Your Questions , Our Answers

Q: Do Shias believe that Hazrat Umar (Radhiyallaho anho) did not bring the pen and paper when Prophet (s.a.w.a) was at his death bed ??

 ANS: This is not a matter of belief, it is history. Bukhari (and many other Sunni scholars) has given the full hadeeth narrated by Ibn Abbas – The Prophet was very ill in bed. Suddenly he asked for pen and paper (the Hadeeth is known as Hadeeth-e-Qirtas-o-qalam), saying: I want to leave something in writing for you so that you may not be astray after me. Umar intercepted the Prophet saying – Oh, he is overwhelmed with his sickness (meaning that the Prophet was not in his full faculties), the Book of Allah is sufficient for us.  

The Ummahaat-ul-Momineen were standing behind a curtain and Hazrat Ayesha spoke from behind the curtain: The Prophet is asking for something and you guys have the audacity to deny him that. Umar shouted back at Ayesha, saying: You are all like Sawaahebaat-E-Yusuf, when the Prophet was well you were riding over his neck (Umar’s words, not mine) and now you are fighting for him. Voices were raised. The Prophet opened his eyes and looking at the crowd around him said: Leave the women alone, they are better than you all, and get out of my presence. 

  

Q: What do you believe about the present Quran? Do you believe Hazrat Ali (Radhiyallaho anho) had the original Quran which has more verses than this one?  

ANS: The Holy Qur’an, each and every verse of it, as well as verses as organized in each Sura, were given to us by the Prophet of Islam. It is Allah’s WORD. There is no change in it, nothing missing from it and nothing has ever been added to it. Shi’a scholars over the centuries have been at pains to show that the word of Qur’an cannot be tampered with. 

Q: Do you believe Hazrat Ali suppose to be first Khalifa but Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman (Radhiyallaho anhum) did not let him? 

ANS: The Prophet of Islam had announced at the occasion of Ghadeer-e-Khum: man kunto Mawla hu fa haza Ali-un Mawla – to whomever I am the mawla, so is this Ali Mawla. 

All the companions, including Hazrat Umar, came to Imam Ali and congratulated him for becoming the Mawla of all Muslims. That was an indication in so many words uttered by the Prophet that Imam Ali will lead the community in both spiritual as well as worldly matters after the Prophet. But as soon as the Prophet breathed his last, a party of Ansaar and another party of Muhajiroon left the dead body of the Prophet and assembled in Saqeefa Banu Saeda and started quarreling about who would head the government after the Prophet. Imam Ali and others were busy with funeral rites of the Prophet. When they were done with that, the election/selection/imposition of Abu Bakr had already taken place. Imam Ali and Fatima Zahra went to every door in Madinah and expressed their protest. Everyone agreed with them but said that what was done was done, it was too late. Imam Ali, knowing full well that it was a wrong decision, also looked at the public opinion and stepped back from making any political counter claim, He also had the good of the community at heart. Any active protest on his part would have started a civil strife, internal enemies, mainly Banu Umayya and some of the Baddoos would have joined into the conflict and may be, the Romans would have attacked Madinah. Either way Islam would have been destroyed. Imam Ali kept a low profile, not interfering in the governmental affairs, but he would intervene every time he saw a wrong being done by any of the institutions of the Islamic government. 

 Q:Why Hazrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallaho anho) did not hand over the land to Hazrat Fatimah (Radhiyallaho anha) when she asked? 

ANS: This report is also found recorded in Bukhari and many other Sunni books. 

The sixth century scholar Ibn Abil-Hadeed has recorded a conversation in his book Sharh-e-Nahul Balagha, between himself and his father. 

He asked his father this very question you have posed here. Why didn’t Abu Bakr release the control of Fadak to Fatima Zahra, wasn’t her claim legitimate? 

The father replies: No, Her claim was quite legitimate and Abu Bakr knew the truthfulness of Fatima Zahra and her claim. The problem was, if Abu Bakr had accepted Fatima Zahra’s claim to Fadak, she would reappear in front of Abu Bakr next day claiming Ali’s legitimate claim to Khilafat. So, Abu Bakr denying Fatima Zahra her claim to Fadak was a pre-emptive action against Ali’s claim to be the rightful successor to the Prophet. 

So, the worldly government was taken over first by Abu Bakr, and then by Umar and after that by Uthman. It was only after Uthman that Imam Ali became the fourth Khalifa. During all those intervening years, 25 to be exact, the true followers of Imam Ali looked to him for all spiritual guidance, but they were reconciled with the worldly government of Khilafat. That was because Imam Ali himself had reconciled with the public opinion of the time. 

Q: Do you believe only Ahle bayt learn Islam correctly and none of the Sahabah (Radhiyllaho anhum) did?  

ANS: As things began to unfold after the Prophet, we saw that the Sahaba sided with the Khilafat of the time.The Ahl-e-Bayt preached the basic idea of Islam which was that, the Spiritual aspect of Islam over-rides the Political arrangement. Spiritual glory and knowledge are not subject to political success. That is the message of the holy Qur’an and also from the Ahl-e-Bayt. The newly emerging institution of Khilafat tried to dismantle that basic premise of Islam propagating the idea that whoever becomes the Khalifa of the time is also the head of the state in spiritual matters – although each one of those first three Khaleefas had not shown any indication of that during their lifetime. The Ahl-e-Bayt, did not take any forceful action against any of the Khaleefas in the interest of the well-being of the people, but kept a very strong opposition to the institution when it came to spiritual matters and where things started to go wrong even in worldly matters to keep the basic principle of Islam alive. So, considering all that, we will have to conclude that most of those Muslims who had sided with the Khilafat, did not understand the basic principles as enunciated in the Qur’an. Professor Wilfred Madelung of Oxford University has discussed this issue very thoroughly in his book: SUCCESSION TO MUHAMMAD. 

Q: Do you believe most of the Sahabah (Radhiyallaho anhum) turned to kufr after the departure of Rasulullah (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam)? 

 ANS: NO, We do not believe that. Although Eeman is something that can only be judged by Allah, and no one else. But I have firm belief that they were all Muslims, even though some of them made serious mistakes.

An Objection to the Usage of the term ‘Caliph’ by Abu Bakr, Umar and other Rulers

Objection: Why was the term ‘Caliph’ used for all the rulers after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) till the recent rulers of the Ottoman Empire, although they were neither appointed by Allah nor by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)? Moreover, their governance did not carry the pure Islamic message nor did they have any legal sanction from Allah. They were also labeled as oppressive tyrants, whose reign had nothing to do with Islam and who had no qualms in taking the servants of Allah as their slaves and usurping their wealth.

Answer: The term ‘Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’ was used in early Islam for the rulers immediately after him (s.a.w.a.) by those who were close to them. Later, the domain of its usage expanded and the above term was used for the oppressive kings as well, fearing their tyranny and barbaric oppressions. After sometime, this term was curtailed to a singular word i.e. ‘the Caliph’.

There is no doubt that this term and its application does not lead to the change of words of the Holy Quran and the traditions, from what appears from them at the time of usage nor do they change the words to their new meanings. Also, the usage of this term was historically erroneous because the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) never appointed Abu Bakr as his caliph. As for Umar, Abu Bakr appointed him [1], so logically he should be called as the Caliph of Abu Bakr (and not the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)).

As for the status for the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and his rule over the affairs, then it was never due to the selection of the people or his domination over the affair or the fear of his oppression. Nay! It was only due to the choice of Allah, the High. Hence, using the terms, ‘emir’, ‘ruler’ and ‘king’ for those called as caliphs would be more appropriate than being called as a ‘caliph’, leave alone the terms ‘Allah’s caliph’ or ‘the caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’.

A right-thinking and sane person, not necessarily a follower of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) can never permit, condone or overlook the usage of the term ‘the caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’ for the likes of Usman, Moawiyah, Yazeed, Waleed, the tyrants of Bani Abbas and the progeny of Usman, etc., who ruled over Syria, Iraq, Spain, etc.

Briefly, the epithet ‘Allah’s Caliph’ is a lofty and elevated term. The same applies for the term ‘caliph’. It cannot be used, and it is not correct to use it except for Allah’s representative on the earth, whom He has chosen to establish justice, be the highest role model for mankind, implement His laws, inhabit His cities, spread goodness and preserve the laws of Shariah and signs of truth.

Its usage is incorrect for any other person either due to disregard or carelessness. For the clarification of the falsity of this claim, when he was addressed as, ‘O caliph of Allah!’, Abu Bakr said, ‘No, I am the caliph of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.)’ or ‘I am the caliph of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.).’[2] Of course, his conferring the above titles on his own self has no substance of truth in it because caliphate is representation of another, and this representation cannot be complete without the appointment by the represented one. Unanimity prevails concerning the fact that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) did not appoint Abu Bakr as his caliph, nor did he (s.a.w.a.) make any will to him. None of Abu Bakr’s actions like sitting in the place of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), going on the pulpit and praying in his (s.a.w.a.) prayer niche (mehraab), were on his behalf and under his (s.a.w.a.) representation.

The Sunnis are of the opinion that governance and the appointment of a ruler is the duty of the Ummah (Islamic nation) and hence, it is obligatory upon it to appoint him. Also, there was consensus in the Ummah �” which actually never existed �” for the appointment of Abu Bakr, without force or fear. So, using the term ‘Caliph of the nation’ instead of ‘the caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’ will be more appropriate and correct. For, in their view, Abu Bakr was the representative of the nation, whose collective responsibility was to implement the laws and protect the system. Needless to mention, the above idea has been formulated without devoting the slightest of deliberations on the definition of ‘caliphate’ i.e. it’s representation of the other.

(Abridged from the English translation of the book ‘Muntakhab al-Asar’, vol. 1, (published by Naba Publications, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran) by Ayatollah Lotfollah Saafi Golpaygani (may Allah prolong his life))!

---

[1] Even this appointment is debatable and not established because it is said that when Usman became busy in writing the will of Abu Bakr, the latter fainted. Usman thought that Abu Bakr had died and wrote the name of Umar on his own. When Abu Bakr regained his senses, Usman informed him of what he had done and Abu Bakr duly endorsed it.

What confounds the researcher is that Abu Bakr died during this very illness and Umar was appointed as his successor on the basis of the writing of Usman. But on this occasion, notwithstanding the serious illness of Abu Bakr, Umar never protested that this man is not in his senses! Nor did he prevent Abu Bakr from dictating his will like he had prevented the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) from making known his will!  

Surely, we are from Allah and unto Him shall we return!!

[2] Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p. 10

The Protest of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) And the Theory of the Justice of the Companions

Preface

Some say that Ameerul Mo’meneen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) has raised an objection in Nahjul Balagha against Umar and Abu Bakr and that he (a.s.) was deprived of his right to caliphate. On the other hand, since the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were just, it is not possible that a sermon of this tenor, found in Nahjul Balagah, be attributed to Imam Ali (a.s.).

However, we can silence this objection by establishing the corrupt and hypocritical nature of some companions through irrefutable proofs and clear evidences.

Firstly: ‘Sohbah’ means to spend some time with someone, be it for a short while or for a longer duration.

All Islamic sects are unanimous in their view that the word ‘Sahaabah’ in common parlance includes all those who converted to Islam, or at least apparently exhibited Islam.

A majority of the Ahle Sunnat, on the basis of this broad definition, claim that all the companions are just (عادل). However, some Muslims do not share this view. This is simply because there is no conclusive proof which automatically establishes that all companions were just.

Rather, amongst the other communities of the world, as also similar to the companions of the previous Prophets (a.s.), those individuals who loved the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) included both the good and the evil, the pious and the irreverent, the virtuous, the hypocrites and the corrupt.

Almighty Allah has drawn our attention to all three groups in the Holy Quran. In fact, amongst the chapters of the Holy Quran, one chapter was revealed with the name of The Hypocrites (سورة ال�…نافقون).

On this basis, the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) can be divided into three groups (the just, the corrupt and the hypocrites).

The view that “all companions were just” is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. This view is against the Holy Quran as also it is in disagreement with its verses. A few examples are given below:

The First Example

Allah says in the Holy Quran,

وَ�…َن�’ أَظ�’لَ�…ُ �…ِ�…�’َنِ اف�’تَرَى عَلَى الل�’َهِ ال�’كَذِبَ وَهُوَ يُد�’عَى إِلَى ال�’إِس�’لَا�…ِ وَالل�’َهُ لَا يَه�’دِي ال�’قَو�’�…َ الظ�’َالِ�…ِينَ

“And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah and he is invited to Islam, and Allah does not guide the unjust people”. [1]

This verse was revealed with reference to Abdullah Ibn Ubayy (who was later elevated to the post of Governor of Egypt by Usman �” the third Caliph). He is the one who had accused and vilified Allah. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had made his blood permissible for the Muslims. He (s.a.w.a.) had said that his blood is permissible even if he may be clutching the cloth of the Holy Kaabah.

The compiler of Seerah Halabiyyah (Chapter of Fateh Makkah, Conquest of Mecca) writes that on the day of the triumph of Makkah, Usman brought him to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and sought immunity for him. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) remained silent for some time, perhaps that someone would kill him during that interval, as he himself said later �” but nobody killed him. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) considered it as the will of Allah and granted him immunity.

The Second Example

Allah, The Almighty says in the Holy Quran,

وَ�…ِن�’هُ�… �…�’َن�’ عَاهَدَ الل�’هَ لَئِن�’ آتَانَا �…ِن فَض�’لِهِ لَنَص�’َد�’َقَن�’َ وَلَنَكُونَن�’َ �…ِنَ الص�’َالِحِينَ فَلَ�…�’َا آتَاهُ�… �…�’ِن فَض�’لِهِ بَخِلُوا�’ بِهِ وَتَوَل�’َوا�’ و�’َهُ�… �…�’ُع�’رِضُونَ فَأَع�’قَبَهُ�…�’ نِفَاقًا فِي قُلُوبِهِ�…�’ إِلَى يَو�’�…ِ يَل�’قَو�’نَهُ بِ�…َا أَخ�’لَفُوا�’ الل�’هَ �…َا وَعَدُوهُ وَبِ�…َا كَانُوا�’ يَك�’ذِبُونَ

“And there are those of them who made a covenant with Allah: If He gives us out of His grace, we will certainly give alms and we will certainly be of the good. But when He gave them out of His grace, they became niggardly of it and they turned back and they withdrew. So He made hypocrisy to follow as a consequence into their hearts till the day when they shall meet Him because they failed to perform towards Allah what they had promised with Him and because they told lies.”[2]

This verse of Surah Taubah is a reminder towards the incident of Thaalabah Ibn Hateb who approached the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) with a plea that he (s.a.w.a.) should seek wealth for him from Allah. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said, “O Thalabah! Woe be upon you! It is better to express gratitude for less wealth. Perhaps, you may not have the strength to thank for more wealth.” Thalabah responded, “I promise by Allah Who sent you �” if Allah grants me wealth, I will definitely, most definitely fulfil the right of those who have a right upon me.”

After this, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) supplicated and sought wealth for him. Allah granted him substantial wealth and he prospered. When the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) asked him to offer Zakat on his wealth, he refused and behaved miserly. He retorted, “This is some kind of tax or Jiziya, I am a Muslim and will not pay Jiziya.” Saying this, he refused to pay Zakat on his wealth. (Subsequently, a verse of the Majestic Quran was revealed and he was informed about the same). It is written that after the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he sent in an amount to Abu Bakr as Zakat, who refused to accept it. During the era of Umar, he sent in an amount once again but Umar returned it. Finally, he died during the period of Usman.[3]

The Third Example

Allah questions in the Holy Quran,

أَفَ�…َن كَانَ �…ُؤ�’�…ِنًا كَ�…َن كَانَ فَاسِقًا ل�’َا يَس�’تَوُونَ

“Is he then who is a believer like him who is a transgressor? They are not equal. [4]”

Shiah and Sunni traditionalists and commentators are unanimous in their opinion that the word “Mo’men” in the above verse refers to Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (as), while the word “Faasiq” refers to Waleed Ibn Uqba (the same corrupt Waleed who was appointed as the governor of Kufa by Usman. After him, he was appointed as the governor of Medina by Moawiyah)[5].

(The event concerning him is as follows �” There was an argument about some point between Imam Ali (a.s.) and Waleed. Waleed said to Imam Ali (a.s.), “My tongue is more eloquent than yours; my sword is sharper than yours and my strength to fight is firmer than yours.” To his arrogance, Imam Ali (a.s.) retorted thus, “Silence, O transgressor (Faasiq)!” Subsequently, the above verse was revealed clearly indicating that a believer and a transgressor cannot be at par.)

So, is the view that all the companions were just still acceptable to us while in the first example, it is sufficiently established that Abdullah Ibn Ubayy was the most oppressive and repulsive amongst all creatures and it is difficult to accept that he would have been guided. This is because Allah does not guide the oppressors.

The second example was that of Thaalabah who was a miser and a miser can never be close to Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

The third example is of Waleed, a transgressor and amongst the dwellers of Hell. There is no path to salvation for him (he is such a vile creature that during his governorship in Kufa, he recited four rakats of Namaze’ Subh in an inebriated state and then remarked, if you wish we can recite even more…).

However, despite these undeniable truths, members of the Ahle Sunnat maintain that these three �” Abdullah Ibn Ubayy, Thaalabah Ibn Haatib and Waleed Ibn Uqbah �” as ‘just’ simply because they enjoyed the position of companionship and maintain that it is incorrect to deny or decry them. They assert that the three were without a blemish, are from the dwellers of Paradise and none sof them will enter Hell.

Isn’t the Command of Allah more punishable if it is not accepted or spite and blind following? For instance:

1. “Zul Thadiyyah” was a companion of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) apparently known as a worshipper and counted amongst the devout. People were amazed and astonished by the degree of his worship. This is a prime example of how the view that “all companions were just” contradicts the traditions of the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.). This is because, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to remark that he is such a fiend that the signs of the devil are apparent on his face. Ibn Hajar Athqalani reports in volume 1, page 439 of “Kitab al-Esatato Fee Tafseeril Ashaab” that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had sent Abu Bakr with instructions to kill hm. However when Abu Bakr saw him in the condition of prayer, he returned without completing the order. Thereafter the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) summoned Umar to kill him, but he too failed to carry out the order of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Subsequently, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) despatched Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) for the task. However, Imam Ali (a.s.) could not find Zul Thadiyyah since he had left the mosque.

Question: Is it possible that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) make a comment (about his just companion) that the signs of the devil are visible on his face and order that he should be killed?

Nevertheless, this Zu al-thadiyyah was the same companion who ultimately turned out to be a severe enemy of Ameerul Mo’meneen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) and was the leader of the accursed Khawaarij. He was killed in the battle of Naharwan [as was prophesised to Imam Ali (a.s.) by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)].

1. Ahmed Ibn Shoaib Nesaai narrates from Abu Saeed on page 238 of his book “Khasaaes-e-Ameeril Mo’meneen” (chapter 59, tradition 179) as follows, “We were sitting in the presence of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). He was distributing the spoils of war when a person related to Bani Tameem, “Zu Akhweesarah” entered and said: “O Prophet! Treat us with justice!” The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) replied, “If I don’t do justice, who will? If I don’t do justice, it will be an evil act and I will be amongst the losers.” Umar rose and sought permission from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to kill this person. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) declined and said, “He is the companion of a group of people, (implying that his friends are such), that you will consider your prayer inferior to their prayers and fasting. This group recites the Quran but its recitation does not descend beneath their throat. These people will go out of the fold of Islam in the same manner as an arrow leaves the bow for a prey and strikes its target, without any hesitation. If an archer tries to observe them with the point of the arrow, he will not succeed in seeing through them. A sign of these black-faced people is that on one of their hands, there is a piece of breast-like flesh that keeps moving (like Dhu al-thadiyyah). They will revolt against the best of creatures.”

Abu Saeed remarks, “I bear witness that I heard this tradition from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). I bear witness that Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) fought with them and I fought alongside him. During the war, he called out and found him amongst the dead. The people searched for him and brought him to Ali (a.s.). I looked closely at him and found him in the same way as was described by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

1. The book of Seerat by Ibn Heshaam, narrates a tradition in volume 3, page 235 that a group of companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had gathered in a house and were preventing others from meeting the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Therefore the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) ordered the house to be burned down.
2. Muttaqi Hindi writes in Kanzul Ummal �” Hakam Ibn Aas Ibn Umayyah was the uncle of Usman Ibn Affaan and the father of Marwaan Ibn Hakam. He was cursed by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), who also cursed his forefathers and his descendants. He (s.a.w.a.) said, “Woe be upon those of my community who are found in the loins of Hakam Ibn Aas.”

A tradition reports that the Mother of the Believers, Ayesha said to Marwaan, “I bear witness that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) cursed your father and you while you were yet in his loins.”

Hakam Ibn Aas was exiled by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) from Madinah al-Munawwarah to ‘Marj’ near Taef. He was forbidden to enter Madinah. After the death of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Usman Ibn Affaan came to Abu Bakr to recommend the case of his uncle Hakam Ibn Aas. He sought Abu Bakr‘s permission to allow his uncle to return to Madinah who declined. He approached Umar as well with the same request, but was once again refused permission. However, when he ascended the seat of caliphate himself, (in complete contravention of the order of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the two preceding caliphs), he accorded permission to his uncle Hakam Ibn Aas and with great respect brought him back to Madinah. In addition, he also gifted him a hundred thousand dirhams and appointed his son Marwaan as the advisor to the caliph. It was this very Marwaan, who on accord of his deeds paved the way for the assassination of the caliph. He became famous amongst the people as “Nahjul Batil” �” the Peak of Wrongdoing. It was none other than this Marwaan who seized the throne in Damascus and titled himself as the “Caliph of the Muslims.”

1. The Seerah of Ibn Heshaam reports that during the era of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), there were twelve companions who were hypocrites. With an intention to create a rift in the community, they laid the foundation of a mosque �” “Masjid al-Zeraar.” They propagated the idea that this mosque was being built for the sake of the pleasure of Allah and to seek goodness from Him. However, by the order of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), this conspiracy against Islam and Muslims was quelled.

All the above examples are from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and there are several others documented in history, which essentially negate the view that “all companions were just.” This is because those people whom the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.) pronounced a death penalty, or the house which the Holy Prophet ordered to be destroyed or burnt, surely cannot be counted amongst the just. Similarly, those individuals who in line with the explicit verses of the Holy Quran construct a mosque, albeit with the intention to create a rift amongst the Muslims, while they are hypocrites, how is it possible that they can be considered as just? For such people, their “equitable and just” personalities are in direct contravention to the custom of the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.).

Let us ask ourselves �” which of these should we accept:

1. The customs and traditions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
2. The blind following of those who were blind and prejudiced themselves.

To conclude, the above discussion makes it clear that the argument that “all companions were just” is invalid. Along with this conclusion, the objections and doubts raised with regard to Nahjul Balagha are void as well. Thus, none can find fault and object that, on the basis of specific circumstances, Ameerul Mo’meneen Ali (a.s.) raised his voice in protest against some companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.); that he condemned their evil actions and was displeased with their despicable behaviour.

And along with this objection, Imam Ali (a.s.) also praised the faithful and self-sacrificing companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and remembered them in high esteem. He said, “I witnessed the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in a state that in the mornings, their faces were covered in dust; their nights passed in prostration, in standing and in worship; they worshipped in a manner that sometimes they rubbed their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks on the ground before their Lord; they were in a state of fear and unease concerning the Day of Judgement and Return as if one were made to stand on fire; their foreheads bore such marks of prostration as the sores on the knees of an animal; they wept much on hearing the name of their Lord such that their chests would be wet with their tears; they trembled with the fear of Allah as the shaking of a tree in the midst of a fierce storm. Yet, they were hopeful or reward from their Lord.”

---

[1] Surah Saff, verse 7

[2] Surah Taubah, verses 75-77

[3] Tafseer-e-Fathul Qadeer, Shoukani, volume 2, page 185. Also Tafseer-e-Ibn-e-Katheer, printed in Damascus, volume 2, page 273, Tafseer-e-Khan, volume 2, page 125. Also in Tafseer-e-Baghdadi and Tafseer-e-Tabari, volume 2, page 131

[4] Surah Sajdah: Verse 18

[5] Shawaahed al-Tanzeel by Haakem Haskaani-e-Hanafi, pages 443-445, 610-626 and Manaaqebul Maghaazeli, pages 324, 370, 371. Also in Al-Kashhaaf of Jaarullah Zamakshari, volume 3, page 514

12 Questions Concerning Fadak

Qur’anic verses and historical documents reveal that the land of Fadak situated near the Fort of Khaibar, formerly belonging to the Jews, was the personal property of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h). It was neither a government property owned by the treasury nor was it war booty. The seventh verse of Surah Hashr, explains the point in detail:

“Whatever Allah has restored to His Apostle from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Apostle, and for the near of kin and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you. . .” (59: 7)

Fadak was a piece of land that had come in possession of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) without waging a war. In the seventh century, the people of that place had handed it over to the Muslims fearing reprisal. As it was given voluntarily, this land automatically became the personal property of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), and had nothing to do with the government. The fact was accepted by many commentators and historians. For reference, we are quoting a few names: Bilazaris ‘Futuh al-Bildaan’;  Shaykh Shahabudin Hamui in ‘Mojam al-Bildaan’ under the word ‘Fadak’;  Mohammad Ibn Jurair Tabari in his ‘Tarikh al-Umam wal Molook’, vol.3, p. 14; Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Kaamil’, vol.3, p.221; Ibn Abil Hadeed in ‘Sharh-e-Nahjul Balagha’, vol. 16, p.210

All the Sunni commentators while explaining the 28^th verse of Surah Bani Israel state that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had gifted Fadak to Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Thus, automatically it becomes the personal property of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Just to prove our point, the following books may be referred to: Suyooti’s ‘Durrul Mansoor’, vol. 5, p.273; Hakim-e-Haskani’s ‘Shawaahed ut-Tanzeel’, vol. 1, p.240. Both these authors have quoted from Abu Saeed Khudri and Ibn Abbas. Also, the following learned men have explained and confessed that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) has gifted Fadak to Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h): Qazi Abdul Jabbar Motazali, Yaqoote Hammui, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood-e-Misri, etc…

After receiving Fadak from the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) had appointed her own employees there. Thus Fadak remained of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). The first Caliph could not bear to see Fadak in the hands of Fatima (p.b.u.h). So he sent his henchmen to Fadak to drive away the appointees of Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) and grabbed possession. Ameeral Mo’mineen Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h) has penned a very meaningful sentence in his book Nahjul Balagha saying that “Under the sky what we were having was Fadak”, which proves that the due of Ahlul Bayt was not given. Whereas how many people have applied their charitable disposition and broad based outlook? Of course, God is an Excellent Arbiter. (Nahjul Balagha, Letter no. 45).

Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h), protesting against the step of the government went to the Mosque. There she sat behind the curtain and addressed the first Caliph in the presence of all the people. She questioned him and put up a claim for the return of Fadak, that was given to her by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and that it had become her property. The first Caliph did not entertain her claim and refuted it by saying that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had not gifted it to her, and asked her to produce witnesses to the effect that Fadak was her property. Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) then produced six witnesses three males and three females, comprising Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h), Imam Hasan (p.b.u.h), Imam Husain (p.b.u.h), Ummul Mo’mineen Janabe Umme Salma, Umme Aiman, maid of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and Asma Binte Umais, the wife of the first Caliph himself (may God be pleased with her). The first Caliph did not accept the testimony of these witnesses and continued his occupation of Fadak. Even after adopting this attitude the first Caliph could not gain much. First, because the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had himself given it to her. Second, because she (Fatima (p.b.u.h)), being the only daughter of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), it was her parental inheritance. She had to advance the plea of inheritance because her first plea was not accepted by the first Caliph. At this juncture, the Caliph recited a hadith on his own authority (without substantiating it from any source) saying that, “We prophets do not leave behind any property, and if at all something remains, it belongs to all Muslims.” Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) took exception to it, and contradicted the authenticity of this hadith and said it is against the spirit of the Qur’an. Qur’an on numerous places had said about the worldly property of the prophets. When Fatima (p.b.u.h) could no longer bear the Caliph’s obstinacy, she returned home displeased. After that incident, she never spoke with both first and second Caliphs. According to Ibn Qutaybah (‘Al-Imamah wal-Siyaasah’), she cursed them after every prayer. And during her last days, she had requested Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h) not to permit these persons to accompany her funeral. Keeping all this in mind, some questions would automatically arise in the minds of decent persons who believe in truth and justice. We therefore, would like to pose a few questions:

1.       Regarding the claim of Fadak, the claim of Fatima (p.b.u.h) was enough because Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) is the main spirit of the verse of Tatheer. She would never talk or utter anything which is not true and correct. Under these circumstances, non-acceptance of her claim tantamounted to casting aspersions on Ayat Tatheer wherein God had certified the purity of the characters of the persons of the Cloak.

2.       Why the witnesses of Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h) and others were not accepted when the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had repeatedly said, “Wherever Ali (p.b.u.h) goes, Truth goes with him.” Ayat Tatheer was revealed in connection with Hazrat Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (p.b.u.h). Were not these two princes, the leaders of the youths of Paradise? Why the witness of Umme Salma, may God be pleased with her, and Umme Aiman, was not accepted even thought they were among those promised paradise by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h)? Whether the Qur’an for giving witness was not complete? No, because the witness of two men and one woman or two women and one man was enough to complete the Qur’an. Were the witnesses not the upholders of justice? Leave alone the question of being upholders of justice, their infallibility personified.

3.       Before arriving at the decision, the wtinessess of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) were driven out. Why? Whther this act was not to be construed as tyrannical or that of high-handedness?

4.       This is an undisputed act of Muslim Law that whoever is in possession of anything, be it a property or anything else, it belongs to the person who is possessing it. He would simply say under the oath that a certain property belongs to him. Moreover, witnesses are required by the party who is claiming and not by the one who is having the property in his possession. Under this law calling for witness does not conform with the requirements of Justice. Thus, calling for witnesses from Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) was not right. Her responsibility was to simply say an oath. Presenting witnesses was the duty of the first Caliph. Why then Islamic law was tampered with and circumvented?

5.       On many occasions, the first Caliph had agreed to the problems presented by the companions of Prophet (p.b.u.h) without calling for witnesses. For instance, once Janab Jabir came to the Caliph saying that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had promised that he would pay him some amount.

The first Caliph paid him one thousand five hundred dirhams without calling for witnesses. Similarly, once Abu Basheer Maazani had said that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had promised to pray him some amount. The Caliph paid him 1400 dirhams (Sahih Bukhari).

Then what was the reason, that in these cases no witnesses were called for. In some cases only companionship of Prophet (p.b.u.h) was enough for consideration. But, in the case of the Prophet’s daughter why witnesses were required? There were the very persons about whom the verse of Tatheer was revealed.

6.       When Fadak was not considered as a property of Fatima (p.b.u.h), why then on previous occasion the first Caliph had issued a certificate of property in her favour, when earlier she had represented in the matter? Why then the second Caliph seeing the certificate in the hands of Fatima (p.b.u.h) had torn it into pieces and had spat on it? (Sharh Nahjul Balagha, of Ibn Abil Hadeed vol. 16, p.174; Seera Halbiya, vol. 3, p.362)

When Fadak was not the property of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h), why was it given to her in the first instance? And if at all it was hers, why was it usurped?

7.       If the first Caliph was right in the case of Fadak, then why did he repeatedly repent at the time of remembering Fadak? And why he himself was ashamed of his own act?

8.       The hadith that was quoted by the first Caliph for not conceding Fadak was clearly against the spirit of the Qur’an. In Qur’an, there is reference to the property of Sulaiman, Dawood, ‘Aal-e-Yaqub, Zacharia and Yahya – all of them were prophets and property holders (Surah Naml,  verse 16; Surah Mariam, verse 46).

Apart from the above, Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) was infallible, virtue and honest. Why then her statement was not taken as true? The hadith recited by the first Caliph was not conforming with Qur’anic spirit and teachings, and hence, cannot be accepted. Why then was Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) deprived and denied her own property?

9.       If it is true, that the Messenger of Allah had not let any property and if at all there is any, it belongs to the government or to all Muslims, why then the wives of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) specially Abu Bakr’s daughter, Ayesha, were not told to vacate possession of their premises? This was also the property left by the Prophet (p.b.u.h). Whether the denial of the right of property was applicable only to Janabe Fatima Zahra(p.b.u.h)?

10.    If the property left by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), does not belong to any particular person, then why did Abu Bakr seek permission only from his own daughter, Ayesha, for getting buried besides the Prophet (p.b.u.h)?

If at all the inheritance of property is considered, the wives are not entitled to get a share in it. At the most they can have residential rights. If the property rights are accepted, in the presence of children, a wife’s share is only 1/8^th.  And in this very 1/8^th only, all wives would get equal share. If it is to be distributed among nine wives, the share of each wife would come to 1/72. In this way, Ummul Mo’mineen, Ayesha could give permission only upto her own share. Why other were not approached and consulted?

11.   If it is accepted that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not gift Fadak to Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) and that there was no property belonging to the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), even then, why were the Ahlul Bayt deprived of the Khums of the Khaibar and the wars? Has Qur’an not ordained to pay Khums to all your relatives (Zul Qurba) (Surah Tawba: 41, Surah Isra: 28)? In regards to booty, the question of inheritance does not arise.

12.   Had the argument and the stand of the Khilafat been right regarding Fadak, then why Omar II, Omar bin Abdul Aziz, Omavi, Saffah, Mehdi and Mamoon Abbasi, had made offers to return Fadak to the progeny of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h)?

If it was the property of all followers of Islam, then why the third Caliph gave it to Marwan? After that, Muavia distributed it amongst his son, Hakam’s son, the son of Osman?

Thereafter, why was it retaken into possession by Yazid bin Abdul Malik, Mansoor Dawaaneqi and Mutawakkil Abbasi? (Bukhari vol.5, p.3; Tarikh of Ibn Atheer vol.5, p.288, vol.9, p.200)

The truth is that Fadak belonged to Fatima (p.b.u.h) and was her right. But the government usurped it, most probably for the reason that the land was fertile and populated. Its income was quite good, and it was the base of the economic resources of Ahlul Bayt. Or it was a step towards weakening the economy of Ahlul Bayt and to ease them out from religion and political mainstream.

Anyway, those who possess absolute faith in Qur’an and obey its orders, taking it as their bounded duty and for those who take Fatima (p.b.u.h) as the meaning fo ‘Ayat Tatheer’ and who consider Mubahala as the evidence of her truthfulness and take Surah Hal ‘Ataa in the light of her exalted character and purity, they are sure that in respect of Fadak, Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) was absolutely right and that it was her due. In the words of Qur’an, “After truth, there is nothing but erring.”

“When they are told not to commit corruption in the land, they reply, “We are only reformers.” They are corrupt but do not realize it. When they are told to believe as everyone else does, they say, “Should we believe as fools do?” In fact, they are fools but they do not know it.” (Holy Qur’an)

Saqifah in the words of Saheeh Bukhari and Umar Ibn Khattaab

The book Saheeh Bukhari, compiled by Abu Abdillah Muhammad Ibn Ismail, later known as Imam Bukhari, is regarded as an important segment of the six so called authentic books (Sehaah-e-Sittah) of the Ahle Sunnah. After the Holy Quran, these six books are of utmost importance to the Sunnis when compared to other books. All the contents of these books are considered to be authentic and reliable and hence the term Saheeh.

Bukhari has quoted the second caliph Umar Ibn Khattab extensively on what transpired at the Saqifah of Bani Saa’edah:

Says Umar: Following the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), news reached us that the Ansaar (Immigrants) had assembled at the Saqifah-i-Bani Saa’edah. I told Abu Bakr, ‘Let us go there so that we join our Ansaar brethren.’

Abu Bakr obliged and we reached Saqifah together. Ali, Zubair and their companions were not with us. At Saqifah, we observed that a group of Ansaar had brought someone with them who was completely covered. It was Sa’d ibn Ubaadah running a very high temperature. We sat besides them. A man from the Ansaar stood up and as had been decided, after praising Allah began to speak, ‘We are the friends and lovers of Allah. We are the soldiers and the strength of Islam. But you, O Muhaajireen, are few in number and …’

I (Umar) thought of replying but Abu Bakr pulled my sleeves and quietened me. He then himself stood up, and God is witness, said what I wanted to and he said it better than me.

Abu Bakr said, ‘O company of Ansaar! You are surely the recipient of the attributes which you have described and you have achieved them. But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position. It is only for your betterment that I do this, I present before you two people so that you may choose whomsoever you wish for the Caliphate. Saying this, Abu Bakr caught hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaidah and presented us before the crowd. I disliked the last suggestion. While another Ansaar stood up and commented:

اَنَا جَذِيْلُهَا الْمَحْكُ وَ عَذِيْقُهَا الْمُوْجَبُ-

I am among you (O Ansaar) like a stick with which camels are driven or that tree which provides shade. If it is so, O Muhajireen! Then appoint a ruler amongst you and we will appoint one from amongst us. A great commotion erupted at this statement. We witnessed great opposition and rivalry. I took advantage of this commotion and said to Abu Bakr, ‘Extend your hand so that I may pay allegiance to you.’ Abu Bakr complied and I paid allegiance to him. Having done this, we gathered near Sa’d Bin Ubadah…. After this entire episode, if somebody pays allegiance to the Caliphate of any other caliph without the consultation of the Muslims, adhere neither to the follower nor the allegiance taker, for both are liable for capital punishment.

Saheeh Bukhari, Kitabul Hudud, Baabul Rajmul Hablaa, 4/ 119-120

Seerae Ibne Hisham, 4/ 336-338 Kanz al-Ummaal, 3/ 139- Hadith 2326

Did Ali (A.S.) Pay Allegiance to Abu Bakr ??

By: Maulana Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (r.a.)

Introduction:

The foremost books on Islamic history “Al-Maghaazi” of Ibn Is’haaq and its summary “Seerah al-Nabi (s.a.w.a.)” of Ibn Hisham were written in the second and third centuries A.H. These were followed by “Tarikh-e-Tabari” by Muhammad Ibn Jareer (or Jurair) al-Tabari also in 3^rd Century A.H.

It should be borne in mind that these original books on Islamic history were considered a part of Islamic traditions and like the traditions they even had a chain of narrators for every incident. The problems faced in the narration of history and traditions are therefore the same. The subject matter of both is equally important. The first two Caliphs had banned the writing as well as oral narration of traditions. Moaviyah, during his reign, established an institution for forging and popularizing traditions. According to my knowledge, this was the first governmental propaganda machinery in the world. The main aim of this was to popularise false traditions in praise of the Caliphs, to project the Bani Umayyah as the most respected family of Quraish and the real relatives of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and on the other hand to ascribe all evils to Ameerul Momeneen Ali Ibn Abi Talib(a.s.) and his ancestors. All those who would present such forged traditions were richly rewarded, granted high offices in the government hierarchy and would be included in the close coterie around the caliph and his governors. While those who would oppose this would have their lives, wealth and respect threatened. This brief article cannot delve into the details of those dark times. Those desirous of details should refer to “Kitabul Hadith” of Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Madaaeani or the eleventh volume of “Sharh-o- Nahj al-Balaaghah” of Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Motazeli (Cairo Edition).

This process of criticising and humiliating the family of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) coupled with honouring and respecting their enemies went on for more than 90 years. During this period, generations passed who used to consider the Bani Umayyah as the real family of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and embraced the cursing of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) in the sermons of Fridays and days of Eid as a practice of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Incidentally, it is necessary to clarify that the Bani Umayyah did not even consider Hazrat Ali (a.s.) as the fourth Caliph. Their view was that (God Forbid) Hazrat Ali (a.s.) usurped the caliphate for 4-5 years. This belief was prevalent till the time of Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (exp.241 A.H.) who initially subscribed to this notion. Later, however, he changed his belief and started considering Hazrat Ali (a.s.) as the fourth rightly guided Caliph. The other scholars of Ahle Tasannun even criticised him for this.

This propaganda of about 150 years resulted in prevalence of thousands of forged traditions that wrongly indicated that Ameerul Momeneen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) willingly acknowledged the Caliphate of the other Caliphs and had given the oath of allegiance to them. Also, the Caliphs used to take the advice of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) in matters of governance and he (a.s.) like a loyal subject used to follow their instructions. Even such false traditions were made rife which gave the impression that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the Holy Imams (a.s.) used to commit mistakes (we seek refuge in Allah). Such forged traditions served dual purposes. On one hand, a doubt was created about the infallibility of these (holy) personalities and on the other hand, an excuse was found for the characterless, lustful and sinning lives of the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah. How could one then question the misdeeds of the fallible Caliphs when even the infallible Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was not safe from committing mistakes?

Such was the situation in the initial period of Islamic history. During this very period, books of traditions and history began to be written. Naturally, most of the traditions present in these books reflect the mood of that era. As a result, such an untrue historical record was created which presented a picture of unity between the family of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the Caliphs. They presented that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had given his oath of allegiance and was regularly consulted by the Caliphs. There existed such mutual adoration between these two groups that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) married off his daughter to Umar Ibn Khattab and blah, blah, blah.

In Iran, I (viz. Maulana Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (r.a.)) have explicitly mentioned this reality in various lectures that a correct analysis of historical matters has been undertaken by the scholars of India and Pakistan in the last 100 years. As a result, fact has been sieved from fiction. It is a matter of remorse that the scholars of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc blindly narrate from the writings of Tabari and his ilk in their works as if his is the final word.

Refusal to Pay Allegiance

The only question which I want to clarify in this article is whether Ameerul Momeneen(a.s.) had paid allegiance to the Caliphs? Traditions and historical records from the Ahle Tasannun show that till Janabe Zahra (s.a.) was alive, she did not consent to Hazrat Ali (a.s.) giving allegiance to Abu Bakr. After six months, when Janabe Zahra (s.a.) expired and the people stopped honouring Hazrat Ali (a.s.) as before, he paid allegiance to Abu Bakr. History however gives us three proofs which contradict this version.

The First Argument

The first instance is when Umar had formed a committee to select a caliph after him. This has been called “Shura” in history. Hazrat Ali (a.s.), Usman, Talhah, Zubair, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas and Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf were members of this committee. The selection of the Caliph was left unto them. They were to select a Caliph from among themselves. It was also ordered that if five of them agree on one person and the sixth opposes them then he should be killed. If four of them agree on one person and two oppose them then they two should be beheaded. If there are two groups of three each then that group should be accepted in which there is Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf and if the other three don’t accept then all the three should be killed.

Here, it should be mentioned that Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf was the brother in law of Usman. Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas and Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf were cousins and from the same family of Bani Makhzum.  Looking at the tribal bias present among the Arabs, it is unthinkable that Sa’d would oppose Abdur Rahman or that Abdur Rahman would ignore Usman. In this way, three votes were already in Usman’s favour including the deciding vote of Abdur Rahman. As regards Talhah, he was from the family of Abu Bakr (Bani Tamim). After the incident of Saqifah e Bani Sadah there was extreme enmity between Bani Hashim and Bani Tamim. Also in the battle of Badr, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had killed the paternal uncle of Talhah, Omair Ibn Usman and also two brothers of Talhah, Usman and Malik. Hence, it was not possible that Talhah would support Hazrat Ali (a.s.). After the formation of this committee, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had told his uncle Abbas, “Even this time,, this matter has gone out of our hands”.

Considering this composition of the “Shura” and analysing its effects, what happened later on is of no surprise. At the very outset, Talhah withdrew in favour of Usman. Zubair withdrew in favour of Hazrat Ali(a.s.) and Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas withdrew in favour of Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf. Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf then proposed that if he is given the authority to select the Caliph, even he will withdraw himself. Now, only Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Usman remained. For two days continuously, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) presented such strong arguments proving his rights that all were dumb-founded. The actual aim of installing Usman as Caliph seemed to be getting foiled. In the night, Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf visited Amr-e-Aas and narrated the delicate situation to him. Amr-e-Aas suggested to him: “Tomorrow morning, you present the Caliphate to Hazrat Ali (a.s.) on the condition that he would act according to the book of Allah, the way of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the method of the Caliphs. Ali (a.s.) would not accept the method of the Caliphs. Thereafter, you put the same conditions before Usman and he will gladly accept. Instantly, you pay allegiance to him.” At that time Abdur Rahman expressed his reservations that what if Hazrat Ali (a.s.) accepted these conditions? Amr e Aas replied that he will never accept the method of the Caliphs.

As predicted, the same occurred on the third day. Hazrat Ali (a.s.) flatly refused to accept the method of the previous Caliphs. The same conditions were put before Usman. He gladly accepted and was installed as the Caliph.

Why was Amr-e-Aas so sure that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) would not accept the method of the previous Caliphs? If Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had already given his allegiance to them, then why was he so dead against accepting their methods that he even rejected the caliphate which was presented to him? If no one in this group asked, why anyone later also did not ask Hazrat Ali (a.s.) that since he had already given his allegiance to Abu Bakr and Umar, why he refused to act as per their way? An unbiased reflection on these questions will amply clarify the fact that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had not paid allegiance to them and neither did he like their way.

The Second Argument

After meeting Imam Husain(a.s.), Umar Ibn Sa’d wrote to Ibn Ziyad that Imam Husain(a.s.) has agreed to return to Madinah or go to any border state and live like a common man or go to Yazid and after giving him the oath of allegiance accept his decision. (The third condition was added by Umar Ibn Sa’d himself and is not supported by any other historical document). Ibn Ziyad was happy on reading the contents of this letter. Just as he was about to reply with his acceptance, Shimr instigated him. He said; “Husain(a.s.) will be further strengthened if he leaves your area without giving allegiance to you and you will be weakened”. Consequently, Ibn Ziyad rejected the proposals of Umar Ibn Sa’d and replied thus: “I have not sent you to make peace with Husain (a.s.) nor to make recommendations for him. If Husain (a.s.) and his companions are ready to obey me, send them to me. Otherwise fight them, kill them and after their deaths trample the corpse of Husain (a.s.) with horses. If the carrying out of these orders is not acceptable to you, you may hand over the command of the army to Shimr as I have authorised him so.”

When Shimr handed over this letter to Umar e Sa’d, he realized that this is the scheming of Shimr. He retorted angrily “I strongly suspect that you dissuaded Ibn Ziyad from accepting my conditions. The matter which I was trying to solve has been spoilt by you. By God! Husain (a.s.) will never agree to obedience (to Ibn Ziyad) as in his chest beats the heart of his father.[1]

This clearly indicates that neither Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had paid allegiance to any one nor is Imam Husain (a.s.) going to do so. Had Hazrat Ali(a.s.) given allegiance, Shimr would have definitely replied that since Ali(a.s.) has previously given allegiance, Husain (a.s.) too would follow suit. This conversation amply demonstrates that till the Muharrum of 61 A.H., it was clear to friends as well as enemies that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had not paid allegiance to anyone.

Also, this statement of Umar e Sa’d also refutes the third option (which he had added from his side) in his letter to Ibn Ziyad that Imam Husain (a.s.) is ready to pay allegiance to Yazid (l.a.). Now, in his argument with Shimr, he mentioned the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) will never accept submission.

The Third Argument

Now let us analyse the (Sunni) view in relation to the allegiance. This view clearly states that neither Janabe Zahra(s.a.) has herself paid allegiance to Abu Bakr and Umar nor did her husband. The virtues and merits of Janabe Zahra(s.a.) are an integral belief of all Muslim sects. She is a part of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the leader of all the women as well as of the women of the Paradise. Yet, she has not given allegiance to Abu Bakr while the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) remarked, “One who dies without recognising the Imam of his time he dies the death of Jaahiliyyah (disbelief).”

Whether Janabe Zahra (s.a.) knew the Imam of her time or not? If Abu Bakr was the Imam of the time then by refusing allegiance to him how can she be the leader of the women of Paradise? There is no excuse except to accept that in the view of Janabe Zahra (s.a.), Ameer ul Momeneen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) was the Imam of the time and she accepted him as her Imam. That is why she is the leader of the women of Paradise. If after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Hazrat Ali (a.s.) was the Imam, then after the death of Janabe Zahra (s.a.) how can he be discharged of the same?

It is also worth noting that according to Shia belief, both Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Janabe Zahra (s.a.) were infallible. Neither paid allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months. This proves that near them the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was baseless and only by refusing allegiance to him they can remain on the path of truth. If refusal of allegiance was the correct thing for six months, how can giving the allegiance become the correct thing after six months? If paying allegiance was the right thing to do, then why Janabe Zahra (s.a.) opposed it throughout her life and Hazrat Ali (a.s.) stayed away from it for six months.

Conclusion

It is clear that refusing allegiance is a completely separate matter from that of giving correct advice when asked for. Avoiding bloodshed in-spite of opposition is again a separate issue altogether.

It is now beyond doubt that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) hadn’t paid allegiance. Why did he then give correct advice when asked for on various occasions? Among the many reasons for this is the saying of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that, “When advice is sought from a person then he should be true”. Thus, correct advice should be given. Also, these advices used to be given for the benefit of the Islamic Ummah. As the true Imam, it was the duty of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) that he protects the interest of the Ummah.

As for avoiding bloodshed, Zaid Ibn Khalid referred to Imam Jafar Sadiq(a.s.) the objection of some people that why Hazrat Ali (a.s.) avoided fighting if was on the truth? He (a.s.) replied that to fight in absence of reliable supporters is the responsibility given only to one person and that is the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.). He is supposed to wage a war all alone even in the absence of supporters as is mentioned in the Holy Quran:

فَقَاتِل�’ فِي سَبِيلِ الل�’هِ لاَ تُكَلَ�’فُ إِلاَ�’ نَف�’سَكَ

“Fight then in Allah’s way; this is not imposed on you except in relation to yourself”[2]

For other people Allah mentions that:

وَ�…َن يُوَلِ�’هِ�…�’ يَو�’�…َئِذٍ دُبُرَهُ إِلاَ�’ �…ُتَحَرِ�’فاً لِ�’قِتَالٍ أَو�’ �…ُتَحَيِ�’زاً إِلَى فِئَةٍ فَقَد�’ بَاء بِغَضَبٍ �…ِ�’نَ الل�’هِ وَ�…َأ�’وَاهُ جَهَنَ�’�…ُ وَبِئ�’سَ ال�’�…َصِيرُ

“And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day– unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company– then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.”[3]

Finally, Imam Sadeq (a.s.) said, “Ali (a.s.) did not have a group which would help him in this. Hence waging a war was not his responsibility. If he had a group of supporters he would definitely have done so.”[4]

---

[1] Al Balaazari, Ansaab al-Ashraaf; Shaikh al-Mufid (r.a.), Kitabul Irshad(Al Mutamir ul Aalami lil fatitul Ash Shaikh al Mufid, 1413 A.H.); Baqir Sharif al Qarashi, Hayatul Imamul Husain(a.s.), V.3, First Edition, p.133

[2] Surah Nisaa (4): Verse 84

[3] Surah Anfaal (8): Verse 16

[4] Tafseer e Ayyashi, Tehran edition,V.2,p.5; Tafseer Al Mizan, V.5,p.25.

Why Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) did NOT FIGHT to wrest back Caliphate from the Caliphs?

After the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), his Caliphate and Successorship was the right of Imam Ali (a.s.), who made several attempts to prove that Caliphate was his exclusive right and that others were mere pseudo-claimants and usurpers. However, after the martyrdom of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he found himself alone and could not gather the people towards the obedience of Caliphate entrusted to him by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). However, he expressed his annoyance concerning the misappropriation of his right on every possible opportunity. Then, be it in a gathering of people or amongst his close confidants, or even while expressing his protest in front of the Caliphs. At every place, he (a.s.) strongly emphasized the fact that the right to Caliphate was his and others did not have any right upon it. He also accentuated that it was an appointment by Allah delivered unto the people through the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Hence, he disapproved any other principle or law concerning the appointment of the Caliph of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

The finest example in support of this aim is his retiring himself to his own house. After the death of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he retired himself to his house and did not pledge his allegiance as a result of which his home was set ablaze. His wife, the only daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), was wounded and his unborn child, Janab-e- Mohsin (a.s.) was martyred while still in the womb of his mother. Thus, Ali (a.s.) made his right evident and completed his argument upon those who had turned away from the one appointed by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and designated by Allah for His Caliphate. Had he gone to the court on his own before their trial of strength and other similar forms of protest, the argument wouldn’t be complete.

Hence, in no way can it be said that he did not take any steps to establish the truth and obtain his right. However, another question that can be answered here as an explanation, that is, why did he not use force to get his right? There are certain reasons for this:

1) Fear of the Nation (ummah) turning apostates:

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) feared that if he insisted on the evident order concerning the Caliphate, the new converts to Islam would turn away from it. This was so because the hypocrites had reached to power after the death of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their might had increased. The hearts of the Muslims were weakening by the day. Tremendous commotion was created in the fundamentals of religion. After the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), the condition of Muslims closely resembled a goat searching for shelter in a freezing dark night after becoming wet in the rains, only to be surrounded from all sides by hungry wolves ready to tear it apart. Some of the Arab tribes had already turned apostates, while some were treading the path towards it.

2) Fear of dissension among the Muslim Ummah:

One of the reasons why Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) chose not to use his might was the fear of dissension and factionalism amongst the Muslim nation. The prevalent condition of the Muslims at that time was the best moment for the unbelievers and the hypocrites to reveal their old plots. Disputes arose amongst the Ansars (inhabitants of Medina) and the Muhajiroon (inhabitants of Makkah) and each one, for some or the other reason, desired the throne of Caliphate. (Or the moment) when Abu Sufyan requested for assistance and support of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), but he (a.s.) refused, asking him from when had he (Abu Sufiyan) become a supporter and helper of Islam?

3) For Islam’s survival:

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) desired the survival of Islam at any cost. Being concerned about Islam at that delicate moment, he found it imprudent to use force to seize the Caliphate. Had he taken up arms and revolted along with his few helpers, it would have led to the destruction of the Islamic System after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Mischief and destruction among the people would become rampant and all the sacrifices and devotion made till that time would be rendered futile. Hence, for the existence of Islam and the success of the common Muslims, he decided not to stand-up for his right and never revealed any intention for the same. And this last reason holds superiority over all the other reasons mentioned, due to which neither did Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) put up a show of strength nor did he cast out his sword to obtain that Caliphate, for which he was divinely appointed.

A Brief Analysis of the Incident of the Paper

10th Hijri is the year in which the Last Messenger of Allah, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a.) started to assemble his works with the permission of Allah and towards the end of the 10th Hijri announced his return towards the celestial world after pointing out his successor till the Day of Judgment. Thus, at the event of Ghadeer, he (s.a.w.a.) nominated his executor and his successor and again in the 11th Hijri when he (s.a.w.a.) was on his deathbed, a tragic incident of gigantic proportions took place.

The Incident of the paper

In simple terms we call it as the incident of the pen and ink. This incident took place in the 11th Hijri in the final days of Hazrat Mohammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a.) when he (s.a.w.a.) wished to pen down a document for the eternal guidance of the nation and said:

“Bring me pen and skin (of a goat) so that I may write for you thus you may never be deviated after me” 

(Historians have termed this incident as the incident of paper. Qirtas means paper and in those days animal skin was used for writing hence the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) asked for it. Today, in our terminology we call it as paper hence because paper is used for writing. Hence in this article we will replace skin with paper)

Were they also Muslims?

A few from those who were present wanted to obey the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) and brought paper and pen but Umar said: Stop! He is speaking in delirium. (Allah Forbid) The book of Allah is sufficient for us.

(Hayaat al-Qulub vol. 2 pg 998)

Chaos erupted and when it increased the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) disliked it and said: “Go away from me because this kind of a dispute is not worthy in front of the Messenger of Allah”

(Hayaat al-Qulub vol. 2 pg 998)

People left and only the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) relatives and close companions were left. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) hugged Imam Ali (a.s.) and took out his ring and said “Take this and wear it”. Then he gave his armor, sword and his war clothes and a special cloth, which he tied around his waist during wars to Imam Ali (a.s.) and said “Now take the name of Lord and return home.”

Next day, the condition of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) worsened and he became unconscious. When he gained consciousness, he said “Call my beloved one” and became unconscious again. Ayesha said, “Bring Abu Bakr.” Abu Bakr was brought but when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) gained consciousness and saw Abu Bakr he turned away his face and repeated his request. Hafsa said, “Bring Umar to him.” The Messenger (s.a.w.a.) turned away his face from him as well and for the third time he (s.a.w.a.) said, “Call my beloved one” Umm Salmah stood up and said, “Bring Imam Ali (a.s.) to him. Imam Ali (a.s.) was brought. Eliminating the all the other part of the incident it was written that according to the wish of the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) Imam Ali (a.s.) kept his (s.a.w.a.) holy head on his (a.s.) lap and the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) left this world in this very condition. This is incident of paper in brief.

Why did Umar not allow the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) to write the document?

What was the reason that Umar did not allow the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) to write his will? Umar, Abu Bakr and the entire group were aware that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) had appointed Imam Ali (a.s.) as his successor on numerous occasions and, if again through his will he appoints Imam Ali (a.s.) as his successor then the companions would pay their allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s.) and they will lose the caliphate hence they tried their best that Messenger (s.a.w.a.) does not perform this action.

Excuse of tender age for caliphate and Prophet’s intelligent practice

The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) was aware that after his demise Ali (a.s.) will be kept away from caliphate through many excuses, one of which will be his young age. Hence, to explain to the people that Imamat and Caliphate is based on capability and not age. He (s.a.w.a.) knew that people would call Imam Ali (a.s.) young and usurp his right. Hence, he made an army and appointed ‘Osama’ a youth as commander of the army. Many people tried to refrain the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) to appoint Osama as the commander but he (s.a.w.a.) did not listen to anyone and made him as the chief of the army. But people did not allow this to happen.

(Tabaqat Ibn Saad Vol. 4 Pg 66, Taarikh Ibn Asaakir Vol. 2 Pg 291,
Kanz al-Ummal Vol. 5 Pg 313, Taarikh Ibn Khaldoon Vol. 2 Pg 484)

Companions rejected the command of the Messenger (s.a.w.a.)

It is amazing that Allah has not commanded the obedience of the Noble Messenger (s.a.w.a.) but with extreme emphasis. Please look at this verse carefully:

“And whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back”

(Surah Hashr: Verse 7)

The Obedience of Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.) is obligatory

“But no! By your Lord! 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 find any straightness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission.”

(Surah Nisa: Verse 65)

This verse has a condition that unless people do consider the Noble Messenger (s.a.w.a.) as a judge in their disputes and differences and do not listen to his decisions they will not be called as believers. Then how is it possible that the one who refused to give the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) ink and pen on his request and does not participate in the army formed by him (s.a.w.a.) be a Muslim?

Need of a Will

Lastly, when the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a) witnessed that the proposal of sending people out of Madinah with the army did not actualize, he (s.a.w.a.) decided with the permission of Allah to compile his recommendations for Imam Ali (a.s.) in a will, which he had passed on to the people in the span of twenty-three years. Hence, a few days before his death on Thursday when he was on his bed and his house was filled with people he said, “Bring me pen and paper so that I may a write a thing, which if you act upon will never be deviated after me”

(Hayat al-Qulub Vol.: 2 Pg: 998, Late Allamah Majlisi says that this tradition of pen and paper is mentioned in different ways in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and many reliable books of Ahle Tasannun and they have narrated from Ibn Abbas that he (s.a.w.a.) cried a lot and in such a way that the stones of the mosque became moist).

The Argument of Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah

Bani Hashim and the wives of the Noble Messenger (s.a.w.a.) were insisting on writing the will; however, those who obstructed the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) to talk about his successor at the plains of Arafat intervened at his (s.a.w.a.) house as well. We have mentioned earlier that Umar had understood that if the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) writes the will, the plan of usurping the caliphate will be ruined and hence he screamed, “There is no need to bring a pen and paper as this man (!) is speaking in delirium: the book of Allah is sufficient for us.” The supporters of Umar and Bani Umayyah heard this and supported him. But the Bani Hashim were extremely angry and opposed this blasphemous statement. What would the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) do when such an allegation was attributed to him? He (s.a.w.a.) was very disappointed and asked everyone to leave, “Go away from me! It is inappropriate that a conflict should arise in the presence of Allah’s Messenger.”

Supporters of Umar and distortions of school of thought of Caliphs

The allies of Umar, especially the supporters of school of thought of caliphs, tried to cover the intolerant behavior of Umar b. Khattab. They attributed the words ‘delirium’ which Umar used to others who were present there and wrote, “They said: the Prophet of Allah is speaking in delirium” and relate this sentence to Umar , “He said: the pain of illness has taken over the Messenger. But the statement of Abu Bakr Johari in the book ‘Saqifah’ explains this point. The allegation of delirium started from the side of Umar and his supporters attributed this statement to the Messenger (s.a.w.a.). Johari has written this allegation from Umar: “Umar uttered a statement which meant that the pain of illness has taken over the Messenger”. Thus, it is concluded that Umar meant something else that cannot be mentioned and hence this implication was made. Unfortunately, Bukhari and Muslim and others have not narrated the exact words but have mentioned the meaning and the subject. However, it is very clear from ‘An-Nihaya’ of Ibn Aseer and Sharh Nahj al-Balaaghah of Ibn Abi al-Hadeed that the allegation of delirium was clearly made by Umar

Outcome

Whatever may be the case but one thing is clear that after sending the opposing group out of the house, the Noble Messenger (s.a.w.a.) mentioned his will to his sincere companions. As per the tradition of Sulaim b. Qais al-Hilaali, he (s.a.w.a.) mentioned about each member of Ahle Bait (a.s.) and appointed them as this successor and caliph after him.

(Book of Sulaim Bin Qais al-Hilaali, vol. 4, p. 658)

The Ahle Tasannun has also recorded this incident in their books copiously but have kept the original topic as ambiguous.

The Role of Ibn Abbas

Ibn Abbas says towards the end of the tradition, “The Messenger (s.a.w.a.) recommended three things: First: to remove the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula. Second: Give permission to the caravans just like I have permitted them. But he remained silent about the third will and as per other traditions: I have forsaken the third will.”

(Sahih Bukhari, Book of Maghaazi, Chapter 78; Sahih Muslim vol. 5)

It is worth noting that it is not found in any report or narration whatever has been ascribed to Ibn Abbas: I have forgotten this part or have not narrated it. It is not the case but the fear of Ibn Abbas from Umar because the third will was certainly about the caliphate and leadership of Imam Ali (a.s.) and household of the Messenger (s.a.w.a.). sBut Ibn Abbas was afraid of Umar and hence avoided to mention it. He also had contradictory views against the oppression and prejudice during the lifetime of Umar but never expressed it till the death of Umar. When people asked him the reason for delay in announcing the truth he said: I was afraid of him

Why did Umar stop the writing of document?

The question that troubled everyone was why Umar and his supporters did not allow the actualization of the intention of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)? Did not the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) guarantee the safety of the nation from deviation till the Day of Judgment if the will was written? Can any news be better than that? Then why did they oppose this action? Why did they deprive the nation of this great immeasurable bounty? What can one say when the love for power, pelf and position, and jealousy, hatred and malice prevent the intellect from accepting the truth?! We know that Umar was conspiring behind the scenes; he knew why the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was demanding a paper and pen. He knew very well that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) wanted to give the people all the recommendations that he (s.a.w.a.) had made regarding the caliphate of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and Ahle Bait (a.s.) in form of a document and hence obstructed the same. Our words are not mere claims but have many witnesses. We will present two incidents here:

1. Umar bin Khattab had listened to the tradition of two weighty things (Hadis-e-Saqalain) many times over during the last days of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), “I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, the Book of Allah and my progeny the Ahle Bait (a.s.); if you fasten unto both of them, you will never be deviated after me; for, they will not separate from each other till they meet me at the pond of Kauthar (in paradise).” Umar had heard about Allah’s Book and Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) progeny as the exegesis of ‘will not be deviated’. When the noble Messenger (s.a.w.a.) demanded paper and ink, Umar heard the same exegesis that he (s.a.w.a.) said: I am giving a document after which you will never be deviated. Umar was cunning enough to understand that Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.) has intended to write about the Book and the Progeny and hence, he sternly refused it, even using un-parliamentary language for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the process.

2. Ibn Abbas narrates: ‘In the initial days of the caliphate of Umar, I went to him. He looked towards me and said “May the camel’s blood be on you” (Probably this is a proverb in Arabs that if you hide a thing then chastisement befalls on you) if I question you and you hide the issue. Do you consider Ali (a.s.) righteous in caliphate? And do you believe that the Prophet of Allah has appointed him? I said: Yes – I asked my father regarding this affair; and he said that Umar confirmed: “I am telling you: the noble Messenger (s.a.w.a.) wanted to appoint Ali (a.s.) during his illness but I stopped it”

(Sharh Nahj al-Balaaghah by Ibn Abi al-Hadeed, vol. 12, p. 21)

Conclusion

Lastly, we consider it appropriate to mention here that there have been many attempts to distort this incident in order to reduce its gravity. For example, some people suggest that this tradition is reported from Ibn Abbas who was very young at that time and hence, it is not acceptable. Obviously, such a baseless argument has to be refuted outright but we will discuss it sometime later, Insha Allah.

May Allah grant us the grace to be on the right path and give us success in this world and the hereafter through the recommendation of Ahle Bait (a.s.)!

Courtesy :  http://www.seratonline.com

طاھر القادری (پادری) کا رد

طاھر القادری نے اپنے نام نہاد تقاریر جو اس نے ابوبکر وعمر کے دفاع میں کی تھی ، اس میں اس پادری نے واقعہ قرطاس کے متعلق یہ کہا کہ رسول اللہ (ص) نے اصل میں حضرت علی (ع) و اھل بیت (ع) کو کہا تھا کہ وہ قلم و دوات لائیں لیکن شیعوں نے اس کو اصحاب و عمر کی طرف موڑ دیا . اس کی تائید میں یہ مسند احمد سے ایک حدیث بھی لایا ہے وہ حدیث یہ ہے

حضرت علی (ع) فرماتے ہیں کہ نبی (ص) نے مجھے ایک طبق (ریڑ کی ہڈی) لانے کا حکم دیا تاکہ آپ اس میں ایسی ہدایات لکھ دیں جن کی موجودگی میں نبی (ص) کے بعد گمراہ نہ ہوسکے ، مجھے اندیشہ ہوا کہ کہیں ایسا نہ ہو کہ میں کاغذ لینے کے لئے جائوں اور پیچھے سے نبی (ص) کی روح مبارک پرواز کر جائے ، اس لئے میں نے عرض کیا یارسول اللہ (ص) ! آپ مجھے زبانی بتا دیجئے ، میں اسے یادرکھوں گا، فرمایا: میں نماز اور زکوۃ کی وصیت کرتا ہوں ، نیز غلاموں کے ساتھ حسن سلوک کی تاکید کرتا ہوں

ہمارا جواب

ہم جواب میں کہتے ہیں کہ بریلوی مسلک کا پادری طاھر القادری جو اپنے نام کے ساتھ "شیخ الاسلام" لکھوانا پسند کرتا ہے ، لیکن شیخ الاسلام والی ایک بھی بات اس میں نہیں پائی جاتی کیونکہ طاھر قادری نے جو حدیث عمربن خطاب کے دفاع میں پیش کی ہے وہ اصول حدیث کے معیار پر پوری نہیں اترتی اور سندا`` ضعیف ہے . ہمیں افسوس ہوتا ہے کہ اب یہ نام نہاد شیخ الاسلام اپنے مسلک کے دفاع کے لئے ضعیف روایات پیش کرتا ہے جبکہ ضعیف روایات کسی بھی صورت میں قابل استدلال نہیں ہیں .

قادری نے جو روایت پیش کی ہے وہ مسند احمد // ج 2 // 105// حدیث : 693//طبع بیروت پر موجود ہے اور اس کتاب کے محقق جناب شعیب الارنوط نے اس حدیث کے حاشیہ پر لکھا ہے کہ اسناد ضعیف ہے کیونکہ اس کی سند میں ایک راوی ہے "نعیم بن یزید" جس کو ابوحاتم نے مجہول کہا ہے

چنانچہ ثابت ہوا کہ طاھر القادی کا استدلال باطل ہے کیونکہ وہ ایک ضعیف روایت پرقائم ہے . اور صحیح روایات سے یہ ہی ثابت ہے کہ واقعہ قرطاس میں رسول (ص) کے مخاطب اصحاب تھے اور عمر بن خطاب نے ہی رسول (ص) کو ہذیان کا الزام لگایا تھا

Tareequl Haq- Arabic Shia Debate book

Tariqul Haq-Arabic Shia Debate Book

Umar called Ali(A.S.) "Yadullah"- Hands of Allah

Some Muslims accuse the Shias of exaggerating the position of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and the Imams (a.s.). They claim that the Shias have invented merits for the Imams (a.s.). In their view, the Imams (a.s.) lacked any special characteristics and raising their status amounts to innovation as, they claim that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself was a mere mortal and lacked these merits – then how can the Imams (a.s.) possess such astonishing and amazing merits? As usual, they brand such titles for Ameerul Momineen Ali (a.s.) as Hand of Allah, Eye of Allah as polytheism (shirk). We will reference a debate between a leading scholar of Islam to prove these merits for Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and to establish beyond doubt that all Muslims acknowledge that the Imams (a.s.) with Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in particular, possess these extraordinary merits and excellences, and these are not hollow claims and fabrications of the Shias. 

Allamah Amini (r.a.) silences the critics 

Allamah Amini(r.a.), the great scholar and author of the invaluable body of research Al-Ghadeer, attended a gathering during his journeys wherein one of the Sunni scholars challenged him.  

Sunni scholar: You Shias exaggerate and elevate matters in the case of Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s. ). For example, you call him by the titles such as يَدُ الله (Hand of Allah) عَيْنُ الله (Eye of Allah), etc. To embellish a companion with such titles is not correct. 

Allamah Amini (r.a.) without missing a beat countered: If Umar b. Khattab had described Ali (a.s.) with these titles, what would you have to say? 

Sunni scholar: The saying of Umar would be sufficient proof for us. Allamah Amini (r.a.) in the very gathering asked for an authentic Sunni book.They brought him the book as requested. 

Allamah Amini (r.a.) turned to the page where this narration was written: A man, who was busy in circumambulating (tawaaf) the Holy Ka’bah, glanced at a woman in an undesirable manner. Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) saw him in this condition. He hit him with his hand and in this way sought to punish him. The man put his hand on his face and in a restless manner approached Umar b. Khattab with the intention of complaining against Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.). He narrated the entire incident to Umar. Umar replied: Certainly, the Eye of Allah saw and the Hand of Allah struck.  

(The metaphor here is: The Eyes of Ali never err in what they see because the Eyes of Ali (a.s.) are the eyes which have been taught with the belief of Allah and such an eye can make no mistake. The hand of Ali (a.s.) does not move except to earn Allah’s satisfaction.) 

When the Sunni scholar saw this tradition, he understood its implication and submitted to Allamah Amini (r.a.). 

Indeed, just as terms like رُوْحُ الله (Soul of Allah) Prophet Isa (a.s.) underscore an honourable relationship (with Allah) and not with the implication that Allah has a soul, Hand of Allah يَدُ الله and Eye of Allah عَيْنُ الله are not to be taken literally and only highlight the position of the person embellished with the title. 

References : 

Al-Nehaayah fi Ghareeb al-Hadith Wa al-Asar by Ibn Atheer, vol. 3 pg332 

Al-Musannaf by Abdul Razzaq San’aani, vol.10 pg 410 

Kanz al-Ummaal, vol. 5 pg 462 

Tarikh Madinah Dimishq, vol. 17 pg 42 

Jawaaher al-Matalib, vol. 1 pg199 

Jaame al-Ahaadith, vol.26, p. 29 

Jaame Moammir b. Raashid, vol. 1 pg 144 

Lisan al-Arab vol 13 pg 309 

Mudakhil fi al-loghat, Muhammad Abdul Wahid pg 49 

Al Ambaa al-Mustataab by Ibn Sayyed al-Kul, pg 62 as narrated from Sharh Ehqaaq al-Haqq, vol. 8 pg 665 and vol31 page 498 and Zakhaaer al-Uqbaa pg 82 Simt al-Nujum al-Awali fi Anbaa al-Awaail, vol.2 pg28 

Al-Riyaaz al-Nazarah, vol. 1 pg 247 

Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimishq vol 3 pg 66 

Al-Basaaer wa al-Zakhaaer, vol.1 pg 124 with slight variation

Extracted from : http://www.seratonline.com/2012/11/26/22883/who-is-the-hand-of-allah/