A Victim Lost in Saqifah 1-4
Deviated Repercussions of This Conjecture
First Wrong Result
According to this outlook, we cannot find any other justification for avoidance and unwillingness of Imam Ali (a.s.) to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.[1] There are actions of oppression and tyranny. House of only daughter of Prophet, Fatima was attacked and set afire and the flames consumed the door. All this was done directly by Caliphs themselves. The only conclusion that can be drawn is this: The base is wrong. In such circumstances, acknowledgment of Ali to Abu Bakr’s authority is a thing caused by conditions prevalent at that time. Therefore it is a natural outcome. Hence it is written as follows:
“Imam Ali (a.s.) refused to give allegiance for a short period. But his high conduct and demeanor and forgiving nature made him pay allegiance.”![2]
“Imam Ali’s (a.s.) only aim was to safeguard Islam, protect its entity and preserving unity.[3] Therefore he paid allegiance to Caliphs.”![4]
Or they write:
“The conduct and behavior of Ali and his sons with Caliphs was such that it took to itself to reflect as if acknowledgement and acceptance is mingled, mixed, molded.”![5]
“Ali for the sake of interests accepted rulership of two Caliphs.”![6]
[1] [The correct Bayyat is one that is given with willingness and
desire of the person. Else, it is only a handshake. Or it can be named
as an outer show. The acknowledgement of Ali took six months to take
place. And it took place under hatred and application of force. It was
actually a handshake. (Allamah Askari: Saqifah Pg. 116)
For better and wider comprehension of Bayyat and conditions that
surrounded it, refer to Chap. 1 of Vol. 4 of this book.
[2] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of
Unity), Pg. 20
[3] [On the basis of Shia Belief the foundation of Islam is Imamate
and Wilayat]
[4] Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic
Sects), Preface to the 3rd Edition, Pg. 11
[5] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami
(Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 163
[6] Ibid. 5 Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic
Unity), Pg. 167
“Ali refrained for a period after passing away of Prophet, afterwards he did Bay’at to Abu Bakr.”![1]
How can it be accepted at all that Ali should accept and acknowledge Abu Bakr’s Caliphate? A Caliphate that was framed against divine consent? A Caliphate that was usurped and taken by force, trick and tyranny? A Caliphate, which has trespassed on Quranic verses and trampled the command of God? A Caliphate, which came into being by overrunning clear instructions of the Prophet himself. So how can Ali accept such a Caliphate? An acceptance that originates from the heart! Yet, Ali did. This shows his foresight and how dear the interests of Islam were at his heart.
In this respect, it is written thus:
“Abu Bakr takes oath to the effect that loves the Prophet’s Ahle Bayt more than his own relatives. Further, he commits himself to follow the Prophet’s policy and his works. Then Ali tells him: The place to give allegiance is the Mosque tomorrow.”![2]
“He sees that one who has occupied the chair of power will exert efforts to make it stronger and extensive. Therefore he will try to extend the geography of Islam. So he paid the allegiance.”![3]
In other words to believe in this type of Bay’at is in contradiction to principles of Shia faith due to the following reason:
Imamate, Wilayat and Caliphate are divine offices bestowed by God. They are inseparable from each other. Likewise, they cannot be transferred or delegated to others.
Whatever Imam Ali (a.s.) did in every befitting opportunity was to establish truth and prove the injustice done to him. By his campaign, he declared to people the illegitimacy, unlawfulness and invalidity of their Caliphate, which was his right and snatched away from him. Likewise, the unique and unparalleled campaign of Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet, demonstrates that they usurped the right of Ali to succeed the Prophet and Caliphate which was a legitimate right of Ali. On the other hand the tyrants did know that rulership and Caliphate is an absolute right of Ali vested to him by the Prophet
[1] Ibid. 5 Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity),
Pg. 163
[2] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen,
(Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 22
[3] Ibid. Paara-e-Payambar (Portion of the Prophet), Vol. 6, Pg.
14-15
at the commandment of God. So if Ali (a.s.) did not pay allegiance, their Caliphate would not attain legitimacy and will forever remain usurped.
Therefore they persisted with all force, tricks and tyranny they could. What history openly shows is this:
When Ali did not answer positively to their call to pay allegiance to their authority they set fire to the door of Zahra’s house and threatened to burn alive the dwellers – the progeny, the kith and kin of Prophet. Then an attack on the house was launched. At this stage they had to face Zahra’s defense. She took the lead to save Wilayat and Imamate of Ali. By all their brazen-facedness they pushed her aside. Then they took hold of Ali and dragged him to the Mosque. All the while a naked sword was drawn over his head – a constant threat accompanied him which could come true any moment. They tried to draw from him what was their desire (allegiance to Abu Bakr). Their design did not succeed because of presence of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter.
If the Imam had least desire to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr or had he a least agreement with that group or for sake of any other reason had he any interest to benefit of the Ummah or Islam there was no sense in obstinacy he showed. The force and tyranny applied to him is enough to prove his unwillingness to accept Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. How could he agree for his right to be usurped and give acceptance to this?
All this goes to prove that:
Rulership is a right bestowed by God. As a result, it cannot be exchanged or given to others. It is irrevocable.
Such a thing would be to ignore divine decree and commit terrific atrocities; and yet they say:
“For the sake of interests of Muslims he transferred the right of leadership to others.”![1]
Second Wrong Result
After Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani**[2]** for the first time dwelled on such a
[1] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Paara-e-Payambar (Portion of
the Prophet), Vol. 6, Pg. 15
[2] It is interesting that in the explanation of his outlook it is
said: “He claims that there are religious proofs to support this
separation!” (Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 216)
type of thought in his article in a magazine of Egypt, Message of Islam, published by Darul Taqreeb**[1]** Muhammad Madani, principal of Islamic law college of Azhar and director of the said magazine, depending on contents of the article wrote an essay titled: ‘A great change in Al-Azhar University.’ He writes:
“This discourse clearly conveys that accusation of usurpation of Caliphate and that those who took the reins of power were usurpers, is baseless. It is far from Shia principles of faith. They too, like all Muslims, consider the basis rests at the satisfaction of masses.”![2]
The wrong result is not drawn directly from conjecture of separation between Imamate and rulership. But it is drawn on the basis of first result of this category of conjectures.
It is thus said:
“Satisfaction and Bay’at of Ali with Caliphs established that Ali did not regard their government illegitimate.”![3]
Creation of such a picture of Shia belief in the minds of followers of Caliph’s school could possibly be an effective step towards unity. But it must not be ignored that a right will have to be sacrificed for sake of unity. Unity cannot be turned into a slaughterhouse of reality. Negligence in facts and figures can only result in imaginative unity. Our next generation shall take this wrong belief:
“It is quite possible for Shias as they follow Ali and his sons to admit authenticity of Caliphate with a simultaneous belief in the position of Imamate.”![4]
On the basis of this separation comfort can be drawn that Ali occupied a befitting position. Although the office of Caliphate is separate from that of their Imamate but there is no reason for any anxiety because:
[1] This article by Muhammad Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi has been
translated and the contents are approved by him. In this writing we
shall deal with the translator’s extensive thought by way of completion
of the above outlook.
[2] Muhammad Madani: Article quoted in book
Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 90
[3] Mustafa Husaini Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami
(Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 176
[4] Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in book
Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 222
“Imam Ali (a.s.) practically enjoyed the office of Guardianship and Imamate among masses. The people brought to him their complaints against Caliphs. Caliphs too often used to consult him in matters which were difficult for them to solve. Ali was a supervisor over their actions and at the same time a guide to them…[1]”![2]
So we must be happy that his Imamate is not denied to him or any tyranny done against him and no right of his is usurped.
Similarly we should accept that Caliphs were never deviated because their government was run under his supervision. Fatima’s house was attacked and set on fire. Consequently, Fatima met her martyrdom and Mohsin was miscarried. All this happened in order to make Ali accept this high position to supervise duties of Caliphs and to guide them. Caliphs wanted to protect Islam!
Thus it is said:
“If people at consultation of Imam make a man of their choice manage their affairs and administer Islamic government their guardian choose Islamic government, the things will go better under his watch and control at his divine authority.”![3]
Third Wrong Result
Does there remain any room for difference, dispute or a distance between Imam and Caliphs on the ground of what passed? So, is there any reason for quarrel between their followers?
The cardinal result that these unity-seekers are after is to show otherwise the relations between Imam and usurpers of his right of Caliphate. On a false basis, they try to establish that there lasted peace and understanding between them.
The thought of unity is turned into a real belief. The standard of real foundation and unity is ignored. According to this sort of thought, difference between Ali and Caliphs, in addition to contrast between beliefs of Shia and Sunni about Imamate and Caliphate is commented and changed ‘as if there existed understanding between the two.’[4] The readers will conclude the mistaken result.
[1] [We shall answer this objection separately.]
[2] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of
Unity), Pg. 25
[3] Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the
Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18
[4] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi:
Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Translation
of article, ‘Imamate and Caliphate’ by Shaykh Muhammad Salih Haeri
Mazandarani: Pg. 218
For instance:
“What crime is greater than one that creates difference among Muslim Ummah while the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms.”![1]
Type C)
Separation of Imamate from rulership in a frame of Great Imamate and Great Caliphate:[2]
As it must have been observed so far, separation of Imamate from rulership (Caliphate) means complete independence from Wilayat (of infallible Imam). This is a wrong dimension, an erroneous angle, a mistaken outlook of some unity-seekers under a pretext of a suitable way to resolve.[3]
About these two offices, the vested or bestowed Guardianship and elected or selected Caliphate, much is said from this mistaken conjecture. Relations between these two offices and its heads is illustrated like this:
1 – These two offices: affairs and duties they have are totally different from each other. Therefore they are separate. There are not many common elements between them. They are independent of each other.
2 – There is a parallel link between these two positions independent of each other regardless of duties and obligations of each. As such, an understanding and comprehension exists between the two. The office holders (of these two positions) have no differences beyond mutual complaints.
Thus it is said:
“If opinions are exchanged in this regard it was baseless and not in a position of these two offices. In my opinion it is better not to call it a difference. It was only a complaint.”![4]
3 – The position of Wilayat with regard to status, dignity, responsibility, duties and obligations make the holder of this office very much important and far higher and more sacred than office of Caliphate. This theory is applied to
[1] Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects),
Pg. 219
[2] Refer: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in
Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg.
63-78
[3] Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity
of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 255 onwards.
[4] Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity
of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 257-258
position of Caliphate. So consequently, coming down to position of an elected Caliphate one who holds the status of Guardianship it is too low and too little for him and his dignity. Considering the higher status of Guardianship than Caliphate and taking in view Imam’s carelessness and paying no importance to government’s position it can be said that nothing was taken away from him by Caliphs!
4 – The position of Imam’s Guardianship was active throughout the period of three Caliphs. The responsibility that entailed this office for Ali was acceptable to Caliphs, so none of his rights was usurped. Caliphs’ government was also not a government formed by force. Caliphs had acknowledged and even depended on authority of Ali, of his knowledge in which he was the final point of reference.
If one looks at these criticisms made by deviated outlook this much will be concluded that the difficulties of such outlooks are the wrong and perverted conclusions about Imamate and Caliphate.
In short, Caliphate, which is a reality by divine decree, has been deleted from Shia belief and an elected Caliphate is inserted instead.
The corrupted ones’ claim is that the Imam was not the head of Caliphate. They tried their best to show Caliphate (i.e. rulership) of less value and importance. However this outlook is never accepted by Shia.
These unity-seekers have their own opinion about Caliphate of Infallible Imams. They have tried here to lift the handicaps towards acceptance. They want to consummate their earlier theory.
If it is revised, the office of Caliphate, which was completely a separate entity from office of Guardianship, now is divided into two branches:
Part A) The great Caliphate: They have brought it to the level or grade of great Guardianship of Ali.
Part B) The open Caliphate: (Caliphate in public view): This is the same elected Caliphate. As said earlier, in this conjecture this is the only branch of Caliphate separated from Imamate.
To describe these two branches, it is said:
“Depending on this theory, it can be said that Imam Ali (a.s.) like Joseph, the Prophet, during the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet in affairs of politics, law and economics had great Caliphate
in addition to great Imamate. But someone else was clad in the cloak of Caliphate.”![1]
Particulars of this Oblique new thought about the Great Caliphate
First Particularity: The great Caliphate is higher than Caliphate, which is open to people. The reason: it is like a stationary millstone and a base. So it is a pivot of government. Therefore Ali had no desire for this open Caliphate.
Thus it is said:
“Ali was aware of this fact that if he accepts Caliphate there is none to undertake the ministry which is a harder and more difficult job. There was none to become the stationary stone of a hand mill; that is to become a pivot thereon to rotate affairs of government.”![2]
Second Particularity: The great Caliphate is more influential and efficacious than the apparent Caliphate. The reason: the Imam can interfere or issue orders in Caliphate wherever and whenever he deemed fit.
Third Particularity: The great Caliphate is active behind the curtain. Its dignity is beyond ordinary affairs. It has no direct link to government business.
In explanation of these particularities, such is expressed:
“Ali was like a pivot of Islamic government although apparently he was in the background. The cloak of Caliphate had covered some other body just like Prophet Joseph who commanded wherever he wanted.”![3]
“The great Imamate and great Caliphate of Ali demanded him to guide and give opinion in affairs of Caliphate, in administrative matters and in military advances. He left army movements to care of others.”![4]
One who designed this wrong conjecture after sketching such a picture of this great Caliphate claims that this position of Ali was active in the time of
[1] Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected
Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, (1st Edition
1380) Vol. 1, Pg. 63
[2] Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International
Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 72
[3] Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International
Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 74
[4] Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International
Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 67
Caliphs. But the great Caliphate of his had begun immediately after passing away of Prophet.
It is again said that:
“Amirul Momineen (a.s.) immediately after passing away of Prophet took office of great Imamate and great Caliphate in background of apparent Caliphate. Some think that he was aloof and took shelter in the corner of his house. But it was not so.”![1]
“During the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet, he held great Caliphate in fields of politics, economics and law though someone else wore the gown of apparent Caliphate.”![2]
[1] Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International
Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 64
[2] Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International
Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 63