DISCLAIMER: Shias believe that the Prophet appointed Imam Ali as his successor, while Sunnis believe the Prophet did not appoint a successor.
Appointing a Successor
The appointing of a successor that will run the affairs of the nation after you die is perhaps the most important duty a leader will have to undertake towards the end of his life. When Alexander the Great was about to die, he was asked who was to be his successor. He replied, “The strongest.” These two words led to half a century of strife and civil war, with rival factions and warlords battling each other in order to grab hold of the reins of power. Thus, we see it is neither feasible nor realistic that the Holy Prophet passed away without appointing a successor to hold the Muslim nation together at that tough time. When the Prophet died thousands of Muslims apostatized and it was undeniably a very testing period in the history of Islam. The question thus poses itself, why did the Prophet not appoint the ruler that would run the Muslim state after him. This would have saved the Muslims from falling into various bloody conflicts about who will lead them.
The importance of leaving a successor is emphasized by the following narrations:
Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”
“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)
Sir John Glubb says: “Mohammed was not dead an hour before the struggle for power threatened to rend Islam into rival factions.”
We see that the Messenger of Allah’s apparent decision not to appoint a successor had led to a power struggle which threatened to rend Islam into rival factions. By appointing a successor, this could have been prevented yet our Sunni brothers are insisting selecting a ruler via Shura or consultation is the best way to go! In my opinion, selecting a ruler via consultation is a recipe for disaster with each party transfixed and determined in getting their man in power leading feuds, wars and bloodshed and this did indeed happened several times in Islam’s history.
A very important observation is that the Prophet, whenever he departed the city of Medina, appointed a leader in his absence who would run the city for the duration of the Prophet’s absence which could be many months. For example, when the Prophet went for the Battle of Tabuk, he appointed Imam Ali as leader, when he was away for the valedictory pilgrimage he appointed Abu Dujana etc. This begs the question as to why no consultation was employed to select them. Every time the Prophet went away for a few months he appointed a leader, yet he never appointed a leader when he was going to pass away?
A discussion ensued between Imam Ridha and a Sunni scholar:
Abul Hassan al-Ridha said to Ibn Rameen, “When the Prophet left Medina, did he leave a leader behind?” He said, “Yes, he did such as Ali.” Al-Ridha said, “The people of Medina did not have the right to choose the leader so that you are not left misguided.” Ibn Rameen said, “He feared for them strife and discord.” Al-Ridha replied, “If strife had occurred, the Prophet could have sorted it out when he returned.” Ibn Rameen said, “That is less preferable.” Al-Ridha said, “Did he appoint a leader to rule after his death?” Ibn Rameen said, “No.” Abul Hassan al-Ridha said, “But death is greater than travel, so how did he appoint a leader over the nation when he travelled but now when he died!?”
Some Sunnis have said that if the Messenger of Allah had appointed a successor, it would have been akin to installing a dictator to rule over the Muslims without consent and this would be considered tyranny. I beg to differ, as when the Messenger of Allah does something, it is considered a matter of religion and so there is no room for consultation. The Messenger appointing Imam Ali as his successor was due to divine commands, and so this is not considered to be tyranny. Is alcohol or pig being haram considered tyranny? Another important observation we make is that by appointing a successor, the Holy Prophet was simply doing what the previous Prophets and Messengers had done, and this is found in the Quran as we shall now see.
The Holy Quran
The Sunni propagandists often time say that the divine appointment of a leader over the people is a concept absent from the book of Allah. This is a lie:
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 he, 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 Amplegiving, All-Knowing. (The Holy Quran 2:247)
We see from the above holy verse, that Talut who was neither a Messenger, Prophet or Imam was appointed by Allah to be king over the people – “Surely Allah has chosen him”, “Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases”, “”Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you.”
Therefore, we notice that the divine appointment of rulers has a precedent in the Quran, and so it is out of line for the Sunnis to be demonizing it and labeling it as tyranny. Another interesting point we see is that the children of Israel did not even want Talut to be their king i.e. he did not have “consent of the governed” yet their opposition did not have any value – Talut was the best person for the job.
A couple of verses that Sunnis frequently pose to us to prove leadership is determined by shura are “conduct their affairs by mutual consultation” (42:38) and “consult with them upon the conduct of affairs” (3:159). Indeed, the Shia do not disagree with the concept of consultation and in fact we see the Prophet employed it many times with his companions such as in the Battle of Khandaq it was Salman who had the idea to dig the trench etc. However, this does not mean that the Prophet’s successor was to be chosen by consultation. No one can claim the holy verse is applicable in every scenario. When a group of people approached the Prophet and told him that they would convert to Islam on the condition that they still be allowed to drink alcohol, the Prophet said no. There was no room for consultation or anything of the sort.
Sunni Narrative Praises Abu Bakr, Denigrates the Holy Prophet (ص)
The Sunni narrative of the events that transpired after the Holy Prophet’s demise which culminated in the election of Abu Bakr at the assembly hall (saqifa) of an Ansari tribe, portrays Abu Bakr and Omar as Batman and Robin style heroes who saved the day. The Ansar were about to elect one of their own as caliph, and this would have led to violent bloodshed, so Abu Bakr and Omar went over there and they saved the day, and prevented civil war.
Indeed, if an Ansari had been elected there would have been bloodshed due to the reluctance of Quraysh to have the Ansar rule over them. The situation was certainly very tense, and a civil war could easily have been triggered.
(The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Medina at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah.
(Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)
The Sunni narrative says Abu Bakr and Omar saved the Muslim ummah. However, while Abu Bakr and Omar are praised for helping to prevent a civil war, the Sunnis are inadvertently criticizing the Holy Prophet. His supposed failure to appoint a successor almost ripped the Muslim ummah into shreds, and may have led to thousands of deaths in an all-out civil war. In other words, according to the Sunnis, Abu Bakr and Omar picked up the pieces.
It cannot be argued that the Prophet could not foresee this as trouble had been brewing between the Ansar and Muhajirs, and it is well-known that the new Meccan converts still had jahil tendencies. So this begs the question as to why the Prophet was supposedly willing to risk the lives of so many people and cause a split in the ummah by not appointing a successor?!
Sunnis Do Not Believe the Prophet (ص) appointed a Successor
In spite of what some e-Sunnis have been saying on the internet, the Sunni belief is that the Holy Prophet did not appoint a successor, and in the words of Omar in the narration below “left the matter undecided”.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 325:
It was said to 'Umar, "Will you appoint your successor?" Umar said, "If I appoint a Caliph (as my successor) it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Abu Bakr) did so, and if I leave the matter undecided, it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Allah's Apostle) did so."
Recently, some Sunni kids have been saying the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to succeed him but fell short of making a formal declaration. They base this on the idea Abu Bakr supposedly led the prayer during the illness of the Messenger of Allah. However, even if we accept the story as true, this in no way says the Prophet wanted him as successor (a point to note is that if the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr as successor, does this not spoil the fun and nullify the purpose of Shura).
We see that towards the end of his life, according to Sunnis, the Prophet made similar gestures and said similar things to the other companions.
“Follow Umar after me, wherever he might be.”
(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.170-171)
“I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wants knowledge let him come through the gate.”
(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3)
It is important to mention that the Prophet asking Abu Bakr to lead the prayers is unverified and unauthenticated to us, and so is Abu Bakr actually doing so. There is also the possibility that Aisha was the one who said the Prophet asked Abu Bakr to lead the salat. This may offend the sensibilities of Sunni readers, but we ask them to refer to the tafsir of Surat al-Tahreem. In every Sunni tafsir, as well as in Sahih Bukhari, in a nutshell it is narrated that Aisha told the Prophet that he had the odor of maghafeer, when she knew this was not true. We shall write an article about this at a later date, but I would like my Sunni brothers to realize that claiming Aisha said something that was not true is not a deviation, because this is found in the Holy Quran and its commentary.
Who is the best man after the Messenger of Allah (ص)?
Imam Ali was the best of the companions of the Prophet, and this is the position held by the rightly guided Ahl al-Tashayyu’. To the Sunnis, Abu Bakr, followed by Omar, were superior to Imam Ali and all the other companions. To support this statement they provide many ahadith such as one were Imam Ali supposedly states he would cut off the head or flog anyone who said he was superior to Abu Bakr. The funny thing is I didn’t see Imam Ali displaying this passion when he abstained from giving bay’ah to Abu Bakr until Fatima passed away nor did I see him show so much love for Abu Bakr when his wife died angry with him due to Fadak, which Ali opposed Abu Bakr about. Additionally, is there any shar’ii basis for flogging someone who considers Ali superior to Abu Bakr? In that case, according to the Sunnis, Aisha should be flogged:
Jumayy’ Ibn Umayr narrated:
I entered with my mother asking Aisha about Ali and I heard her behind a screen saying, “You ask me about a man and by God I do not know a man more beloved to the Prophet than Ali and a woman more beloved to the Prophet than Fatima.” This hadith is authentic but [Bukhari and Muslim] do not report it.
(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3, #4731)
Abdullah Ibn Buraida narrates that his father said, “The most beloved of women to the Prophet was Fatima, and the most beloved of men was Ali.” This hadith is authentic but [Bukhari and Muslim] do not report it.
(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3, #4735)
The above two authentic narrations completely nullify the Sunni claim that Abu Bakr and Aisha are the most beloved man and woman to the Prophet.
On the same note, it was a widespread notion amongst the companions and the tabi’un that Ali was superior to Abu Bakr. In his commentary about Aban Ibn Taghlib, a companion of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, Sheikh al-Dhahabi writes in Mizan Al-Itidal fi Naqd Al-Rijal, “Aban Ibn Taghlib used to consider Ali superior to Abu Bakr and Omar…this Shiism without extremism was widespread amongst tabi’een and tabu tabi’een…if we were to discard them because of their bidah we would have to discard many of the Prophet’s hadiths which would be a bigger bidah.”
Saqifa
Saqifa is the generic name used for the appointment of Abu Bakr as caliph, and represents the first and longest-lasting schism in Islamic history. In a nutshell, Saqifa is the place where the succession to the Great Prophet was usurped.
The Prophet’s death sent shock waves throughout the Muslim community. Omar, at the Prophet’s mosque, denied the death and threatened to kill anyone who disagreed. The Sunnis say this was an extremely passionate outburst of grief. Allah knows best Omar’s emotion, but his procrastinating news of the Prophet’s death allowed Abu Bakr to return to Medina from Sunh (Sahih Bukhari) and prevented the pledge of allegiance being given to Imam Ali. In fact, the Sunni scholar Shibli Numani, who penned a book about Omar, writes:
“Omar may have deemed it politic to suppress the news as there was a large number of hypocrites in Madinah who were only waiting for the Prophet’s death to ferment trouble”.
Al Faruq, Volume 1 page 87
In any case, at the same time the Ansar were meeting at an assembly hall and deliberating over a caliph. I was reading a propaganda article written by an e-Salafi recently and he was saying the reason Abu Bakr and Omar got themselves into the whole Saqifa debacle, and exempted Ali and most of the other companions from the consultation, was because they had no choice in the matter. I, for one, am getting bored of the “they were forced” argument: Aisha was forced into the battle of the camel, Abu Bakr was forced to go to Saqifa without Ali, etc.
The events leading up to Abu Bakr and Omar going to Saqifa can be summarised in the following authentic narration recorded first by Ibn Ishaq and then compiled by the staunch Sunni Ibn Hisham. It seems that Talha is inaccurately narrated as being at the house of Imam Ali. This error was probably due to the habit historians had of associating Talha with Zubayr.
“When the Apostle died, this clan of the Ansar gathered round Saad Ibn Ubada in the hall of Banu Sa`ida; and Ali and Zubayr Ibn Awwam and Talha Ibn Ubaydallah separated themselves in Fatima's house while the rest of the Muhajirun gathered round Abu Bakr accompanied by Usayd Ibn Hudayr with the Banu Abdul-Ashhal. Then someone came to Abu Bakr and Omar telling them that this clan of the Ansar had gathered round Saad in the hall (Saqifa) of Banu Saida: 'If you want to have command of the people, then take it before their action becomes serious. [The dead body of] the Apostle was still in his house, the burial arrangements not having been completed, and his family had locked the door of the house. Omar said, ‘I said to Abu Bakr “Let us go to these our brothers of the Ansar to see what they are doing.”
(Ibn Hisham, Vol.4, p306)
The Sunni propagandists often use the fact it was the Ansar who initiated the meeting at Saqifa as a form of vindication for Abu Bakr but as we can see, the Ansar’s gathering simply caused Abu Bakr to make a “change of plans”. It is very evident Abu Bakr intended to get the reins of power, and if not for himself then for Omar or Abu Obayda. Only an ostrich living with his head in the sand can claim otherwise.
Omar recalls what transpired in a sermon he delivers after, according to Sunni historian al-Baladhuri, Zubayr says if Omar were to die he would choose Ali as caliph.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817
What do you think about so-and-so (Zubayr) who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person (Ali), as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership)…
O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you (Zubayr) says, 'By Allah, if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person (Ali).' One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.
And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants)! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa'd bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.'
When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don't feel at present.'
And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.'
Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa'd bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."
1) Later reports, such as those in Tarikh al-Islam by the staunch Sunni Dhahabi, say Abu Bakr was chosen because he “led the prayers” but these narrations can be discounted and are not present in the earlier, more reliable texts.
2) The undignified ending of the meeting: While the Bukhari narration does not dwell on it in detail, it is authentically narrated by other historians such as Tabari that after the bayaah was given to Abu Bakr, Omar and others jumped upon the old companion Saad Ibn Ubada, and gave him a beating to teach him a lesson for daring to challenge the leadership. Omar then said, “qatal Allah Saad” (May Allah kill Saad). Surely this is not appropriate conduct. The event of Saqifa, upon closer scrutiny, is not a case of Abu Bakr and Omar gently saving the ummah, but rather a case of a group of men fighting (literally) for power.
3) An interesting observation is that after Saqifa, Abu Bakr the new caliph, gave Omar and Abu Obayda, the two individuals who supported Abu Bakr, top government positions. What a surprise?!
I would now like to discuss a couple of points. Why did Abu Bakr not take more supporters with him? The important point the Sunnis are missing when they make this argument is that Abu Bakr, since he did not organise the meeting at Saqifa and was not expecting it, did not have time to gather a large contingent of supporters to accompany him. Additionally, there was obviously no need to as the Ansar were so bitterly divided; enabling a third party (Abu Bakr) to received their support.
Another critical observation which troubles the Sunnis is that Ali was not present. The e-Sunni may say that since the Prophet had just died, Ali was busy with funeral preparations and so it was appropriate not to trouble him. However, surely in such a huge situation it would have been fitting to bring him. If one goes to Medina today, he would find that the location of Saqifat Bani Sa’ida is currently being used as a public toilet outside the Prophet’s mosque so even when Abu Bakr and Omar arrived, Ali was not far away and could easily have been accessed and called for. Why did they not do this? Had Ali and the other muhajireen given bayaah to Abu Bakr at Saqifa, his caliphate would have been more legitimate as more companions were involved in the consultation. The Sunnis may retort by saying most of the companions did indeed give bayaah on the next day at the Prophet’s mosque, but as you can read here, they had no choice.
The next day, the companions bar Imam Ali and his followers, gave bayaah to Abu Bakr. They could not support another candidate, otherwise they would be killed. The Prophet’s directive had been disobeyed, and only a few loyal companions were brave enough to defend it.
It is narrated that Iblis, in the form of a pious old man, was the first to give the pledge of allegiance at the Prophet’s mosque. It is known that Iblis can appear in the shape of man, as was the case when Prophet Ibrahim was on his way to sacrifice his son. Allamah Majlisi wrote in Mirat al-Uqul there was a difference of opinion within Shia circles regarding the authenticity of the following narration, but keeping in mind the great transgression Abu Bakr’s leadership involved, it is not improbable.
Abu Bakr went to the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah at the Prophet’s mosque and the people began to pledge allegiance to him … Salman said, “I saw an old man…with the sign of prostration on his forehead, who put his hand in Abu Bakr’s hand crying and saying, “Praise be to God who did not let me die before I saw you in this place, clasp my hand.” Ali heard what Salman said and asked him, “Salman, do you know who that man was?” Salman replied, “I don’t know”. Ali said, “It was Iblis, may Allah curse him.”
(Kafi, Volume 8)
Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ع)
Imam Ali and his followers abstained from supporting and giving the bay’ah to Abu Bakr until after Fatima passed away. Some narrations place this date at three months after the Prophet died, while Sahih Bukhari places it as six months.
It is a lie to claim Imam Ali willingly gave bayaah the same day, or the day after, Saqifa. There is indeed a narration, narrated by the notorious liar Sayf Ibn Omar, which says Imam Ali was in such a rush to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr he forgot to put on his shirt as he ran out of the house. This is a fabrication, and all the authentic narrations say Imam Ali did not give bayah for several months, and only an ignoramus will claim otherwise. It is also deceitful to claim that the difference of opinion as to when Imam Ali pledged allegiance is simply a case of variation in narrations (e.g. the day of the week in which the Prophet died) as it is of paramount significance as to when Imam Ali gave bayah, as it throws the legitimacy of Saqifa into doubt.
Several Shia narrations say that Imam Ali did indeed give bayah, but it was given out of force, and therefore has no validity. This is not cowardice, because it is not like Imam Ali had a choice in the matter.
The e-Sunni propagandist will quote the following to “prove” Imam Ali gave bayah to Abu Bakr soon after the Prophet passed away:
Tabrasi narrates from (Imam) Muhammad Baqir that when Usamah had left for Jihad when the Messenger of Allah passed away, the news reached Usamah (and) he returned with his army to Medinah. He (Usamah) saw a great number of people surrounding Abu Bakr; on seeing this, he went to question Ali ibn Abi Talib and asked: “What is this?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “It is exactly what you are seeing!” Usamah asked: “Have you (also) given Baya’ah to him?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “Yes.”
(Al-Ihtejaj, p.50: Printed Mashad, Iraq)
The Sunni propagandist is very sly in quoting the above narration, as it is referring to a forced allegiance. It is narrated that Ali and the rest of Banu Hashim and their supporters were forced to give allegiance to Abu Bakr shortly after the event at Saqifa.
The Sunni narration dealing with Imam Ali’s bayah is found in Sahih Bukhari, the most revered book of the Sunnis:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546
She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). 'Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, "Come to us, but let nobody come with you," as he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone " Abu Bakr said, "What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them' So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then 'Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), "We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle.”
Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah's Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah's Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow." On that 'Ali said to Abu Bakr, "I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon." So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of 'Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then 'Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr's right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. 'Ali added, "But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry." On that all the Muslims became happy and said, "You have done the right thing." The Muslims then became friendly with 'Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).
1) There is no way for the e-Sunni to reconcile this authentic narration with the fabricated ones which state bayah was given after one day.
2) “he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone "” – indicative of the harsh and distant attitude
3) Sunnis believe that during those six months, based on the “Imam of the time” hadith, Ali was committing a very big sin, and if he was to have died it would be the death of the jahil. Therefore there must have been a big reason why he abstained for six whole months.
4) Assuming Imam Ali did give bayah, this does not mean to say he considered Abu Bakr’s rule legitimate. Nay, he only paid allegiance for the greater good, and that was to reconcile the nation. His views remained the same, and are expressed most famously in Khutbatul Shaqshaqiyya, delivered during his reign as caliph.
Sahih Bukhari
Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.”
+
“You did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle.” Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears.
The above quotations are something you, my dear readers, have to pay close attention to. In the Bukhari hadith, Imam Ali says that he should have been consulted, and then Abu Bakr started crying, and the oath of allegiance was given. Abu Bakr’s tears when Ali gave bayah to him gave us the impression that he would not repeat his mistake of not consulting with the companions regarding Ali’s claim to leadership. However, this did not take place. He did not give the companions a list of names for them to choose a leader. Abu Bakr appointed Omar as his successor, and then proceeded to consultation. He did not consult with them to determine his successor. When Talha and Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf criticised Omar, Abu Bakr did not even think to reverse his decision. He simply retorted in defence of Omar. Why should we not say it as it is? Abu Bakr was indebted to Omar for what happened at Saqifa, and was paying his debt on his deathbed.
Why didn’t Imam Ali fight is a typical Sunni argument? Some Shia narrations indicate that if Imam Ali had 40 men he would have fought but his much smaller group of followers meant that if Imam Ali had fought for the leadership, the nascent and young Muslim state would have been ripped into shreds, and in all honesty, Islam probably wouldn’t exist today. Thus, I find it baffling why Sunnis keep bringing up this stupid argument.
Additionally, Imam Ali served as an advisor helping Omar and Uthman in matters of leadership and decisions (it seems that this was not the case with Abu Bakr and he did not want anything to do with Imam Ali. The reports which describe Imam Ali being vizier to Abu Bakr are of a tendentious nature, mostly narrated by the notorious liar Sayf Ibn Omar).
During Omar’s caliphate, Omar would ask Ali for advice and help. On many occasions Imam Ali saved Omar’s bacon to the point Omar would say, “If it was not for Ali, Omar would have perished.” Why did Imam Ali help Omar? And why did Imam Ali’s followers, such as Ibn Abbas, mingle with Omar. In a nutshell, if one wants to ensure the survival of the Muslim state in face of external threats, it is the wisest thing from one person to at least advise the ruler no matter how deviant he may be.
Advising a deviant ruler for the sake of greater good is a logical thing to do as well as morally credible in utilitarian lines.
Abu Sufyan
After Abu Bakr’s election, Abu Sufyan, father of Muawiya, offered to help Imam Ali with promises of men and camels for war. Imam Ali refused. Why did he do so? Abu Sufyan’s intention was to instigate strife between the Muslims and Imam Ali, obviously, did not want this to happen.
He (Abu Sufyan) called out at the top of his voice: “Banu Hashim, Banu Abd Manaf! Are you content that the despicable father of a young camel, the son of a despicable man, (i.e. Abu Bakr), should have authority over you? No, by Allah, if you wish, let me provide horses and men who will be sufficient for it (i.e. to take the Caliphate).”
“Go back, Abu Sufyan,” shouted the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali), peace be on him. “By Allah, you do not seek Allah in what you are suggesting…”
(Al-Irshad, Sheikh Mufid, p.136)
This can also be found within Sunni texts:
He (Abu Sufyan) said (to Ali): “O Abu Hasan, stretch out your hand so that I may give you Baya’ah,” but Ali declined…(and) Ali rebuked him, saying: “By Allah, you do not intend anything but to stir up Fitnah…”
(Tarikh Tabari, Vol.1, p.199)
It is inappropriate for an e-Sunni to use this to prove Imam Ali was not the Prophet’s rightful successor, as it is well-known Imam Ali had loyal supporters such as Salman whom he did not rebuke. We have already explained the reasons why Imam Ali did not fight.
Nahjul Balagha, Letter 6
The Sunni propagandists often quote a letter Imam Ali wrote to Muawiya to prove that the caliph is to be decided by consultation of the Muhajirun and Ansar.
Verily, those who gave the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (consultation) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah.
If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.
(Nahjul Balagha; Letter to Muawiya)
Imam Ali is simply pointing out to Muawiya, who rejected the caliphate of Imam Ali yet accepted the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman, that if he is to acknowledge the legitimacy of their leadership on the basis they were elected by consultation, then he should also accept Imam Ali’s leadership since he was also elected by the Muhajirun and Ansar. It does not mean that Imam Ali considered consultation of the Muhajirin and Ansar the method to elect the leader.
A good analogy would be the US Presidency. George Bush, in 2000, garnered fewer votes than Al Gore, yet due to the US system was still elected President. Let’s say in 2008 Al Gore runs again, and this time gets fewer votes than his opponent, but still wins the election due to the US electoral voting system. Let’s pretend the Republican Party were to denounce the legitimacy of the election. Now, if Al Gore were to write a letter or give a speech to the Republicans explaining to them the US electoral system, and that George Bush was elected by it does not mean that Al Gore himself supports the system. It simply shows that he is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican Party in rejecting his presidency while accepting Bush’s presidency when they were elected by the same method!
We know this is what the Imam mean as he concludes with:
O Mu'awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode. But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives. Well you may do whatever you like.
An Interesting Observation
An interesting observation – which many Sunni propagandists happen to be unaware of - is that it is impossible the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to be his successor because he placed him along with many other companions in Usama Ibn Zaid’s army (Bidaya wal Nahaya, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 6 p. 304)
How could the Prophet want Abu Bakr to be the caliph if he placed him in an army for a war that would last weeks, and one in which Abu Bakr could have been killed? Additionally Omar, Abu Obeyda, Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf and other prominent companions were under the command of the 17 year old Usama Ibn Zaid. Conspicuously, Imam Ali, the successor to the Prophet, was not included in the army.
The reasoning behind this could be that the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr and Omar to stay away, so that they would not usurp the caliphate. However, the army did not depart until the issue of leadership was sorted, and in fact, Abu Bakr and Omar weren’t even present in the army that finally left to fight.
This is also found in Tabari Volume 3 Page 188 and Kamil Ibn Athir Volume 2 Page 120 as well as Tarikh al-Khamis Volume 2 Page 171. It is also recorded by the Sunni Scholar Abdul Aziz Al-Dehlavi.
Majority Rule
The Sunnis say that in a caliphate, the leader must belong to the majority group (for instance if we take a USSR example, the President must be Russian) and this is found in the works of “Lisan al-Ummah” Imam Al-Baqillani. This was one of the main arguments the Qurayshite Abu Bakr used to prise away the leadership from the Ansar.
However, why is this the case? The Sunnis may say that while it is not preferable, the masses will not accept someone from a minority group. Surely, if the masses are bigoted, we do not give up what is right just to please them. The Sunni idea that only a member of a majority group can be leader is bigoted, and a good modern-day comparison would be saying that a black man cannot be President of the United States, because African-Americans only make up around 10% of the American demographic.
As for the 12 Imams, all of whom are from Quraysh and more specifically Banu Hashim, they are the rightful successors to the Prophet based on their merit and high standing, and not simply because of their lineage. We do not believe that being from Quraysh gives you more right to rule and we likewise believe that leadership is confined solely to 12 Qurayshites only.
The Sunni propagandist may bring up this quote from a letter Imam Ali wrote to Muawiya:
“Your ancestor, Ummayya was not equal to our ancestor, the famous Hashim, neither Harb, another ancestor of yours, was equal to our Abdul Muttalib…What is more, no freed-slave (at the conquest of Makkah) can be considered equal to a Muhajir and one coming from a doubtful lineage cannot claim to be equal to those who come from the noble parentage…”
(Nahjul Balagha)
Imam Ali is not saying that being a descendant of Ummaya or of doubtful lineage makes you any less of a good person. In fact, the Prophet’s wife Um Habiba was from Banu Ummaya. He just means to say that Hashim is superior to Ummaya and that comparison can be made with Ali and Muawiya. The word ancestor in Arabic is not only used in a biological context, but also in terms of spirituality and character.
إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ أَهْلِكَ
He said: O Nuh! surely he is not of your family; surely he is (the doer of) other than good deeds, therefore ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge; surely I admonish you lest you may be of the ignorant (11:46)
Allah is not saying that Prophet Nuh’s wife was an adulteress and had a son with another man (as some Sunni mufasireen say) yet the verse still says ‘surely he is not of your family.’
As for Imam Ali’s statement “no freed-slave (at the conquest of Makkah) can be considered equal to a Muhajir” is on the basis that a muhajir has more good deeds to his name than one who converted at the conquest of Makkah, and this is actually a point brought up in Saqifa against the Ansar.
There are countless Shia narrations, and indeed verses in the Quran, that oppose bigotry, racism and nationalism. The biggest example of this is Salman al-Farsi, the Persian regarding whom the Prophet said, “Salman is from us, Ahlel Beit.”
Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq said: The one who exerts asabiyyah or the one on whose behalf it is exerted, the tie of faith is taken off his neck."
Al-Kafi, Volume 2, Chapter of Asabiyyah, p307, Hadith #1
“An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor has a non-Arab any superiority over an Arab, nor has a black man any superiority over a white man or a white man over a black man except by the criterion of taqwa (righteous practice). All of you are from Adam, and Adam is from dust.”
Mustadrak Al-Wasail, Volume 20
Recently, there has been a “Shia” narration circulating the internet which e-Sunnis have been using to defame the Shias:
When Allah becomes happy, then He talks in Persian, and He only speaks Arabic when He becomes annoyed. (Tareekh-al-Islam, p.163)
Tarikh al-Islam is not a Shia book! We do not have that narration nor do we believe in it. We do not even believe Allah has a voice, or becomes “happy” and “annoyed”. In fact, that narration is a Sunni one and is found in the Sunni book Tafsir Ibn Qayyim.
Abu Bakr’s Death and the Appointment of Omar
A short yet controversial reign was coming to an end as Abu Bakr lay on his deathbed. He made the decision, without prior consultation, to appoint his beloved comrade Omar as his successor. It can be argued, in this respect, that Abu Bakr was wiser than the Prophet as the Prophet did not appoint a successor (according to Sunnis) yet Abu Bakr did. Whilst the Prophet’s decision almost led to civil war, Abu Bakr’s farsightedness allowed the transition of power to Omar to go smoothly. Of course, the Shia maintain the Prophet did indeed appoint a successor, namely Imam Ali. In any case, if we were to look from a Sunni perspective, was Abu Bakr not engaging in bidah (innovation) for formally declaring a successor, instead of allowing the Muslims to consult between themselves after he passes away? Surely, this is a hole in the Sunni argument; holes big enough for double-decker buses to drive through.
After Omar was appointed, only then did Abu Bakr begin to consult the companions. This is the crucial point. Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf criticised Abu Bakr’s decision as did Talha, both seemingly on the basis of Omar’s harshness and treatment of people. Abu Bajr rejected the criticism and affirmed his strong support for Omar. (Tabari)
Omar’s Death and the Election of Uthman
Omar died after being fatally wounded by the Persian slave Abu Luluah, who some spurious reports claim to be a Magian. A reign filled with remarkable achievement was coming to a close. A leader’s last few days is the period in which a successor is usually formally declared, and hence why its widely thought that this was what the Prophet wanted to write in the ‘tragedy of Thursday’. On his deathbed, Omar nostalgically said:
“If Abu Obayda was alive I would have appointed him. I heard the Prophet say, ‘Abu Obayda is the trustworthy of this nation.’ If Salim was alive I would appointed him. I heard the Prophet say, ‘Salim is a strong lover of God.’ Omar refused to appoint his son Abdullah saying, “How can I appoint a man who is unable of divorcing his wife?”
(Tarikh Medina, Kamil Ibn Atheer vol.3 p.74, Tabari)
A couple of interesting observations are made from Omar’s statement:
1) Salim, the client of Abu Hudhayfa, was a Persian. O Omar, I thought the caliphate is confined to Quraysh (the majority group).
2) On top of that, Salim was a slave; not even an Arab one. If the Quraysh were to have refused Imam Ali on the basis of his age or relations to the Prophet as Omar once said, then surely they would have rejected Salim
3) Does it not just strike you as too much of a coincidence that Omar says he would have appointed one of the two people who had Abu Bakr elected at Saqifa?!
Omar finally came to the decision to delegate the matter of choosing the leader to a group of six muhajirun: Talha, Zubayr, Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf, Saad Ibn Abu Waqqas, Uthman and Ali Ibn Abi Talib. He sets out the rules for the electoral committee:
Verily, the Apostle of God died, and he was pleased with all six of you. I have, therefore, decided to make it (the selection of caliph) a matter of consultation among you, so that you may select one of yourselves as caliph. If five of you agree upon one man, and there is one who is opposed to the five, kill him. If four are one side and two on the other, kill the two. And if three are on one side and three on the other, then Abdur Rahman ibn Auf will have the casting vote, and the caliph will be selected from his party. In that case, kill the three men on the opposing side. You may, if you wish, invite some of the chief men of the Ansar as observers but the caliph must be one of you Muhajireen, and not any of them. They have no share in the caliphate. And your selection of the new caliph must be made within three days.
(Tarikh Tabari Volume 3 Page 294, Kamil Ibn Atheer vol. 3 p.35, Tabaqat Ibn Saad volume 3 page 342)
Allahu Akbar! What misguidance follows this?! How can any righteous person order for the companions of the Prophet to be executed just because they have a different preference for who should be leader? What kind of freedom is this? What kind of liberty is this? And the worst thing is, Omar would have been dead if his order was to have been carried out, and he couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t know how any Sunni can think of Omar in the same way after reading that. It certainly makes the blood boil. The funny thing is that Sunnis actually say what Omar was doing was right! Allahu Akbar!
Omar kicked the bucket, and the consultation was under way. A contingent of armed Ansaris barricaded a room, in which the “electoral committee” decided a caliph. Imagine the pressure. The decision boiled down to either one of Uthman or Imam Ali. Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf, the brother-in-law of Uthman, was to have the deciding vote.
Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf consulted his friends. Not surprisingly, most of the Quraysh were in favour of Uthman Ibn Affan. A lively and heated discussion took place outside the deliberation hall:
Ammar stood up and said to Abdul Rahman, “If you want to avoid division, appoint Ali.” Al Miqdad said, “Ammar has told the truth. If you select Ali we will listen and obey.” The two companions were contradicted by Abdullah Ibn Abu Sarh who said, “If you wish to avoid the Qureishite division then select Uthman.” Abdullah Ibn Abi Rabiah seconded him saying, “Should Abdul-Rahman select Uthman we shall listen and obey.” Ibn Abu Sarh smiled, but Ammar said to him, “When were you sincere to the Muslims?” A man said, “O son of Sumayah, who are you to tell the Quraysh what to do?”… Saad Ibn Abu Waqqas said, “Abdul Rahman, finish it before people fall into civil strife.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.152)
From an outsider’s perspective, it seems that the consultation did not seem to effect Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf’s decision, as he decided to determine the caliph with a single question.
Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf called upon Ali. He offered him the caliphate with a condition, “Will you pledge to God and covenant him, that you will follow the Book of God, the teachings of His Messenger and the precepts of the last two caliphs?” Ali replied, “I shall follow the book of God and the precepts of the last two caliphs, and I shall follow my knowledge and endeavor to the best of my ability.”
Abdul Rahman turned to Uthman with the same offer, and Uthman accepted.
(Kamil Ibn Athir vol 3. p32, Tarikh Tabari)
As one will notice Imam Ali rejected the caliphate because he was offered to it with the condition of following the precepts of Abu Bakr and Omar, something he did not want to do. What does this show you? Imam Ali did not consider the rule of Abu Bakr and Omar, and hence their precepts, to be legitimate. The Sunnis will find this hard to believe and start making all sorts of silly excuses such as “different ijtehad” but more acute understanding of what was going on show that this is not possible. It is probable Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf chose this question with the knowledge that Imam Ali would refuse (think about it, why ask the question if you think they’ll both say yes)
Uthman became the caliph of the Muslims, and a very interesting reign followed. Inshallah, we shall write an article on the events that transpired. As could be expected, there was criticism of Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf’s decision, and that the best man had once again being overlooked.
Ammar said to Abdul Rahman, “By God, you have left out the man of truth and correct judgment!” Al-Miqdad Ibn Al-Aswad joined Ammar saying, “By God, I have never witnessed anything similar to what has been done to the members of the house of the Prophet after his death. I am amazed that the Quraysh have left out a man unequaled in knowledge, piety and justice. If I have supporters, I will fight the Qurayshites now just like I did at Badr and Uhud.” Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf replied, “Miqdad, fear God. I am afraid you will bring about division in the ummah.”
[Ibn Atheer, Kamil, Volume 3 Page 32-35]
Abu Bakr and Omar
The way in which the Shia should view Abu Bakr and Omar has always been a precarious topic. Indeed, their usurpation of the caliphate was a serious transgression as well as disobedience of the Messenger of Allah. However, it seems that they did it out of love and lust for power, and not rebellion against Allah and His Messenger. More liberal Shias have said that the Sheikhayn usurped the caliphate because Imam Ali’s leadership would have infuriated the Quraysh and so Abu Bakr was more apposite for the survival of the ummah. I completely disagree with this analysis as Omar himself stated on his deathbed that Imam Ali would lead the people into righteousness as caliph, yet that did not prevent him from usurping the leadership and keeping it away from the Prophet's appointed successor.
Saqifa
