Did Imam Ali(a.s) give baya'h to Abu Bakr??If yes, when and how??

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 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.

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)

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 -

1) 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)

2) 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?

3) Additionally Omar, Abu Obeyda, Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf and other prominent companions were under the command of the 17 year old Usama Ibn Zaid.

4) Conspicuously, Imam Ali, the successor to the Prophet, was not included in the army.

5) The reasoning behind this could be that the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr and Umar to stay away, so that they would not usurp the caliphate.

6) However, the army did not depart until the issue of leadership was sorted, and in fact, Abu Bakr and Umar 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.

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.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.