested from his brother, that no blood should be shed for his sake. Ibn Abbas said a few verses regarding this event:

"She rode a camel [73], she rode a mule [74], if she had lived longer, she would have ridden an elephant, you have the ninth of the eighth, and you took everything."

[73]

With reference to her mounting the Camel during the War of the Camel.

 

[74]

With reference to her mounting the mule on the day when she prevented the burial of al Hasan next to his grandfather.

This is another interesting fact: How could Aisha inherit everything, when the Prophet had nine wives? Ibn Abbas transmitted to us: If the Prophet was not to leave any inheritance, and Abu Bakr bore witness to that and prevented al-Zahra from inheriting anything from her father, how then could Aisha? Is there any text which states that the wife could inherit, but not the daughter? Or was it perhaps politics that changed everything, so it denied the daughter everything, and gave the wife everything?

It is worth mentioning here a story related to the subject of inheritance that has been cited by many historians:

Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mutazili said in his commentary on Nahj al-Balagha: Aisha and Hafsa came to see Uthman, during his caliphate, and asked him to give them their shares of what they had inherited from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Uthman was stretched on the sofa, so he sat up and said to Aisha: You and that woman sitting next to you brought a man who cleansed himself with his urine and testified that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "We, the prophets, do not leave an inheritance." If the Prophet truly did not leave any inheritance, why do you ask for it now, and if he left an inheritance, why did you deprive Fatimah of her legal share? After that, she left him feeling very angry and said: Kill Na'thal, for he has become an unbeliever. [75]

[75]

Sharh of Nahj al Balagha, Ibn al Hadid, vol 16 p 220-223

3. Ali was more entitled to the leadership

One of the reasons which led to my enlightenment and ultimately made me leave the tradition [Sunna] of my forefathers was the comparison between the positions of Ali ibn Abi Talib and that of Abu Bakr, based on logical deductions and historical references.

As I started in earlier parts of this book, I only included in my research the references which have been agreed on by both, the Shiites and the Sunnis.

I searched in the books of both parties and found that only Ali received total support, and both Shiites and Sunnis agreed on his leadership in accordance with the texts they approved of. However there is neither support nor agreement on the leadership of Abu Bakr except by a small group of Muslims, and we have mentioned what Umar said about his succession to the caliphate. Furthermore. there are many virtues and good deeds attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib by the Shiites and cited as authentic references in the Sunni books. The sayings are full of the virtues of Ali, more than any other Companion ever received, and even Ahmed ibn Hanbal said: No one among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) had more virtues than Ali ibn Abi Talib. [76]

[76]

al Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 3 and 9
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 168
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 72
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 3 p 63
Shawahid at Tanzil, al Haskani al Hanafi, vol 1 p 19

Qadi Ismail, al-Nasa'i and Abu Ali al-Naisaburi said: No Companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali. [77]

[77]

al Riyadh al Nazarah, Tabari, vol 2 p 282
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 118, 72

We notice that the Umayyads tried hard to force people to curse him and insult him and not to mention any of his virtues, and even they prevented anybody from being named after him, but despite all that hatred, his virtues and good deeds (as) continued to spread.

Regarding that Imam al-Shafi'i says: I am surprised about a man whose virtues were kept secret by his enemies, out of envy, and were kept secret by his followers, out of fear, but nevertheless, an enormous amount of them spread."

As for Abu Bakr, I searched in the books of the two parties, and found that the virtues attributed to him by the Sunnis were much less than that attributed to Ali. The virtues of Abu Bakr that have been mentioned in historical books were narrated either by his daughter Aisha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings, or by Abdullah ibn Umar, who was never close to Ali, and he was one of those who refused to pay homage to Ali despite the popular support he had received. Abdullah ibn Umar used to say that the best people after the Prophet were Abu Bakr then Uthman, and after that everybody was equal [78]. Thus, he made Imam Ali like any other ordinary person, without preferences or virtues.

[78]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 202

What was Abdullah ibn Umar's attitude towards the facts that had been mentioned by the leading personalities of the nation that "No companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali". Had Abdullah ibn Umar not heard about even one of Ali's virtues? Yes, by Allah, he had heard and understood, but political intrigues tend to distort the facts.

The virtues of Abu Bakr were also mentioned by Amr ibn al-'As, Abu Hurayrah, Urwa and Ikrima, and all of them hated Ali and fought him either with arms or by plotting against him and attributing virtues to his enemies.

Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, "Ali had many enemies who searched hard to find a fault attributable to him, but they could not, so they brought a man whom Ali had-fought and battled with, and praised him because of their hatred towards Ali." [79]. But Allah said: "Surely they will make a scheme, and I too will make a scheme so glad the unbelievers a respite: let them alone for a while" [Holy Qur'an 86:15-17].

[79]

Fath al Bari (Sharah al Sahih Bukhari), vol 7 p 83
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 199
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 125

It is a miracle from Allah - praise be to Him - that the virtues of Imam Ali spread after six centuries of oppression and injustice against him and Ahl al-Bayt, and the Abbasids were not less evil than their predecessor the Umayyads in their treatment of Ahl al-Bayt. The poet Abu Firas al-Hamdani wrote the following verses:

What Banu Harb have done to them is nothing in comparison to what you did to them,

How many times have you clearly violated the Religion?

And how much of the Prophet's [family's] blood Has been spilt by you?

You pretend to be his followers, but on your hands Is the blood of his purified sons.

After having finished with all these sayings, and having came out from the darkness, I leave the last judgement to Allah, and there will be no more excuses from the people after all that.

Despite the fact that Abu Bakr was the first caliph, and had all the power and authority, despite the bribes and gifts that the Umayyads gave to every one who praised Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and despite all the alleged virtues and good deeds that they invented for Abu Bakr, which filled many books ... despite all that, they did not amount to a fraction of the true virtues of Imam Ali.

Furthermore, if we analyze the alleged sayings that were in favour of Abu Bakr, we find them incompatible with the historical facts, and no sensible man or creed could accept them. Earlier on we explained the saying attributed to the Prophet: "If the faith of Abu Bakr and the faith of my nation is put on the balance, the faith of Abu Bakr will be heavier".

If the Messenger of Allah was aware of this high degree of faith in Abu Bakr, he would not have appointed Usama to command the army; nor would he have refused to bear witness for him as he did for the martyrs of Uhud, and then said to him that he did not know what he was going to do after him", so that Abu Bakr [80] cried. In addition to that, the Prophet would not have sent Ali ibn Abi Talib to take "Surat Bara'a" from him and prevented him from transmitting it. [81]

[80]

Muwatta, Malik,. vol 1 p 307
Maghazi, al Waqidi, p 310

 

[81]

Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 4 p 339
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 2 p 319
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 51

Nor would the Prophet have said in Khayber while presenting the flag: "Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith" then he gave it to Ali and no one else. [82]

[82]

Sahih, Muslim (Chapter on the virtues of Imam Ali (as))

If Allah knew that Abu Bakr had such a high degree of faith, and that his faith exceeded the faith of all Muslims, Allah - praise be upon Him - would not have had to threaten him that He would spoil his work when he raised his voice above the Prophet's voice. [83]

[83]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 184

If Ali and the Companions who followed him knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, they would not have hesitated to pay homage to him. If Fatimah al-Zahra, the leading lady, knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, she would not have been angry with him, nor would she have refused to talk to him or return his greetings, or cursed him in her prayers [84], and even banned him - according to her will - from attending her funeral.

[84]

al Imamah was Siyasah, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 14
Treatise, al Jahiz, p 301
A'alam al Nisa, vol 3 p 1215

He who had such a degree of faith, and whose faith was greater than the faith of all Muslims. would not have regretted, in the last moments of his life, his attitude towards Fatimah, and his burning of al-Fuja'ah al-Salami and his succession to the caliphate [85]. Also, he would not have wished not to be a human being but to be a hair or animal droppings. Is this man's faith equal to, or even greater than the faith of the entire Islamic nation?

[85]

Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 52
al Imamah wa Siyasah, vol 1 p 18
Tarikh, Masudi, vol 1 p 514

Let us consider the saying: If I was taking a close companion, I would have chosen Abu Bakr. This saying is like the previous one. Where was Abu Bakr on the day of the small Brotherhood" in Mecca before the Hijra, and on the day of the great Brotherhood" in Medinah after the Hijra; when in both of them the Messenger of Allah (saw) chose Ali as his brother then said to him, You are my brother in this life and in the Hereafter" [86] and did not turn to Abu Bakr, thus depriving him of the brotherhood in the Hereafter and from the close companionship. I do not wish to go on about this subject, and it is sufficient to bring the above mentioned examples which I have found in the Sunni books. As for the Shiites, they do not recognize these sayings at all, and they have their own clear proof that they were invented some time after the death of Abu Bakr.

[86]

Tadhkirat al Khawass, Sibt ibn al Jawzi, p 23
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 7
Al Fusul al Muhimmat, Ibn al Sagh al Maliki, p 21

If we leave the virtues aside and concentrate on the sins, we will never find a single sin committed by Ali that has been mentioned in historical books (both Shiite and Sunni), whereas we find that many other people have committed sins and were mentioned in the Sunni books such as al-Sihah, the various books Sirah and annals.

Thus, we find total agreement from both parties regarding Ali alone, also historical facts point out that the correct acclamation was for Ali alone.

He abstained, but the Muhajireen and Ansar insisted on his acclamation; then when he was finally nominated, some people refused to pay homage to him, but he never forced them to change their minds.

On the other hand we find that the acclamation of Abu Bakr was a "mistake" - as Umar ibn al-Khattab put it - "may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil." The acclamation of Umar was based on a promise given to him by Abu Bakr. The acclamation of Uthman was a historical comedy: Umar nominated six people for the caliphate and told them to choose one candidate, and said if four agreed and two disagreed, then the two should be killed, however, if the six were divided into two equal camps, then the camp which was supported by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf should be considered. but if after a certain time passed and no agreement had been reached, the whole six should be killed. The story is long and rather strange, but the important thing is that Abdul Rahman ibn Awf chose Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Book of Allah [the Qur'an] and the tradition of His Messenger and the tradition of the two Shaykhs: Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali refused these conditions but Uthman accepted them, so he became caliph. Ali came out from the conference of the acclamation and knew in advance the result, and talked about it in his famous speech known as al-Shaqshaqiyya.

After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation [87] except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[87]

i.e by the consensus of the Muslims

4. The Prophetic traditions which indicate that Ali should be followed

The prophetic traditions which persuaded me to follow Imam Ali were those I have read in the Sihahs of the Sunnis and were approved by the Shiites, and they have many more. But as usual I only referred to the prophetic traditions that have been agreed on by both parties, and here are some of them:

A. The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and Ali is its gate."

This tradition [88] alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to he followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.

[88]

Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 127
Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol 7 p 358

Allah - the Most High - said:

Say: "Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" 
[Holy Quran 39:9]

He also said:

"Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" [Holy Quran 10:35]

History has recorded many facts telling us that Ali was the most knowledgeable man among all the Companions and they used to consult him on every important matter, and we do not know of any event in which he declined to give his advice.

Abu Bakr said, "May Allah never put me in a predicament that Abu al-Hasan cannot solve. " And Umar said, "If it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished." [89]

[89]

al Isti'ab, vol 3 p 39
Manaqib al Khawarizmi, p 48
al Riyadh al Nadirah, vol 2 p 194

And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with Ali's knowledge."

And this is what Imam Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." [90]

[90]

al Riyadh al-Nadirah, vol 2 p 198
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 124
al Itqan, Suyuti, vol 2 p 319
Fath al Bari, vol 8 p 485
Tadhib al Tadhib, vol 7 p 338

Abu Bakr was once asked about the meaning of the word "Abb" [herbage] in the words of Allah, the Most High:

"And fruits and herbage, A provision for you and for your cattle" [Holy Quran 80:31-32]

Abu Bakr replied, "Which sky would give me shade, and which land would carry me if I say something I do not know about the Book of Allah." And this is Umar saying. "All people are more knowledgeable than I am, even women." He was once asked about the meaning of a Qur'anic verse, and his reaction was to rebuke the man and beat him until he bled, then he said, "Do not ask about matters which may appear bad to you." [91]

[91]

Sunan, al Darimi, vol 1 p 54
Tafsir, Ibn Katheer, vol 4 p 232
Tafsir, Suyuti, vol 6p 111

Also he was asked about "al-Kalalah" but he did not know what it meant.

In his "commentary", al-Tabari stated that Umar once said the following, "My knowledge of al-Kalalah is more valuable to me than owning a palace similar to those in Syria."

In one of his books, Ibn Maja quoted Umar as saying "There are three things, if they were explained by the Messenger of Allah, I would have loved them more dearly than anything in the world: Al-Kalalah, usury and the caliphate." God forbid that the Messenger of Allah stayed silent on these subjects!

B. The Prophetic tradition: O Ali! You hold in relation to me the same position as Haroon held in relation to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me.

This tradition, as should be apparent to every sensible person, shows the special quality of the Commander of the Believers, Ali, which made him the right person to be the supporter, the guardian and the deputy [or successor] of the Messenger of Allah as Haroon was the supporter, guardian and deputy of Moses when he went to meet his God. There is also the position of Ali vis-a-vis the Prophet which is absolutely equal to the relation between Haroon and Moses, except for the prophethood, which was excluded in the same tradition.

Furthermore, we find in the tradition the fact that Imam Ali was the best Companion, who only came second after the Messenger of Allah (saw).

C. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is the master of all those of whom I am master. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him, help him who helps him, forsake him who forsakes him, and turn justice with him wherever he turns.

This tradition alone is sufficient to reply to the allegations concerning the seniority of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman to Ali, who was appointed by the Messenger of Allah as the guardian after him of all the faithful. It is of no consequence for whoever tried to interpret the saying as the friend or the support in order to divert it from its original meaning so that the integrity of the Companions may be kept intact. The Messenger of Allah stood up in the terrible heat addressing the people, saying, "Do you witness that I have a prior right to and superior authority over all the faithful?" They replied, "Yes, O Messenger of Allah. " Thereupon he said, "Ali is the master of all those whom I am a master. . . etc." This is a clear text indicating that the Messenger of Allah had appointed Ali as his successor to lead the nation [of Islam], and the fair and sensible person could not but accept this interpretation and refuse that of the others, thus preserving the integrity of the Messenger of Allah before preserving the integrity of the Companions. Those who give an alternative interpretation to the saying are in fact ridiculing the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah, who gathered the multitude of people, in that unbearable heat, to tell them that Ali was the friend and supporter of the faithful. And what do those, who misinterpret the text in order to preserve the integrity of their masters, say about the procession of congratulation that the Messenger of Allah organised for Ali? It started with the wives of the Messenger, the mothers of the faithful, then Abu Bakr and Umar came and said to him, "Well done Ibn Abi Talib, Overnight you became the guardian [master] of all the faithful."

In fact all the historical evidence gives clear indications that those who misinterpret the above tradition are liars. Woe to those who wrote what they wrote, and woe to them for what they are writing. Allah - the Most High - said. "...a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know it" [Holy Qur'an 2:146].

D. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is from me and I am from Ali and no one can discharge my duty except myself or Ali.

This honourable tradition [92] is another clear indication that Imam Ali was only one whom the Messenger authorized to discharge his duties. The Messenger said it on the day of the great pilgrimage when he sent Ali with Surat Bara'a instead of Abu Bakr, who came crying and asked, "O Messenger of Allah ! Reveal something for me." The Messenger answered, "My Lord ordered me that nobody can discharge my duty except myself or Ali."

[92]

Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44
Khasais, al Nasai, p 20
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300
Jami al Usul, Ibn Kathir, vol 9 p 471
al Jami al Saghir, al Suyuti, vol 2 p 56
al Riyadh al Nadirah, Tabari, vol 2p 229

There is another supporting tradition that the Messenger of Allah, said on another occasion in honour of Ali, "O Ali! You will show them the right path when there will be dissension among them after me." [93] If nobody could discharge the Messenger of Allah's duty except Ali, and if he was the one who would show them the right path after dissension appeared among them after him; then how could a person who did not know the meaning of "al-Abb" and "Kalalah" be more senior to Ali? This is sadly one of the tragedies that have been inflicted on our nation and prevented it from doing the duties that Allah has chosen for it. We could not blame Allah or the Messenger of Allah or the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib for that, but the blame falls squarely on those who rebelled and changed, and Allah - the most High - said: "And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger. They say, "That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us. " What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way" [Holy Qur'an 5:104].

[93]

Tarikh, Ibn Askir, vol 2 p 488
Kunuz al Haqa'iq, al Mauawi, p 203
Kanz al Ummal, vol 5 p 33

E. The Prophetic tradition of the House on the day of Warning.

The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, indicating Ali. This is my brother, my trustee and my deputy [caliph] after me, so listen to him and obey him." [94]

[94]

Tarikh, al Tabari, vol 2 p319
al Sirah al Halabiyah, vol 1 p 311
Shawahid al Tanzil, vol 1 p 371
Kanz al Ummal, vol 15 p 15
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 85
Tafsir, Ala al Din al Shafi'i, vol 3 p 371
The Life of Muhammad by Hasanyn Haykal, First Edition (Section on: And admonish your nearest, your kinsmen)

This is yet another correct tradition cited by many historians at the beginning of the prophetic mission, and considered as one of the Prophet's miracles. However, political intrigues distorted the facts. Then there is no wonder that the oppression which took place then is coming back again in our lifetime. For example, Muhammad Husayn Haykal reproduced the saying in its entirety in his book "The Life of Muhammad", (Page 104, First Edition 1334 Hijri). From the Second Edition onward, the part of the tradition where the Prophet says, "He is my trustee, my deputy [caliph] after me" has been removed.

Also, in al-Tabari's commentary [Tafsir], Volume 19. Page 121, when the Prophet says "My trustee and my deputy [caliph]" was changed to "This is my brother etc. etc", but they failed to recognize that al-Tabari had cited the tradition in its entirety in his Annals Volume 2, Page 319. Look how they change the words and distort the facts ... they want to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah is spreading His light.

During my investigation I wanted to see the truth, so I searched for the first edition of "The Life of Muhammad". and after some hard work - praise be to Allah - found it, although it cost me considerably. The important thing is that I looked at the distortion and became convinced that the evil people are trying the best they can do to remove the facts. because there is strong evidence in the hands of their "enemies".

When the fair investigator comes across such a blatant distortion, he will no doubt begin to keep away from them and become convinced that they have no evidence except lies and distorted facts. They hire writers to whom they give money, titles and false university degrees in order to write for them books and articles through which they insult the Shiites and accuse them of blasphemy, while at the same time they defend the position, even if it is unjust, of some of the Companions who turned on their heels and exchanged right for wrong after the departure of the Messenger of Allah.

Allah says: "Even thus said those before them, the like of what they say; their hearts are all alike. Indeed We have made the verses clear for a people who are sure." [Holy Quran 2:118]

 

1. The text regarding the succession to the Caliphate

I have committed myself, before embarking on this study, to never depending on any reference unless it is considered authentic by the two parties, and to discarding those references that are solely referred to by only one of the parties.

Thus, I shall investigate the idea regarding the preference between Abu Bakr and Ali ibn Abi Talib, and that the succession of the caliphate was by written text [Dictate] for Ali, as the Shiites claim, and not by election and Shura [consultation] as the Sunnis claim.

Any researcher in this subject, if he considers nothing but the truth, will find that the text in support of Ali is very clear, like the following saying by the Messenger of Allah: Whoever considers me his master, then Ali is his master. He said it at the end of the Farewell Pilgrimage, when it was confirmed that Ali would succeed, and many people congratulated him on that, including Abu Bakr and Umar who were among the well-wishers, and who were quoted as having said to the Imam, Well done, Ibn Abi Talib, overnight you have become a master of all the believers." [64]

[64]

Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
Siyar al Amin, al Ghazali, p 12
Tadhkirat al Awas, Ibn al Jawzi, p 29
Al Riyadh al Nazarah, al Tabari, vol 2 p 169
al Bidayah wan Nihayah, vol 5 p 212
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 2 p 50
Tafsir, al Razi, vol 3 p 63
al Hawi lil Fatawi, al Suyuti, vol 1 p 112

This text has been agreed on by both Shiites and Sunnis, and in fact I have only referred in this study to some Sunni references. and not to all of them, for they are so many.

If the reader wants more information, he may read "al- Ghadir" by al-Amini (thirteen Volumes) in which the writer classifies the sayings of the Prophet according to the Sunnis.

As for the alleged popular election of Abu Bakr on "The Day of al-Saqifah" and his subsequent acclamation in the mosque; it seems that it was just an allegation without foundation. How could it be by popular agreement when so many people were absent during the acclamation? People like: Ali, al-Abbas, most of the house of Bani Hashim, Usama ibn Zayd, al-Zubayr, Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Ammar ibn Yasir, Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman, Khuzayma ibn Thabit, Abu Burayd al-Aslami, al-Bura ibn Azib, Abu Ka'b, Sahl ibn Hanif, Saad ibn Ubada, Qays ibn Saad, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Jabir ibn Saad, Khalid ibn Saad, and many others. [65]

[65]

Tarikh, al Tabari
Ibn al Athir
Suyuti
Baghdadi

So where was that alleged popular agreement? The absence of Ali alone from the acclamation is sufficient to criticize that meeting because he was the only candidate for the caliphate, nominated by the Messenger of Allah, on the assumption that there was no direct text regarding such a nomination.

The acclamation of Abu Bakr was without consultation, in fact it took the people by surprise, especially when the men in charge of the Muslim affairs were busy preparing for the funeral of the Messenger of Allah. The citizens of al-Medinah were shocked by the death of their Prophet, and then they forced the acclamation [66] on the people. and even threatened to burn the house of Fatima if those who were absent from the acclamation refused to leave it. So how could we say that the acclamation was implemented through consultation and popular agreement?

[66]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 18

Umar ibn al-Khattab himself testified that that acclamation was a mistake - may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil -, and that whoever repeated it should be killed, or he might have said that if someone called for a similar action there would he no acclamation for him or for those who acclaimed him. [67]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 127

Imam Ali said about that acclamation: By Allah, Ibn Abi Quhafa has got it! And he knows that my position [regarding the caliphate] is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone! The torrent flows from me, and the bird will never reach me! [68]

[68]

Sharh, Muhammad Abduh, vol 1 p 34, Sermon as Shaqshaqiyah

Saad ibn Ubada, a prominent man from al-Ansar, attacked Abu Bakr and Umar on the day of "al-Saqifah", and tried hard to keep them away from the caliphate, but could not sustain his efforts, for he was ill and unable to stand, and after al-Ansar paid homage to Abu Bakr, Saad said: "By Allah I shall never pay homage to you until I cast my last arrow at you, and pierce you with my lance, and attack you with my sword, with all the power in my hand, and fight you with all the members of my family and clan. By Allah, even if all the Jinns [invisible beings] and the human beings gathered to support you, I will never acclaim you, until I meet my God." He never prayed with them, he never sat in their company, he never performed the pilgrimage with them, and if he found a group of people willing to fight them, he would give them all his support, and if somebody acclaimed him to fight them, he would have fought them. He remained thus until he died in Syria during the caliphate of Umar. [69]

[69]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 17

If that was a mistake (may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil) as Umar put it (and he was one of its architects, and knew what happened to the Muslims as a result of it), and if that succession to the caliphate was illegal (as Imam Ali described it when he said that he was the lawful nominee for it), and if that acclamation was unjust (as according to Saad ibn Ubada the leader of al-Ansar who left al-Jamaah because of it), and if that acclamation was unlawful due to the absence of the leading figures of the Companions, including al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, so what is the evidence and proof which supports the legality of the Abu Bakr's succession to the caliphate?

The answer, is that there is no evidence or proof with the Sunnis and al-Jamaah.

Therefore, what the Shiites say regarding this issue is right, because it has been established that the Sunnis have the text which proves the succession of Ali to the caliphate, but they deliberately misinterpret it to maintain the Companion's honour. Thus, the just and fair person has no choice but to accept the text, especially if he knows the circumstances that surrounded the case. [70]

[70]

al Saqifah wal Khulafah by Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood
al Saqifah by Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar

2. The disagreement between Fatimah and Abu Bakr

The subject is agreed upon by the two parties, and the fair and sensible person has no choice but to judge Abu Bakr as being wrong, that is if he did not admit his injustice and bad treatment of the leading lady.

Anyone who cares to follow the events of that tragedy and studies its various facts will recognize that Abu Bakr deliberately hurt al-Zahra and denied her argument so that she could not protest against him - supported by the texts of al-Ghadir and others - regarding the lawful right for her husband and cousin to the succession of the caliphate. There are many indications that have been mentioned by historians which lead us to believe in accounts of these events, this is one of them:

Al-Zahra - may Allah's peace be upon her - went around the meeting places of al-Ansar, asking for support for her cousin and husband and they said, "O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, we have already acclaimed that man, and if your husband and cousin had approached us before him, we would have supported him." Ali - may Allah honour his face - said, "Would I leave the Messenger of Allah (saw) in his house unburied and go to argue with people about his authority?" Fatimah said, "Abu al-Hasan did what was expected from him, and for what they did Allah will hold them responsible and accountable." [71]

[71]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 19
Shahrah, Ibn al Hadid

If Abu Bakr was wrong, either unintentionally or through good-will, Fatimah al-Zahara would have persuaded him; but she was angry with him, because he refused to accept her argument and rejected her testimony and the testimony of her husband. She became so angry, she even prevented him in her will from being present at her funeral. When she died, her husband buried her secretly during the night. [72]

[72]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 36
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 72

As for her secret burial (as) during the night, it is worth mentioning here, that during my years of research and investigation, I went to al-Medinah to check for myself certain points, then I discovered the following:

Firstly, the grave of al-Zahra is unknown and nobody knows exactly where it is; some say it is in the Prophet's chamber, others say it is in her house opposite the Prophet's chamber, and there are people who think that it might be in al-Baqi', in the midst of Ahl al-Bayt's graves.

This is the first fact that I deduced: al-Zahra (as) wanted the Muslims, through generations to come, to know why she asked her husband to bury her secretly during the night, and that not one of them attend her funeral ! Thus, every Muslim could reach certain interesting facts when researching into historical events.

Secondly, I discovered that the visitor who wants to visit Uthman ibn Affan's grave has to go a long way until he reaches the end of al-Baqi', and there he finds it by a wall. By contrast, he will find the burial places of most of the Companions at the beginning of al-Baqi', near the entry. Even Malik ibn Anas, the famous jurist, who was a follower of the Followers, is buried near the burial places of the Messenger's wives. It became clear to me what the historians meant when they said that he was buried in "Hash Kawkab". which was Jewish land, because the Muslims refused to bury him in the Baqi' of the Messenger of Allah. When Muawiya seized power, he bought that land from the Jews and included it in al-Baqi', so that it contains the grave of his cousin Uthman. He who visits al-Baqi' today will see this fact very clearly.

It is astonishing to know that Fatimah al-Zahra (as) was the first of the Prophet's children to die after him, and at the most there were six months between the departure of the father and his daughter, and despite that, she was not buried beside her father.

Fatimah al-Zahra, as I mentioned earlier, stated in her will that she should be buried secretly, therefore, she was not buried beside her father. But what about her son, al-Hasan, why was he not buried beside his grandfather? Aisha (Umm al-Mumineen) prevented that. When al-Husayn brought his brother to bury him by his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, Aisha rode a mule and went around saying, "Do not bury someone I do not love in my house." Then, the houses of Bani Umayya and Hashim stood opposite each other ready to fight, but al-Husayn told her that he would only take the coffin of his brother around the grave of their grandfather then he would bury him in al-Baqi'. That was because Imam al-Hasan requested from his brother, that no blood should be shed for his sake. Ibn Abbas said a few verses regarding this event:

"She rode a camel [73], she rode a mule [74], if she had lived longer, she would have ridden an elephant, you have the ninth of the eighth, and you took everything."

[73]

With reference to her mounting the Camel during the War of the Camel.

 

[74]

With reference to her mounting the mule on the day when she prevented the burial of al Hasan next to his grandfather.

This is another interesting fact: How could Aisha inherit everything, when the Prophet had nine wives? Ibn Abbas transmitted to us: If the Prophet was not to leave any inheritance, and Abu Bakr bore witness to that and prevented al-Zahra from inheriting anything from her father, how then could Aisha? Is there any text which states that the wife could inherit, but not the daughter? Or was it perhaps politics that changed everything, so it denied the daughter everything, and gave the wife everything?

It is worth mentioning here a story related to the subject of inheritance that has been cited by many historians:

Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mutazili said in his commentary on Nahj al-Balagha: Aisha and Hafsa came to see Uthman, during his caliphate, and asked him to give them their shares of what they had inherited from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Uthman was stretched on the sofa, so he sat up and said to Aisha: You and that woman sitting next to you brought a man who cleansed himself with his urine and testified that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "We, the prophets, do not leave an inheritance." If the Prophet truly did not leave any inheritance, why do you ask for it now, and if he left an inheritance, why did you deprive Fatimah of her legal share? After that, she left him feeling very angry and said: Kill Na'thal, for he has become an unbeliever. [75]

[75]

Sharh of Nahj al Balagha, Ibn al Hadid, vol 16 p 220-223

3. Ali was more entitled to the leadership

One of the reasons which led to my enlightenment and ultimately made me leave the tradition [Sunna] of my forefathers was the comparison between the positions of Ali ibn Abi Talib and that of Abu Bakr, based on logical deductions and historical references.

As I started in earlier parts of this book, I only included in my research the references which have been agreed on by both, the Shiites and the Sunnis.

I searched in the books of both parties and found that only Ali received total support, and both Shiites and Sunnis agreed on his leadership in accordance with the texts they approved of. However there is neither support nor agreement on the leadership of Abu Bakr except by a small group of Muslims, and we have mentioned what Umar said about his succession to the caliphate. Furthermore. there are many virtues and good deeds attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib by the Shiites and cited as authentic references in the Sunni books. The sayings are full of the virtues of Ali, more than any other Companion ever received, and even Ahmed ibn Hanbal said: No one among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) had more virtues than Ali ibn Abi Talib. [76]

[76]

al Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 3 and 9
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 168
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 72
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 3 p 63
Shawahid at Tanzil, al Haskani al Hanafi, vol 1 p 19

Qadi Ismail, al-Nasa'i and Abu Ali al-Naisaburi said: No Companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali. [77]

[77]

al Riyadh al Nazarah, Tabari, vol 2 p 282
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 118, 72

We notice that the Umayyads tried hard to force people to curse him and insult him and not to mention any of his virtues, and even they prevented anybody from being named after him, but despite all that hatred, his virtues and good deeds (as) continued to spread.

Regarding that Imam al-Shafi'i says: I am surprised about a man whose virtues were kept secret by his enemies, out of envy, and were kept secret by his followers, out of fear, but nevertheless, an enormous amount of them spread."

As for Abu Bakr, I searched in the books of the two parties, and found that the virtues attributed to him by the Sunnis were much less than that attributed to Ali. The virtues of Abu Bakr that have been mentioned in historical books were narrated either by his daughter Aisha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings, or by Abdullah ibn Umar, who was never close to Ali, and he was one of those who refused to pay homage to Ali despite the popular support he had received. Abdullah ibn Umar used to say that the best people after the Prophet were Abu Bakr then Uthman, and after that everybody was equal [78]. Thus, he made Imam Ali like any other ordinary person, without preferences or virtues.

[78]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 202

What was Abdullah ibn Umar's attitude towards the facts that had been mentioned by the leading personalities of the nation that "No companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali". Had Abdullah ibn Umar not heard about even one of Ali's virtues? Yes, by Allah, he had heard and understood, but political intrigues tend to distort the facts.

The virtues of Abu Bakr were also mentioned by Amr ibn al-'As, Abu Hurayrah, Urwa and Ikrima, and all of them hated Ali and fought him either with arms or by plotting against him and attributing virtues to his enemies.

Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, "Ali had many enemies who searched hard to find a fault attributable to him, but they could not, so they brought a man whom Ali had-fought and battled with, and praised him because of their hatred towards Ali." [79]. But Allah said: "Surely they will make a scheme, and I too will make a scheme so glad the unbelievers a respite: let them alone for a while" [Holy Qur'an 86:15-17].

[79]

Fath al Bari (Sharah al Sahih Bukhari), vol 7 p 83
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 199
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 125

It is a miracle from Allah - praise be to Him - that the virtues of Imam Ali spread after six centuries of oppression and injustice against him and Ahl al-Bayt, and the Abbasids were not less evil than their predecessor the Umayyads in their treatment of Ahl al-Bayt. The poet Abu Firas al-Hamdani wrote the following verses:

What Banu Harb have done to them is nothing in comparison to what you did to them,

How many times have you clearly violated the Religion?

And how much of the Prophet's [family's] blood Has been spilt by you?

You pretend to be his followers, but on your hands Is the blood of his purified sons.

After having finished with all these sayings, and having came out from the darkness, I leave the last judgement to Allah, and there will be no more excuses from the people after all that.

Despite the fact that Abu Bakr was the first caliph, and had all the power and authority, despite the bribes and gifts that the Umayyads gave to every one who praised Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and despite all the alleged virtues and good deeds that they invented for Abu Bakr, which filled many books ... despite all that, they did not amount to a fraction of the true virtues of Imam Ali.

Furthermore, if we analyze the alleged sayings that were in favour of Abu Bakr, we find them incompatible with the historical facts, and no sensible man or creed could accept them. Earlier on we explained the saying attributed to the Prophet: "If the faith of Abu Bakr and the faith of my nation is put on the balance, the faith of Abu Bakr will be heavier".

If the Messenger of Allah was aware of this high degree of faith in Abu Bakr, he would not have appointed Usama to command the army; nor would he have refused to bear witness for him as he did for the martyrs of Uhud, and then said to him that he did not know what he was going to do after him", so that Abu Bakr [80] cried. In addition to that, the Prophet would not have sent Ali ibn Abi Talib to take "Surat Bara'a" from him and prevented him from transmitting it. [81]

[80]

Muwatta, Malik,. vol 1 p 307
Maghazi, al Waqidi, p 310

 

[81]

Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 4 p 339
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 2 p 319
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 51

Nor would the Prophet have said in Khayber while presenting the flag: "Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith" then he gave it to Ali and no one else. [82]

[82]

Sahih, Muslim (Chapter on the virtues of Imam Ali (as))

If Allah knew that Abu Bakr had such a high degree of faith, and that his faith exceeded the faith of all Muslims, Allah - praise be upon Him - would not have had to threaten him that He would spoil his work when he raised his voice above the Prophet's voice. [83]

[83]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 184

If Ali and the Companions who followed him knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, they would not have hesitated to pay homage to him. If Fatimah al-Zahra, the leading lady, knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, she would not have been angry with him, nor would she have refused to talk to him or return his greetings, or cursed him in her prayers [84], and even banned him - according to her will - from attending her funeral.

[84]

al Imamah was Siyasah, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 14
Treatise, al Jahiz, p 301
A'alam al Nisa, vol 3 p 1215

He who had such a degree of faith, and whose faith was greater than the faith of all Muslims. would not have regretted, in the last moments of his life, his attitude towards Fatimah, and his burning of al-Fuja'ah al-Salami and his succession to the caliphate [85]. Also, he would not have wished not to be a human being but to be a hair or animal droppings. Is this man's faith equal to, or even greater than the faith of the entire Islamic nation?

[85]

Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 52
al Imamah wa Siyasah, vol 1 p 18
Tarikh, Masudi, vol 1 p 514

Let us consider the saying: If I was taking a close companion, I would have chosen Abu Bakr. This saying is like the previous one. Where was Abu Bakr on the day of the small Brotherhood" in Mecca before the Hijra, and on the day of the great Brotherhood" in Medinah after the Hijra; when in both of them the Messenger of Allah (saw) chose Ali as his brother then said to him, You are my brother in this life and in the Hereafter" [86] and did not turn to Abu Bakr, thus depriving him of the brotherhood in the Hereafter and from the close companionship. I do not wish to go on about this subject, and it is sufficient to bring the above mentioned examples which I have found in the Sunni books. As for the Shiites, they do not recognize these sayings at all, and they have their own clear proof that they were invented some time after the death of Abu Bakr.

[86]

Tadhkirat al Khawass, Sibt ibn al Jawzi, p 23
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 7
Al Fusul al Muhimmat, Ibn al Sagh al Maliki, p 21

If we leave the virtues aside and concentrate on the sins, we will never find a single sin committed by Ali that has been mentioned in historical books (both Shiite and Sunni), whereas we find that many other people have committed sins and were mentioned in the Sunni books such as al-Sihah, the various books Sirah and annals.

Thus, we find total agreement from both parties regarding Ali alone, also historical facts point out that the correct acclamation was for Ali alone.

He abstained, but the Muhajireen and Ansar insisted on his acclamation; then when he was finally nominated, some people refused to pay homage to him, but he never forced them to change their minds.

On the other hand we find that the acclamation of Abu Bakr was a "mistake" - as Umar ibn al-Khattab put it - "may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil." The acclamation of Umar was based on a promise given to him by Abu Bakr. The acclamation of Uthman was a historical comedy: Umar nominated six people for the caliphate and told them to choose one candidate, and said if four agreed and two disagreed, then the two should be killed, however, if the six were divided into two equal camps, then the camp which was supported by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf should be considered. but if after a certain time passed and no agreement had been reached, the whole six should be killed. The story is long and rather strange, but the important thing is that Abdul Rahman ibn Awf chose Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Book of Allah [the Qur'an] and the tradition of His Messenger and the tradition of the two Shaykhs: Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali refused these conditions but Uthman accepted them, so he became caliph. Ali came out from the conference of the acclamation and knew in advance the result, and talked about it in his famous speech known as al-Shaqshaqiyya.

After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation [87] except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[87]

i.e by the consensus of the Muslims

4. The Prophetic traditions which indicate that Ali should be followed

The prophetic traditions which persuaded me to follow Imam Ali were those I have read in the Sihahs of the Sunnis and were approved by the Shiites, and they have many more. But as usual I only referred to the prophetic traditions that have been agreed on by both parties, and here are some of them:

A. The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and Ali is its gate."

This tradition [88] alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to he followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.

[88]

Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 127
Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol 7 p 358

Allah - the Most High - said:

Say: "Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" 
[Holy Quran 39:9]

He also said:

"Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" [Holy Quran 10:35]

History has recorded many facts telling us that Ali was the most knowledgeable man among all the Companions and they used to consult him on every important matter, and we do not know of any event in which he declined to give his advice.

Abu Bakr said, "May Allah never put me in a predicament that Abu al-Hasan cannot solve. " And Umar said, "If it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished." [89]

[89]

al Isti'ab, vol 3 p 39
Manaqib al Khawarizmi, p 48
al Riyadh al Nadirah, vol 2 p 194

And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with Ali's knowledge."

And this is what Imam Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." [90]

[90]

al Riyadh al-Nadirah, vol 2 p 198
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 124
al Itqan, Suyuti, vol 2 p 319
Fath al Bari, vol 8 p 485
Tadhib al Tadhib, vol 7 p 338

Abu Bakr was once asked about the meaning of the word "Abb" [herbage] in the words of Allah, the Most High:

"And fruits and herbage, A provision for you and for your cattle" [Holy Quran 80:31-32]

Abu Bakr replied, "Which sky would give me shade, and which land would carry me if I say something I do not know about the Book of Allah." And this is Umar saying. "All people are more knowledgeable than I am, even women." He was once asked about the meaning of a Qur'anic verse, and his reaction was to rebuke the man and beat him until he bled, then he said, "Do not ask about matters which may appear bad to you." [91]

[91]

Sunan, al Darimi, vol 1 p 54
Tafsir, Ibn Katheer, vol 4 p 232
Tafsir, Suyuti, vol 6p 111

Also he was asked about "al-Kalalah" but he did not know what it meant.

In his "commentary", al-Tabari stated that Umar once said the following, "My knowledge of al-Kalalah is more valuable to me than owning a palace similar to those in Syria."

In one of his books, Ibn Maja quoted Umar as saying "There are three things, if they were explained by the Messenger of Allah, I would have loved them more dearly than anything in the world: Al-Kalalah, usury and the caliphate." God forbid that the Messenger of Allah stayed silent on these subjects!

B. The Prophetic tradition: O Ali! You hold in relation to me the same position as Haroon held in relation to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me.

This tradition, as should be apparent to every sensible person, shows the special quality of the Commander of the Believers, Ali, which made him the right person to be the supporter, the guardian and the deputy [or successor] of the Messenger of Allah as Haroon was the supporter, guardian and deputy of Moses when he went to meet his God. There is also the position of Ali vis-a-vis the Prophet which is absolutely equal to the relation between Haroon and Moses, except for the prophethood, which was excluded in the same tradition.

Furthermore, we find in the tradition the fact that Imam Ali was the best Companion, who only came second after the Messenger of Allah (saw).

C. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is the master of all those of whom I am master. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him, help him who helps him, forsake him who forsakes him, and turn justice with him wherever he turns.

This tradition alone is sufficient to reply to the allegations concerning the seniority of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman to Ali, who was appointed by the Messenger of Allah as the guardian after him of all the faithful. It is of no consequence for whoever tried to interpret the saying as the friend or the support in order to divert it from its original meaning so that the integrity of the Companions may be kept intact. The Messenger of Allah stood up in the terrible heat addressing the people, saying, "Do you witness that I have a prior right to and superior authority over all the faithful?" They replied, "Yes, O Messenger of Allah. " Thereupon he said, "Ali is the master of all those whom I am a master. . . etc." This is a clear text indicating that the Messenger of Allah had appointed Ali as his successor to lead the nation [of Islam], and the fair and sensible person could not but accept this interpretation and refuse that of the others, thus preserving the integrity of the Messenger of Allah before preserving the integrity of the Companions. Those who give an alternative interpretation to the saying are in fact ridiculing the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah, who gathered the multitude of people, in that unbearable heat, to tell them that Ali was the friend and supporter of the faithful. And what do those, who misinterpret the text in order to preserve the integrity of their masters, say about the procession of congratulation that the Messenger of Allah organised for Ali? It started with the wives of the Messenger, the mothers of the faithful, then Abu Bakr and Umar came and said to him, "Well done Ibn Abi Talib, Overnight you became the guardian [master] of all the faithful."

In fact all the historical evidence gives clear indications that those who misinterpret the above tradition are liars. Woe to those who wrote what they wrote, and woe to them for what they are writing. Allah - the Most High - said. "...a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know it" [Holy Qur'an 2:146].

D. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is from me and I am from Ali and no one can discharge my duty except myself or Ali.

This honourable tradition [92] is another clear indication that Imam Ali was only one whom the Messenger authorized to discharge his duties. The Messenger said it on the day of the great pilgrimage when he sent Ali with Surat Bara'a instead of Abu Bakr, who came crying and asked, "O Messenger of Allah ! Reveal something for me." The Messenger answered, "My Lord ordered me that nobody can discharge my duty except myself or Ali."

[92]

Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44
Khasais, al Nasai, p 20
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300
Jami al Usul, Ibn Kathir, vol 9 p 471
al Jami al Saghir, al Suyuti, vol 2 p 56
al Riyadh al Nadirah, Tabari, vol 2p 229

There is another supporting tradition that the Messenger of Allah, said on another occasion in honour of Ali, "O Ali! You will show them the right path when there will be dissension among them after me." [93] If nobody could discharge the Messenger of Allah's duty except Ali, and if he was the one who would show them the right path after dissension appeared among them after him; then how could a person who did not know the meaning of "al-Abb" and "Kalalah" be more senior to Ali? This is sadly one of the tragedies that have been inflicted on our nation and prevented it from doing the duties that Allah has chosen for it. We could not blame Allah or the Messenger of Allah or the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib for that, but the blame falls squarely on those who rebelled and changed, and Allah - the most High - said: "And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger. They say, "That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us. " What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way" [Holy Qur'an 5:104].

[93]

Tarikh, Ibn Askir, vol 2 p 488
Kunuz al Haqa'iq, al Mauawi, p 203
Kanz al Ummal, vol 5 p 33

E. The Prophetic tradition of the House on the day of Warning.

The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, indicating Ali. This is my brother, my trustee and my deputy [caliph] after me, so listen to him and obey him." [94]

[94]

Tarikh, al Tabari, vol 2 p319
al Sirah al Halabiyah, vol 1 p 311
Shawahid al Tanzil, vol 1 p 371
Kanz al Ummal, vol 15 p 15
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 85
Tafsir, Ala al Din al Shafi'i, vol 3 p 371
The Life of Muhammad by Hasanyn Haykal, First Edition (Section on: And admonish your nearest, your kinsmen)

This is yet another correct tradition cited by many historians at the beginning of the prophetic mission, and considered as one of the Prophet's miracles. However, political intrigues distorted the facts. Then there is no wonder that the oppression which took place then is coming back again in our lifetime. For example, Muhammad Husayn Haykal reproduced the saying in its entirety in his book "The Life of Muhammad", (Page 104, First Edition 1334 Hijri). From the Second Edition onward, the part of the tradition where the Prophet says, "He is my trustee, my deputy [caliph] after me" has been removed.

Also, in al-Tabari's commentary [Tafsir], Volume 19. Page 121, when the Prophet says "My trustee and my deputy [caliph]" was changed to "This is my brother etc. etc", but they failed to recognize that al-Tabari had cited the tradition in its entirety in his Annals Volume 2, Page 319. Look how they change the words and distort the facts ... they want to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah is spreading His light.

During my investigation I wanted to see the truth, so I searched for the first edition of "The Life of Muhammad". and after some hard work - praise be to Allah - found it, although it cost me considerably. The important thing is that I looked at the distortion and became convinced that the evil people are trying the best they can do to remove the facts. because there is strong evidence in the hands of their "enemies".

When the fair investigator comes across such a blatant distortion, he will no doubt begin to keep away from them and become convinced that they have no evidence except lies and distorted facts. They hire writers to whom they give money, titles and false university degrees in order to write for them books and articles through which they insult the Shiites and accuse them of blasphemy, while at the same time they defend the position, even if it is unjust, of some of the Companions who turned on their heels and exchanged right for wrong after the departure of the Messenger of Allah.

Allah says: "Even thus said those before them, the like of what they say; their hearts are all alike. Indeed We have made the verses clear for a people who are sure." [Holy Quran 2:118]

2. The disagreement between Fatimah and Abu Bakr

The subject is agreed upon by the two parties, and the fair and sensible person has no choice but to judge Abu Bakr as being wrong, that is if he did not admit his injustice and bad treatment of the leading lady.

Anyone who cares to follow the events of that tragedy and studies its various facts will recognize that Abu Bakr deliberately hurt al-Zahra and denied her argument so that she could not protest against him - supported by the texts of al-Ghadir and others - regarding the lawful right for her husband and cousin to the succession of the caliphate. There are many indications that have been mentioned by historians which lead us to believe in accounts of these events, this is one of them:

Al-Zahra - may Allah's peace be upon her - went around the meeting places of al-Ansar, asking for support for her cousin and husband and they said, "O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, we have already acclaimed that man, and if your husband and cousin had approached us before him, we would have supported him." Ali - may Allah honour his face - said, "Would I leave the Messenger of Allah (saw) in his house unburied and go to argue with people about his authority?" Fatimah said, "Abu al-Hasan did what was expected from him, and for what they did Allah will hold them responsible and accountable." [71]

[71]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 19
Shahrah, Ibn al Hadid

If Abu Bakr was wrong, either unintentionally or through good-will, Fatimah al-Zahara would have persuaded him; but she was angry with him, because he refused to accept her argument and rejected her testimony and the testimony of her husband. She became so angry, she even prevented him in her will from being present at her funeral. When she died, her husband buried her secretly during the night. [72]

[72]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 36
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 72

As for her secret burial (as) during the night, it is worth mentioning here, that during my years of research and investigation, I went to al-Medinah to check for myself certain points, then I discovered the following:

Firstly, the grave of al-Zahra is unknown and nobody knows exactly where it is; some say it is in the Prophet's chamber, others say it is in her house opposite the Prophet's chamber, and there are people who think that it might be in al-Baqi', in the midst of Ahl al-Bayt's graves.

This is the first fact that I deduced: al-Zahra (as) wanted the Muslims, through generations to come, to know why she asked her husband to bury her secretly during the night, and that not one of them attend her funeral ! Thus, every Muslim could reach certain interesting facts when researching into historical events.

Secondly, I discovered that the visitor who wants to visit Uthman ibn Affan's grave has to go a long way until he reaches the end of al-Baqi', and there he finds it by a wall. By contrast, he will find the burial places of most of the Companions at the beginning of al-Baqi', near the entry. Even Malik ibn Anas, the famous jurist, who was a follower of the Followers, is buried near the burial places of the Messenger's wives. It became clear to me what the historians meant when they said that he was buried in "Hash Kawkab". which was Jewish land, because the Muslims refused to bury him in the Baqi' of the Messenger of Allah. When Muawiya seized power, he bought that land from the Jews and included it in al-Baqi', so that it contains the grave of his cousin Uthman. He who visits al-Baqi' today will see this fact very clearly.

It is astonishing to know that Fatimah al-Zahra (as) was the first of the Prophet's children to die after him, and at the most there were six months between the departure of the father and his daughter, and despite that, she was not buried beside her father.

Fatimah al-Zahra, as I mentioned earlier, stated in her will that she should be buried secretly, therefore, she was not buried beside her father. But what about her son, al-Hasan, why was he not buried beside his grandfather? Aisha (Umm al-Mumineen) prevented that. When al-Husayn brought his brother to bury him by his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, Aisha rode a mule and went around saying, "Do not bury someone I do not love in my house." Then, the houses of Bani Umayya and Hashim stood opposite each other ready to fight, but al-Husayn told her that he would only take the coffin of his brother around the grave of their grandfather then he would bury him in al-Baqi'. That was because Imam al-Hasan requested from his brother, that no blood should be shed for his sake. Ibn Abbas said a few verses regarding this event:

"She rode a camel [73], she rode a mule [74], if she had lived longer, she would have ridden an elephant, you have the ninth of the eighth, and you took everything."

[73]

With reference to her mounting the Camel during the War of the Camel.

 

[74]

With reference to her mounting the mule on the day when she prevented the burial of al Hasan next to his grandfather.

This is another interesting fact: How could Aisha inherit everything, when the Prophet had nine wives? Ibn Abbas transmitted to us: If the Prophet was not to leave any inheritance, and Abu Bakr bore witness to that and prevented al-Zahra from inheriting anything from her father, how then could Aisha? Is there any text which states that the wife could inherit, but not the daughter? Or was it perhaps politics that changed everything, so it denied the daughter everything, and gave the wife everything?

It is worth mentioning here a story related to the subject of inheritance that has been cited by many historians:

Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mutazili said in his commentary on Nahj al-Balagha: Aisha and Hafsa came to see Uthman, during his caliphate, and asked him to give them their shares of what they had inherited from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Uthman was stretched on the sofa, so he sat up and said to Aisha: You and that woman sitting next to you brought a man who cleansed himself with his urine and testified that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "We, the prophets, do not leave an inheritance." If the Prophet truly did not leave any inheritance, why do you ask for it now, and if he left an inheritance, why did you deprive Fatimah of her legal share? After that, she left him feeling very angry and said: Kill Na'thal, for he has become an unbeliever. [75]

[75]

Sharh of Nahj al Balagha, Ibn al Hadid, vol 16 p 220-223

3. Ali was more entitled to the leadership

One of the reasons which led to my enlightenment and ultimately made me leave the tradition [Sunna] of my forefathers was the comparison between the positions of Ali ibn Abi Talib and that of Abu Bakr, based on logical deductions and historical references.

As I started in earlier parts of this book, I only included in my research the references which have been agreed on by both, the Shiites and the Sunnis.

I searched in the books of both parties and found that only Ali received total support, and both Shiites and Sunnis agreed on his leadership in accordance with the texts they approved of. However there is neither support nor agreement on the leadership of Abu Bakr except by a small group of Muslims, and we have mentioned what Umar said about his succession to the caliphate. Furthermore. there are many virtues and good deeds attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib by the Shiites and cited as authentic references in the Sunni books. The sayings are full of the virtues of Ali, more than any other Companion ever received, and even Ahmed ibn Hanbal said: No one among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) had more virtues than Ali ibn Abi Talib. [76]

[76]

al Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 3 and 9
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 168
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 72
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 3 p 63
Shawahid at Tanzil, al Haskani al Hanafi, vol 1 p 19

Qadi Ismail, al-Nasa'i and Abu Ali al-Naisaburi said: No Companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali. [77]

[77]

al Riyadh al Nazarah, Tabari, vol 2 p 282
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 118, 72

We notice that the Umayyads tried hard to force people to curse him and insult him and not to mention any of his virtues, and even they prevented anybody from being named after him, but despite all that hatred, his virtues and good deeds (as) continued to spread.

Regarding that Imam al-Shafi'i says: I am surprised about a man whose virtues were kept secret by his enemies, out of envy, and were kept secret by his followers, out of fear, but nevertheless, an enormous amount of them spread."

As for Abu Bakr, I searched in the books of the two parties, and found that the virtues attributed to him by the Sunnis were much less than that attributed to Ali. The virtues of Abu Bakr that have been mentioned in historical books were narrated either by his daughter Aisha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings, or by Abdullah ibn Umar, who was never close to Ali, and he was one of those who refused to pay homage to Ali despite the popular support he had received. Abdullah ibn Umar used to say that the best people after the Prophet were Abu Bakr then Uthman, and after that everybody was equal [78]. Thus, he made Imam Ali like any other ordinary person, without preferences or virtues.

[78]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 202

What was Abdullah ibn Umar's attitude towards the facts that had been mentioned by the leading personalities of the nation that "No companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali". Had Abdullah ibn Umar not heard about even one of Ali's virtues? Yes, by Allah, he had heard and understood, but political intrigues tend to distort the facts.

The virtues of Abu Bakr were also mentioned by Amr ibn al-'As, Abu Hurayrah, Urwa and Ikrima, and all of them hated Ali and fought him either with arms or by plotting against him and attributing virtues to his enemies.

Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, "Ali had many enemies who searched hard to find a fault attributable to him, but they could not, so they brought a man whom Ali had-fought and battled with, and praised him because of their hatred towards Ali." [79]. But Allah said: "Surely they will make a scheme, and I too will make a scheme so glad the unbelievers a respite: let them alone for a while" [Holy Qur'an 86:15-17].

[79]

Fath al Bari (Sharah al Sahih Bukhari), vol 7 p 83
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 199
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 125

It is a miracle from Allah - praise be to Him - that the virtues of Imam Ali spread after six centuries of oppression and injustice against him and Ahl al-Bayt, and the Abbasids were not less evil than their predecessor the Umayyads in their treatment of Ahl al-Bayt. The poet Abu Firas al-Hamdani wrote the following verses:

What Banu Harb have done to them is nothing in comparison to what you did to them,

How many times have you clearly violated the Religion?

And how much of the Prophet's [family's] blood Has been spilt by you?

You pretend to be his followers, but on your hands Is the blood of his purified sons.

After having finished with all these sayings, and having came out from the darkness, I leave the last judgement to Allah, and there will be no more excuses from the people after all that.

Despite the fact that Abu Bakr was the first caliph, and had all the power and authority, despite the bribes and gifts that the Umayyads gave to every one who praised Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and despite all the alleged virtues and good deeds that they invented for Abu Bakr, which filled many books ... despite all that, they did not amount to a fraction of the true virtues of Imam Ali.

Furthermore, if we analyze the alleged sayings that were in favour of Abu Bakr, we find them incompatible with the historical facts, and no sensible man or creed could accept them. Earlier on we explained the saying attributed to the Prophet: "If the faith of Abu Bakr and the faith of my nation is put on the balance, the faith of Abu Bakr will be heavier".

If the Messenger of Allah was aware of this high degree of faith in Abu Bakr, he would not have appointed Usama to command the army; nor would he have refused to bear witness for him as he did for the martyrs of Uhud, and then said to him that he did not know what he was going to do after him", so that Abu Bakr [80] cried. In addition to that, the Prophet would not have sent Ali ibn Abi Talib to take "Surat Bara'a" from him and prevented him from transmitting it. [81]

[80]

Muwatta, Malik,. vol 1 p 307
Maghazi, al Waqidi, p 310

 

[81]

Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 4 p 339
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 2 p 319
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 51

Nor would the Prophet have said in Khayber while presenting the flag: "Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith" then he gave it to Ali and no one else. [82]

[82]

Sahih, Muslim (Chapter on the virtues of Imam Ali (as))

If Allah knew that Abu Bakr had such a high degree of faith, and that his faith exceeded the faith of all Muslims, Allah - praise be upon Him - would not have had to threaten him that He would spoil his work when he raised his voice above the Prophet's voice. [83]

[83]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 184

If Ali and the Companions who followed him knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, they would not have hesitated to pay homage to him. If Fatimah al-Zahra, the leading lady, knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, she would not have been angry with him, nor would she have refused to talk to him or return his greetings, or cursed him in her prayers [84], and even banned him - according to her will - from attending her funeral.

[84]

al Imamah was Siyasah, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 14
Treatise, al Jahiz, p 301
A'alam al Nisa, vol 3 p 1215

He who had such a degree of faith, and whose faith was greater than the faith of all Muslims. would not have regretted, in the last moments of his life, his attitude towards Fatimah, and his burning of al-Fuja'ah al-Salami and his succession to the caliphate [85]. Also, he would not have wished not to be a human being but to be a hair or animal droppings. Is this man's faith equal to, or even greater than the faith of the entire Islamic nation?

[85]

Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 52
al Imamah wa Siyasah, vol 1 p 18
Tarikh, Masudi, vol 1 p 514

Let us consider the saying: If I was taking a close companion, I would have chosen Abu Bakr. This saying is like the previous one. Where was Abu Bakr on the day of the small Brotherhood" in Mecca before the Hijra, and on the day of the great Brotherhood" in Medinah after the Hijra; when in both of them the Messenger of Allah (saw) chose Ali as his brother then said to him, You are my brother in this life and in the Hereafter" [86] and did not turn to Abu Bakr, thus depriving him of the brotherhood in the Hereafter and from the close companionship. I do not wish to go on about this subject, and it is sufficient to bring the above mentioned examples which I have found in the Sunni books. As for the Shiites, they do not recognize these sayings at all, and they have their own clear proof that they were invented some time after the death of Abu Bakr.

[86]

Tadhkirat al Khawass, Sibt ibn al Jawzi, p 23
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 7
Al Fusul al Muhimmat, Ibn al Sagh al Maliki, p 21

If we leave the virtues aside and concentrate on the sins, we will never find a single sin committed by Ali that has been mentioned in historical books (both Shiite and Sunni), whereas we find that many other people have committed sins and were mentioned in the Sunni books such as al-Sihah, the various books Sirah and annals.

Thus, we find total agreement from both parties regarding Ali alone, also historical facts point out that the correct acclamation was for Ali alone.

He abstained, but the Muhajireen and Ansar insisted on his acclamation; then when he was finally nominated, some people refused to pay homage to him, but he never forced them to change their minds.

On the other hand we find that the acclamation of Abu Bakr was a "mistake" - as Umar ibn al-Khattab put it - "may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil." The acclamation of Umar was based on a promise given to him by Abu Bakr. The acclamation of Uthman was a historical comedy: Umar nominated six people for the caliphate and told them to choose one candidate, and said if four agreed and two disagreed, then the two should be killed, however, if the six were divided into two equal camps, then the camp which was supported by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf should be considered. but if after a certain time passed and no agreement had been reached, the whole six should be killed. The story is long and rather strange, but the important thing is that Abdul Rahman ibn Awf chose Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Book of Allah [the Qur'an] and the tradition of His Messenger and the tradition of the two Shaykhs: Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali refused these conditions but Uthman accepted them, so he became caliph. Ali came out from the conference of the acclamation and knew in advance the result, and talked about it in his famous speech known as al-Shaqshaqiyya.

After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation [87] except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[87]

i.e by the consensus of the Muslims

4. The Prophetic traditions which indicate that Ali should be followed

The prophetic traditions which persuaded me to follow Imam Ali were those I have read in the Sihahs of the Sunnis and were approved by the Shiites, and they have many more. But as usual I only referred to the prophetic traditions that have been agreed on by both parties, and here are some of them:

A. The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and Ali is its gate."

This tradition [88] alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to he followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.

[88]

Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 127
Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol 7 p 358

Allah - the Most High - said:

Say: "Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" 
[Holy Quran 39:9]

He also said:

"Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" [Holy Quran 10:35]

History has recorded many facts telling us that Ali was the most knowledgeable man among all the Companions and they used to consult him on every important matter, and we do not know of any event in which he declined to give his advice.

Abu Bakr said, "May Allah never put me in a predicament that Abu al-Hasan cannot solve. " And Umar said, "If it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished." [89]

[89]

al Isti'ab, vol 3 p 39
Manaqib al Khawarizmi, p 48
al Riyadh al Nadirah, vol 2 p 194

And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with Ali's knowledge."

And this is what Imam Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." [90]

[90]

al Riyadh al-Nadirah, vol 2 p 198
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 124
al Itqan, Suyuti, vol 2 p 319
Fath al Bari, vol 8 p 485
Tadhib al Tadhib, vol 7 p 338

Abu Bakr was once asked about the meaning of the word "Abb" [herbage] in the words of Allah, the Most High:

"And fruits and herbage, A provision for you and for your cattle" [Holy Quran 80:31-32]

Abu Bakr replied, "Which sky would give me shade, and which land would carry me if I say something I do not know about the Book of Allah." And this is Umar saying. "All people are more knowledgeable than I am, even women." He was once asked about the meaning of a Qur'anic verse, and his reaction was to rebuke the man and beat him until he bled, then he said, "Do not ask about matters which may appear bad to you." [91]

[91]

Sunan, al Darimi, vol 1 p 54
Tafsir, Ibn Katheer, vol 4 p 232
Tafsir, Suyuti, vol 6p 111

Also he was asked about "al-Kalalah" but he did not know what it meant.

In his "commentary", al-Tabari stated that Umar once said the following, "My knowledge of al-Kalalah is more valuable to me than owning a palace similar to those in Syria."

In one of his books, Ibn Maja quoted Umar as saying "There are three things, if they were explained by the Messenger of Allah, I would have loved them more dearly than anything in the world: Al-Kalalah, usury and the caliphate." God forbid that the Messenger of Allah stayed silent on these subjects!

B. The Prophetic tradition: O Ali! You hold in relation to me the same position as Haroon held in relation to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me.

This tradition, as should be apparent to every sensible person, shows the special quality of the Commander of the Believers, Ali, which made him the right person to be the supporter, the guardian and the deputy [or successor] of the Messenger of Allah as Haroon was the supporter, guardian and deputy of Moses when he went to meet his God. There is also the position of Ali vis-a-vis the Prophet which is absolutely equal to the relation between Haroon and Moses, except for the prophethood, which was excluded in the same tradition.

Furthermore, we find in the tradition the fact that Imam Ali was the best Companion, who only came second after the Messenger of Allah (saw).

C. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is the master of all those of whom I am master. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him, help him who helps him, forsake him who forsakes him, and turn justice with him wherever he turns.

This tradition alone is sufficient to reply to the allegations concerning the seniority of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman to Ali, who was appointed by the Messenger of Allah as the guardian after him of all the faithful. It is of no consequence for whoever tried to interpret the saying as the friend or the support in order to divert it from its original meaning so that the integrity of the Companions may be kept intact. The Messenger of Allah stood up in the terrible heat addressing the people, saying, "Do you witness that I have a prior right to and superior authority over all the faithful?" They replied, "Yes, O Messenger of Allah. " Thereupon he said, "Ali is the master of all those whom I am a master. . . etc." This is a clear text indicating that the Messenger of Allah had appointed Ali as his successor to lead the nation [of Islam], and the fair and sensible person could not but accept this interpretation and refuse that of the others, thus preserving the integrity of the Messenger of Allah before preserving the integrity of the Companions. Those who give an alternative interpretation to the saying are in fact ridiculing the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah, who gathered the multitude of people, in that unbearable heat, to tell them that Ali was the friend and supporter of the faithful. And what do those, who misinterpret the text in order to preserve the integrity of their masters, say about the procession of congratulation that the Messenger of Allah organised for Ali? It started with the wives of the Messenger, the mothers of the faithful, then Abu Bakr and Umar came and said to him, "Well done Ibn Abi Talib, Overnight you became the guardian [master] of all the faithful."

In fact all the historical evidence gives clear indications that those who misinterpret the above tradition are liars. Woe to those who wrote what they wrote, and woe to them for what they are writing. Allah - the Most High - said. "...a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know it" [Holy Qur'an 2:146].

D. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is from me and I am from Ali and no one can discharge my duty except myself or Ali.

This honourable tradition [92] is another clear indication that Imam Ali was only one whom the Messenger authorized to discharge his duties. The Messenger said it on the day of the great pilgrimage when he sent Ali with Surat Bara'a instead of Abu Bakr, who came crying and asked, "O Messenger of Allah ! Reveal something for me." The Messenger answered, "My Lord ordered me that nobody can discharge my duty except myself or Ali."

[92]

Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44
Khasais, al Nasai, p 20
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300
Jami al Usul, Ibn Kathir, vol 9 p 471
al Jami al Saghir, al Suyuti, vol 2 p 56
al Riyadh al Nadirah, Tabari, vol 2p 229

There is another supporting tradition that the Messenger of Allah, said on another occasion in honour of Ali, "O Ali! You will show them the right path when there will be dissension among them after me." [93] If nobody could discharge the Messenger of Allah's duty except Ali, and if he was the one who would show them the right path after dissension appeared among them after him; then how could a person who did not know the meaning of "al-Abb" and "Kalalah" be more senior to Ali? This is sadly one of the tragedies that have been inflicted on our nation and prevented it from doing the duties that Allah has chosen for it. We could not blame Allah or the Messenger of Allah or the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib for that, but the blame falls squarely on those who rebelled and changed, and Allah - the most High - said: "And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger. They say, "That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us. " What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way" [Holy Qur'an 5:104].

[93]

Tarikh, Ibn Askir, vol 2 p 488
Kunuz al Haqa'iq, al Mauawi, p 203
Kanz al Ummal, vol 5 p 33

E. The Prophetic tradition of the House on the day of Warning.

The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, indicating Ali. This is my brother, my trustee and my deputy [caliph] after me, so listen to him and obey him." [94]

[94]

Tarikh, al Tabari, vol 2 p319
al Sirah al Halabiyah, vol 1 p 311
Shawahid al Tanzil, vol 1 p 371
Kanz al Ummal, vol 15 p 15
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 85
Tafsir, Ala al Din al Shafi'i, vol 3 p 371
The Life of Muhammad by Hasanyn Haykal, First Edition (Section on: And admonish your nearest, your kinsmen)

This is yet another correct tradition cited by many historians at the beginning of the prophetic mission, and considered as one of the Prophet's miracles. However, political intrigues distorted the facts. Then there is no wonder that the oppression which took place then is coming back again in our lifetime. For example, Muhammad Husayn Haykal reproduced the saying in its entirety in his book "The Life of Muhammad", (Page 104, First Edition 1334 Hijri). From the Second Edition onward, the part of the tradition where the Prophet says, "He is my trustee, my deputy [caliph] after me" has been removed.

Also, in al-Tabari's commentary [Tafsir], Volume 19. Page 121, when the Prophet says "My trustee and my deputy [caliph]" was changed to "This is my brother etc. etc", but they failed to recognize that al-Tabari had cited the tradition in its entirety in his Annals Volume 2, Page 319. Look how they change the words and distort the facts ... they want to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah is spreading His light.

During my investigation I wanted to see the truth, so I searched for the first edition of "The Life of Muhammad". and after some hard work - praise be to Allah - found it, although it cost me considerably. The important thing is that I looked at the distortion and became convinced that the evil people are trying the best they can do to remove the facts. because there is strong evidence in the hands of their "enemies".

When the fair investigator comes across such a blatant distortion, he will no doubt begin to keep away from them and become convinced that they have no evidence except lies and distorted facts. They hire writers to whom they give money, titles and false university degrees in order to write for them books and articles through which they insult the Shiites and accuse them of blasphemy, while at the same time they defend the position, even if it is unjust, of some of the Companions who turned on their heels and exchanged right for wrong after the departure of the Messenger of Allah.

Allah says: "Even thus said those before them, the like of what they say; their hearts are all alike. Indeed We have made the verses clear for a people who are sure." [Holy Quran 2:118]

3. Ali was more entitled to the leadership

One of the reasons which led to my enlightenment and ultimately made me leave the tradition [Sunna] of my forefathers was the comparison between the positions of Ali ibn Abi Talib and that of Abu Bakr, based on logical deductions and historical references.

As I started in earlier parts of this book, I only included in my research the references which have been agreed on by both, the Shiites and the Sunnis.

I searched in the books of both parties and found that only Ali received total support, and both Shiites and Sunnis agreed on his leadership in accordance with the texts they approved of. However there is neither support nor agreement on the leadership of Abu Bakr except by a small group of Muslims, and we have mentioned what Umar said about his succession to the caliphate. Furthermore. there are many virtues and good deeds attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib by the Shiites and cited as authentic references in the Sunni books. The sayings are full of the virtues of Ali, more than any other Companion ever received, and even Ahmed ibn Hanbal said: No one among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) had more virtues than Ali ibn Abi Talib. [76]

[76]

al Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 3 and 9
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 168
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 72
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 3 p 63
Shawahid at Tanzil, al Haskani al Hanafi, vol 1 p 19

Qadi Ismail, al-Nasa'i and Abu Ali al-Naisaburi said: No Companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali. [77]

[77]

al Riyadh al Nazarah, Tabari, vol 2 p 282
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 118, 72

We notice that the Umayyads tried hard to force people to curse him and insult him and not to mention any of his virtues, and even they prevented anybody from being named after him, but despite all that hatred, his virtues and good deeds (as) continued to spread.

Regarding that Imam al-Shafi'i says: I am surprised about a man whose virtues were kept secret by his enemies, out of envy, and were kept secret by his followers, out of fear, but nevertheless, an enormous amount of them spread."

As for Abu Bakr, I searched in the books of the two parties, and found that the virtues attributed to him by the Sunnis were much less than that attributed to Ali. The virtues of Abu Bakr that have been mentioned in historical books were narrated either by his daughter Aisha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings, or by Abdullah ibn Umar, who was never close to Ali, and he was one of those who refused to pay homage to Ali despite the popular support he had received. Abdullah ibn Umar used to say that the best people after the Prophet were Abu Bakr then Uthman, and after that everybody was equal [78]. Thus, he made Imam Ali like any other ordinary person, without preferences or virtues.

[78]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 202

What was Abdullah ibn Umar's attitude towards the facts that had been mentioned by the leading personalities of the nation that "No companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali". Had Abdullah ibn Umar not heard about even one of Ali's virtues? Yes, by Allah, he had heard and understood, but political intrigues tend to distort the facts.

The virtues of Abu Bakr were also mentioned by Amr ibn al-'As, Abu Hurayrah, Urwa and Ikrima, and all of them hated Ali and fought him either with arms or by plotting against him and attributing virtues to his enemies.

Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, "Ali had many enemies who searched hard to find a fault attributable to him, but they could not, so they brought a man whom Ali had-fought and battled with, and praised him because of their hatred towards Ali." [79]. But Allah said: "Surely they will make a scheme, and I too will make a scheme so glad the unbelievers a respite: let them alone for a while" [Holy Qur'an 86:15-17].

[79]

Fath al Bari (Sharah al Sahih Bukhari), vol 7 p 83
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 199
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 125

It is a miracle from Allah - praise be to Him - that the virtues of Imam Ali spread after six centuries of oppression and injustice against him and Ahl al-Bayt, and the Abbasids were not less evil than their predecessor the Umayyads in their treatment of Ahl al-Bayt. The poet Abu Firas al-Hamdani wrote the following verses:

What Banu Harb have done to them is nothing in comparison to what you did to them,

How many times have you clearly violated the Religion?

And how much of the Prophet's [family's] blood Has been spilt by you?

You pretend to be his followers, but on your hands Is the blood of his purified sons.

After having finished with all these sayings, and having came out from the darkness, I leave the last judgement to Allah, and there will be no more excuses from the people after all that.

Despite the fact that Abu Bakr was the first caliph, and had all the power and authority, despite the bribes and gifts that the Umayyads gave to every one who praised Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and despite all the alleged virtues and good deeds that they invented for Abu Bakr, which filled many books ... despite all that, they did not amount to a fraction of the true virtues of Imam Ali.

Furthermore, if we analyze the alleged sayings that were in favour of Abu Bakr, we find them incompatible with the historical facts, and no sensible man or creed could accept them. Earlier on we explained the saying attributed to the Prophet: "If the faith of Abu Bakr and the faith of my nation is put on the balance, the faith of Abu Bakr will be heavier".

If the Messenger of Allah was aware of this high degree of faith in Abu Bakr, he would not have appointed Usama to command the army; nor would he have refused to bear witness for him as he did for the martyrs of Uhud, and then said to him that he did not know what he was going to do after him", so that Abu Bakr [80] cried. In addition to that, the Prophet would not have sent Ali ibn Abi Talib to take "Surat Bara'a" from him and prevented him from transmitting it. [81]

[80]

Muwatta, Malik,. vol 1 p 307
Maghazi, al Waqidi, p 310

 

[81]

Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 4 p 339
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 2 p 319
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 51

Nor would the Prophet have said in Khayber while presenting the flag: "Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith" then he gave it to Ali and no one else. [82]

[82]

Sahih, Muslim (Chapter on the virtues of Imam Ali (as))

If Allah knew that Abu Bakr had such a high degree of faith, and that his faith exceeded the faith of all Muslims, Allah - praise be upon Him - would not have had to threaten him that He would spoil his work when he raised his voice above the Prophet's voice. [83]

[83]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 184

If Ali and the Companions who followed him knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, they would not have hesitated to pay homage to him. If Fatimah al-Zahra, the leading lady, knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, she would not have been angry with him, nor would she have refused to talk to him or return his greetings, or cursed him in her prayers [84], and even banned him - according to her will - from attending her funeral.

[84]

al Imamah was Siyasah, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 14
Treatise, al Jahiz, p 301
A'alam al Nisa, vol 3 p 1215

He who had such a degree of faith, and whose faith was greater than the faith of all Muslims. would not have regretted, in the last moments of his life, his attitude towards Fatimah, and his burning of al-Fuja'ah al-Salami and his succession to the caliphate [85]. Also, he would not have wished not to be a human being but to be a hair or animal droppings. Is this man's faith equal to, or even greater than the faith of the entire Islamic nation?

[85]

Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 52
al Imamah wa Siyasah, vol 1 p 18
Tarikh, Masudi, vol 1 p 514

Let us consider the saying: If I was taking a close companion, I would have chosen Abu Bakr. This saying is like the previous one. Where was Abu Bakr on the day of the small Brotherhood" in Mecca before the Hijra, and on the day of the great Brotherhood" in Medinah after the Hijra; when in both of them the Messenger of Allah (saw) chose Ali as his brother then said to him, You are my brother in this life and in the Hereafter" [86] and did not turn to Abu Bakr, thus depriving him of the brotherhood in the Hereafter and from the close companionship. I do not wish to go on about this subject, and it is sufficient to bring the above mentioned examples which I have found in the Sunni books. As for the Shiites, they do not recognize these sayings at all, and they have their own clear proof that they were invented some time after the death of Abu Bakr.

[86]

Tadhkirat al Khawass, Sibt ibn al Jawzi, p 23
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 7
Al Fusul al Muhimmat, Ibn al Sagh al Maliki, p 21

If we leave the virtues aside and concentrate on the sins, we will never find a single sin committed by Ali that has been mentioned in historical books (both Shiite and Sunni), whereas we find that many other people have committed sins and were mentioned in the Sunni books such as al-Sihah, the various books Sirah and annals.

Thus, we find total agreement from both parties regarding Ali alone, also historical facts point out that the correct acclamation was for Ali alone.

He abstained, but the Muhajireen and Ansar insisted on his acclamation; then when he was finally nominated, some people refused to pay homage to him, but he never forced them to change their minds.

On the other hand we find that the acclamation of Abu Bakr was a "mistake" - as Umar ibn al-Khattab put it - "may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil." The acclamation of Umar was based on a promise given to him by Abu Bakr. The acclamation of Uthman was a historical comedy: Umar nominated six people for the caliphate and told them to choose one candidate, and said if four agreed and two disagreed, then the two should be killed, however, if the six were divided into two equal camps, then the camp which was supported by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf should be considered. but if after a certain time passed and no agreement had been reached, the whole six should be killed. The story is long and rather strange, but the important thing is that Abdul Rahman ibn Awf chose Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Book of Allah [the Qur'an] and the tradition of His Messenger and the tradition of the two Shaykhs: Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali refused these conditions but Uthman accepted them, so he became caliph. Ali came out from the conference of the acclamation and knew in advance the result, and talked about it in his famous speech known as al-Shaqshaqiyya.

After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation [87] except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[87]

i.e by the consensus of the Muslims

4. The Prophetic traditions which indicate that Ali should be followed

The prophetic traditions which persuaded me to follow Imam Ali were those I have read in the Sihahs of the Sunnis and were approved by the Shiites, and they have many more. But as usual I only referred to the prophetic traditions that have been agreed on by both parties, and here are some of them:

A. The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and Ali is its gate."

This tradition [88] alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to he followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.

[88]

Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 127
Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol 7 p 358

Allah - the Most High - said:

Say: "Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" 
[Holy Quran 39:9]

He also said:

"Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" [Holy Quran 10:35]

History has recorded many facts telling us that Ali was the most knowledgeable man among all the Companions and they used to consult him on every important matter, and we do not know of any event in which he declined to give his advice.

Abu Bakr said, "May Allah never put me in a predicament that Abu al-Hasan cannot solve. " And Umar said, "If it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished." [89]

[89]

al Isti'ab, vol 3 p 39
Manaqib al Khawarizmi, p 48
al Riyadh al Nadirah, vol 2 p 194

And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with Ali's knowledge."

And this is what Imam Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." [90]

[90]

al Riyadh al-Nadirah, vol 2 p 198
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 124
al Itqan, Suyuti, vol 2 p 319
Fath al Bari, vol 8 p 485
Tadhib al Tadhib, vol 7 p 338

Abu Bakr was once asked about the meaning of the word "Abb" [herbage] in the words of Allah, the Most High:

"And fruits and herbage, A provision for you and for your cattle" [Holy Quran 80:31-32]

Abu Bakr replied, "Which sky would give me shade, and which land would carry me if I say something I do not know about the Book of Allah." And this is Umar saying. "All people are more knowledgeable than I am, even women." He was once asked about the meaning of a Qur'anic verse, and his reaction was to rebuke the man and beat him until he bled, then he said, "Do not ask about matters which may appear bad to you." [91]

[91]

Sunan, al Darimi, vol 1 p 54
Tafsir, Ibn Katheer, vol 4 p 232
Tafsir, Suyuti, vol 6p 111

Also he was asked about "al-Kalalah" but he did not know what it meant.

In his "commentary", al-Tabari stated that Umar once said the following, "My knowledge of al-Kalalah is more valuable to me than owning a palace similar to those in Syria."

In one of his books, Ibn Maja quoted Umar as saying "There are three things, if they were explained by the Messenger of Allah, I would have loved them more dearly than anything in the world: Al-Kalalah, usury and the caliphate." God forbid that the Messenger of Allah stayed silent on these subjects!

B. The Prophetic tradition: O Ali! You hold in relation to me the same position as Haroon held in relation to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me.

This tradition, as should be apparent to every sensible person, shows the special quality of the Commander of the Believers, Ali, which made him the right person to be the supporter, the guardian and the deputy [or successor] of the Messenger of Allah as Haroon was the supporter, guardian and deputy of Moses when he went to meet his God. There is also the position of Ali vis-a-vis the Prophet which is absolutely equal to the relation between Haroon and Moses, except for the prophethood, which was excluded in the same tradition.

Furthermore, we find in the tradition the fact that Imam Ali was the best Companion, who only came second after the Messenger of Allah (saw).

C. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is the master of all those of whom I am master. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him, help him who helps him, forsake him who forsakes him, and turn justice with him wherever he turns.

This tradition alone is sufficient to reply to the allegations concerning the seniority of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman to Ali, who was appointed by the Messenger of Allah as the guardian after him of all the faithful. It is of no consequence for whoever tried to interpret the saying as the friend or the support in order to divert it from its original meaning so that the integrity of the Companions may be kept intact. The Messenger of Allah stood up in the terrible heat addressing the people, saying, "Do you witness that I have a prior right to and superior authority over all the faithful?" They replied, "Yes, O Messenger of Allah. " Thereupon he said, "Ali is the master of all those whom I am a master. . . etc." This is a clear text indicating that the Messenger of Allah had appointed Ali as his successor to lead the nation [of Islam], and the fair and sensible person could not but accept this interpretation and refuse that of the others, thus preserving the integrity of the Messenger of Allah before preserving the integrity of the Companions. Those who give an alternative interpretation to the saying are in fact ridiculing the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah, who gathered the multitude of people, in that unbearable heat, to tell them that Ali was the friend and supporter of the faithful. And what do those, who misinterpret the text in order to preserve the integrity of their masters, say about the procession of congratulation that the Messenger of Allah organised for Ali? It started with the wives of the Messenger, the mothers of the faithful, then Abu Bakr and Umar came and said to him, "Well done Ibn Abi Talib, Overnight you became the guardian [master] of all the faithful."

In fact all the historical evidence gives clear indications that those who misinterpret the above tradition are liars. Woe to those who wrote what they wrote, and woe to them for what they are writing. Allah - the Most High - said. "...a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know it" [Holy Qur'an 2:146].

D. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is from me and I am from Ali and no one can discharge my duty except myself or Ali.

This honourable tradition [92] is another clear indication that Imam Ali was only one whom the Messenger authorized to discharge his duties. The Messenger said it on the day of the great pilgrimage when he sent Ali with Surat Bara'a instead of Abu Bakr, who came crying and asked, "O Messenger of Allah ! Reveal something for me." The Messenger answered, "My Lord ordered me that nobody can discharge my duty except myself or Ali."

[92]

Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44
Khasais, al Nasai, p 20
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300
Jami al Usul, Ibn Kathir, vol 9 p 471
al Jami al Saghir, al Suyuti, vol 2 p 56
al Riyadh al Nadirah, Tabari, vol 2p 229

There is another supporting tradition that the Messenger of Allah, said on another occasion in honour of Ali, "O Ali! You will show them the right path when there will be dissension among them after me." [93] If nobody could discharge the Messenger of Allah's duty except Ali, and if he was the one who would show them the right path after dissension appeared among them after him; then how could a person who did not know the meaning of "al-Abb" and "Kalalah" be more senior to Ali? This is sadly one of the tragedies that have been inflicted on our nation and prevented it from doing the duties that Allah has chosen for it. We could not blame Allah or the Messenger of Allah or the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib for that, but the blame falls squarely on those who rebelled and changed, and Allah - the most High - said: "And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger. They say, "That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us. " What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way" [Holy Qur'an 5:104].

[93]

Tarikh, Ibn Askir, vol 2 p 488
Kunuz al Haqa'iq, al Mauawi, p 203
Kanz al Ummal, vol 5 p 33

E. The Prophetic tradition of the House on the day of Warning.

The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, indicating Ali. This is my brother, my trustee and my deputy [caliph] after me, so listen to him and obey him." [94]

[94]

Tarikh, al Tabari, vol 2 p319
al Sirah al Halabiyah, vol 1 p 311
Shawahid al Tanzil, vol 1 p 371
Kanz al Ummal, vol 15 p 15
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 85
Tafsir, Ala al Din al Shafi'i, vol 3 p 371
The Life of Muhammad by Hasanyn Haykal, First Edition (Section on: And admonish your nearest, your kinsmen)

This is yet another correct tradition cited by many historians at the beginning of the prophetic mission, and considered as one of the Prophet's miracles. However, political intrigues distorted the facts. Then there is no wonder that the oppression which took place then is coming back again in our lifetime. For example, Muhammad Husayn Haykal reproduced the saying in its entirety in his book "The Life of Muhammad", (Page 104, First Edition 1334 Hijri). From the Second Edition onward, the part of the tradition where the Prophet says, "He is my trustee, my deputy [caliph] after me" has been removed.

Also, in al-Tabari's commentary [Tafsir], Volume 19. Page 121, when the Prophet says "My trustee and my deputy [caliph]" was changed to "This is my brother etc. etc", but they failed to recognize that al-Tabari had cited the tradition in its entirety in his Annals Volume 2, Page 319. Look how they change the words and distort the facts ... they want to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah is spreading His light.

During my investigation I wanted to see the truth, so I searched for the first edition of "The Life of Muhammad". and after some hard work - praise be to Allah - found it, although it cost me considerably. The important thing is that I looked at the distortion and became convinced that the evil people are trying the best they can do to remove the facts. because there is strong evidence in the hands of their "enemies".

When the fair investigator comes across such a blatant distortion, he will no doubt begin to keep away from them and become convinced that they have no evidence except lies and distorted facts. They hire writers to whom they give money, titles and false university degrees in order to write for them books and articles through which they insult the Shiites and accuse them of blasphemy, while at the same time they defend the position, even if it is unjust, of some of the Companions who turned on their heels and exchanged right for wrong after the departure of the Messenger of Allah.

Allah says: "Even thus said those before them, the like of what they say; their hearts are all alike. Indeed We have made the verses clear for a people who are sure." [Holy Quran 2:118]

 

The reasons behind my enlightenment are many, but I shall only mention a few of them here:

1. The text regarding the succession to the Caliphate

I have committed myself, before embarking on this study, to never depending on any reference unless it is considered authentic by the two parties, and to discarding those references that are solely referred to by only one of the parties.

Thus, I shall investigate the idea regarding the preference between Abu Bakr and Ali ibn Abi Talib, and that the succession of the caliphate was by written text [Dictate] for Ali, as the Shiites claim, and not by election and Shura [consultation] as the Sunnis claim.

Any researcher in this subject, if he considers nothing but the truth, will find that the text in support of Ali is very clear, like the following saying by the Messenger of Allah: Whoever considers me his master, then Ali is his master. He said it at the end of the Farewell Pilgrimage, when it was confirmed that Ali would succeed, and many people congratulated him on that, including Abu Bakr and Umar who were among the well-wishers, and who were quoted as having said to the Imam, Well done, Ibn Abi Talib, overnight you have become a master of all the believers." [64]

[64]

Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
Siyar al Amin, al Ghazali, p 12
Tadhkirat al Awas, Ibn al Jawzi, p 29
Al Riyadh al Nazarah, al Tabari, vol 2 p 169
al Bidayah wan Nihayah, vol 5 p 212
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 2 p 50
Tafsir, al Razi, vol 3 p 63
al Hawi lil Fatawi, al Suyuti, vol 1 p 112

This text has been agreed on by both Shiites and Sunnis, and in fact I have only referred in this study to some Sunni references. and not to all of them, for they are so many.

If the reader wants more information, he may read "al- Ghadir" by al-Amini (thirteen Volumes) in which the writer classifies the sayings of the Prophet according to the Sunnis.

As for the alleged popular election of Abu Bakr on "The Day of al-Saqifah" and his subsequent acclamation in the mosque; it seems that it was just an allegation without foundation. How could it be by popular agreement when so many people were absent during the acclamation? People like: Ali, al-Abbas, most of the house of Bani Hashim, Usama ibn Zayd, al-Zubayr, Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Ammar ibn Yasir, Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman, Khuzayma ibn Thabit, Abu Burayd al-Aslami, al-Bura ibn Azib, Abu Ka'b, Sahl ibn Hanif, Saad ibn Ubada, Qays ibn Saad, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Jabir ibn Saad, Khalid ibn Saad, and many others. [65]

[65]

Tarikh, al Tabari
Ibn al Athir
Suyuti
Baghdadi

So where was that alleged popular agreement? The absence of Ali alone from the acclamation is sufficient to criticize that meeting because he was the only candidate for the caliphate, nominated by the Messenger of Allah, on the assumption that there was no direct text regarding such a nomination.

The acclamation of Abu Bakr was without consultation, in fact it took the people by surprise, especially when the men in charge of the Muslim affairs were busy preparing for the funeral of the Messenger of Allah. The citizens of al-Medinah were shocked by the death of their Prophet, and then they forced the acclamation [66] on the people. and even threatened to burn the house of Fatima if those who were absent from the acclamation refused to leave it. So how could we say that the acclamation was implemented through consultation and popular agreement?

[66]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 18

Umar ibn al-Khattab himself testified that that acclamation was a mistake - may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil -, and that whoever repeated it should be killed, or he might have said that if someone called for a similar action there would he no acclamation for him or for those who acclaimed him. [67]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 127

Imam Ali said about that acclamation: By Allah, Ibn Abi Quhafa has got it! And he knows that my position [regarding the caliphate] is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone! The torrent flows from me, and the bird will never reach me! [68]

[68]

Sharh, Muhammad Abduh, vol 1 p 34, Sermon as Shaqshaqiyah

Saad ibn Ubada, a prominent man from al-Ansar, attacked Abu Bakr and Umar on the day of "al-Saqifah", and tried hard to keep them away from the caliphate, but could not sustain his efforts, for he was ill and unable to stand, and after al-Ansar paid homage to Abu Bakr, Saad said: "By Allah I shall never pay homage to you until I cast my last arrow at you, and pierce you with my lance, and attack you with my sword, with all the power in my hand, and fight you with all the members of my family and clan. By Allah, even if all the Jinns [invisible beings] and the human beings gathered to support you, I will never acclaim you, until I meet my God." He never prayed with them, he never sat in their company, he never performed the pilgrimage with them, and if he found a group of people willing to fight them, he would give them all his support, and if somebody acclaimed him to fight them, he would have fought them. He remained thus until he died in Syria during the caliphate of Umar. [69]

[69]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 17

If that was a mistake (may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil) as Umar put it (and he was one of its architects, and knew what happened to the Muslims as a result of it), and if that succession to the caliphate was illegal (as Imam Ali described it when he said that he was the lawful nominee for it), and if that acclamation was unjust (as according to Saad ibn Ubada the leader of al-Ansar who left al-Jamaah because of it), and if that acclamation was unlawful due to the absence of the leading figures of the Companions, including al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, so what is the evidence and proof which supports the legality of the Abu Bakr's succession to the caliphate?

The answer, is that there is no evidence or proof with the Sunnis and al-Jamaah.

Therefore, what the Shiites say regarding this issue is right, because it has been established that the Sunnis have the text which proves the succession of Ali to the caliphate, but they deliberately misinterpret it to maintain the Companion's honour. Thus, the just and fair person has no choice but to accept the text, especially if he knows the circumstances that surrounded the case. [70]

[70]

al Saqifah wal Khulafah by Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood
al Saqifah by Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar

2. The disagreement between Fatimah and Abu Bakr

The subject is agreed upon by the two parties, and the fair and sensible person has no choice but to judge Abu Bakr as being wrong, that is if he did not admit his injustice and bad treatment of the leading lady.

Anyone who cares to follow the events of that tragedy and studies its various facts will recognize that Abu Bakr deliberately hurt al-Zahra and denied her argument so that she could not protest against him - supported by the texts of al-Ghadir and others - regarding the lawful right for her husband and cousin to the succession of the caliphate. There are many indications that have been mentioned by historians which lead us to believe in accounts of these events, this is one of them:

Al-Zahra - may Allah's peace be upon her - went around the meeting places of al-Ansar, asking for support for her cousin and husband and they said, "O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, we have already acclaimed that man, and if your husband and cousin had approached us before him, we would have supported him." Ali - may Allah honour his face - said, "Would I leave the Messenger of Allah (saw) in his house unburied and go to argue with people about his authority?" Fatimah said, "Abu al-Hasan did what was expected from him, and for what they did Allah will hold them responsible and accountable." [71]

[71]

Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 19
Shahrah, Ibn al Hadid

If Abu Bakr was wrong, either unintentionally or through good-will, Fatimah al-Zahara would have persuaded him; but she was angry with him, because he refused to accept her argument and rejected her testimony and the testimony of her husband. She became so angry, she even prevented him in her will from being present at her funeral. When she died, her husband buried her secretly during the night. [72]

[72]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 36
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 72

As for her secret burial (as) during the night, it is worth mentioning here, that during my years of research and investigation, I went to al-Medinah to check for myself certain points, then I discovered the following:

Firstly, the grave of al-Zahra is unknown and nobody knows exactly where it is; some say it is in the Prophet's chamber, others say it is in her house opposite the Prophet's chamber, and there are people who think that it might be in al-Baqi', in the midst of Ahl al-Bayt's graves.

This is the first fact that I deduced: al-Zahra (as) wanted the Muslims, through generations to come, to know why she asked her husband to bury her secretly during the night, and that not one of them attend her funeral ! Thus, every Muslim could reach certain interesting facts when researching into historical events.

Secondly, I discovered that the visitor who wants to visit Uthman ibn Affan's grave has to go a long way until he reaches the end of al-Baqi', and there he finds it by a wall. By contrast, he will find the burial places of most of the Companions at the beginning of al-Baqi', near the entry. Even Malik ibn Anas, the famous jurist, who was a follower of the Followers, is buried near the burial places of the Messenger's wives. It became clear to me what the historians meant when they said that he was buried in "Hash Kawkab". which was Jewish land, because the Muslims refused to bury him in the Baqi' of the Messenger of Allah. When Muawiya seized power, he bought that land from the Jews and included it in al-Baqi', so that it contains the grave of his cousin Uthman. He who visits al-Baqi' today will see this fact very clearly.

It is astonishing to know that Fatimah al-Zahra (as) was the first of the Prophet's children to die after him, and at the most there were six months between the departure of the father and his daughter, and despite that, she was not buried beside her father.

Fatimah al-Zahra, as I mentioned earlier, stated in her will that she should be buried secretly, therefore, she was not buried beside her father. But what about her son, al-Hasan, why was he not buried beside his grandfather? Aisha (Umm al-Mumineen) prevented that. When al-Husayn brought his brother to bury him by his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, Aisha rode a mule and went around saying, "Do not bury someone I do not love in my house." Then, the houses of Bani Umayya and Hashim stood opposite each other ready to fight, but al-Husayn told her that he would only take the coffin of his brother around the grave of their grandfather then he would bury him in al-Baqi'. That was because Imam al-Hasan requested from his brother, that no blood should be shed for his sake. Ibn Abbas said a few verses regarding this event:

"She rode a camel [73], she rode a mule [74], if she had lived longer, she would have ridden an elephant, you have the ninth of the eighth, and you took everything."

[73]

With reference to her mounting the Camel during the War of the Camel.

 

[74]

With reference to her mounting the mule on the day when she prevented the burial of al Hasan next to his grandfather.

This is another interesting fact: How could Aisha inherit everything, when the Prophet had nine wives? Ibn Abbas transmitted to us: If the Prophet was not to leave any inheritance, and Abu Bakr bore witness to that and prevented al-Zahra from inheriting anything from her father, how then could Aisha? Is there any text which states that the wife could inherit, but not the daughter? Or was it perhaps politics that changed everything, so it denied the daughter everything, and gave the wife everything?

It is worth mentioning here a story related to the subject of inheritance that has been cited by many historians:

Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mutazili said in his commentary on Nahj al-Balagha: Aisha and Hafsa came to see Uthman, during his caliphate, and asked him to give them their shares of what they had inherited from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Uthman was stretched on the sofa, so he sat up and said to Aisha: You and that woman sitting next to you brought a man who cleansed himself with his urine and testified that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "We, the prophets, do not leave an inheritance." If the Prophet truly did not leave any inheritance, why do you ask for it now, and if he left an inheritance, why did you deprive Fatimah of her legal share? After that, she left him feeling very angry and said: Kill Na'thal, for he has become an unbeliever. [75]

[75]

Sharh of Nahj al Balagha, Ibn al Hadid, vol 16 p 220-223

3. Ali was more entitled to the leadership

One of the reasons which led to my enlightenment and ultimately made me leave the tradition [Sunna] of my forefathers was the comparison between the positions of Ali ibn Abi Talib and that of Abu Bakr, based on logical deductions and historical references.

As I started in earlier parts of this book, I only included in my research the references which have been agreed on by both, the Shiites and the Sunnis.

I searched in the books of both parties and found that only Ali received total support, and both Shiites and Sunnis agreed on his leadership in accordance with the texts they approved of. However there is neither support nor agreement on the leadership of Abu Bakr except by a small group of Muslims, and we have mentioned what Umar said about his succession to the caliphate. Furthermore. there are many virtues and good deeds attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib by the Shiites and cited as authentic references in the Sunni books. The sayings are full of the virtues of Ali, more than any other Companion ever received, and even Ahmed ibn Hanbal said: No one among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) had more virtues than Ali ibn Abi Talib. [76]

[76]

al Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 3 and 9
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 168
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 72
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 3 p 63
Shawahid at Tanzil, al Haskani al Hanafi, vol 1 p 19

Qadi Ismail, al-Nasa'i and Abu Ali al-Naisaburi said: No Companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali. [77]

[77]

al Riyadh al Nazarah, Tabari, vol 2 p 282
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 118, 72

We notice that the Umayyads tried hard to force people to curse him and insult him and not to mention any of his virtues, and even they prevented anybody from being named after him, but despite all that hatred, his virtues and good deeds (as) continued to spread.

Regarding that Imam al-Shafi'i says: I am surprised about a man whose virtues were kept secret by his enemies, out of envy, and were kept secret by his followers, out of fear, but nevertheless, an enormous amount of them spread."

As for Abu Bakr, I searched in the books of the two parties, and found that the virtues attributed to him by the Sunnis were much less than that attributed to Ali. The virtues of Abu Bakr that have been mentioned in historical books were narrated either by his daughter Aisha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings, or by Abdullah ibn Umar, who was never close to Ali, and he was one of those who refused to pay homage to Ali despite the popular support he had received. Abdullah ibn Umar used to say that the best people after the Prophet were Abu Bakr then Uthman, and after that everybody was equal [78]. Thus, he made Imam Ali like any other ordinary person, without preferences or virtues.

[78]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 202

What was Abdullah ibn Umar's attitude towards the facts that had been mentioned by the leading personalities of the nation that "No companion had as many virtues attributed to him as Ali". Had Abdullah ibn Umar not heard about even one of Ali's virtues? Yes, by Allah, he had heard and understood, but political intrigues tend to distort the facts.

The virtues of Abu Bakr were also mentioned by Amr ibn al-'As, Abu Hurayrah, Urwa and Ikrima, and all of them hated Ali and fought him either with arms or by plotting against him and attributing virtues to his enemies.

Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, "Ali had many enemies who searched hard to find a fault attributable to him, but they could not, so they brought a man whom Ali had-fought and battled with, and praised him because of their hatred towards Ali." [79]. But Allah said: "Surely they will make a scheme, and I too will make a scheme so glad the unbelievers a respite: let them alone for a while" [Holy Qur'an 86:15-17].

[79]

Fath al Bari (Sharah al Sahih Bukhari), vol 7 p 83
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 199
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 125

It is a miracle from Allah - praise be to Him - that the virtues of Imam Ali spread after six centuries of oppression and injustice against him and Ahl al-Bayt, and the Abbasids were not less evil than their predecessor the Umayyads in their treatment of Ahl al-Bayt. The poet Abu Firas al-Hamdani wrote the following verses:

What Banu Harb have done to them is nothing in comparison to what you did to them,

How many times have you clearly violated the Religion?

And how much of the Prophet's [family's] blood Has been spilt by you?

You pretend to be his followers, but on your hands Is the blood of his purified sons.

After having finished with all these sayings, and having came out from the darkness, I leave the last judgement to Allah, and there will be no more excuses from the people after all that.

Despite the fact that Abu Bakr was the first caliph, and had all the power and authority, despite the bribes and gifts that the Umayyads gave to every one who praised Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and despite all the alleged virtues and good deeds that they invented for Abu Bakr, which filled many books ... despite all that, they did not amount to a fraction of the true virtues of Imam Ali.

Furthermore, if we analyze the alleged sayings that were in favour of Abu Bakr, we find them incompatible with the historical facts, and no sensible man or creed could accept them. Earlier on we explained the saying attributed to the Prophet: "If the faith of Abu Bakr and the faith of my nation is put on the balance, the faith of Abu Bakr will be heavier".

If the Messenger of Allah was aware of this high degree of faith in Abu Bakr, he would not have appointed Usama to command the army; nor would he have refused to bear witness for him as he did for the martyrs of Uhud, and then said to him that he did not know what he was going to do after him", so that Abu Bakr [80] cried. In addition to that, the Prophet would not have sent Ali ibn Abi Talib to take "Surat Bara'a" from him and prevented him from transmitting it. [81]

[80]

Muwatta, Malik,. vol 1 p 307
Maghazi, al Waqidi, p 310

 

[81]

Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 4 p 339
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 2 p 319
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 51

Nor would the Prophet have said in Khayber while presenting the flag: "Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith" then he gave it to Ali and no one else. [82]

[82]

Sahih, Muslim (Chapter on the virtues of Imam Ali (as))

If Allah knew that Abu Bakr had such a high degree of faith, and that his faith exceeded the faith of all Muslims, Allah - praise be upon Him - would not have had to threaten him that He would spoil his work when he raised his voice above the Prophet's voice. [83]

[83]

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 184

If Ali and the Companions who followed him knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, they would not have hesitated to pay homage to him. If Fatimah al-Zahra, the leading lady, knew that Abu Bakr had this high degree of faith, she would not have been angry with him, nor would she have refused to talk to him or return his greetings, or cursed him in her prayers [84], and even banned him - according to her will - from attending her funeral.

[84]

al Imamah was Siyasah, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 14
Treatise, al Jahiz, p 301
A'alam al Nisa, vol 3 p 1215

He who had such a degree of faith, and whose faith was greater than the faith of all Muslims. would not have regretted, in the last moments of his life, his attitude towards Fatimah, and his burning of al-Fuja'ah al-Salami and his succession to the caliphate [85]. Also, he would not have wished not to be a human being but to be a hair or animal droppings. Is this man's faith equal to, or even greater than the faith of the entire Islamic nation?

[85]

Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 52
al Imamah wa Siyasah, vol 1 p 18
Tarikh, Masudi, vol 1 p 514

Let us consider the saying: If I was taking a close companion, I would have chosen Abu Bakr. This saying is like the previous one. Where was Abu Bakr on the day of the small Brotherhood" in Mecca before the Hijra, and on the day of the great Brotherhood" in Medinah after the Hijra; when in both of them the Messenger of Allah (saw) chose Ali as his brother then said to him, You are my brother in this life and in the Hereafter" [86] and did not turn to Abu Bakr, thus depriving him of the brotherhood in the Hereafter and from the close companionship. I do not wish to go on about this subject, and it is sufficient to bring the above mentioned examples which I have found in the Sunni books. As for the Shiites, they do not recognize these sayings at all, and they have their own clear proof that they were invented some time after the death of Abu Bakr.

[86]

Tadhkirat al Khawass, Sibt ibn al Jawzi, p 23
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 107
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 7
Al Fusul al Muhimmat, Ibn al Sagh al Maliki, p 21

If we leave the virtues aside and concentrate on the sins, we will never find a single sin committed by Ali that has been mentioned in historical books (both Shiite and Sunni), whereas we find that many other people have committed sins and were mentioned in the Sunni books such as al-Sihah, the various books Sirah and annals.

Thus, we find total agreement from both parties regarding Ali alone, also historical facts point out that the correct acclamation was for Ali alone.

He abstained, but the Muhajireen and Ansar insisted on his acclamation; then when he was finally nominated, some people refused to pay homage to him, but he never forced them to change their minds.

On the other hand we find that the acclamation of Abu Bakr was a "mistake" - as Umar ibn al-Khattab put it - "may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil." The acclamation of Umar was based on a promise given to him by Abu Bakr. The acclamation of Uthman was a historical comedy: Umar nominated six people for the caliphate and told them to choose one candidate, and said if four agreed and two disagreed, then the two should be killed, however, if the six were divided into two equal camps, then the camp which was supported by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf should be considered. but if after a certain time passed and no agreement had been reached, the whole six should be killed. The story is long and rather strange, but the important thing is that Abdul Rahman ibn Awf chose Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Book of Allah [the Qur'an] and the tradition of His Messenger and the tradition of the two Shaykhs: Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali refused these conditions but Uthman accepted them, so he became caliph. Ali came out from the conference of the acclamation and knew in advance the result, and talked about it in his famous speech known as al-Shaqshaqiyya.

After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation [87] except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[87]

i.e by the consensus of the Muslims

4. The Prophetic traditions which indicate that Ali should be followed

The prophetic traditions which persuaded me to follow Imam Ali were those I have read in the Sihahs of the Sunnis and were approved by the Shiites, and they have many more. But as usual I only referred to the prophetic traditions that have been agreed on by both parties, and here are some of them:

A. The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and Ali is its gate."

This tradition [88] alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to he followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.

[88]

Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 127
Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol 7 p 358

Allah - the Most High - said:

Say: "Are those who know and those who do not know alike?" 
[Holy Quran 39:9]

He also said:

"Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" [Holy Quran 10:35]

History has recorded many facts telling us that Ali was the most knowledgeable man among all the Companions and they used to consult him on every important matter, and we do not know of any event in which he declined to give his advice.

Abu Bakr said, "May Allah never put me in a predicament that Abu al-Hasan cannot solve. " And Umar said, "If it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished." [89]

[89]

al Isti'ab, vol 3 p 39
Manaqib al Khawarizmi, p 48
al Riyadh al Nadirah, vol 2 p 194

And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with Ali's knowledge."

And this is what Imam Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." [90]

[90]

al Riyadh al-Nadirah, vol 2 p 198
Tarikh, Suyuti, p 124
al Itqan, Suyuti, vol 2 p 319
Fath al Bari, vol 8 p 485
Tadhib al Tadhib, vol 7 p 338

Abu Bakr was once asked about the meaning of the word "Abb" [herbage] in the words of Allah, the Most High:

"And fruits and herbage, A provision for you and for your cattle" [Holy Quran 80:31-32]

Abu Bakr replied, "Which sky would give me shade, and which land would carry me if I say something I do not know about the Book of Allah." And this is Umar saying. "All people are more knowledgeable than I am, even women." He was once asked about the meaning of a Qur'anic verse, and his reaction was to rebuke the man and beat him until he bled, then he said, "Do not ask about matters which may appear bad to you." [91]

[91]

Sunan, al Darimi, vol 1 p 54
Tafsir, Ibn Katheer, vol 4 p 232
Tafsir, Suyuti, vol 6p 111

Also he was asked about "al-Kalalah" but he did not know what it meant.

In his "commentary", al-Tabari stated that Umar once said the following, "My knowledge of al-Kalalah is more valuable to me than owning a palace similar to those in Syria."

In one of his books, Ibn Maja quoted Umar as saying "There are three things, if they were explained by the Messenger of Allah, I would have loved them more dearly than anything in the world: Al-Kalalah, usury and the caliphate." God forbid that the Messenger of Allah stayed silent on these subjects!

B. The Prophetic tradition: O Ali! You hold in relation to me the same position as Haroon held in relation to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me.

This tradition, as should be apparent to every sensible person, shows the special quality of the Commander of the Believers, Ali, which made him the right person to be the supporter, the guardian and the deputy [or successor] of the Messenger of Allah as Haroon was the supporter, guardian and deputy of Moses when he went to meet his God. There is also the position of Ali vis-a-vis the Prophet which is absolutely equal to the relation between Haroon and Moses, except for the prophethood, which was excluded in the same tradition.

Furthermore, we find in the tradition the fact that Imam Ali was the best Companion, who only came second after the Messenger of Allah (saw).

C. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is the master of all those of whom I am master. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him, help him who helps him, forsake him who forsakes him, and turn justice with him wherever he turns.

This tradition alone is sufficient to reply to the allegations concerning the seniority of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman to Ali, who was appointed by the Messenger of Allah as the guardian after him of all the faithful. It is of no consequence for whoever tried to interpret the saying as the friend or the support in order to divert it from its original meaning so that the integrity of the Companions may be kept intact. The Messenger of Allah stood up in the terrible heat addressing the people, saying, "Do you witness that I have a prior right to and superior authority over all the faithful?" They replied, "Yes, O Messenger of Allah. " Thereupon he said, "Ali is the master of all those whom I am a master. . . etc." This is a clear text indicating that the Messenger of Allah had appointed Ali as his successor to lead the nation [of Islam], and the fair and sensible person could not but accept this interpretation and refuse that of the others, thus preserving the integrity of the Messenger of Allah before preserving the integrity of the Companions. Those who give an alternative interpretation to the saying are in fact ridiculing the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah, who gathered the multitude of people, in that unbearable heat, to tell them that Ali was the friend and supporter of the faithful. And what do those, who misinterpret the text in order to preserve the integrity of their masters, say about the procession of congratulation that the Messenger of Allah organised for Ali? It started with the wives of the Messenger, the mothers of the faithful, then Abu Bakr and Umar came and said to him, "Well done Ibn Abi Talib, Overnight you became the guardian [master] of all the faithful."

In fact all the historical evidence gives clear indications that those who misinterpret the above tradition are liars. Woe to those who wrote what they wrote, and woe to them for what they are writing. Allah - the Most High - said. "...a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know it" [Holy Qur'an 2:146].

D. The Prophetic tradition: Ali is from me and I am from Ali and no one can discharge my duty except myself or Ali.

This honourable tradition [92] is another clear indication that Imam Ali was only one whom the Messenger authorized to discharge his duties. The Messenger said it on the day of the great pilgrimage when he sent Ali with Surat Bara'a instead of Abu Bakr, who came crying and asked, "O Messenger of Allah ! Reveal something for me." The Messenger answered, "My Lord ordered me that nobody can discharge my duty except myself or Ali."

[92]

Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44
Khasais, al Nasai, p 20
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300
Jami al Usul, Ibn Kathir, vol 9 p 471
al Jami al Saghir, al Suyuti, vol 2 p 56
al Riyadh al Nadirah, Tabari, vol 2p 229

There is another supporting tradition that the Messenger of Allah, said on another occasion in honour of Ali, "O Ali! You will show them the right path when there will be dissension among them after me." [93] If nobody could discharge the Messenger of Allah's duty except Ali, and if he was the one who would show them the right path after dissension appeared among them after him; then how could a person who did not know the meaning of "al-Abb" and "Kalalah" be more senior to Ali? This is sadly one of the tragedies that have been inflicted on our nation and prevented it from doing the duties that Allah has chosen for it. We could not blame Allah or the Messenger of Allah or the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib for that, but the blame falls squarely on those who rebelled and changed, and Allah - the most High - said: "And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger. They say, "That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us. " What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way" [Holy Qur'an 5:104].

[93]

Tarikh, Ibn Askir, vol 2 p 488
Kunuz al Haqa'iq, al Mauawi, p 203
Kanz al Ummal, vol 5 p 33

E. The Prophetic tradition of the House on the day of Warning.

The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, indicating Ali. This is my brother, my trustee and my deputy [caliph] after me, so listen to him and obey him." [94]

[94]

Tarikh, al Tabari, vol 2 p319
al Sirah al Halabiyah, vol 1 p 311
Shawahid al Tanzil, vol 1 p 371
Kanz al Ummal, vol 15 p 15
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 1 p 85
Tafsir, Ala al Din al Shafi'i, vol 3 p 371
The Life of Muhammad by Hasanyn Haykal, First Edition (Section on: And admonish your nearest, your kinsmen)

This is yet another correct tradition cited by many historians at the beginning of the prophetic mission, and considered as one of the Prophet's miracles. However, political intrigues distorted the facts. Then there is no wonder that the oppression which took place then is coming back again in our lifetime. For example, Muhammad Husayn Haykal reproduced the saying in its entirety in his book "The Life of Muhammad", (Page 104, First Edition 1334 Hijri). From the Second Edition onward, the part of the tradition where the Prophet says, "He is my trustee, my deputy [caliph] after me" has been removed.

Also, in al-Tabari's commentary [Tafsir], Volume 19. Page 121, when the Prophet says "My trustee and my deputy [caliph]" was changed to "This is my brother etc. etc", but they failed to recognize that al-Tabari had cited the tradition in its entirety in his Annals Volume 2, Page 319. Look how they change the words and distort the facts ... they want to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah is spreading His light.

During my investigation I wanted to see the truth, so I searched for the first edition of "The Life of Muhammad". and after some hard work - praise be to Allah - found it, although it cost me considerably. The important thing is that I looked at the distortion and became convinced that the evil people are trying the best they can do to remove the facts. because there is strong evidence in the hands of their "enemies".

When the fair investigator comes across such a blatant distortion, he will no doubt begin to keep away from them and become convinced that they have no evidence except lies and distorted facts. They hire writers to whom they give money, titles and false university degrees in order to write for them books and articles through which they insult the Shiites and accuse them of blasphemy, while at the same time they defend the position, even if it is unjust, of some of the Companions who turned on their heels and exchanged right for wrong after the departure of the Messenger of Allah.

Allah says: "Even thus said those before them, the like of what they say; their hearts are all alike. Indeed We have made the verses clear for a people who are sure." [Holy Quran 2:118]