Fadak in History

Chapter Four Lights From the Fatimite Speech

On the day when she came to Adiy and Taym,[1]

Moved with passion, how prolonged was her weeping

Preaching people with perfect speech,

Imitating al-Mustafa,[2] as if he was the preacher.

We quote here some statements from the speech of Fatima az-Zahra’ (s) to analyze and explain them in order to understand them as they are in the world of immortality and as they are in their wonderful reality.

The greatness of the leading Prophet

“Then He caused him to pass away mercifully, willingly, desiringly and preferably. Muhammad became safe from the sufferings of this world. He was surrounded by the reverent angels and the contentment of the forgiving God, enjoying the neighborhood of the Almighty King”.

Look at this eloquent lady, how she did leave all the material ease and the sensible comfort when she wanted to praise her father’s eternal Paradise. She found in her father what sanctified him above all that. What would the value of the material pleasure  

[1] Adiy was the tribe of Abu Bakr and Taym was the tribe of Omar.
[2] Muhammad (s).

whether worldly or paradisiacal be in Muhammad’s spiritual account, when no one raised the human soul to the highest level of values like he did and no one took it to its pinnacle except him? (No reformer, except him, had fed the soul with the complete divine belief, which was the aim of the minds in their mental flight and in their final round of roving for the sacred human truth, with which the conscience would rest and the soul would be comforted).[1]

He was, then, the greater educator of the soul and the unique leader, under whose banner the morals had achieved the immortal victory against the material effects in their struggle since mind had started its living with materials.

And as long as he was the hero of the battle between the morals and the materials, that hero, by whose mission the missions of the Heaven were ended, it was no wonder that he would be the center of that great world of morals. This was what Fatima wanted to say in her speech when describing the Muhammadan Paradise: “Muhammad became safe from the sufferings of this world…” Certainly he was the pivot in the worldly life and in the hereafter but he was, in the first, tired for he kept on struggling to build the fair human life in an immortal way, and in the second he became at ease for he was the pivot surrounded by the angels to offer in front of him the signs of praise and honor.

And as the Prophet was from the highest kind, so his Paradise must be like him. It was full of material ease or in fact it was full of the moral ease. Was there spiritual ease higher than to be beside the  

[1] It was quoted from The Divine Belief in Islam by the author himself.

Almighty King and to gain the contentment of the Forgiving God?

Such Fatima described her father’s paradise in two sentences to clarify his fact that he was the axis connected to the origin of the light and the sun surrounded by the angels in a world of radiance.

Greatness of Imam Ali and his excellences

 She said (addressing the public):

“You were on the brink of a pit of fire. You were as a drink for the drinkers, as an easy prey for the greedy, as a firebrand, from which someone took a piece hurriedly and so it would be put out in a short time. You were as foothold.[1] You used to drink from the rain water, in which animals urinated, and eat from the leaves of the trees. You were low and subservient. You were afraid of the nations around you. Then Allah saved you by Muhammad after the misfortunes and calamities he faced and after he was afflicted with the courageous men,[2] highwaymen and the insolent hypocrites of the Jews and the Christians. Whenever they kindled a fire for war, Allah put it out. Whenever the Satan’s followers revolted or a trouble came out of the polytheists the Prophet (s) sent his brother (Ali) into its flames. He would not be back until he treaded the war with his sole and put out its flames with his sword. He (Ali) tired himself out for the sake of Allah. He overworked to achieve the orders of Allah. He was the nearest to the Prophet.[3] He  

[1] She wanted to say that they were so low and subservient and that they were as a ready bite for the Romans, the Persians and some of the Arab tribes.
[2] The strong courageous men stood against him in the beginning of the mission.
[3] Ali was the Prophet’s cousin, son-in-law and guardian. He was to be the caliph after him. He was the most aware of the Prophet’s

was the master of the guardians. He always was ready, sincere, diligent and striving while you were living in luxury, ease and safety”.[1]

How wonderful the comparison that Fatima made between the highest kind of the military quality in the world of Islam at that time and the manliness attached to the qualities of the hero and the qualified soldier was! A comparison between bravery, whose signs the Heaven and the earth announced, and it was written with the pen of eternality in the index of the human idealities and between a personality (Abu Bakr and others..) satisfied with jihad by standing in the last line of the battle and would it was satisfied with that rather than to commit the prohibited fleeing according to the law of Islam and the law of sacrifice to unite the divine government on the earth!

We have never known throughout the history of mankind a skilled military talent having so excellent effects on the life of this planet like Ali’s among all heroes’ history. Imam Ali’s situations**[2]** in the fields of jihad and struggle were indeed the stilt, on which the world of Islam was erected and gained its great history.

Ali was the first Muslim in the first moment of the history of prophethood when the divine voice was echoed by Muhammad’s lips.[3] Then he was the first in being zealous and the first defender, to whom the Heaven entrusted the dealing**[4]** with the unbelieving community.  

knowledge. They both knew each other so closely. **
[1]** Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.16 p.250-251.
[2] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.25, 65-66.
[3] Referring to Ali’s being a Muslim, his assisting the Prophet and his infinite readiness to sacrifice for the sake of Islam. As-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa, p.185, at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.3 p.218-219.
[4] At-Tarmithi’s Sahih, vol.8 p.596.

The victory of Imam Ali in this comparison meant that he had the right to be the caliph for two reasons:

The first: he was the only soldier among all the Muslims of that time, who never separated the highest political position from the military positions.

The second: his wonderful jihad showed a great sincerity that had no way of doubt at all and a burning firebrand of faith that extinction could not find a way to it. This eternal burning firebrand and that immortal profuse sincerity were the two basic conditions for the leader, on whom the umma would depend to guard its morals and to keep its honor along the history.

A comparison between Imam Ali’s situations and the others’

If you study the life of the Prophet (s) and the history of his jihad, you will find that Ali astonished the earth and the heaven with his support to the Prophet**[1]** and you will find that Abu Bakr resorted to  

[1] At-Tabari mentioned in his Tareekh, vol.2 p.65-66 that when Imam Ali had killed (the keepers of the banners), the Prophet noticed some of the polytheists of Quraysh and said to Ali: “Attack them”. Ali attacked them. He scattered them and killed Amr bin Abdullah aj-Jumahi. Then the Prophet noticed another group of the polytheists of Quraysh. He said to Ali: “Attack them”. Ali attacked them. He scattered them and killed Shayba bin Malik. Gabriel said: “O messenger of Allah, this is the real support”. The Prophet said: “He is from me and I am from him”. Gabriel said: “And I am from you both”. Then a voice was heard saying: “No sword but Thulfaghar, and no youth but Ali”. Let us think of the Prophet’s answer to notice how he raised Ali above the concept of support that required multiplicity; Muhammad and Ali, to the unity and mixture when he said: “He is from me and I am from him”. He did not want to separate Imam Ali from himself because they were a unity that did never separate. Allah had made this unity as example for the human beings to imitate and for the heroes and reformers to be guided

the high leadership position surrounded by many heroes of the Ansar to guard him**[1]** in order to be safe from the calamities of the war.

It was he (Abu Bakr) himself, who fled from the battle of Uhud**[2]** as did Omar**[3]** and left the Prophet to die at that terrible hour where the helpers became rare and the banner of the Muslims declined. Only eight persons promised the Prophet to die for him; three from the Muhajireen and five from the Ansar, whom Abu Bakr was not one of as it was mentioned by the historians.[4] In fact no one of the historians mentioned that he ever fought in that situation any kind of fighting.[5]

Why was he with the returning people if he had not fled? Was not fighting the duty at that moment where the number of the defenders was not enough to stand against the enemy, who struck the Prophet with many strikes that made him offer the prayers while sitting?

We all might know that if someone was in the middle of the battlefield, he would not be safe from death by his enemy, unless he fled or he actually defended himself in the battle. Since Abu Bakr did not do any of these two things and yet he was safe, so it would mean that an opponent stopping in front of his enemy without defending and his enemy did not kill him. Did the polytheists pitied Abu Bakr  

according to its light to get to the top of highness. I do not know how the companions or some of them tried to disassemble this unity and to put between these two heroes three persons (the three caliphs, Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman) that they had better not to separate between Muhammad and Ali. **
[1]** Oyoonul Athar by ibn Sayyid an-Nass, vol.1 p.336.
[2] As it was mentioned in the books of the Shia.
[3] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.389-390.
[4] Shar Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.388 and al-Imta’ by al-Maqreezi p.132.
[5] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.389.

and did not pity Muhammad, Ali, az-Zubayr, Abu Dijana and Sahl bin Hunayf?

I have no reasonable interpretation for this situation except to say that he might stand beside the Prophet and got a safe place because it was the farthest point from the danger as the Prophet was then surrounded by his sincere companions. This was not unlikely because we knew Abu Bakr’s tact. He always liked to be beside the Prophet (s) in the war because the place of the Prophet (s) was the safest where the sincerest Muslims safeguarded and defended him devotedly.

If you studied the life of Imam Ali and the life of Abu Bakr, would you find in the life of the first any kind of extinction in his sincerity or a weakness in his rush for the sacrifice or leaning on ease and comfort at the hour of the sacred war? Let you ponder again, would you find any languor? (Then turn back the eye again and again; your look shall come back to you confused while it is fatigued. 67:4*),* because he would find splendor and death defiance in the way of Allah that you would never find the like and you would find a man that falsehood would never come to, neither from before him nor from behind him. He had the readiness for eternality like his great teacher Muhammad because they were but one![1]

Then if you study the life of Abu Bakr during the Prophet’s lifetime, will you find but weakness and ineffectuality in the ideological life and in the military life? It was clear when he fled from the  

[1] According to the verse: (Then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and ourselves and yourselves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars). 3:61.

battle of Uhud and the battle of Hunayn**[1]** and it was clear from his lagging to do his duty when the Prophet ordered him to go with the army under the leadership of Ussama**[2]** and from his defeat at Khaybar when the Prophet (s) sent him as the leader of an army to occupy the fort of the Jews and he fled back. Then the Prophet (s) sent Omar, who did the same as his friend.[3]In that terrible situation the enthusiasm of Omar and his wonderful heroism during the peacetime, with which Islam became so strong as they claimed, evaporated. Omar went back with his fellows, one cowarding the other.[4] Then the Prophet (s) said: “Tomorrow I will give the banner to a man, whom Allah and His Messenger love and he loves Allah and His Messenger. He will not come back until he wins”.[5] The Prophet, in his speech, gave a hint to crush the feelings of the two unsuccessful leaders and a frank pride on great Ali, who loved Allah and His Messenger and Allah and His Messenger loved him.[6]  

[1] Refer to as-Seera al-Halabiya, vol.2p.126 and refer to al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.3 p.67. Al- Bukhari mentioned that someone of those, who fought in the battle of Hunayn, had said: “The Muslims fled and I fled with them. I saw Omar among them. I said to him: What is wrong with the people? He said: it is the will of Allah. This showed that Omar was among the fleers.
[2] As-Seera al-Halabiya, vol.3 and ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, vol.2 p.248-250.
[3] Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.5 p.253, al-hakim’s Mustadrak, vol.3 p.27, Kanzul Ommal, vol.6 p.394 and at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.136.
[4] This was Ali’s description of the failed leader and the languid soldiers, who knew the weakness of each other; therefore they began to terrify the situation in order to find an excuse for their flight. Refer to at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.136.
[5] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.5 p.18, Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.5 p.353, at-Tarmithi’s Sahih, vol.5 p.596 and Muslim’s Sahih, vol.4 p.1873.
[6] It was very probable that the army, which Ali led to conquer the Jewish colony, was the same army, which fled a day ago. We understand from this the great effect of the leader on his army and the connection between their feelings and his. Ali could make

O you the two caliphs of the Muslims-or of some of the Muslims-, did your Prophet, whom you replaced, behave so? Did not you learn from him some of his lessons in jihad and suffering for the sake of Allah? Was not in your companionship with him for two decades any deterrent preventing you from doing what you did? Did not you hear the Quran, which you were entrusted with to guard and to spread its high idealities, saying: (And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day, unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company, then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be) 8:16.

You might agree with me that the important position of Abu Bakr and Omar in Islam made them above committing the prohibited fleeing, so they might have interpreted and found an excuse for their fleeing. We know that the space of interpretation was wide for the caliph Abu Bakr like when he justified the sin of Khalid bin al-Waleed when he killed a Muslim intendedly by saying: “He (Khalid) issued a fatwa but he misjudged”.[1]

We may apologize if what we have said above requires an apology, but we were obliged to mention that because the Fatimite comparison needed detailed explanations.  

those soldiers, who cowarded Omar in the previous attack, victorious heroes by pouring in their souls some of his great soul effusing with enthusiasm and sincerity. **
[1]** At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.273. Omar said to Abu Bakr: “In Khalid’s sword there is injustice. If it is not right, he deserves to be punished”. He insisted on that…Abu Bakr said: “O Omar, excuse him! He interpreted and misjudged”. Refer to Tareekh of ibn Shuhna printed on the margins of al-Kamil, vol.11 p.114.

The ruling party

Fatima said: “You lurk to bring us adversities and look forward to hearing bad news (which bring misfortunes to us)”.

This speech was addressed to the ruling party, which claimed that what Fatima ascribed to her addressees, made them hasten the homage for fear of sedition to occur. Her speech was a clear accusation for this party to prepare the terrible plot and to compact the plans waiting for the suitable opportunity in order to seize the rule and to divest the Hashimite house of it.

It was shown in the previous chapters that the secret agreement between Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Obayda**[1]** was proved by the historical facts.

We did not have to expect material evidence more perfect than Fatima’s speech for she lived with those difficult circumstances. Certainly she perceived the events of that time really, correctly and accurately more than the researchers, who came hundreds of years later to analyze those events.

And for the right of the research, we have to record that Fatima (s) was the first-if her husband was not the first -to declare the partisan assortment of the ruling party. She accused them of political plotting then she was followed, in this thought, by some of her contemporaries like Imam Ali**[2]** (s) and  

[1] We apologize to our master Abu Obayda for mentioning his mere name without a title. It was not my mistake but the death, which took his soul before he got the caliphate that people might give him any of the titles. As for the title (the faithful), I think that he got it neither from the Prophet (s) nor from people but he got it in special occasions that had nothing to do with the official decorations!
[2] With reference to Imam Ali’s saying: “O Omar, you milk a milking that you will have a half of it! Support him today to recompense you tomorrow…”. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.6 p.11 and p.12 Abu Obayda’s saying to Imam Ali.

Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan.[1]

As long as this party, which Fatima (s) confirmed its existence, Imam Ali (s) referred to and Mu’awiya glimpsed at, was controlling the rule and the fate of the umma and as long as the following ruling families, which directed all the public utilities to their interests, followed the same basis of that policy and the elements of that partisan method, which dazed the Islamic world, it is very natural that we do not see in history or at least the general history a clear image of that party, whose first partisans tried their best to color their deeds with the pure legal color, which was too far from their political colors and secret agreements.

Fatima (s) said: “Then you branded other than your camels and went to other than your drinking places. You did so and the age (of the Prophet) was still recent, the wound was still wide and not yet healed, and the Prophet was not yet buried. Did you so quickly claim the fear of sedition? Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers. By Allah, it was impregnated so wait until it bears then milk its blood…then they will perish who say false things and the successors will know what bad the earlier ones have established. Be at ease and wait relaxedly for the sedition. Rejoice at a sharp sword, general commotion and despotism, which will make your victuals so insignificant and your gathering separate. Alas for you!”[2]

If Abu Bakr and his two friends formed a party having special intents, it would be vain for us to expect that they would declare of it or announce the  

[1] Refer to Murooj ath-Thahab,vol.3 p.199 and Waq’at Siffeen by Nasr bin Muzahim p.119-120.
[2] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.16 p.234.

basic lines of their program, by which they would justify their situation on the day of the saqeefa; nevertheless there must be a justification and an interpretation!

It was clear that they hastened and longed eagerly to complete the homage to one of them and to seize the high positions in a way that it was not expected from such companions! It was supposed that they were prudent and having minds that did not think except of the benefit of Islam and did not care for keeping high positions. The possession of authority and seizing of ranks would not be the aim of Muhammad’s disciples.

The rulers felt that and perceived that their situation was somewhat odd so they wanted to patch it by claiming their keeping to the high aims and fearing for Islam from a sedition that might do away with it. What they forgot was that the patch always would expose itself and the new threads inserted in the dress would lead to show the patch. Therefore Fatima (s) declared her eternal word: “You claimed that you feared of sedition (Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers. Quran, 9:49*)* Yes, it was the sedition or the source of seditions definitely.

How wonderful you were O daughter of the Prophet, when you took the mask off the bitter truth and predicted for your father’s umma a terrible future, in whose sky red clouds would lighten to make rivers of blood full of skulls! How wonderful you were when reproached those persons with their bad deeds by saying: (Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers).

The great sedition

The political performances at that time were sedition and were the source of all seditions occurred thereafter.[1]

It was a sedition according to Fatima’s opinion-at least-because it was against the legal Islamic government, which was Ali’s right, who was the Prophet’s Aaron and was worthier to the Muslims than themselves.[2]

Among the ironies of the fate was that Omar justified his situation that he feared for sedition and he forgot that extorting the right from its legal keeper that the Prophet (s) had decided with the confession of Omar himself, was the very sedition with all meanings of sedition!

I do not know what prevented those, who feared from sedition to occur and had no greed for the rule except as much as related to the interests of Islam, from asking the Prophet about the caliph after him and asking him to appoint for them the higher authority of the Islamic government after him, where he was sick for many days and he said many  

[1] As it was cleared by the saying of Omar: “The homage of Abu Bakr was a slip that Allah kept the Muslims safe from its evils”. Refer to at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.235 and it was mentioned in as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa p.36: “…and whoever does it (the homage) again must be killed”.
[2] According to the tradition of al-Ghadeer, which was narrated by one hundred and eleven companions, eighty-four of the successors and was mentioned by three hundred and fifty-three of our brothers of the Sunni authors as mentioned in the book al-Ghadeer by al-Ameeni. I would like to notice here that much of the holy Quran was not narrated by such number of narrators as those, who narrated the tradition of al-Ghsdeer. So whoever suspected this tradition, would suspect the holy Quran. The evidence proving the imamate and caliphate of Ali was so clear that had no way for doubt and suspicion. Refer to al-Muraja’at by Sayyid Abdul Hussayn Sharafuddeen and refer to as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa p.122.

times that he would leave for the better world nearly and some of his companions gathered around him asking him about how to wash him (ghusl)[1] and how to prepare the procedures of the burial?[2] Did not those, who insisted on Omar (when he was about to die) to appoint for them the caliph after him in order not to leave the umma without a ruler for fear of sedition,[3] think of asking for that from the Prophet (s)? Did they ignore the dangers of the situation in spite of that the Prophet had warned them of seditions like the dark night? But as the Prophet (s) joined his Exalted Companion, their zeal for the religion shined and their hearts were filled with fear from sedition and evil results! Do you agree with me that the Prophet had chosen for the ship the best captain and therefore no one of them asked him any question?

Let us leave this aside and try to find for them whatever excuses that may justify their actions. Those people, zealous for Islam, not only were satisfied with not asking the Prophet, but also they prevented him from saving them from the expected dangers when he wanted to write a decree, by which (the Muslims would never deviate at all).[4] Deviation did mean sedition and then there would be no sedition after that decree so did they suspect the Prophet not to be truthful?! Or did they think that they were more zealous for Islam and more able to do away with the seditions and commotions than the Prophet and the first man of Islam?  

[1] Washing a dead man in a special manner according to the Islamic rules.
[2] Al-Kamil fit-Tareekh by ibnul Atheer, vol.2 p.122 and as-Seera an-Nabawiya by ibn Katheer, vol.4 p.527.
[3] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.580, al-Iqd al-Fareed, vol.4 p.260.
[4] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.1 p.371 and vol.8 p.161.

It would be better for us to ask about what the Prophet (s) had meant by seditions when he addressed those buried in the cemetery of al-Baqee’[1] in the last days of his honored life: “How lucky you are by being here! Seditions will come like pieces of dark nights”.[2]

Perhaps you might say that it referred to the sedition of the apostates. This justification would be accepted if the Prophet was afraid that the deads of al-Baqee’ would apostatize but if he was not afraid of that-as it was real-because they were good Muslims and many of them were martyrs, so why did he congratulate them for not attending those days? And definitely the Prophet (s) did not mean the Umayyad riots done by Othman and Mu’awiya**[3]** for they were nearly three decades after that date.

So that sedition, the Prophet (s) referred to, must be after his departure immediately and that it would concern the deads of al-Baqee’ more than the sedition of the apostates and of those, who claimed to be prophets.

Hence it was the very sedition that Fatima (s) referred to when saying: (Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers).

Is it then wrong to call it the first sedition in the Islamic history after the Prophet (s) had called it sedition?

The political performances of that days were sedition from another side that they imposed on the umma a caliphate, with which no one was satisfied except a few,[4] who had no right to decide the fate of  

[1] The graveyard of the Muslims in Medina.
[2] At-Tareekh al-Kamil by ibnul Atheer, vol.2 p.318.
[3] At-Taj aj-Jami’ lil-Ussool, vol.5 p.310.
[4] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.233.

the government neither according to the Islamic laws nor according to all the civil laws.

It was the caliphate of Abu Bakr, when he came out of the saqeefa (and Omar trotting in front of him shouting until his mouth foamed) surrounded by his group (wearing San’ani**[1]** aprons and passing by no one unless they hit him and brought him (in front of Abu Bakr). They extended his hand to touch Abu Bakr’s hand to pay homage to him willingly or unwillingly).[2]

This showed that the rulers had carried to the Muslims a caliphate that was neither blessed by the Heaven nor accepted by the Muslims. Abu Bakr did not gain his authority by a decree from the Prophet nor by the consensus of the umma as long as Sa’d did not pay homage until Abu Bakr died and as long as the Hashimites did not pay homage until six months of Abu Bakr’s caliphate.[3]

It was said that those in power had paid homage to him and that was enough.

Did this concept not need an explanation or a reference to be concerned? Who did consider those, who had paid homage to Abu Bakr such and had given them that unlimited authority?

It was neither the umma nor the Prophet (s) because we knew that the men of the saqeefa had not followed the normal method of elections and had not permitted the Muslims to choose secondary candidates, who were considered men in power according to the traditions of that time.

It was not mentioned that the Prophet (s) had granted this wide authority to any special group.  

[1] Related to Sana’a.
[2] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.1 p.74.
[3] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih (the virtues of the companions) chap.35 p.66 and chap.43 p.8.

Then how would it be granted to a few Muslims, who would control the affairs of the Muslims without their consent, in a constitutional regime like the Islamic government as they claimed?

How wonderful of the political tradition it was that the government itself would appoint those in power**[1]** and then it would gain its final opinion from them.

And more wonderful it was that they excluded Ali, al-Abbas and all the Hashimites, Sa’d bin Obada, az-Zubayr, Ammar, Salman, Abu Tharr, al-Miqdad and all those gifted with intellect and prudence**[2]** from those in power if actually there was such class in Islam that had the right of deciding exclusively.

Putting this word in the dictionary of the Islamic life paved the way for the aristocracy to appear, which was too far from the essence of Islam and its reality that was purified from caste and discrimination.

Would that great wealth, with which the sacks of Abdur Rahman bin Ouff, Talha and the likes were filled, be heaped unless those rulers adopted this ugly aristocracy, which was ill-omened for Islam, and saw that they were the high class deserving to have the millions and to control people’s rights as  

[1] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.233. Abu Bakr said: “I accepted to you one of these two men; Omar and Abu Obayda (to be the caliph)… and I myself choose Abu Obayda”. Omar stood up and said (to the people in the saqeefa): “Who of you would refuse the two feet (Abu Bakr) that the Prophet had preferred?” Then Omar paid homage to Abu Bakr and then people paid homage too…the Ansar said: “We do never pay homage except to Ali”.
[2] According to the saying of ibn Abbas to Omar: “As for those gifted with intellect and intelligence they still consider him (Ali) as perfect man since Allah have raised the banner of Islam, but they consider him as being wronged and deprived of his rights”. Refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.115.

they liked?

They said: “The majority is the criterion of the legal government and the principle, on which the caliphate is based”.

But the holy Quran did not pay attention to the majority and did not consider it as evidence or true proof. Allah said:

(And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way) 6:116.

(And most of them are averse from the truth) 23:70.

(And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture) 10:36.

(But most of them are ignorant) 6:111.

It was mentioned in the Sunni books of Hadith that the Prophet (s) had said: “While I am (at the pond on the Day of Resurrection) a group of people will come. When I recognize them, a man will come between me and them. He will say to them: “Let us go.” I will ask: “Whereto (are you taking them)?” He will say: “To Hell.” I will say: “What for?” He will say: “They apostatized after you…” until he (the Prophet) said: “I do not think that many of them will be saved except as much as the lost livestock”.[1]

So that majority of Hell that the Prophet talked about could not be the source of the Islamic government because they would form a caliphate impressed with their own morals.

If we considered that this majority did not concern the people of Medina only, about whose eternal seats in Hell we knew from the Prophet’s tradition, and we considered the majority of the Muslims in general to be the true criterion, so we  

[1] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.8 p.68. The lost livestock means very little.

had to notice that whether Medina was the only inhabitance of the Muslims, by whom the quorum would be enough to certify the caliphate of Abu Bakr or he was not satisfied with them and he sent for all the Muslims all over the Islamic state counseling and taking their votes into account? Certainly not! Nothing of that happened. He imposed his government over the entire state forcibly and there was no way of reviewing or arguing until the hesitation in submitting to the government became an unforgivable crime.[1]

They said: “The homage could be valid if some of the Muslims paid it and undoubtedly this happened with Abu Bakr’s homage”.

This would not be acceptable by any standard of proper political thinking because those some could not control the affairs of all the umma and the fate of the umma could not be hanged by so thin thread like this. The sanctities and the high position of the umma could not be left to a government established by a group of companions, who were not recommended by the public consensus nor by a sacred decree but they just were ordinary people of the companions. We know well that: (And there are some of them who molest the Prophet and say: He is one who believes every thing that he hears) 9:61 (And there are those of them who made a covenant with Allah: If He give us out of His grace, we will certainly give alms and we will certainly be of the good. But when He gave them out of His grace, they became niggardly of it and they turned back and they withdrew. So He made hypocrisy to follow as a consequence into their hearts till the day when they shall meet Him because they failed to perform towards Allah what they had promised with Him and because they told lies  

[1] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.8 p.68.

9:75-77) and among them were some, whom Allah kept knowing their bad intents and hypocrisy to Himself when saying to the Prophet (s): (and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them) 9:101.

A group that included hypocrites, liars and some, who hurt the Prophet (s) could not have the right to decide the highest position of the Islamic world or the fate of the entire umma.

Commenting on this information we say: the caliphate of Abu Bakr was not done according to a prophetic tradition or the approval of the majority or a result of direct or indirect elections. Yes, some of the Muslims tried their best to secure this caliphate, around which some people gathered and many groups of the people of Medina supported, but all those were not but some of the Muslims and the some could not represent the entire umma. The legal rule that would represent all the umma had to be approved by all the umma or by the great majority of the umma. Secondly there were among the Muslims many hypocrites, whom no one knew but Allah according to the holy Quran, and to determine that this minority, who would form the political entity of the umma, were not hypocrites would have to be according to the Quran, the prophetic traditions or the opinion of the umma.

So let Abu Bakr permit us to incline towards Fatima’s opinion partially or totally because we did not find a meaning for the sedition clearer than the dominating of one man over the umma without any legal justification and controlling all its public utilities as Abu Bakr had done in the days of his caliphate or the first months or the first weeks of his rule when Fatima did her speech.

I do not know whether the hasty despots thought about the results of their despotism and not paying any attention to those, who definitely had an opinion about the matter if they began to oppose and if the Hashimites got ready to resist the government. This thing was possible and might happen at any moment so why did not they take care of this side when they decided and got their final result in not more than an hour?

Why would we sanctify the situation more than its heroes had sanctified it? Omar exceeded in sanctifying it to a point that he ordered to kill whoever would do like the homage of Abu Bakr**[1]** and he himself did it.

If we regarded this speech and understood it as speech of an imam caring for the constitution of Islam, we would perceive that he found the situation of Abu Bakr and his friends in the saqeefa as sedition and corruption because killing was prohibited except for these reasons.

It was after all the source of every sedition because it made the caliphate of Allah as a fancy that the pious and the dissolute began to look forward to it as Aa’isha, who undoubtedly represented the ruling party, declared.[2] It was this sedition that paved the way for the political fancies. The parties were formed, the policies fought each other, the Muslims separated and divided so badly**[3]** that their great entity and glory was lost.

What would you think about this umma, which formed in a quarter of century the first state allover the world because the leader of the opposition at that time-Ali- did not activate the opposition, which  

[1] As-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa p.56.
[2] Ad-Durr al-Manthoor, vol.6 p.19.
[3] Al-Milel wen-Nihal by ash-Shahristani, vol.1 p.30-31.

would have shaken the entity and the unity of the umma?

What glory, what authority and what domination over the world the umma would have if it was not afflicted with the conflicting lovers of the rule and the drunken emirs affected with the ecstasy of authority and if it was not a field for the bloody fights, which were unequalled throughout history, and if the rulers did not exploit all the wealth of the umma for their pleasures and eases and after that they despised the values and the traditions of the umma![1]

Abu Bakr and Omar did not think beyond their own time. They imagined that their power would guard the Islamic entity, but if they thought better of their view and studied the situation prudently as Fatima (s) did, they would know the truthfulness of the warn she warned them with.  

[1] Murooj ath-Thahab by al-Mas’oodi, vol.3 p.214, al-Iqd al-Fareed by ibn Abd Rabbih, vol.5 p.200-202 and The Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutub.