Question No. 1:
The
historical records relate that Fatima al-Zahra (a.s.), the daughter of
the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), was angry with the two shaykhs (i.e. Abu Bakr
and `Umar) until she died. For this very reason she requested her husband, Ali ibn
Abi Talib (a.s.), to bury her in secret, permitting only a few of the
very close companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) such as Salman
al-Farsi and Abu Tharr to know of her burial. She also asked Imam Ali to
conceal her grave, as a form of protest.
The reasons for this protestation can be explained as follows:
1- `Umar's and his followers attacked the house of Imam Ali (a.s.) and set it on fire. This was done in order to force Imam Ali and his adherents to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.
2- Abu Bakr's and `Umar's refusal to give back to Fatima her inheritance (from her father).
3- Also because she considered Ali as the legal successor and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
Historians have narrated that, when `Umar ibn al-Khattab brought some wood in order to set Imam Ali's (a.s.) house on fire, he was told that Fatima, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), is inside the house too! He replied: LET IT BE!!! Then he kindled the fire and began to set fire to the house of the daughter of the Holy Prophet! "O son of Khattab! Are you really going to set our house on fire?" Fatima (a.s.) asked. `Umar replied, "Sure! Unless you agree on what the whole ummah had agreed upon." The daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "I do not remember a people that have done worse than yours... You have left the Holy Prophet's body lying among us, while, at the same time, you were busy in electing a caliph among yourselves, without consulting us or asking our opinion. You have plainly misappropriated our right."
Then `Umar and muhajirin proceeded in burning the house!
Al-Ya`qoobi, in his book, had recorded the following: "There were a bunch of people who attacked the house. They broke Ali's sword, and pulled out Ali with all the force they could muster and drove him toward Abu Bakr. Then Fatima cried `O Father! O the Apostle of Allah! see what we are facing because of the son of Ibn al-Khattab and Ibn Abi Quhafah(Abu Bakr) after your demise.' A warm argumentation occurred between Ali and those who were attending the meeting in the presence of Abu Bakr, `Umar, and Abu `Ubaydah. Ali tried to explain to the people his right to be the caliphate and his deserving of this position, but that didn't please `Umar who then began to threaten Ali if the latter refused to give allegiance to Abu Bakr, and said to Ali: "You have no choice but to give allegiance!" "And what if I refused to give allegiance?"
Ali asked. `Umar replied roughly, "I swear by Allah, the only god, that we shall behead you immediately!" Ali said, "Then you are going to kill whom he is the servant of Allah and the brother of the Apostle of Allah?" `Umar angrily answered, "It is right that you are the servant of Allah, but it is not true that you are the brother of the Apostle of Allah." After this dialogue, Imam Ali then left the meeting and walked toward the tomb of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
There, he began to cry and speak to the tomb saying, "Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me!"
Regarding the issue that Abu Bakr and `Umar had refused to give back to Fatima her inheritance, one can refer to various historical sources and find more details.
When Fatima (a.s.) was ill for the last time before her demise, Abu Bakr and `Umar visited her. She seized the opportunity and spoke to them, "I shall inform you a hadith of the Holy Prophet, but, shall you be honest enough and tell me whether you have heard it from the Holy Prophet or not?" "Sure we will!" They both answered.
Then Fatima (a.s.) said,"I administer an oath to you to say the truth.
Didn't you hear the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say that, "Fatima's satisfaction is my satisfaction, and if she becomes angry I will become angry too. He who seek Fatima's love, is as one who seeks my love; and he who satisfies Fatima, it is as if he has satisfied me. Whosoever makes Fatima angry shall make me angry too." Abu Bakr and `Umar said, "For sure we have heard this hadith from the Apostle of Allah." "Then I bear witness that you two have made me angry and did not satisfy me. When I meet the Prophet (s.a.w.), I shall complain to him against both of you." Fatima (a.s.) continued. Here, Abu Bakr said, "I seek refuge in Allah against His anger and your anger, Fatima!" Then he began to cry until his soul was about to come out of his body. Fatima (a.s.) continued, saying, "By Allah I shall curse you in every prayer I may perform!"
Here, our question is: What is your opinion in this regard, to the manner of the two Shaykhs toward the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?Wasn't it more humane for Abu Bakr and `Umar to satisfy the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), especially during and after loosing their (the Household's) Great Father, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)? Would it not have been more honorable if Abu Bakr and `Umar tried to solve the suspended issues between them and Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (a.s.) and at the same time they could have keep the respect of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) and guarded the benefit of the Islamic Ummah?
The reasons for this protestation can be explained as follows:
1- `Umar's and his followers attacked the house of Imam Ali (a.s.) and set it on fire. This was done in order to force Imam Ali and his adherents to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.
2- Abu Bakr's and `Umar's refusal to give back to Fatima her inheritance (from her father).
3- Also because she considered Ali as the legal successor and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
Historians have narrated that, when `Umar ibn al-Khattab brought some wood in order to set Imam Ali's (a.s.) house on fire, he was told that Fatima, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), is inside the house too! He replied: LET IT BE!!! Then he kindled the fire and began to set fire to the house of the daughter of the Holy Prophet! "O son of Khattab! Are you really going to set our house on fire?" Fatima (a.s.) asked. `Umar replied, "Sure! Unless you agree on what the whole ummah had agreed upon." The daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "I do not remember a people that have done worse than yours... You have left the Holy Prophet's body lying among us, while, at the same time, you were busy in electing a caliph among yourselves, without consulting us or asking our opinion. You have plainly misappropriated our right."
Then `Umar and muhajirin proceeded in burning the house!
Al-Ya`qoobi, in his book, had recorded the following: "There were a bunch of people who attacked the house. They broke Ali's sword, and pulled out Ali with all the force they could muster and drove him toward Abu Bakr. Then Fatima cried `O Father! O the Apostle of Allah! see what we are facing because of the son of Ibn al-Khattab and Ibn Abi Quhafah(Abu Bakr) after your demise.' A warm argumentation occurred between Ali and those who were attending the meeting in the presence of Abu Bakr, `Umar, and Abu `Ubaydah. Ali tried to explain to the people his right to be the caliphate and his deserving of this position, but that didn't please `Umar who then began to threaten Ali if the latter refused to give allegiance to Abu Bakr, and said to Ali: "You have no choice but to give allegiance!" "And what if I refused to give allegiance?"
Ali asked. `Umar replied roughly, "I swear by Allah, the only god, that we shall behead you immediately!" Ali said, "Then you are going to kill whom he is the servant of Allah and the brother of the Apostle of Allah?" `Umar angrily answered, "It is right that you are the servant of Allah, but it is not true that you are the brother of the Apostle of Allah." After this dialogue, Imam Ali then left the meeting and walked toward the tomb of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
There, he began to cry and speak to the tomb saying, "Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me!"
Regarding the issue that Abu Bakr and `Umar had refused to give back to Fatima her inheritance, one can refer to various historical sources and find more details.
When Fatima (a.s.) was ill for the last time before her demise, Abu Bakr and `Umar visited her. She seized the opportunity and spoke to them, "I shall inform you a hadith of the Holy Prophet, but, shall you be honest enough and tell me whether you have heard it from the Holy Prophet or not?" "Sure we will!" They both answered.
Then Fatima (a.s.) said,"I administer an oath to you to say the truth.
Didn't you hear the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say that, "Fatima's satisfaction is my satisfaction, and if she becomes angry I will become angry too. He who seek Fatima's love, is as one who seeks my love; and he who satisfies Fatima, it is as if he has satisfied me. Whosoever makes Fatima angry shall make me angry too." Abu Bakr and `Umar said, "For sure we have heard this hadith from the Apostle of Allah." "Then I bear witness that you two have made me angry and did not satisfy me. When I meet the Prophet (s.a.w.), I shall complain to him against both of you." Fatima (a.s.) continued. Here, Abu Bakr said, "I seek refuge in Allah against His anger and your anger, Fatima!" Then he began to cry until his soul was about to come out of his body. Fatima (a.s.) continued, saying, "By Allah I shall curse you in every prayer I may perform!"
Here, our question is: What is your opinion in this regard, to the manner of the two Shaykhs toward the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?Wasn't it more humane for Abu Bakr and `Umar to satisfy the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), especially during and after loosing their (the Household's) Great Father, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)? Would it not have been more honorable if Abu Bakr and `Umar tried to solve the suspended issues between them and Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (a.s.) and at the same time they could have keep the respect of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) and guarded the benefit of the Islamic Ummah?
Question No. 2 :
What
was the reason for the argument between the Muslims in the situation
when some companions were preventing the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) from
writing down his will?
1- The holy body of the Prophet (s.a.w.) was still lying on the bed when all those disputes occurred, concerning the matter of who shall succeed him after his demise. And if some of the companions had done what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had asked them (i.e. by bringing the ink and a pen) such catastrophes wouldn't have happened among the Islamic sects.
In a tradition narrated in the sahih of al-Bukhaari (vol.1, chapter no.83), it is said that the companions who were present during the moment of the Holy Prophet's death divided into two parties: a party called to bring the ink and pen to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), and the other party tried to prevent that. And if the second party had obeyed the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), would they therefore, need to fabricate a false character called Abdullah ibn Saba' and relate all the confusions to him, and free those companions who were the main players in this objection from any charge or responsibility? Is it possible for anyone who works in the field of researching and study history to be convinced with illogical interpretations of those events?
2- Without doubt the source of the Islamic differences returns to those who did the following:
a\ Preparing the appropriate ground and time for the Umayyad and the Abbaside dynasties. This is especially seen in the time of Mu`awiyah,who had destroyed the powers of Islam and distorted its facts.
b\ Excelling many of the faithful companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)from Medina, such as Abu Tharr al-Ghifaari whom the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had described him saying, "There isn't a person upon whom a tree's shadow fell, or a piece of ground hold, truer than Abu Tharr!" And on the other hand, they had returned all those whom the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had exiled or dismissed like al-Hakam ibn al-`Aas, Marwan ibnal-Hakam (to whom Othman had given his daughter as a wife) while it is not compatible with the Holy Prophet's (s.a.w.) tradition.
c\ All those who had participated in the assassination of Othman were people like Marwan ibn al-Hakam who killed Talha ibn al-Zubayr in the battle al-Jamal, and forged the seal of Othman that was supposed to be sent to the wali of Egypt, which of course was the main reason for the anger of the Egyptians against the caliph.
d\ Those who broke their allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s.), and began to rebel against him, especially in the battles of Siffin, al-Jamal, and al-Nahrawan. In fact, if Mu`awiyah, Talha, Zubayr, `Ayisha, and the chiefs of the Kharijites would not have incited their followers to participate in battles against Imam Ali (a.s.),then all the riots and arguments among the Muslims would not have occurred - leading them to such a miserable situation like that which they are living in nowadays. Nor would it have been possible for the deviators, the irreligious, or the hypocrites to lead the Islamic ummah to that catastrophic deviation.
e\ wasn't the assassination of Othman a plea to create two destroying battles in which many of the Prophet's companions were killed? Wasn't the battle of Nahrawan a logical result for the battle of Siffin? Can anyone deny that the active factors for inciting `Ayisha (the Prophet's wife) to participate in a battle in which she had indeed disgraced the respect of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), were the Umayyad and the Marwanian, and because of her many of the pious were martyred for their resistance against that gang who had gone astray?
f\ Wasn't that gang the same gang who fought against Ali (a.s.) and his household? Did not they deny the Aalul Bayt's virtues and fabricated false hadiths which insulted them and eulogized their enemies?
Some Sunni ulama and researchers blame Mu`awiyah for what the ummah had faced, and they considered his acts contradictory to the Islamic rules. At the same time, some of them used to eulogize Mu`awiyah and began to justify his acts, deeds, and deviations. They call him the writer of the revelation and the uncle of the believers, while there are many other companions who deserve this title more than him -people like Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr.
Didn't Mu`awiyah fight Imam Hasan (a.s.), the son of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.), and after he made a treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) he broke his oath and planned against Imam Hasan (a.s.)?
Didn't he kill all the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) such as Hijribn `Adiyy without any reason or accusation except for the reason that he loves Ali and adheres to his way? Didn't he order his gang to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit, in all states and provinces, which lasted until the period of `Umar ibn `Abdil `Aziz?
Wasn't Mu`awiyah the one whom the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had cursed?
Wasn't it right that Mu`awiyah had broken the terms of the peace treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) by appointing his son Yazid as his successor? Wasn't it Yazid who killed the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) (i.e. ImamHusayn), invaded Makkah, and assassinated its inhabitants? Was not Mu`awiyah his son's partner in all those crimes?
Why did `Ayesha (the Holy Prophet's wife) rebel against the successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), i.e. Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), while it is said in a clear hadith that whoever rebels against the Imam of his time, he shall be considered rebellious and irreligious?! Was not her rebellion against Amiral-Muminin in al-Jamal battle a frank contradiction to the Quranic texts, especially the well-known verse, "And stay in your houses..."[Holy QuranXXXIII:33]?
Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say, "O Ali! Whosoever fights against you, he is like that who fights against me; and whosoever makes peace with you, then he is making peace with me"? Now, according to this holy tradition, were not Mu`awiyah, `Ayesha, Talha, and al-Zubayr fighting against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) when they rebelled against Imam Ali(a.s.)?
Can we not discover the source of disputes by reading history and study its events? Those disputes which were the main reasons for the division of the Islamic ummah.
1- The holy body of the Prophet (s.a.w.) was still lying on the bed when all those disputes occurred, concerning the matter of who shall succeed him after his demise. And if some of the companions had done what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had asked them (i.e. by bringing the ink and a pen) such catastrophes wouldn't have happened among the Islamic sects.
In a tradition narrated in the sahih of al-Bukhaari (vol.1, chapter no.83), it is said that the companions who were present during the moment of the Holy Prophet's death divided into two parties: a party called to bring the ink and pen to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), and the other party tried to prevent that. And if the second party had obeyed the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), would they therefore, need to fabricate a false character called Abdullah ibn Saba' and relate all the confusions to him, and free those companions who were the main players in this objection from any charge or responsibility? Is it possible for anyone who works in the field of researching and study history to be convinced with illogical interpretations of those events?
2- Without doubt the source of the Islamic differences returns to those who did the following:
a\ Preparing the appropriate ground and time for the Umayyad and the Abbaside dynasties. This is especially seen in the time of Mu`awiyah,who had destroyed the powers of Islam and distorted its facts.
b\ Excelling many of the faithful companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)from Medina, such as Abu Tharr al-Ghifaari whom the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had described him saying, "There isn't a person upon whom a tree's shadow fell, or a piece of ground hold, truer than Abu Tharr!" And on the other hand, they had returned all those whom the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had exiled or dismissed like al-Hakam ibn al-`Aas, Marwan ibnal-Hakam (to whom Othman had given his daughter as a wife) while it is not compatible with the Holy Prophet's (s.a.w.) tradition.
c\ All those who had participated in the assassination of Othman were people like Marwan ibn al-Hakam who killed Talha ibn al-Zubayr in the battle al-Jamal, and forged the seal of Othman that was supposed to be sent to the wali of Egypt, which of course was the main reason for the anger of the Egyptians against the caliph.
d\ Those who broke their allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s.), and began to rebel against him, especially in the battles of Siffin, al-Jamal, and al-Nahrawan. In fact, if Mu`awiyah, Talha, Zubayr, `Ayisha, and the chiefs of the Kharijites would not have incited their followers to participate in battles against Imam Ali (a.s.),then all the riots and arguments among the Muslims would not have occurred - leading them to such a miserable situation like that which they are living in nowadays. Nor would it have been possible for the deviators, the irreligious, or the hypocrites to lead the Islamic ummah to that catastrophic deviation.
e\ wasn't the assassination of Othman a plea to create two destroying battles in which many of the Prophet's companions were killed? Wasn't the battle of Nahrawan a logical result for the battle of Siffin? Can anyone deny that the active factors for inciting `Ayisha (the Prophet's wife) to participate in a battle in which she had indeed disgraced the respect of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), were the Umayyad and the Marwanian, and because of her many of the pious were martyred for their resistance against that gang who had gone astray?
f\ Wasn't that gang the same gang who fought against Ali (a.s.) and his household? Did not they deny the Aalul Bayt's virtues and fabricated false hadiths which insulted them and eulogized their enemies?
Some Sunni ulama and researchers blame Mu`awiyah for what the ummah had faced, and they considered his acts contradictory to the Islamic rules. At the same time, some of them used to eulogize Mu`awiyah and began to justify his acts, deeds, and deviations. They call him the writer of the revelation and the uncle of the believers, while there are many other companions who deserve this title more than him -people like Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr.
Didn't Mu`awiyah fight Imam Hasan (a.s.), the son of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.), and after he made a treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) he broke his oath and planned against Imam Hasan (a.s.)?
Didn't he kill all the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) such as Hijribn `Adiyy without any reason or accusation except for the reason that he loves Ali and adheres to his way? Didn't he order his gang to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit, in all states and provinces, which lasted until the period of `Umar ibn `Abdil `Aziz?
Wasn't Mu`awiyah the one whom the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had cursed?
Wasn't it right that Mu`awiyah had broken the terms of the peace treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) by appointing his son Yazid as his successor? Wasn't it Yazid who killed the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) (i.e. ImamHusayn), invaded Makkah, and assassinated its inhabitants? Was not Mu`awiyah his son's partner in all those crimes?
Why did `Ayesha (the Holy Prophet's wife) rebel against the successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), i.e. Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), while it is said in a clear hadith that whoever rebels against the Imam of his time, he shall be considered rebellious and irreligious?! Was not her rebellion against Amiral-Muminin in al-Jamal battle a frank contradiction to the Quranic texts, especially the well-known verse, "And stay in your houses..."[Holy QuranXXXIII:33]?
Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say, "O Ali! Whosoever fights against you, he is like that who fights against me; and whosoever makes peace with you, then he is making peace with me"? Now, according to this holy tradition, were not Mu`awiyah, `Ayesha, Talha, and al-Zubayr fighting against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) when they rebelled against Imam Ali(a.s.)?
Can we not discover the source of disputes by reading history and study its events? Those disputes which were the main reasons for the division of the Islamic ummah.
Question No. 3 :
Without doubt, the main issue that caused the division of the Muslims into two sects, Sunni and Shi`a, is the different opinion of each sect towards Imamate and Caliphate after the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). Shi`a says that imamate, like any other religious issues, must be under the control of Islamic legislation, and that the succeeding and electing of an imam as a successor and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) must be according to Allah's commandment through His Prophet -since imamate is a continuation of the prophecy, especially in its major obligations. Imamate is the method by which a society is guided - it is the faithful custodian of the religion that holds its main duties to be guidance and upbringing.
The Sunnis, on the other hand, believe that imamate is a matter that has a close relationship with the ummah (nation). That is to say that it is upon the ummah to elect the appropriate leader, as it is their exclusive right to do so.
However, the Shi`ites have their own demonstrations, both rational and conclusive, to prove their belief about imamate, some of which are as follows:
1- It is impossible that the Holy Prophet had left the issue of imamate without specifying and appointing his successor. This is because the most critical issue after his demise would have been the rational and political leadership. Without a responsible leadership there shall be a great vacancy which may cause serious catastrophe to the Muslims, especially if we take into consideration the dangerous of internal divisions of the Islamic ummah - between the Ansars, the Muhajireen, and – the wicked factor inside the heart of the ummah - the hypocrites whose animal ways was to destroy Islam. This is in addition to outside factors, which were threatening the ummah at that time. Thus, it would not be reasonable for an apostolic leader to neglect this critical issue - letting it pass by without giving it any heed. Hence, Muhammad (s.a.w.), as the Seal of the Prophets and he who Allah had said about him: "Certainly an Apostle has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate, merciful"[Tawbah: 128], must fulfill this job very accurately.
If we check the texts of the Holy Quran we can discover that the Holy Legislator had paid great attention to the issue of writing a will, stating that a man must write his will so that his children and relatives may not suffer from confusion and unexpected conflicts, as the Quranic verse declares: "Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty (incumbent) upon those who guard (against evil)[Baqarah: 180]".
A prophetic tradition said, "Whosoever dies without writing a will, then certainly he shall die as a pagan". This tradition informs us that the Legislator (Allah) is very precise with a personal matter such as the writing of a will; so, how can such an important matter like "leadership" be neglected - leaving the Islamic ummah to face unperceived destiny?!
Now, let us suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) didn't refer to this serious issue, wasn't it his companions' duty to ask him about the matter of succession?
Therefore, in conclusion, because of the circumstances of the Islamic ummah at that time, there was need to give special care to such an issue.
2- According to what has been said, it is normal that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) stands positively beside this sensitive case and declares the main points of the succession after him. Thus, we cannot possibly suppose but one of two probabilities: (1) either the Prophet (s.a.w.) has to politically bring up the Muhajireen and Ansar according to the rules of a shura (counsel) - when they want to elect a leader (whether spiritual or political). After showing them the bases of how to practice such an act, for example, appointing a so-called committee consisting of members from both parties (i.e. Muhajireen and Ansar), or it was upon him to appoint a certain person who is capable to hold this heavy responsibility.
It is clear that history didn't convey to us any trace of the first probability, neither through the Holy Prophet's (s.a.w.) attitudes, nor in the policy of the caliphs after him. Therefore, the second probability seems to be more logical.
3- A quick and brief look at the series of events that the Prophet's mission has undergone, from the first moments of the mission until the last seconds when his holy soul was leaving this world, we come to this conclusion that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had referred in many occasions to Imam Ali's (a.s.) virtues, great status, and other unique characteristics, showing that he is the best among the Prophet's companions.
In addition to this, Ali was brought up by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself; he was the first male who believed in the Prophet's mission and the only Muslim who never bowed to an idol before. Moreover, Imam Ali spent most of his life accompanying the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
Imam Ali participated in almost all the battles that occurred between the Muslims and the polytheists, and he was sipping on the pure cup of knowledge directly from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). All Imam Ali's behaviour, piety, worshipping, and etc... were indifferent to those of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.). Most of the heroes from among the polytheist were slaughtered by Imam Ali's sword in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq,and other famous wars. There was only one battle that Imam Ali did not participate in; it was the battle of Tabook, when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself ordered him to stay in Madinah and protect it from any unexpected attack. Before the battle of Khaybar, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, describing Imam Ali,: "I am going to give the banner of this battle to a man who loves Allah and His Apostle, and Allah and His Apostle love him too. A man who is combative."[1]
And when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) ordered him to stay in Medina, he said to him,"You have the same rank, with me, that Aaron had with his brother Moses, except that there is not any prophet after me."[2]
The Holy Prophet also had said, "I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate"[3], and "Ali is the best of judges among you."[4]
He also said,
"Ali moves with Quran, and Quran moves with Ali; they won't separate from each other until they both arrive to me near the Pool"[5], and "Ali moves with truth and truth turns with him wherever he turns,"[6], and "No one loves Ali save a believer, and no one hates him save a hypocrite"[7] and other traditions which have been agreed upon by all Muslims and were mentioned in their sihah.
A tradition was narrated for the benefit of Imam Ali (a.s.), his wife (Fatima Zahra (a.s.)) and their two beloved sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (a.s.), that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had said, "O my Lord! These are the members of my family." and upon this Allah sent down verses to him saying, "Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying" (Ahzab:33); and "But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, they say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."
(Aal `Imran: 61)
Allah also says, "Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives" (Shuraa: 23), and "And they give food out of love for Him to the Poor and the orphan and the captive." (al-Dahr: 8) Another verse mentioned about them is: "Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow" (Ma'idah: 55),and "... and that the retaining ear might retain it" (Haqqah: 12), and many other holy verses.
All these Quranic verses and in addition to prophetic traditions are referring to the preference of Imam Ali over others as a leader, Imam and caliph after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). Rather, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had openly declared this by the command of Allah Who ordered him saying, "O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people" (Ma'idah: 67). This verse descended on the Day of Ghadeer, during his (s.a.w.) return from Makkah. When he delivered this verse, he ordered the pilgrims to perform the prayers. After that, he delivered an oration wherein he said, "Am I not the Master of you all?", the whole crowd answered: Sure, O Apostle of Allah. He continued, "Then, whosoever I am his master, Ali is his master. O Allah! Be friend to whom he becomes his friend, and be enemy to whom he becomes his enemy..."[14]
Even, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), in the last moments of his life he wanted to put his speech in a written legal form and to call the companions to witness this action; thus, he called the companions - and `Umar ibn al-Khattab was among them. When the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) began his speech, `Umar immediately got the point and retained the aim of the Prophet's call, so he (i.e. `Umar) said : It is obvious that pain and illness have overcame the Prophet
(s.a.w.)!!! Other narrators declared that `Umar rather said, "It is clear that the Prophet is hallucinating. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us"!!!
The Sunnis, on the other hand, believe that imamate is a matter that has a close relationship with the ummah (nation). That is to say that it is upon the ummah to elect the appropriate leader, as it is their exclusive right to do so.
However, the Shi`ites have their own demonstrations, both rational and conclusive, to prove their belief about imamate, some of which are as follows:
1- It is impossible that the Holy Prophet had left the issue of imamate without specifying and appointing his successor. This is because the most critical issue after his demise would have been the rational and political leadership. Without a responsible leadership there shall be a great vacancy which may cause serious catastrophe to the Muslims, especially if we take into consideration the dangerous of internal divisions of the Islamic ummah - between the Ansars, the Muhajireen, and – the wicked factor inside the heart of the ummah - the hypocrites whose animal ways was to destroy Islam. This is in addition to outside factors, which were threatening the ummah at that time. Thus, it would not be reasonable for an apostolic leader to neglect this critical issue - letting it pass by without giving it any heed. Hence, Muhammad (s.a.w.), as the Seal of the Prophets and he who Allah had said about him: "Certainly an Apostle has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate, merciful"[Tawbah: 128], must fulfill this job very accurately.
If we check the texts of the Holy Quran we can discover that the Holy Legislator had paid great attention to the issue of writing a will, stating that a man must write his will so that his children and relatives may not suffer from confusion and unexpected conflicts, as the Quranic verse declares: "Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty (incumbent) upon those who guard (against evil)[Baqarah: 180]".
A prophetic tradition said, "Whosoever dies without writing a will, then certainly he shall die as a pagan". This tradition informs us that the Legislator (Allah) is very precise with a personal matter such as the writing of a will; so, how can such an important matter like "leadership" be neglected - leaving the Islamic ummah to face unperceived destiny?!
Now, let us suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) didn't refer to this serious issue, wasn't it his companions' duty to ask him about the matter of succession?
Therefore, in conclusion, because of the circumstances of the Islamic ummah at that time, there was need to give special care to such an issue.
2- According to what has been said, it is normal that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) stands positively beside this sensitive case and declares the main points of the succession after him. Thus, we cannot possibly suppose but one of two probabilities: (1) either the Prophet (s.a.w.) has to politically bring up the Muhajireen and Ansar according to the rules of a shura (counsel) - when they want to elect a leader (whether spiritual or political). After showing them the bases of how to practice such an act, for example, appointing a so-called committee consisting of members from both parties (i.e. Muhajireen and Ansar), or it was upon him to appoint a certain person who is capable to hold this heavy responsibility.
It is clear that history didn't convey to us any trace of the first probability, neither through the Holy Prophet's (s.a.w.) attitudes, nor in the policy of the caliphs after him. Therefore, the second probability seems to be more logical.
3- A quick and brief look at the series of events that the Prophet's mission has undergone, from the first moments of the mission until the last seconds when his holy soul was leaving this world, we come to this conclusion that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had referred in many occasions to Imam Ali's (a.s.) virtues, great status, and other unique characteristics, showing that he is the best among the Prophet's companions.
In addition to this, Ali was brought up by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself; he was the first male who believed in the Prophet's mission and the only Muslim who never bowed to an idol before. Moreover, Imam Ali spent most of his life accompanying the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
Imam Ali participated in almost all the battles that occurred between the Muslims and the polytheists, and he was sipping on the pure cup of knowledge directly from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). All Imam Ali's behaviour, piety, worshipping, and etc... were indifferent to those of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.). Most of the heroes from among the polytheist were slaughtered by Imam Ali's sword in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq,and other famous wars. There was only one battle that Imam Ali did not participate in; it was the battle of Tabook, when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself ordered him to stay in Madinah and protect it from any unexpected attack. Before the battle of Khaybar, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, describing Imam Ali,: "I am going to give the banner of this battle to a man who loves Allah and His Apostle, and Allah and His Apostle love him too. A man who is combative."[1]
And when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) ordered him to stay in Medina, he said to him,"You have the same rank, with me, that Aaron had with his brother Moses, except that there is not any prophet after me."[2]
The Holy Prophet also had said, "I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate"[3], and "Ali is the best of judges among you."[4]
He also said,
"Ali moves with Quran, and Quran moves with Ali; they won't separate from each other until they both arrive to me near the Pool"[5], and "Ali moves with truth and truth turns with him wherever he turns,"[6], and "No one loves Ali save a believer, and no one hates him save a hypocrite"[7] and other traditions which have been agreed upon by all Muslims and were mentioned in their sihah.
A tradition was narrated for the benefit of Imam Ali (a.s.), his wife (Fatima Zahra (a.s.)) and their two beloved sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (a.s.), that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had said, "O my Lord! These are the members of my family." and upon this Allah sent down verses to him saying, "Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying" (Ahzab:33); and "But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, they say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."
(Aal `Imran: 61)
Allah also says, "Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives" (Shuraa: 23), and "And they give food out of love for Him to the Poor and the orphan and the captive." (al-Dahr: 8) Another verse mentioned about them is: "Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow" (Ma'idah: 55),and "... and that the retaining ear might retain it" (Haqqah: 12), and many other holy verses.
All these Quranic verses and in addition to prophetic traditions are referring to the preference of Imam Ali over others as a leader, Imam and caliph after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). Rather, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had openly declared this by the command of Allah Who ordered him saying, "O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people" (Ma'idah: 67). This verse descended on the Day of Ghadeer, during his (s.a.w.) return from Makkah. When he delivered this verse, he ordered the pilgrims to perform the prayers. After that, he delivered an oration wherein he said, "Am I not the Master of you all?", the whole crowd answered: Sure, O Apostle of Allah. He continued, "Then, whosoever I am his master, Ali is his master. O Allah! Be friend to whom he becomes his friend, and be enemy to whom he becomes his enemy..."[14]
Even, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), in the last moments of his life he wanted to put his speech in a written legal form and to call the companions to witness this action; thus, he called the companions - and `Umar ibn al-Khattab was among them. When the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) began his speech, `Umar immediately got the point and retained the aim of the Prophet's call, so he (i.e. `Umar) said : It is obvious that pain and illness have overcame the Prophet
(s.a.w.)!!! Other narrators declared that `Umar rather said, "It is clear that the Prophet is hallucinating. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us"!!!
The companions were then divided into two groups, one accepted the suggestion of `Umar, and the other protested against his rough words and manner. And when they began to argue loudly, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said to them, "Go away and leave me alone!"
In a dialogue that occurred between `Umar and Ibn Abbas, `Umar said, "The Apostle of Allah saved a serious sentence and he wanted to say it in that gathering during his last illness. A sentence that cannot be refuted by any pretension or excuse. He wanted Ali to sit on his throne after him. He was about to mention Ali's name, but I stood between him and that. "This same dialogue has also been mentioned in (Sharhu Nahjil Balagha) by Ibn Abi al-Hadeed, vol. III, p.141, published by Dar al-Fikr, and in vol. III, p.764 of Maktabat al-Hayat's publication.
4- Now, because the legal caliphate was the right of Ali, he and the rest of Bani Hashim, and many other companions refused to give allegiance to Abu Bakr after the gathering of Saqifah.
However, Imam Ali showed in many occasions, in the presence of many companions, his objection (to this situation) and that it is his right, prior to anyone else, to have the caliphateship in his hand.
5- Some Muslims may say that it is not logical to say that the Prophet's companions, who are considered the elite of the Muslims, have rebelled against his (the Prophet's) will to give the caliphate to Imam Ali. The Shi`ites' answer to this suspicion, is that by studying the biographies of some of the Prophet's companions we can discover that many of them have considering themselves as the most appropriate persons to be the Prophet's successor; and many times and on many occasions they were opposed the Prophet's suggestions or orders - especially those suggestions and orders that concerned the relationship of public affairs and policy, wars, administrations, and so on. This was clear even during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and became more clear after his demise. They were giving themselves the right to discuss the Prophet's commands and to argue against any of his proposals. `Umar ibn al-Khattab was the leader of such a group. It was he who protested against the Prophet's acceptance of the treaty between the Muslims andthe polytheists of Makkah, known as "Sulh al-Hudaybiyah". `Umar also was the one who refuted the Holy Prophet's legislation called "mut`ah of Hajj". Other companions refused to join the army of Usamah ibn Zayd whom was prepared by the command of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself. He had appointed Usamah ibn Zayd to be a commander in a battle against the Romans - exactly few days before his demise.
`Umar also prevented the attendants from bringing the paper and ink which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had requested to write some important text.
Here, our question is: Did not all these rational and intellectual reasons and proofs indicate on the fact that the Holy Prophet had indeed appointed Ali to be his successor and the caliph after him?
Some of the Prophet's companions were planning, even during his lifetime, to conceal this important issue; and, thus, transferring the caliphate from the House of Bani Hashim to some men of Quraysh, for legal and may be sometimes illegal purposes - God knows the truth. If so, then why does some Islamic sects, other than the Shi`a, blame the Shi`ites for adhering to the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?
In a dialogue that occurred between `Umar and Ibn Abbas, `Umar said, "The Apostle of Allah saved a serious sentence and he wanted to say it in that gathering during his last illness. A sentence that cannot be refuted by any pretension or excuse. He wanted Ali to sit on his throne after him. He was about to mention Ali's name, but I stood between him and that. "This same dialogue has also been mentioned in (Sharhu Nahjil Balagha) by Ibn Abi al-Hadeed, vol. III, p.141, published by Dar al-Fikr, and in vol. III, p.764 of Maktabat al-Hayat's publication.
4- Now, because the legal caliphate was the right of Ali, he and the rest of Bani Hashim, and many other companions refused to give allegiance to Abu Bakr after the gathering of Saqifah.
However, Imam Ali showed in many occasions, in the presence of many companions, his objection (to this situation) and that it is his right, prior to anyone else, to have the caliphateship in his hand.
5- Some Muslims may say that it is not logical to say that the Prophet's companions, who are considered the elite of the Muslims, have rebelled against his (the Prophet's) will to give the caliphate to Imam Ali. The Shi`ites' answer to this suspicion, is that by studying the biographies of some of the Prophet's companions we can discover that many of them have considering themselves as the most appropriate persons to be the Prophet's successor; and many times and on many occasions they were opposed the Prophet's suggestions or orders - especially those suggestions and orders that concerned the relationship of public affairs and policy, wars, administrations, and so on. This was clear even during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and became more clear after his demise. They were giving themselves the right to discuss the Prophet's commands and to argue against any of his proposals. `Umar ibn al-Khattab was the leader of such a group. It was he who protested against the Prophet's acceptance of the treaty between the Muslims andthe polytheists of Makkah, known as "Sulh al-Hudaybiyah". `Umar also was the one who refuted the Holy Prophet's legislation called "mut`ah of Hajj". Other companions refused to join the army of Usamah ibn Zayd whom was prepared by the command of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself. He had appointed Usamah ibn Zayd to be a commander in a battle against the Romans - exactly few days before his demise.
`Umar also prevented the attendants from bringing the paper and ink which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had requested to write some important text.
Here, our question is: Did not all these rational and intellectual reasons and proofs indicate on the fact that the Holy Prophet had indeed appointed Ali to be his successor and the caliph after him?
Some of the Prophet's companions were planning, even during his lifetime, to conceal this important issue; and, thus, transferring the caliphate from the House of Bani Hashim to some men of Quraysh, for legal and may be sometimes illegal purposes - God knows the truth. If so, then why does some Islamic sects, other than the Shi`a, blame the Shi`ites for adhering to the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?
Question No. 4 :
Can anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and saw him be considered a just sahaabi?
There is no doubt that anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)is considered a companion. The companions were very fortunate because they have seen the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and benefited from his holy existence and spirituality. But, at the same time, we have to say that this accompaniment does not protect the companion from falling in the wrong, and it cannot be anyone's ticket to enter paradise. Rather, true belief in Allah, good deeds, and adhering to the Islamic shari`ah is the real security. This is clear from the holy verses, especially the surah of al-`Asr.We don't have in our hand any hadith or narration conferring that
anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) is infallible or just, or even pious. On the contrary, we have many verses declaring that some of the Holy Prophet's companions were hypocrite and they remained on their hypocrisy until they died.
Thus, the opinion which says that all the Holy Prophet's companions are just, and that they must be obeyed is absolutely incorrect, rather it contradicts the Holy Quran. How can we regard all the companions to be just and that they must be followed, while some of them have accused the Holy Prophet's wife of having an illegal relationship?! This event has been mentioned in the Holy Quran in the surah of al-Noor, verse 11. Some other companions were drunkards, like Qudamah ibn Madh`oon who had been punished for this act. Walid ibn `Uqbah was also a companion about whom the following Quranic verse had been revealed: "O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance" [al-Hujurat:6].
Other companions had committed adultery!(See: Usd al-Ghaabah, vol. 4&5, where you can get more information about their names and shameful biography in details).
There is no doubt that anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)is considered a companion. The companions were very fortunate because they have seen the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and benefited from his holy existence and spirituality. But, at the same time, we have to say that this accompaniment does not protect the companion from falling in the wrong, and it cannot be anyone's ticket to enter paradise. Rather, true belief in Allah, good deeds, and adhering to the Islamic shari`ah is the real security. This is clear from the holy verses, especially the surah of al-`Asr.We don't have in our hand any hadith or narration conferring that
anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) is infallible or just, or even pious. On the contrary, we have many verses declaring that some of the Holy Prophet's companions were hypocrite and they remained on their hypocrisy until they died.
Thus, the opinion which says that all the Holy Prophet's companions are just, and that they must be obeyed is absolutely incorrect, rather it contradicts the Holy Quran. How can we regard all the companions to be just and that they must be followed, while some of them have accused the Holy Prophet's wife of having an illegal relationship?! This event has been mentioned in the Holy Quran in the surah of al-Noor, verse 11. Some other companions were drunkards, like Qudamah ibn Madh`oon who had been punished for this act. Walid ibn `Uqbah was also a companion about whom the following Quranic verse had been revealed: "O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance" [al-Hujurat:6].
Other companions had committed adultery!(See: Usd al-Ghaabah, vol. 4&5, where you can get more information about their names and shameful biography in details).
How can we adhere to any companion, while at the same time when we find outright contradictions between what they say and what they do. This is beside the mental, dogmatic, and political disputes that had happened between the companions themselves? When Abdul Rahman ibn `Awf said to Imam Ali (a.s.) in the gathering when `Umar was dying: I swear allegiance to you according to the Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, and the way of life of the two caliphs.
Imam Ali (a.s.) said, "No! I accept your allegiance according to the Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, and my opinion! "This means that Imam Ali (a.s.) didn't agree to follow the way of life of the two caliphs.
Thus, we can ask that:
1- Does investigating the companions' biographies and way of life contradict the Holy Quran? The Holy Quran itself discloses many facts and unveils many characters, the following verses are examples: (1) "The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Apostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise"; (2)
"And of the dwellers of the desert are those who take what they spend to be a fine, and what they wait (the befalling of) calamities to you; on them (will be) the evil calamity"; (3) "And of the dwellers of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and take what they spend to be (means of) the nearness of Allah"; (4)
"And as for the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars... and from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina(also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice, then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement" [Tawbah:98-100].
In other Quranic verses we see that the names of some of the companions have been mentioned in the Holy Quran. In these verses they have been considered irreligious, like Walid ibn `Uqbah about whom the Holy Quran has said, "O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest
you harm a people in ignorance" [al-Hujurat:6]. The narrations of Sunni sources have disclosed the name of this person whom the Quran is making reference too. A narration had been mentioned in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (the book of du`as) declares the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had said,"I am your missing baby near the pool. There, some men will be lifted unto me, but when I come down to lift them up, they will be scattered around me! At that time, I will say, `O my Lord! these are my companions!' He will answer me saying, `You don't know what they did after you!'
Many traditions have been narrated in The Sunni sources (Sahih al-Bukhari that are having such meaning - vol.8, pp.13,504,505.)
It is incorrect to look at all the companions with one eye; this is in fact opposite of the Holy Quran. The truth is that many of the Holy Prophet's companions were pious and true believers, while there were some who were known for their false belief and hypocrisy. History shows us many examples of such individuals.
2- Is it correct to close our eyes and ears, saying that all the companions were pious, good, and that all of their deeds were credible even if they had some deeds which were opposed to the Islamic law (sharia)?
3- Is it right to justify their evil deeds, saying that they werepracticing ijtihad, and that their wrong doings did not happen intentionally?
If they were free to practise ijtihad, why can't we also practise ijtihad? Why is it that some say: You are kafir (an infidel)! if you practise ijtihad?Why do you consider all those who criticizes the companions according to the Holy Quran, kafirs? One of the Hanafi scholars, Ibn `Abdeen, had made a nice statement, saying, "Considering others as kafirs without evidences is the behaviour of the pagans not the mujtahids!"
4- Can we call this behaviour of yours but extremity and exaggeration? How could you accuse others of exaggeration and forget to criticize yourselves? We haven't any evidence that the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) were infallible, but when you talk about their deeds you talk exaggeratedly, and even at times, you consider the companions even better than an infallible or the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself. However, when the Shi`ites speak about their Imams as infallible imam as, you accuse them of fabrication and lies! Many Sunni scholars have dared to say that many Quranic verses were revealed according to `Umar's will.Yes, these words have been written by a Sunni scholar under the title"Muwafaqaat `Umar".
The Sunni people perform the prayers known as "taraweeh" in Ramadhan in congregation, while it is an innovation fabricated by `Umar.Was such a prayer mention in the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?When the Shi`ites practise their deeds according to Imam Sadiq's sayings and narrations, the Sunni people say that
the Shi`ites refer their deeds to their Imams because they are ma`soom, while they (the Sunnis)give a better rank to a companion than the rank of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.). This clearly discloses their contradictions.
It is better for those who accuse the Shi`ites of untrue performance to look to their beliefs and sayings?
What a beautiful saying that Imam Ali (a.s.) said: "The lover of a thing is blind and deaf."
What are the basis upon which Mu`wiyah depended to practise ijtihad -eventually causing him to wage a savage war against Imam Ali (a.s.); the war which caused many eminent companions to die?
It is not logical to interpret some Quranic verses like, "You are best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men," or "And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation," etc..., that they are describing the companions and their being just and equal. This is because it is clear that these verses and others are talking about the whole ummah not certain individuals. For example, when it is says that the inhabitants of the so city are better than others; the whole inhabitants of that city are included in this expression - generally speaking, not necessarily meaning each of them. Anyhow, a person may be pious in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)and it is possible that he changes his behaviours after his (the Prophet's)demise. This is exactly what happened and what the narrations have told.
Imam Ali (a.s.) said, "No! I accept your allegiance according to the Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, and my opinion! "This means that Imam Ali (a.s.) didn't agree to follow the way of life of the two caliphs.
Thus, we can ask that:
1- Does investigating the companions' biographies and way of life contradict the Holy Quran? The Holy Quran itself discloses many facts and unveils many characters, the following verses are examples: (1) "The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Apostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise"; (2)
"And of the dwellers of the desert are those who take what they spend to be a fine, and what they wait (the befalling of) calamities to you; on them (will be) the evil calamity"; (3) "And of the dwellers of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and take what they spend to be (means of) the nearness of Allah"; (4)
"And as for the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars... and from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina(also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice, then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement" [Tawbah:98-100].
In other Quranic verses we see that the names of some of the companions have been mentioned in the Holy Quran. In these verses they have been considered irreligious, like Walid ibn `Uqbah about whom the Holy Quran has said, "O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest
you harm a people in ignorance" [al-Hujurat:6]. The narrations of Sunni sources have disclosed the name of this person whom the Quran is making reference too. A narration had been mentioned in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (the book of du`as) declares the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had said,"I am your missing baby near the pool. There, some men will be lifted unto me, but when I come down to lift them up, they will be scattered around me! At that time, I will say, `O my Lord! these are my companions!' He will answer me saying, `You don't know what they did after you!'
Many traditions have been narrated in The Sunni sources (Sahih al-Bukhari that are having such meaning - vol.8, pp.13,504,505.)
It is incorrect to look at all the companions with one eye; this is in fact opposite of the Holy Quran. The truth is that many of the Holy Prophet's companions were pious and true believers, while there were some who were known for their false belief and hypocrisy. History shows us many examples of such individuals.
2- Is it correct to close our eyes and ears, saying that all the companions were pious, good, and that all of their deeds were credible even if they had some deeds which were opposed to the Islamic law (sharia)?
3- Is it right to justify their evil deeds, saying that they werepracticing ijtihad, and that their wrong doings did not happen intentionally?
If they were free to practise ijtihad, why can't we also practise ijtihad? Why is it that some say: You are kafir (an infidel)! if you practise ijtihad?Why do you consider all those who criticizes the companions according to the Holy Quran, kafirs? One of the Hanafi scholars, Ibn `Abdeen, had made a nice statement, saying, "Considering others as kafirs without evidences is the behaviour of the pagans not the mujtahids!"
4- Can we call this behaviour of yours but extremity and exaggeration? How could you accuse others of exaggeration and forget to criticize yourselves? We haven't any evidence that the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) were infallible, but when you talk about their deeds you talk exaggeratedly, and even at times, you consider the companions even better than an infallible or the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself. However, when the Shi`ites speak about their Imams as infallible imam as, you accuse them of fabrication and lies! Many Sunni scholars have dared to say that many Quranic verses were revealed according to `Umar's will.Yes, these words have been written by a Sunni scholar under the title"Muwafaqaat `Umar".
The Sunni people perform the prayers known as "taraweeh" in Ramadhan in congregation, while it is an innovation fabricated by `Umar.Was such a prayer mention in the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?When the Shi`ites practise their deeds according to Imam Sadiq's sayings and narrations, the Sunni people say that
the Shi`ites refer their deeds to their Imams because they are ma`soom, while they (the Sunnis)give a better rank to a companion than the rank of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.). This clearly discloses their contradictions.
It is better for those who accuse the Shi`ites of untrue performance to look to their beliefs and sayings?
What a beautiful saying that Imam Ali (a.s.) said: "The lover of a thing is blind and deaf."
What are the basis upon which Mu`wiyah depended to practise ijtihad -eventually causing him to wage a savage war against Imam Ali (a.s.); the war which caused many eminent companions to die?
It is not logical to interpret some Quranic verses like, "You are best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men," or "And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation," etc..., that they are describing the companions and their being just and equal. This is because it is clear that these verses and others are talking about the whole ummah not certain individuals. For example, when it is says that the inhabitants of the so city are better than others; the whole inhabitants of that city are included in this expression - generally speaking, not necessarily meaning each of them. Anyhow, a person may be pious in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)and it is possible that he changes his behaviours after his (the Prophet's)demise. This is exactly what happened and what the narrations have told.
Question No. 5 :
What are the references and sources from which we can identify the Holy Prophet's sunnah?
Allah, the Exalted, said, "... and whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back..."
All the Islamic sects agree on the prophetic sunnah - no one has doubt in it. The dispute is in regard to the sources of this prophetic sunnah. Both the Shi`ites and Sunnis have narrated the well-known tradition in their books in which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "I am leaving with you two weighty things (Thaqalayn); if you adhered to them, you won't be misguided at all. They are the Book of Allah and my family. They won't separate from each other until they arrive to me near the Pool."
All sects have agreed on the chain of this hadith. Ibn Hajar, a Sunni narrator, has said, "This tradition has been conveyed by more than 20 companions. It is also mentioned in the sahih of Muslim, sunan of al-Daarimi, musnad Ahmad, and tens of sources.
This clearly makes indicates that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had shown us how to derive his sunnah and from which sources. There is no doubt that the main source of the Prophet's (s.a.w.) sunnah is the Aalul Bayt (a.s.). However, at the same time we see that the Sunni ulama do not paying any attention to this sahih hadith. Why? Is the Prophet's hadith not sufficient.
2- Why do they follow the other tradition which says,"...the Book of Allah and my sunnah"? Now, suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) did word this tradition in this fashion, does it differ with the first one? Ibn Hajar had said that the Islamic ummah needs the Holy Quran, the sunnah, and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). If we examine the text we shall be quite sure that it confirms the infallibility of the Imams and that they are unique intellectuals and political sources. Hence, we have no other choice but to adhere to them because they are the firmest link handle between us, Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.).
The Sunnis believe that the traditions and the sunnah have not been recorded for about a century, i.e. from the caliphate of `Umar till the caliphate of `Umar ibn Abdil Aziz (the Umayyad caliph). Many traditions have been burned in the lifetime of Abu Bakr and Umar.
3- Can we expect any remaining of the traditions and sunnah after a century of prohibition? Even if we found some of them, we should ask how much and to what degree of accuracy were they recorded? Do we dare say that all the traditions existing in the Sunni sources remained safe from abrogation? And, if those traditions were all accredited and reliable, then why did Muslim choose only six thousand hadith from about three hundred thousand? Or why did al-Bukhari choose only four thousand hadiths from more than six hundred thousand - and left the rest?
If all the traditions that are talking about the Prophet (s.a.w.) and his sunnah were reliable and trustworthy then why do the Sunnis practice ijtihad, qiyas and istihsan? Wasn't Abu Hanifa, and other scholars practising qiyas and istihsan in order to derive certain rules of the Islamic law (shar`)? Doesn't this prove that the traditions do not contain religious rules? Even those which contain some religious rule, are not reliable. We read in the book titled "Kitaab al-Mawdhou`aat" (vol.1, Beirut edition, the last lines of the chapter called `fadhaa`il al-Khulafa'') that the two great and eminent scholars, i.e. al-Soyouti and Ibn al-Jawzi, had declared that most of the known narrations which eulogize the caliphs are fabricated and not trustworthy!
4- Prohibiting the writing of the traditions led the enemies of Ahlul Bayt(a.s.) to omit all these traditions containing the virtues of the Prophet's House, and in their place they fabricated thousands of traditions that eulogize their enemies! (See the first volume of tafseer al-Fakhral-Raazi?a great Sunni scholars when interpreting the phrase "BismAllah"; he says: The traditionalists have concealed many traditions that related the virtues of Imam Ali (a.s.) because they feared Mu`awiyah!!!
5- If the Sunnis are true when they pretend that the Muslims have to follow the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (a.s.), then why do they refuse to narrate the traditions that eulogize the Holy Imams (a.s.), especially ImamSadiq (a.s.). This is so, while in the same time they narrate many traditions about the Khawarij and Nawasib. For example, Bukhaari narrated in his sahih, from `Imran ibn Hittan (a khariji).
6- Why do Sunnis narrate most of the traditions through the chain of Abu Hurayra? It is said that the number of traditions narrated by Abu Hurayraare about 5,374, while Abu Hurayra didn't accompany the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) except in the last two years of the Holy Prophet's lifetime – after accepting Islam.
As for Imam Ali (a.s.), who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) since his childhood until the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) died between his hands, there are only 537 traditions narrated from him (a.s.) in Sunnis books. This is so, while Imam Ali (a.s.) delivered the most remarkable orations and sayings especially during the time which he ruled over the Muslim ummah, which lasted less than five years.
And in this five years he explained to the Muslims every minute rule and regulation in the Islamic shari`ah and the prophetic sunnah.
None of these orations and sayings has been mentioned in the sahih of al-Baukhari or Muslim.
7- Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say, "I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate"; "I am the house of wisdom and Ali is its gate";
"Ali is with truth and truth is with Ali", etc... Are these not clear proofs that show the high rank of Imam Ali (a.s.)?
8- Weren't Ali (a.s.), Fatima (a.s.) and their sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn(a.s.) the people about whom the verse of "tatheer" and "mubahala" had been revealed?
9- What is the meaning of "loving the Household of the Holy Prophet(a.s.)"? Their love can be verified by two means, first: speaking and mentioning their virtues in gatherings of those with true faith, and second: adhering to them by word and act, as the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had said, "if you adhered to them, you won't be misguided at all." Can one love the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) only by words instead of heart?
10- Is it logical that the Muslims follow any individual, even if that individual was like Mu`awiyah who was known for his enmity against Aalul Bayt (a.s.)? Can't we consider this following as an open enmity against the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) and the Holy Quran?
The Holy Quran had clearly mentioned that loving the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) is the cause of receiving a great reward; thus, is it right to follow any fabricated hadith or to call the Muslims to follow individuals like Mu`awiyah who is not infallible. He is the one who had committed lots of mistakes and crimes against Islam and its regulations. The most wicked among Mu`awiyah's deeds is his warfare against Imam Ali (a.s.) and the wicked ritual - enacted by him - to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit in every part of the Islamic country - this lasted until the ruling time of the Umayyad caliph `Umar ibn Abdil `Aziz. It is worthy to mention that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had already said, "Whosoever enacts a wicked ritual, then the penalty of enacting such a ritual shall be on him and those who follow this ritual."
Allah, the Exalted, said, "... and whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back..."
All the Islamic sects agree on the prophetic sunnah - no one has doubt in it. The dispute is in regard to the sources of this prophetic sunnah. Both the Shi`ites and Sunnis have narrated the well-known tradition in their books in which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "I am leaving with you two weighty things (Thaqalayn); if you adhered to them, you won't be misguided at all. They are the Book of Allah and my family. They won't separate from each other until they arrive to me near the Pool."
All sects have agreed on the chain of this hadith. Ibn Hajar, a Sunni narrator, has said, "This tradition has been conveyed by more than 20 companions. It is also mentioned in the sahih of Muslim, sunan of al-Daarimi, musnad Ahmad, and tens of sources.
This clearly makes indicates that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had shown us how to derive his sunnah and from which sources. There is no doubt that the main source of the Prophet's (s.a.w.) sunnah is the Aalul Bayt (a.s.). However, at the same time we see that the Sunni ulama do not paying any attention to this sahih hadith. Why? Is the Prophet's hadith not sufficient.
2- Why do they follow the other tradition which says,"...the Book of Allah and my sunnah"? Now, suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) did word this tradition in this fashion, does it differ with the first one? Ibn Hajar had said that the Islamic ummah needs the Holy Quran, the sunnah, and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). If we examine the text we shall be quite sure that it confirms the infallibility of the Imams and that they are unique intellectuals and political sources. Hence, we have no other choice but to adhere to them because they are the firmest link handle between us, Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.).
The Sunnis believe that the traditions and the sunnah have not been recorded for about a century, i.e. from the caliphate of `Umar till the caliphate of `Umar ibn Abdil Aziz (the Umayyad caliph). Many traditions have been burned in the lifetime of Abu Bakr and Umar.
3- Can we expect any remaining of the traditions and sunnah after a century of prohibition? Even if we found some of them, we should ask how much and to what degree of accuracy were they recorded? Do we dare say that all the traditions existing in the Sunni sources remained safe from abrogation? And, if those traditions were all accredited and reliable, then why did Muslim choose only six thousand hadith from about three hundred thousand? Or why did al-Bukhari choose only four thousand hadiths from more than six hundred thousand - and left the rest?
If all the traditions that are talking about the Prophet (s.a.w.) and his sunnah were reliable and trustworthy then why do the Sunnis practice ijtihad, qiyas and istihsan? Wasn't Abu Hanifa, and other scholars practising qiyas and istihsan in order to derive certain rules of the Islamic law (shar`)? Doesn't this prove that the traditions do not contain religious rules? Even those which contain some religious rule, are not reliable. We read in the book titled "Kitaab al-Mawdhou`aat" (vol.1, Beirut edition, the last lines of the chapter called `fadhaa`il al-Khulafa'') that the two great and eminent scholars, i.e. al-Soyouti and Ibn al-Jawzi, had declared that most of the known narrations which eulogize the caliphs are fabricated and not trustworthy!
4- Prohibiting the writing of the traditions led the enemies of Ahlul Bayt(a.s.) to omit all these traditions containing the virtues of the Prophet's House, and in their place they fabricated thousands of traditions that eulogize their enemies! (See the first volume of tafseer al-Fakhral-Raazi?a great Sunni scholars when interpreting the phrase "BismAllah"; he says: The traditionalists have concealed many traditions that related the virtues of Imam Ali (a.s.) because they feared Mu`awiyah!!!
5- If the Sunnis are true when they pretend that the Muslims have to follow the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (a.s.), then why do they refuse to narrate the traditions that eulogize the Holy Imams (a.s.), especially ImamSadiq (a.s.). This is so, while in the same time they narrate many traditions about the Khawarij and Nawasib. For example, Bukhaari narrated in his sahih, from `Imran ibn Hittan (a khariji).
6- Why do Sunnis narrate most of the traditions through the chain of Abu Hurayra? It is said that the number of traditions narrated by Abu Hurayraare about 5,374, while Abu Hurayra didn't accompany the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) except in the last two years of the Holy Prophet's lifetime – after accepting Islam.
As for Imam Ali (a.s.), who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) since his childhood until the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) died between his hands, there are only 537 traditions narrated from him (a.s.) in Sunnis books. This is so, while Imam Ali (a.s.) delivered the most remarkable orations and sayings especially during the time which he ruled over the Muslim ummah, which lasted less than five years.
And in this five years he explained to the Muslims every minute rule and regulation in the Islamic shari`ah and the prophetic sunnah.
None of these orations and sayings has been mentioned in the sahih of al-Baukhari or Muslim.
7- Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say, "I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate"; "I am the house of wisdom and Ali is its gate";
"Ali is with truth and truth is with Ali", etc... Are these not clear proofs that show the high rank of Imam Ali (a.s.)?
8- Weren't Ali (a.s.), Fatima (a.s.) and their sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn(a.s.) the people about whom the verse of "tatheer" and "mubahala" had been revealed?
9- What is the meaning of "loving the Household of the Holy Prophet(a.s.)"? Their love can be verified by two means, first: speaking and mentioning their virtues in gatherings of those with true faith, and second: adhering to them by word and act, as the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had said, "if you adhered to them, you won't be misguided at all." Can one love the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) only by words instead of heart?
10- Is it logical that the Muslims follow any individual, even if that individual was like Mu`awiyah who was known for his enmity against Aalul Bayt (a.s.)? Can't we consider this following as an open enmity against the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) and the Holy Quran?
The Holy Quran had clearly mentioned that loving the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) is the cause of receiving a great reward; thus, is it right to follow any fabricated hadith or to call the Muslims to follow individuals like Mu`awiyah who is not infallible. He is the one who had committed lots of mistakes and crimes against Islam and its regulations. The most wicked among Mu`awiyah's deeds is his warfare against Imam Ali (a.s.) and the wicked ritual - enacted by him - to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit in every part of the Islamic country - this lasted until the ruling time of the Umayyad caliph `Umar ibn Abdil `Aziz. It is worthy to mention that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had already said, "Whosoever enacts a wicked ritual, then the penalty of enacting such a ritual shall be on him and those who follow this ritual."
Question No. 6 :
What is the Sunnis' attitude in regard to the revolution of Imam Husayn(a.s.)?
Every body recognizes the high rank of Imam Husayn (a.s.). His grandfather is the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) was always describing Imam Husayn (a.s.), that he is the counter-balance of the Holy Quran. And in other tradition he (s.a.w.) declared that Husayn ibn Ali (a.s.) shall always remain an Imam whether he rises (rebelled against the oppressors) or not. He (s.a.w.) also insisted that the Muslims should love Imam Husayn (a.s.) and adhere to his teachings. Anyhow, it is well-known that Imam Husayn (a.s.) is the best person of his era after his father and elder brother. As it is known that Imam Husayn had rose up against the authority of Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah to fulfill his duty toward the Holy Quran and his Holy grandfather (s.a.w.) when he noticed that the Umayyad caliphs had exceeded the limits of Islam with their oppression and injustice. Imam Husayn (a.s.) followed the tradition of his grandfather, namely, "He who sees an oppressor and tyrant ruler, who is changing what is forbidden (haram) into what is allowed (halal) - those who broke their covenant with Allah and fight against the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). And in the face of this he doesn't try to contest or protest against that ruler's illegal deeds neither by speech nor by action, Allah shall put him in the same place where He shall put that tyrant."
Some of the chiefs in Kufa announced that they would assist Imam Husayn (a.s.) and promised to help him in letters that they wrote to Imam Husayn (a.s.) while he was in Medina. At the same time, some of the companions, whom the Sunnis are still eulogize, like Abdullah ibn`Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr and many others, didn't give their allegiance to Imam Husayn (a.s.). We should ask why? Moreover, Abdullah ibn `Umar began calling the people to pay allegiance to Yazid, preventing
them from assisting Imam Husayn (a.s.)!This had been recorded by al-Bukhari (vol.IX, the book of riots, chapter:`if he said anything before the folk'), and in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal(vol.II, p.48)
[This narration was conveyed by Naafi`].
Now, we ask this question from the Sunnis: Do you disagree with Imam Husayn's uprising? If we search in historical records we shall come to the conclusion that the Sunnis had preferred silence and agreed to be with those who remained behind. But all of us know that whosoever remains silent - not support his Imam (a.s.),
knowing that the Imam, the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) is right - agrees with Yazid and his wicked deeds. Thus, these people shall be considered as those who have participated with Yazid's army and fought against Imam Husayn (a.s.) and were indirect partners in the massacres of Yazid's army on the day of `Ashoora.
In fact, the rule of Yazid over the Islamic emperor was the continuation of`Umar, `Uthman, and Mu`awiyah rule.
Didn't Mu`awiyah fight against Ali (a.s.), and therefore the main factor of Imam Hasan's martyrdom? Didn't he submit the key of caliphate to his insane son Yazid, and by doing so breaking the covenants he gave to Imam Hasan (a.s.)?
We put these questions in front of those who assisted Yazid and stood with him. Those who remained behind and abandoned Imam Husayn(a.s.) in the hour of straightness, when he rose against oppression and corruption.
Every body recognizes the high rank of Imam Husayn (a.s.). His grandfather is the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) was always describing Imam Husayn (a.s.), that he is the counter-balance of the Holy Quran. And in other tradition he (s.a.w.) declared that Husayn ibn Ali (a.s.) shall always remain an Imam whether he rises (rebelled against the oppressors) or not. He (s.a.w.) also insisted that the Muslims should love Imam Husayn (a.s.) and adhere to his teachings. Anyhow, it is well-known that Imam Husayn (a.s.) is the best person of his era after his father and elder brother. As it is known that Imam Husayn had rose up against the authority of Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah to fulfill his duty toward the Holy Quran and his Holy grandfather (s.a.w.) when he noticed that the Umayyad caliphs had exceeded the limits of Islam with their oppression and injustice. Imam Husayn (a.s.) followed the tradition of his grandfather, namely, "He who sees an oppressor and tyrant ruler, who is changing what is forbidden (haram) into what is allowed (halal) - those who broke their covenant with Allah and fight against the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). And in the face of this he doesn't try to contest or protest against that ruler's illegal deeds neither by speech nor by action, Allah shall put him in the same place where He shall put that tyrant."
Some of the chiefs in Kufa announced that they would assist Imam Husayn (a.s.) and promised to help him in letters that they wrote to Imam Husayn (a.s.) while he was in Medina. At the same time, some of the companions, whom the Sunnis are still eulogize, like Abdullah ibn`Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr and many others, didn't give their allegiance to Imam Husayn (a.s.). We should ask why? Moreover, Abdullah ibn `Umar began calling the people to pay allegiance to Yazid, preventing
them from assisting Imam Husayn (a.s.)!This had been recorded by al-Bukhari (vol.IX, the book of riots, chapter:`if he said anything before the folk'), and in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal(vol.II, p.48)
[This narration was conveyed by Naafi`].
Now, we ask this question from the Sunnis: Do you disagree with Imam Husayn's uprising? If we search in historical records we shall come to the conclusion that the Sunnis had preferred silence and agreed to be with those who remained behind. But all of us know that whosoever remains silent - not support his Imam (a.s.),
knowing that the Imam, the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) is right - agrees with Yazid and his wicked deeds. Thus, these people shall be considered as those who have participated with Yazid's army and fought against Imam Husayn (a.s.) and were indirect partners in the massacres of Yazid's army on the day of `Ashoora.
In fact, the rule of Yazid over the Islamic emperor was the continuation of`Umar, `Uthman, and Mu`awiyah rule.
Didn't Mu`awiyah fight against Ali (a.s.), and therefore the main factor of Imam Hasan's martyrdom? Didn't he submit the key of caliphate to his insane son Yazid, and by doing so breaking the covenants he gave to Imam Hasan (a.s.)?
We put these questions in front of those who assisted Yazid and stood with him. Those who remained behind and abandoned Imam Husayn(a.s.) in the hour of straightness, when he rose against oppression and corruption.
