A Victim Lost in Saqifah 1-4
Was Ali Given a Governmental Responsibility During the Tenure of the Caliphs?
After this investigation the only thing that is in need of analysis and interpretation is the claim that:
“During the period of Umar’s Caliphate whenever he left Medina, Ali was his deputy. He took the charge of affairs until his return.”[1]
Reply to this conjecture can be divided into two parts:
Part A: Analysis of Acceptance of Responsibility for Some Particular Instances
“According to Sunni sources there are only three occasions when Ali was appointed in place of Umar in Medina. He took the office and ran the affairs as he administered the country. Indeed, it does not seem probable that Ali should have accepted. How can he accept from one who had usurped Caliphate from him and he (Ali) had repeatedly stressed upon his superiority and competency to the job?
Such claims need to be investigated first. Why such a case is not referred to by any Shia historian?
It could be possible that Ali could have taken charge of judicial affairs not political or administrative ones…”[2]
“Shia books do not stress upon Ali’s deputation by Umar.
It appears that Ali, during the office of Umar, could have attended affairs of people and handled matters of justice.”[3]
“However the fundamental question is: Why at all Ali should accept to be deputy of Umar or his substitute? On the other hand Ali never agreed or saw any legality in Umar’s Caliphate. It was a thing that never belonged to him (Umar). Then he undergoes to be his deputy, to be his substitute. Why?
The answer lies in Tabari’s and Ibne Athir’s comments, which are congruous with Shia beliefs. As the very Caliphate of Umar from the
[1] Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of
Ali from the Sunni point of view), [1st Edition 1380], Pg.
110
[2] Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibne Abi Talib
(a.s.) [Research on political stands of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.)],
Pgs. 123-124
[3] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 282
viewpoint of Ali was short of legitimacy and lacked legal status the posts (if) given to others would also be illegal.
Thus on the basis of this acceptance of these responsibilities in fact would be hindering the qualified ones to get them. Because if in case posts are given to non-qualified persons it would be against divine will and Islamic values and Ali knew better than to have the power to oppose these illegalities to do thus; thus His Eminence (a.s.) is not someone who sees illegal matters and does nothing about it.”[1]
Part B: Surrendering Responsibility to Ali in Some Particular Items
“During this period Ali was isolated from political arena. He did not occupy any post in Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. In Umar’s Caliphate, also he did the same. He did not even accept the post of commander for invading Iran.
The only exceptional case was when Umar had to leave for Palestine and he took with him senior companions of Prophet to help him in requirements of victory and success, while Ali’s had the responsibility of administration of Medina.
Although it is worth mention that Umar was strongly against Bani Hashim leaving Medina. He feared they would form groups in other areas and stage an uprising against his Caliphate.”[2]
The output of the policy of Second Caliph is surprising. He appointed Ali on three occasions in his place as his successor and does not appoint him in the six-person committee?!!
What was his aim in surrendering this responsibility to Amirul Momineen?
To comprehend the nature of relations of Caliphs’ government with Ali we refer to one more case:
“When Muhammad son of Abu Bakr wrote to Muawiyah censuring him for his disobedience to Imam Ali (a.s.). Muawiyah in reply wrote to him that he had only followed the first two rulers.
[1] Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar
Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 101
[2] Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal
Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 54
Muawiyah added that those two persons did not intimate him in their confidential matters nor did they open way to him to share with them in affairs…”[1]
This shows that Caliphs did not want Ali to take any part in their affairs. Likewise they were not desirous of his advice. Whenever they sought his advice there was some other motive in it. Their motive in anyway was not in the interest of Islam or Islamic unity.
While they claim:
“Mutual relations between Ali and three Caliphs were towards preserving Islamic unity and the very seed of Islam itself.”[2]
Our endeavors in analysis of the relations are with the motive to understand the aim of Ali and the aim of Caliphs. Especially with regard to co-operation of His Eminence (a.s.) in administrative and governmental affairs, which shall be explained and interpreted, so that the respected readers will see the difference between the aims of two sides. The outlook of Imam Ali (a.s.) leads the reader to the root of the policy Caliphs held according to the demand of the occasion. But they overlook it and say:
“Until Muawiyah came to power, the successor of Prophet of God, Ali, adopted a policy of patience, tolerance, vigilance. His attitude with three Caliphs was friendly and co-operative. This resulted in good manners, good behavior and good conduct among Muslims. Inspite of criticism and censure expressed by Imam Ali (a.s.) which were due to honesty, good manners and Islamic promise.”![3]
Yes! Good demeanor and decorum, Islamic commitments and good manners formed the ground of cooperation of Imam Ali (a.s.) with the three Caliphs. Whether the requests of Caliphs and their proposals too were based on same ground?
Let History answer:
“Caliphs’ government was very much in anticipation from Imam Ali (a.s.). For instance, as he finally paid allegiance**[4]** to Abu Bakr he was
[1] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pgs. 136-137;
quoting from: Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 3, Pgs. 21-22; Ansaab al-Ashraaf,
Vol. 2, Pg. 31 & Pgs. 393-397
[2] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of
Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 120
[3] Ibid. Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg.
120
[4] [Regarding Bayyat, Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in
Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1]
expected to give up or forego the demand for his right to Caliphate. Moreover, he was expected to be seen with sword in his hand to fight whoever opposed the Caliphs.
But the Imam rejected this request. Such an attitude and position of Imam was natural to impel the government to make him more humiliated in the view of people. This policy was able to isolate the Imam more and more.”[1]
In the same way:
“Among the complaints of Imam about the Caliphs was that they led a campaign to belittle the personality of Imam, which was highest and most respected one in the view of people during the days of Prophet.”[2]
Now when such is the case how can it be claimed that:
“That which this writer has claimed and proved is that there existed friendly relations between Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and the Caliphs.”![3]
Some examples of politics of belittling Amirul Momineen (a.s.) are as follows:
“Umar in order to belittle Ali accorded more respect to Ibne Abbas. It was a policy so that Ibne Abbas may narrate traditions and give Tafseer of Quran.”[4]
“When Umar appointed the six-person committee he blamed each of them with a defect. He blamed Ali that he was a man having excess humor.”[5]
In short:
“The two Caliphs had assassinated the character of Ali among people and assassinated his personality.”[6]
The author of Pas az-Ghuroob writes: Even though the Bayyat of Ali
Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) was effective in mobilizing forces it is also not
unlikely that the Caliph made the attack a pretext to obtain the support
of His Eminence.” (Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 171)**
[1]** Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia
(Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 53
[2] Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (a.s.) wa Zamaamdaaraan
(Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 105-106
[3] Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No.
8, Khordad 1381
[4] Allamah Askari: Saqifah, Pg. 73
[5] 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. 14
[6] Ibid. Pg. 15
“Jundab bin Abdullah says: After swearing allegiance to Uthman I went to Iraq. There I used to narrate the attributes of Ali to people. The best reply that I got from the people was this: Leave these words. Think of something that may benefit you.
I answered them: These things are beneficial to both you and me. But the people on hearing this got up and dispersed.”[1]
“In a society of Muslims, Imam was forgotten. Therefore it was for this reason that Imam during his Caliphate reminded people of his station, services and the battles he fought and won for the sake of Islam, his nearness and relationship with Prophet.”[2]
[1] Ibid. Pgs. 14-15
[2] Ibid. Pg. 16