A Victim Lost in Saqifah 1-4

Scrutiny of Participation of Ali’s Companions in Battles and Government of Caliphs[1]

It is surprising that the writer of the article has no knowledge of companions with regard to facts and reality of matters and opinion of Imams about battles. This analysis is not based on authentic information but on probability and likelihood of participation of companions. This point is not noted.

Therefore if this probability is not accepted, it cannot be a confirmation of battles. Supposing if companions of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) attended on approval of Ali himself and were under no pressure, it is still not a ground to prove Imam Ali’s (a.s.) positive outlook.

While it can be said that they might have taken part on ground of other productive reasons so this cannot be a proof of their approval. It could be that the presence of Imam’s friends could be a restriction for Caliph’s soldiers from plundering and pillaging conquered regions.

Now we would like to ask: what is the reason that all co-operations are confined to supporting their battles. Why they have simply passed by all reasons and causes?

If we accept positive outlook of Ali to battles, it will contradict his statement:

“A Muslim should not go to a holy war in company of one who has no belief in God’s command and does not carry God’s orders with regard to spoils of war.

If at all he goes and is killed, he has helped him in usurping our rights and shedding our blood. His death is a pagan’s death.”[2]

Are Battles of Caliphs Worth Defending?

He who foments this conjecture while defending battles of Caliphs raises a question and reminds us the presence of Khalid bin Waleed among commanders of combat:

“What can you say about the appointment of this same Khalid bin  

[1] Scrutiny of objections 6-7
[2] Shaykh Hurr Amili: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 11, Pg. 34

Waleed by the Prophet himself?”[1]

Then he gives examples of his command in the days of Prophet**[2]** by way of defending the record of Islamic army and Caliph’s battles. He writes:

“Actions of Muslims in battles and victories are well worth defending and their trifle mistakes can be overlooked. Such things are common in other places too. So instead of justifying piece by piece we should defend them as a whole.”![3]

He continues:

“In wars of Prophet, Ali and Hasan also considerable shortcomings were seen on the part of the soldiers and men under their command.”![4]

By quoting some examples of this he derives following conclusions:

“A group of eight or twelve men under command of Prophet’s cousin went on a campaign. They committed crimes such as killing two men in a sacred month without orders of the chief command…

The commander himself did not obey orders of Prophet. He killed a number of innocent men, probably Muslims;

When soldiers under the command of the likes of Ali (a.s.) showed disobedience and looted the public treasury…

What can you expect from soldiers and commanders of Muslim armies that sometimes numbered 60,000?

…after all this can it still be said:

The fact is that the style of the battles of the Prophet was absolutely  

[1] Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 229
[2] Even supposing if this commandership is proved we can say:The appointment of Khalid bin Waleed (who led forces against Islam in the battles of Uhad) shows the submission of Quraish to the power and domination of Islam.This appointment has a deep effect on subduing the tribes who sided with the Meccans in their opposition to Islam.
[3] Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 235
[4] Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 241

different from these territorial expansions of the Caliphs?[1]

As shall be seen in this section we shall try to prove that the style of battles of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) was different from the battles of Caliphs and the attitude of their system. There does not exist any similarity between them. Because if men like Khalid bin Waleed were sent in Caliph’s wars, of course the Prophet too had sent Khalid to command the battles. But their wrongs were not overlooked and justified in Prophet’s days. The same person in the time of Caliphs wronged openly.

There is one main difference between battles of Caliphs and those of Prophet. It was divine permission. Caliphs did not have this. The Prophet, Ali and Hasan did not take a step without first getting God’s permission.

“On the basis of this those who have no permission from God regard themselves successors of Prophet. They are from viewpoint of Quran liars and most tyrannical of human beings. They deserve hardest punishments. Even if they stand at the Mihraab or sit on a pulpit inviting people to virtue, piety and God-worship. Or they might have fought pagans and expanded Islamic borders and brought territories under the banner of Quran.”[2]

Secondly:

Another thing that is overlooked in these exaggerations is that they have omitted to say anything about the reaction of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and the Holy Imams (a.s.) as what action they took when such heinous crimes were committed by their men. While in the case of the Caliphs we see that they took no action at all in response to the tyrannies committed by their men.

They have nicely quoted the incident of Khalid bin Waleed during the time of the Prophet how he wrought havoc on the Bani Jazima tribe**[3]** but the writer has conveniently forgotten to mention what the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) did in response to the misdoings of Khalid.

While historical testimonies show that when:

[1] Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pgs. 225-226
[2] Refer: Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi: Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 170-171
[3] Refer: Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 244

“News of Khalid’s crimes reached the Prophet, His Eminence was very angry and shocked. He raised his hands to the sky and said:

O, God! What Khalid has committed, I hate it and seek refuge with You from his doings. Khalid went to the Prophet and the Prophet was infuriated with him.

The Prophet immediately sent Ali to the tribe (victimized by Khalid) of Bani Jazima to compensate them their losses and pay blood money whatever they say to their satisfaction.

Prophet told Ali (a.s.): Go to Bani Jazima, make amends for acts of ignorance and compensate for what Khalid has committed.

Ali paid their blood money and compensated for what Khalid had destroyed or drawn from them by force. Then finally Ali asked them whether there was anything left uncompensated or any blood unpaid. They said no. But for sake of correctness, whatever money was left with Ali he gave it to them telling them that perhaps something might have been forgotten.

Then he returned to the Prophet and reported all he had done. The Prophet appreciated his performance much and said: I had not given the command to Khalid. I had sent him only to invite them to Islam.

Some narrations say that the Prophet raised his hand toward the sky and said three times:

O, God! I seek immunity with You from whatever Khalid has done.”[1]

Regretfully not only have they omitted this reaction of the Prophet we don’t understand why the writer has not mentioned all these details? The writer does not miss to mention any wrongs or crimes committed by cousin of the Prophet or soldiers of Ali. But he so easily missed to write about the reactions of Prophet or Ali to these criminal actions, or what they did to redress and make amend for their crimes. Whether he mentions or misses, the truth finally does appear. The facts cannot be hidden for long as the clouds cannot hide the sun. He is only anxious to hold one dimension as if no other dimension exists. Only battles matter to him.

[1] Mustafa Dilshad Tehrani: Meeras Rabooda (Usurped inheritance), Pgs. 171-172; quoting from: Al-Maghazi, Vol. 2, Pgs. 875-881; Sirah Ibne Hisham, Vol. 4, Pgs. 53-55; Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 2, Pgs. 147-148; Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pgs. 66-68; Al-Kamil Fit Tarikh, Pgs. 255-256; Sirah Ibne Kathir, Vol. 2, Pgs. 201-202.

In the same way when he writes about the disobedience of soldiers under the command of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and their plunder of treasury, he has not mentioned that this took place in the absence of His Eminence (a.s.). When Amirul Momineen (a.s.) learnt of this he was shocked and punished the wrongdoers and announced his dissociation with this act of theirs. But the writer had not mentioned all this.[1]

Anyway he does not see such a big blunder committed by Khalid bin Waleed so he does not mention it. Let us remind him about Malik bin Nuwairah and his tribe which was the only quarter which did not acknowledge Abu Bakr’s rule as legitimate. So what did Khalid do?

When:

“Khalid killed Malik while he was saying that he was a Muslim. He kept Malik’s severed head under the cooking pot and the same night he slept with his widow...”[2]

After this terrible crime was committed by Khalid – commander and messenger of the First Caliph;

Abu Bakr said: “I will not stone him. He did Ijtihaad and made a mistake…I shall not sheathe the sword that God has drawn out.[3]”[4]

Although the reaction of the First Caliph in this regard was not limited to this, but as Tabari writes:

“Abu Bakr never punished any of his officers and soldiers. As if in his policy he did not believe in imposing any penalties on his officers and soldiers.”[5]

The Second Caliph also adopted the same policy with regard to his courtiers, friends, servants, associates and those who were around him. Umar too never punished any religious transgression. One instance is that of Mughaira bin Shoba whom Umar had appointed as governor of Basrah province in Iraq. He  

[1] Refer: Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 244
[2] Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 44
[3] [Refer: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 322]
[4] Ibid. Vol. 16, Pg. 45
[5] Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 229

committed adultery, which makes one liable for stoning according to Islamic legislation. Umar did not obey God’s order in punishing Mughaira; but did a most interesting thing.

Not only the Second Caliph arrested the fourth witness in the case of Mughaira he also subjected the remaining three witnesses to religious punishment at the hands of Mughaira himself. The punishment, which he was supposed to execute against Mughaira because he was the criminal in question.[1]

After these two cases how can we expect the Caliphs to punish their men who had been instrumental in earning such important victories?!

Perhaps the article writer regards as trifle and frivolous and worth being overlooked even the crime that Khalid committed in the name of Islam and Islamic government with regard to Malik bin Nuwairah and his wife![2]

But the Prophet never defended his relatives or staff or anyone associated to him in event of their being wrong or having done a wrong. He held them responsible for their mistakes; and imposed upon them punishment relative to that crime or crimes. But did the First and Second Caliph who were sitting in place of Prophet and were supposed to be in track of Prophet and tread the very path of the Prophet also do this? No. Rather they tried all means to cover the mistakes of their men and it also seen that:

Such crimes flourished because of support of Caliphs. If government officials become criminals and government was to turn a blind eye upon their crimes who remains there to check them?! Though these men had committed the most horrible crimes!!

Forced Participations of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) in Caliphs’ Government

The last point worth noting at the end of the discussion regarding participation of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the government of the Caliphs is that in some instances the policy of the Caliphal regime was such that it should in any way compel His Eminence (a.s.) to take some steps; for example one case of applying force to enable strengthening of the foundation of Caliphate was as follows:

[1] Refer: Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 340-345
[2] Refer: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Section Six, Pgs. 81-94

“Giving importance to congregation prayers and denouncing and even tagging those who do not attend their congregation as apostates.

Traditions censuring non-attendance of congregation leading to disunity of Muslims were emphasized. Necessity of being in the congregation as a right of the leadership of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) or the Imam was applied to themselves and even traditions in this regard were fabricated...”[1]

In such circumstances, not only the absence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in such customs would have given excuse to the regime to suppress him further;[2] but more than that it would have destroyed all chances of Imam’s intervention in affairs of the regime aimed at guarding the religion of Islam.

While the Imam (a.s.) was not in pursuit of such a kind of seclusion from Islamic society.

On the basis of this as has been proved so far there does not exist any evidence that some instances of Imam’s help and advice denote similarity of his aims with the Caliphs. Rather if we pay attention to the narrations we find that there is a wide gulf of difference between the policy aims of both the parties.

Such that they could be considered to be fundamental differences:

Amirul Momineen (a.s.) never allowed that his attitudes be interpreted to be in favor of Caliphate and behavior of the Caliphs or that they may get an opportunity to take advantage of his attitude to help their deviated aims.

What the Imam (a.s.) was in pursuit of is completely different to what the Caliphal regime aimed in obtaining his help and support.

In spite of the fact that wrong interpretations and analyses are propagated to the contrary.

Thus they claim:

“Other notable example of co-operation of Ali (a.s.) is his participation in congregational prayers led by Abu Bakr.”![3]

“On the basis of statements of modern Shia scholars like Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Hujjati, Amirul Momineen (a.s.)…participated in their congregation prayers so much that people never noticed his absence in  

[1] Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 354
[2] Thus Saad bin Ubadah only because he did not give Bayyat to the Caliph and did not participate in their gatherings he was first exiled to Syria and then killed.
[3] Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 124

the society. And never imagined that Amirul Momineen Ali was heading in another direction! And that he had severed connection with the society ruled by the Caliphs.”![1]

Although there is another analysis regarding this that in no way talks of any special meaning that could be derived from these actions of Imam (a.s.) because it is believed that:

“In such circumstances going to the Masjid and being present there… was ordinary matter.”[2]

This analysis also ultimately does not consider these steps to be construed as support to the Caliphs and their behavior.

“Presence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in their gatherings was not voluntary and willful. His Eminence spent most of his time in the Prophet’s mosque and the same presence was followed by his presence in their assemblies.

On the basis of this His Eminence did not go there especially to attend their gatherings.”

Moreover, even if he attended their gatherings with intent it was with the purpose of forbidding evil, because they used to refer to His Eminence in many issues.[3]

On the basis of this a correct attitude and a firm connection with affairs of religion were the factors of his presence in their gatherings.”[4]

Historical documents and sources show that after Abu Bakr emerged from three-day seclusion**[5]** there ensued another debate and discussion at the end of which Amirul Momineen (a.s.) said in reply to another invitation of his associates:

[1] Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahle Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni viewpoint), [1^st Edition 1380], Pg. 130
[2] 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. 20
[3] [Scrutinies of Discourse Two show that this was too less for the period of 25 years of the Caliphs’ rule.]
[4] Sayyid Murtuza Alamul Huda: Tanziyaul Anbiya (Translated by Ameer Salmani Raheemi), Pg. 227
[5] Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (a.s.), Vol. 8, Pg. 458

“Then by Allah I did not enter the Masjid except like brother Moosa and Haroon when his companions said to him: go therefore you and your Lord, then fight you both, surely we will here sit down.[1]

And by Allah I do not enter except for the Ziarat of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) or to decide a case…”[2]

This narration clearly shows the limited aims of the presence of His Eminence (a.s.) in the Masjid.

[1] Surah Maidah 5:24
[2] Tabarsi: Ihtijaaj, Vol. 1, Pg. 81; Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 208