A Victim Lost in Saqifah 1-4
Discourse Three Criticism and Scrutiny of Analyses Publicized Regarding Ali’s Cooperation With Caliphs’ Government
Conjectures spread in this regard
Some analyses relate to political attitudes and practical conduct of Imam Ali (a.s.) with regard to Caliphs. Besides they also base their claims on his associates’ acceptance of post in military or civil service.
The efforts of unity-seekers to establish for readers that Imam was on good terms with Caliphs have distorted facts. Many historical evidences are overlooked. The reader concludes wrongly for himself that the Imam and his friends entertained agreeable relations with Caliphs. They cooperatively ran governmental affairs. Such close relations do not allow any crevice between the two wings of Islam.
They put forward this argument:
“If he cooperated with Caliphs for 25 years…if he was mild and polite with Caliphs’ government...You also do the same in this regard… and follow the behavior of your Imam regarding the Caliphs.”[1]
“His Eminence (a.s.) did not leave the side of Abu Bakr for even a moment.”[2]
“When His Eminence paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, he honored all assignment given to him to the best of his capacity and this trend had a good impact on his relations with Caliphs.”[3]
“And as for co-operation and support of Imam Ali (a.s.) and his associates with Umar, it was not restricted to advice and counsel, they also practically helped in this regard and even accepted governmental posts and also participated in battles without any hesitation.”![4]
“During the period of the Second Caliph, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) always solved
[1] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No.
8, Khordad 1381
[2] Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st
Edition 1380), Pg. 140
[3] Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani):
Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding
the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st
Edition), 1379], Pg. 38
[4] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of
Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 128
religious problems and difficult jurisprudential matters in which the Caliphate asked his counsel. In encounters and military issues…at no time did he (Ali) allow his personal feelings and negative thoughts to deter him from all this.”![1]
What do Historical Documents and Sources Indicate?
To answer such deviation in analysis of historical events we first dwell upon some historical proofs that clearly disprove the deviated analysis:
Imam Ali (a.s.) absolutely and always refrained from accepting a government post in Caliphs’ rule; more than this, Caliphs also were well aware of such attitude of the Imam towards them.
Regarding his cooperation with the First Caliph, it can be said:
Documentary Proof A) When some persons like Aswad Ansi, Musailama and Sajjah claimed prophethood and Abu Bakr prepared an army to fight them, he consulted Amr bin Aas regarding the command of forces and asked for his opinion about the choice of Ali. Amr bin Aas told him:
Ali would not cooperate with you;[2] so Abu Bakr gave up the idea.[3]
Documentary Proof B) In the same way the Caliph tried to appoint His Eminence (a.s.) for quelling disturbances of Kinda tribe, but Umar considered it impractical.[4]
The only instance when it could be claimed that Abu Bakr assigned command to Ali (a.s.) was the responsibility of guarding the original road to Medina in a time when he (Abu Bakr) himself had caused the army of apostates to attack the city and they had reached near Medina.
Here the point worth nothing thing is that this case is also narrated only in Sunni sources and there are many doubts in its authenticity**[5]** an example of
[1] Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of
Ali from the Sunni point of view), [1st Edition 1380], Pg.
104
[2] The later history shows that the reason why Caliph referred to
Amr Aas was that the latter had a deep understanding of the personality
of Amirul Momineen (a.s.). The Qasida of Ghadeeriya also mentions this
point.
[3] Yaqoobi: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 129
[4] Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam
Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) (1st Edition), Pg. 198; quoting from
Futuh Ibne Athim, Vol. 1, Pg. 72
[5] Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 3, Pgs.
143-144
which is as follows:
“Ibne Athir, in the portion of his history dealing with the campaign of First Caliph against false prophets, mentions: Abu Bakr assigned Ali, Zubair, Abdullah bin Masood and Talha to guard the hilly roads around Medina.
His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) did not accept it because the issue of Caliphate was more important to him than this trifle matter of a person claiming prophethood and in numerous instances he disputed the issue of Caliphate with Abu Bakr…is it right that he should take the command of such a frivolous matter?
Does the narration of Ibne Athir not show how he and his co-religionists try to pose Ali as an agent of First Caliph and even at the price of mentioning the name of His Eminence in few instances!”[1]
Or consider the following:
“Beliefs of Shia and Sunni are not at parity on the issue of cooperation of Imam (a.s.).”[2] “It is necessary to mention that supposing this case is true, fighting the false claimants of prophethood (which is an important matter) is not something that needs permission of an usurper Caliph; on the contrary, the Ummah and usurper of Caliphate all are under mandate to seek permission of an Infallible Imam and be at his disposal to fight the false claimants. Besides, this issue is also binding on the Infallible Imam himself.”[3]
Therefore contrary to the claim publicized about the permanent company of Imam (a.s.) with Abu Bakr it should be announced that:
“Relations between Abu Bakr and Imam were very cold and not worthy of mention.”[4]
About Imam’s Co-operation with the Second Caliph it can be said:
“The Second Caliph also was not pleased with the obstinacy and haughtiness of Imam Ali (a.s.) and many times he appointed in-betweens
[1] Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar
Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pgs. 84-85
[2] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 225
[3] Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar
Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 85
[4] Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali
Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [History and political biography of Ali (a.s.)],
Pg. 16
who can motivate the Imam (a.s.) to assist the regime; but Amirul Momineen (a.s.) only looked to the interests of Islam. At the time of need, he forwarded his expert opinion. Commonly he ignored the requests of Caliphs for all-round cooperation.[1]
Documentary Proof A) Of course it was not that the Imam always fulfilled their requests. The Caliph asked Ali to accompany him in the journey to Syria, but Ali refused. Umar complained to Ibne Abbas:
I asked your cousin to accompany me to Syria but he refused…
Documentary Proof B) Likewise in the battle of Qadasia, Muslims sought Umar’s help.
The Caliph asked Imam (a.s.) to take the command and go to the battlefront, but the Imam (a.s.) did not accept.”[2]
Therefore the Caliph sent Saad bin Abi Waqqas.[3]
It is clear that in both cases the Imam rejected the request, still they falsely claim:
“In this way Ali (a.s.) was always by the side of Umar.”![4]
“When Umar asked Ali to take the command of Muslim forces to conquer Iran, Imam did so.”![5]
Attention and contemplation on this matter related to always ‘Absence of acceptance of co-operation and bearing responsibility’ makes every researcher and investigator think His Eminence has not always denied co-operation with the caliphal regime; thus his non-acceptance of co-operation and responsibility in chosen instances must be for some special reason; such that Amirul Momineen (a.s.) had some standard on the basis of which he either chose to
[1] Hasan Yusufyan: Article ‘Imam Ali wa Mukhaalifaan’ quoted in
Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 6, Pg. 216
[2] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan
(Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 227; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul
Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pgs. 78-79 and quoting from: Futuh
al-Buldan of Balazari, Pg. 264
[3] Masoodi in Muruj az-Zahab (Vol. 2, Pgs. 309-310) has also
explained that Uthman mediated in this matter but the Imam rejected the
commandership.
[4] Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani):
Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (a.s.) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding
the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st
Edition), 1379], Pg. 43
[5] Muhammad Ali Taskhiri: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue
No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 35
help or refuse.
Therefore in the first stage it will be seen that the Imam never refused his help. But in the second stage it will be seen that the Imam also in some cases hit out at the chest of the rulers and refused to co-operate in some matters.
Conclusion
The attitude of the Imam in accepting occasional cooperation with government and fortuitous refusal to cooperate leads a reader to conclude that Imam had a particular outlook to the matters. It further leads to interpret the type and kind of relations he had with Caliphs.
Understanding Imam’s attitude will lead us to understand motives of both sides – why the posts were offered and why the Imam denied.
In fact after this point is proved that Imam only refused co-operation with the regime under some conditions and accepted responsibility only under some conditions the following two questions arise:
Firstly, what was the aim of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in co-operating with the Caliphs or refusing it?
Secondly, what was the policy Caliphs pursued towards the Imam when some posts were proposed to him in their government?
We shall dwell on these questions in the course of this book.