The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency and the Political Authority in Islam

Chapter 5 — the Surrogate Authority

In spite of the fact that (no inference in doctrinal texts), some used their own inference in questions about which decisive doctrinal texts were instituted. This inference led its owners to misconceive that it is not for the good of Islam and Muslims to cling to the doctrinal authority identified and nominated by the divine doctrine, since divine texts regarding this point had been originated by the Prophet's intellect, and they had not been divine commands. They also misthought that the Prophet, when he established bases of that analysis, had lacked the familiarity of the public's rejecting the Hashemites' joining leadership to prophesy. They alleged that some Muslims had not wanted to face the Prophet by exhibiting what they had in mind. Incidents went hurriedly. The surrogate authority was created in a short time. Originators of this operation thought that they had been doing well and serving Islam and the Prophet. They conjectured that the divine appositeness had granted them exclusively the mission of planning for prospective structure of Islam because they had been the most meritorious of taking this earnest task from among the Muslims. Thus, they garnered their efforts and went on implementing their strategy.

The Consummation of Installing Features of the Surrogate Authority

The Prophet was in his final moments. The Angel Gabriel visited him ceaselessly, especially in this period. The Prophet had full knowledge of the future of his nation. He did his mission so completely, conveyed his Lord's missives and explicated every thing totally. He was familiar with surrounding incidents. He realized that the current silence should be followed by an explosion destroying the political legality and doctrinal authority. This destruction would certainly disarm Islam and cripple the central originator of the divine solicitation and government.

For his nature, the Prophet should never be inclined by storms, or occluded from keeping his deep pathos of kindness and mercy towards people. In addition to completion of the religion, perfection of the divine grace and

comprehensive explication of every thing needed including ways of appropriate defecation and urination, the Prophet insisted on condensing the entire situation for people. By this, he intended that people would be guided and would never be deviated or affected by the imminent pitfalls waylaying for them and waiting for his decease so that they — the pitfalls — would be opening their mouths for troubling Islam's pureness, hampering its movement and digressing its course.

The Clamorous Encounter

The Prophet was bed­ridden. His blessed house suffocated with the grand Sahaba. He importunately persisted on summarizing the situation and reminding of the future course of the Islamic march. He said: “Fetch me a paper so that I will record a decree after which you shall never be deviated.”

What is the wrong with such a prophetic cognizance? Who would reject preservation against deviation? For what is this matter rejected? For whose good is it rejected? Moreover, considering Mohammed as an ordinary Muslim, not a prophet and a leader of the nation, it is rightful for every Muslim to record his will and say whatever he wants, specially just before his final departure. It is optional for the receivers to apply or discount that will or saying.

Al­Faruq, Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab, interfered and addressed at the retinue: “The Prophet is dominated by his pains. You have the Quran. We are sufficed by God's Book.”

The retinue were engaged in discrepancy. Some supported the Prophet's demand with recording a decree after which deviation shall be thoroughly suspended. While others supported Omar's request of standing against that demand. When their dispute attained its climax, the Prophet dismissed them.[26]

According to another narrative, when the Prophet demanded with a paper on which he would record a decree protecting against thorough deviation, the

[26] Al­Bukhari's, Book of Sick, Chapter: The diseased's dismissing the visitors: part.7 page9. Muslim's, the last of Book of Will, pare 5 page75. An­Nawawi's Muslim's Sahih, part.11, page95. Ahmed's, part.4 page356, hadith 2992. bn­Abil­Hadid's Sharhu Nahjil­Belagha, part.6, page51.

retinue disputed. It is disapprovable to dispute in the attendance of a prophet. They claimed that the Prophet had been speaking out of dotage. “Quit me!” the Prophet said, “Pains I am engaged in are more favorable than deeds you are drawing me to.”[27]

According to a third; the Prophet said: “Fetch me a paper and an inkpot so that I will record a decree protecting from deviation for ever.” They answered: “Prophet of God is speaking our of dotage.”[28]

According to a fourth narrative ascribed to Al­Bukhari, the Prophet said: “Fetch me a paper so that I will record a decree protecting you from deviation for ever.” “The Prophet is affected by his pains. We have, sufficiently, the Book of God.” Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab commented. So, they were engaged in litigious dispute. “Quit me.” the Prophet settled the divergence, “Before me it is disapprovable to engage in dispute.”[29]

According to a fifth narrative of Al­Bukhari, the Prophet said: “Fetch me a paper so that I will record a decree protecting you thoroughly against deviation.” They were engaged in dispute. It is disapprovable to dispute before a prophet. “What is the wrong with him? Has he been speaking out of dotage? Ask him.” they commented. Some faced him with these questions frequently. “Quit me,” he said, “pains I am engaged in are more favorable than deeds you are drawing me to.”[30]

According to a sixth reported by Al­Bukhari, the Prophet said: “Fetch me a paper so that I will record a decree protecting you thoroughly from deviation.” They were engaged in dispute. It is disapprovable to dispute before a prophet. “What is the wrong with him? Has he been speaking out of dotage? Ask him.” they commented. “Quit me,” he said, “pains I am engaged in are more favorable than deeds you are drawing me to.”[31]

As to a seventh of Al­Bukhari, the Prophet said: “Let me record a decree according to which you shall never be deviated.” “The Prophet has been

[27] Al­Bukhari's, part.4, page31 and Muslims' part.1, page222 and part.3, page286. [28] Muslim's, part.2, page16 and part.11, page94­5, and Ahmed's, part.1 page355, and At­Tabari's Tarikh, part.2, page193 and Ibnul­Atheer's Al­Kamil, page320. [29] Al­Bukhari's, part.1 page37. [30] Al­Bukhari's, part.5 page137 and At­Tabari's Tarikh, part.3, page192­3. [31] Al­Bukhari's, part.2 page132 and part.4 page65­6.

affected by his pains. You have the Quran. We are sufficed by the Book of Allah.” Omar commented.

The attendants were engaged in litigious dispute. Some supported the Prophet's demand and others supported Omar's suggestion. “Quit me.” The Prophet said as their divergence attained its climax.[32]

According to another report, Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab said: “The Prophet is speaking out of dotage…”[33]

Al­Faruq declared that he had occluded the Prophet from recording that decree so that he would prevent him from nominating Ali for leadership.[34]

Analysis of the Encounter

Parties of Encounter

The first party: Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family), the messenger of Allah, seal of prophets and the Imam (president) of the Islamic state.

The adversary party: Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab; one of the grand Sahaba and most remarkable viziers of the Islamic state and the second successor after the Prophet.

Place of encounter: The Prophet's house.

Witnesses of the encounter: the grand Sahaba (pleased be them).

Preliminary Results of the Encounter

1. Dissension

The attendants dissented on two groups:

[32] Al­Bukhari's part.8 page161. [33]As­Sibt Al­Jawzi's Tethkiretul­Khawass, page62, and Abu­Hamid Al­Ghezzali's Sirrul­Aalemine We Keshfu Ma Fid­Darein, page21. [34] bn­Abil­Hadid's Sharhu Nahjil­Belagha, part.3 page113 Line 27, First edition; Egypt and Beiruit, and part.12 page79 Line 3 by the revision of Mohammed Abul­Fadhl, and part.3 page803, Edit; Daru Mektebetil­Hayat and part.3 page167, Darul­Fikr.

The first group supported Al­Faruq in preventing the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) from recording that decree. This group argued that Al­Faruq had been one of the most considerable Sahaba and Prophet's viziers. He cared for Islam. He thought that there had been no incentive to annoy the diseased Prophet by allowing him to record that will. The Quran is sufficient in this regard. It is the security against deviation. Hence, it is inconsequential to have the decree the Prophet would write.

The second group rejected originally any sort of encounter between followers and their leaders; a believer and a prophet whose mission is acceptably satisfactory; an apostle who directly receives instructions from God and an applier of such instructions; a prophet that is a head of a government and one of his ministers. The group members determine that it is imperative to give the Prophet a chance to say or record everything he intends since he is still a prophet and head of the government till the last moment of his life and till someone occupies his place. From another face, he is a Muslim who lawfully enjoys freedom of speaking out and recording whatever he intends. Lastly, he was the master of the house in which these incidents had occurred. So, every individual has the right to say anything in his own house.

2. Emanation Of A New Huge Trend

Al­Faruq proved his being a new huge trend that had the capability of preventing the Prophet from recording his will. Many supporters was attracted by this new trend in the case of encountering the Prophet directly.[35] decorously, he could move and lead the coming incidents. Till this time, none could certainly identify the individual who advised the Ansar to hold a meeting in the Bani­Sa'ideh's Saqeefa — shed. Similarly, none could understand the way by which this meeting was held. None also understood how Omar had lonlily known of it. The most authentic matter is that Abu­Bakr, Omar and Abu­Ubeideh had been the only Muhajirs who attended that meeting. The most authentic report is that Abu­Bakr (pleased be him) had been helping the Prophet's immaculate household establish their decedent's funeral. A most authentic matter, also, is that it was Omar who had called Abu­Bakr and told of the Saqeefa meeting. Another most

[35] the references of the calumnious day. The sayer of "We are sufficed by the Book of Allah" was Al­Faruq.

authentic report is that Abu­Bakr and Omar had taken Abu­Ubeideh with them as they accidentally found him in their way to Bani­Sa'ideh's Saqeefa.[36]

Al­Faruq, therewith, lived in the core of these incidents. He shadowed the situation so scrupulously and continuously. In the Ansar’s meeting, he was the star who could steer results to his wishes. He would have been the caliph had he intended to. Just after the cessation of that meeting and the majority's declaring fealty to Abu­Bakr, Omar himself led the completion of the fealty declaration process. He promoted that the Muhajirs should swear allegiance to Abu­Bakr whom had just been elected, by the Ansar and Omar himself, as the new leader. The Umayids, led by Othman, hurried to declaring their fealty. It was Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab who enlisted, from the voters of Abu­Bakr, a phalanx for taking Ali and his companions out of Fatima Az­Zahra's house by force, and making them swear allegiance to the nominated caliph.[37] It was Omar who menaced to kill Ali if he would refrain from swearing allegiance[38] It was Omar who advised Abu­Bakr to gift Abu­Sufian the alms for guaranteeing his loyalty to the new government[39] It was Omar who suggested to Abu­Bakr assigning Yazeed­bn­Abi­Sufian as the commander of the army of Syria[40] that became the tremendous power helped in the settlement of Abu­Bakr's government. Soon after that, As­Siddiq was deceased. Omar inherited that stable government easily without any sort of opposition. This inheritance was a step followed by another. Sooner or later, historians shall perceive that Al­Faruq had an immense unprecedented capacity of planning and hypothesizing.[41] He played the role of constituent body of the post­prophesy era. He arranged the essentialities of the coming ruling of Islam. He decided not to let the Hashemites join leadership to prophesy. Thus, caliphate should be inherited far away from them. It should be a pure right of the predominant individuals apart from the legality or the illegality of the means of predominance.

[36] bn­Quteibeh's Al­Imametu Wes­Siyaseh, pages 5 and on. [37] the references of flaming Fatima's house numerously mentioned. [38] Al­Imametu Wes­Siyaseh, page13. [39] bn­Abil­Hadid's Sharhu Nahjil­Belagheh, part.1 page306­7. [40] At­Tabari's Tarikh part.3 page209­10, and Al­Qasimi's Tarikhul­Hukm page152. [41] Ibnul­Atheer's Al­Kamilu Fit­Tarikh, part.3 page24 and bn­Abil­Hadid's Sharhu Nahjil­Belagheh, part.3 page107.

3. Emergence Of The Ideas Of Predominance And Preferring The Follower To The Master

By the previously mentioned encounter, the ideas of predominance, preferring the follower to the master and the equality between masters and their followers were originated. Moreover, states of confusedness and perplexity of discerning the right were emanated.

Al­Faruq argued that a hazardous question might have been arisen from the diseased Prophet's recording his will. A group of Sahaba supported this claim. This argument was created out of doubt.

The other party argued that Mohammed had been still a prophet till his last respiration and till his immaculate soul leaves to the Creator. They believed he had never been speaking out of desire. This is an ascertained fact. Consequently, it is irrational to depend upon doubts and disdain the ascertained fact. Disease is not an obstacle against speaking.

Two Similar Occurrences

1. When Abu­Bakr was arduously affected by his disease, he sought the celebrities' advice. After that, he summoned Othman alone. “Write down:” Abu­Bakr asked Othman just before he was fainted. During these moments, Othman wrote: “I do use Omar­bn­Al­Khattaab as my successor to caliphate.” When he regained consciousness, Abu­Bakr ordered Othman to read what he had written down. “So, you did so since you anticipated that people would be engaged in discrepancies if I passed away during my previous syncope. Did you not?” said Abu­Bakr. “Yes, I did.” asserted Othman. “God reward you for Islam and its people.” blessed Abu­Bakr. This form was agreed upon by Abu­Bakr.[42] This is an unanimously authentic fact.

2. When Omar was in his final disease, the physician surprised him that he would not catch that evening. “Fetch me that paper, son.” Omar asked Abdullah. As the paper was between his hands he erased it and shouted out of the pains he was suffering: “By God I swear, I would sacrifice what is all found on this globe for the horror of the coming stage.”

[42] At­Tabari's Tarikh part.3 page429. Al­Qasimi's Nidhamul­Hukm page176. Ibnul­Jawzi's Seeretu Omar page37. bn­Khuldoun's Tarikh part.2 page85. An­Nidhamus­Siyasi Fil­Islam page120.

Abdullah, the son, rejected his dying father's demand with fixing his cheek to the ground. “Woe is your mother. Put my cheek to the ground. Woe is Omar and Omar's mother if God will not forgive him.” said Omar to his son.[43]

In spite of the harsh pains Abu­Bakr and Omar were suffering in their final diseases, they could record their wills. Omar could arrange the matter of the six­member advisory board in a form that he was assured of Othman's being the caliph. He also guaranteed that a Hashemite would never be elected for leadership whatever his qualifications were. Scrupulously, the two wills were implemented. Although the two were suffering unbearable pains, they were allowed to speak out their wills. During recording their wills, Abu­Bakr and Omar were ceremoniously the caliphs of the Muslims. Thus, they enjoyed the right of practicing their duties since they were still alive and operative.

By common consent, this is an indisputable fact. How was it allowable for Abu­Bakr and Omar to record their wills while they were suffering pains of their final diseases harsher than those suffered by the Prophet during his final disease? Nevertheless, the Prophet was prevented from recording his will.

Supposing Mohammed is equated to Abu­Bakr and Omar; had it not been rightful for him — Mohammed — to practice what they — Abu­Bakr and Omar — practiced thereafter? At any cost, the supposition of equating Abu­Bakr and Omar to Mohammed is topically and positively inoperative. This is by the fact that Mohammed was an Imam and a prophet messeged by God, while Abu­Bakr and Omar were only fellows. Mohammed was speaking out of God's revelation. In several occasions, the Prophet asserted that the revelation had been coming to him during periods of physical complaint.[44] God, in the Quran, says: (And whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back.) (And your companion is not gone mad.) (Nor does he speak out of desire.) (It is naught but revelation that is revealed.) How should a man with such divine qualifications and attributes be instantaneously changed into a dotard? How should he be irreliable even in recording his own will?

[43] Al­Imametu Wes­Siyaseh pages 21­2. bn­Sa'd's At­Tabaqat. An­Nidhamus­Siyasi pages 120­1. [44] bn­Sa'd's At­Tabaqat part.2 page193.

Despite that this occurrence is an undeniable and indefensible fact that exploded the entire future of Islam and was the seed from which the total tragedies and catastrophes that acted upon Islam were originated, Sunnis are still paying no attention to it. They are neglecting inclusively and regarding it as an ordinary narrative.

Thus, the scale of the follower was practically weighed against the leader. The follower became an authority while the leader stood watching. The follower achieved his layout and his volition, around which people circumambulated, became the prevailing. The idea of prevalence was applied and fruited. Later on, the principal of prevalence was legislated. It became licit for people to watch the combat before they opt for being in the predominant's line, aside from regarding qualifications, legibility and religion of that predominant.[45] Hence, the follower contained his master and the less favorable preceded the most.

Thereupon, it is not surprising to see Muawiya­bn­Abi­Sufian, the ‘released’ and the son of the ‘released’ and one of the heart­inclined class, come to power and contend with the foremost Muslim and Allah's devotee and the master of every male and female Muslim, according to divine texts, for the caliphate. It is not astonishing to see him exert efforts to persuade the Muslims of his being fitter and more preferred than Ali. As well, it is not remarkable to see many people in the various eras of Islam reckon the two in the same degree considering them as equally authorities and people of the Paradise.

It is also not inconceivable to see Marwan, the son of Al­Hakam­bn­Al­Aas who had been banished from Al­Madina all the times of the Prophet, Abu­Bakr and Omar, demand with the position of caliphate since Othman had assigned him as his prime minister and his son­in­law after he had permitted his father to enter Al­Madina city with exquisite reverence and honor.

The differences between the followers and their masters, the favored to Allah and Islam and the retarded were rendered null and void. Al­Waleed­bn­Aqaba, who led the collective Fajr prayer and performed it in four Rak'as — units of prayer — while he was drunk and wondered if people asked for more, became the leader of

[45] Al­Qasimi's Nidhamul­Hukm pages 344­5, and An­Nidhamus­Siyasi Fil­Islam page153.

Al­Hussein­bn­Ali­bn­Abi­Talib who should, according to the Umayid criteria, listen to the sermons of that drunkard governor and ask his advice in his mundane and religious questions!!

4. Success And Mastery Of The Prevalent

The prevalent, whatever he was, became the predominant and the master. He became the Imam and the president of the Muslims and their state, and the only one to whom they should refer in mundane and religious questions. He was the holder of power means and in whose hands was the perfect control on the imports of the state. He enjoyed the right of giving or depriving any of their rights. Except for Allah and his religion, none had been the supervisor of that prevalent. He was the general leader of the Muslims' armed forces, and he had full competency to use these forces for achieving internal or external security and for submitting his people whether voluntarily or coercively. He had full control on the mass media and the ability of changing the white into black and the opposite. By controlling the mass media, the predominant had the capability of making the dwarf seem to be giant and the opposite. The supporters of such a predominant ruler were reprogrammed to be the front of their master who had extensive ground in directing the policy of that state. Later on, they became authorities to whom people should refer. Their duties were adopting that predominant's viewpoint and using his methods for their impressive authorities. Hence, they were regarded as celebrities of the society and the gleaming stars. They were leading to the concentration point; the predominant's viewpoint. Ordinary people played on the same cord. This became the formulation to which people had been unitedly submitted. With the pass of years, this formulation were devoted. With the pass of decades, it was radically planted in the ground of factuality. Finally, it became a public opinion and a political persuasive belief.

5. Dismissing The Prophet's Immaculate Progeny

In the midst of the previous circumstances, the Prophet's immaculate progeny demanded with the prevalence of legality. They called for their right. People, however, stood against their legality. Abul­Hassan's style of opposing Abu­Bakr was ultimately civilized and logic. This matter was supported by Bashir­bn­Sa'd, the first man who declared loyalty to Abu­Bakr as a leader. When he listened to Ali's argument, Bashir said: “The Ansar would have referred to you totally if they had listened to your words before

they swore allegiance to Abu­Bakr.”[46]

At any rate, the power and the opposition are of customary situations. Naturally, it is impractical for the rulers or their supporters to trust politically the opposition or to handle their achievements to them in any consequence. In the case involved particularly, it was decided not to do away with Ali since Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed, was backing him. Still, he was threatened to be killed if he would disdain swearing allegiance to Abu­Bakr. It was also decided not to coerce him to declare his fealty to the new leadership, for the sake of Fatima.

Besides, while Imam Ali and his wife, Fatima Az­Zahra, were passing by the sessions of the Ansar at night and asking for support, the authorities took no influential procedures against them. The Ansar said: “O daughter of God's messenger! We have already declared loyalty to that man. We would not have elected other than your husband and cousin had he come to us before Abu­Bakr.” Ali answered them: “Should I have left the Prophet's body in his house without burying him and gone out for contesting people in his government?” Fatima commented: “Abu­Hassan did exactly what was required from him. They did what Allah shall penalize and amerce for.”[47]

By this logical result, Imam Ali and his supporters were dismissed just after the decease of Fatima. The ruling authorities' inclination of isolating Imam Ali from the Hashemites became evident due to their endeavors of dragging Al­Abbas towards their power by urging his progeny and him on holding positions in their government. Al­Abbas refused such endeavors so strictly and rejected their offers so antiseptically.[48]

It is a categorical standard that ordinary people, in case they are given the alternative to choose either the side of the ruling authority or the opposition side, to opt for the earlier. Consecutively, the Prophet's progeny's attitudes were about to dissect the rope of intimacy with the ruling authorities thoroughly after Omar's intendment to put Fatima's house on fire while there was a number of people inside it. God, however, saved against so.[49]

[46] Al­Imametu Wes­Siyaseh page12. [47] Al­Imametu Wes­Siyaseh page12. [48] Al­Imametu Wes­Siyaseh pages 15­6. [49] references regarding Omar's intending to put Fatima's house on fire.

As a means of stopping the Hashemite march, the ruling authorities were converted that it is illicit for the Hashemite to join leadership to prophesy. They also believed that people of Quraish had been right when they applied this principal.[50] Moreover, a provisory decision that any Hashemite individual, apart from qualifications and legibility, should not be held any position in the government, was enacted. In the reigns of Abu­Bakr and Omar, this decision was literally implemented. Besides, Omar asserted practically that any supporter of the Hashemites should not hold any position in the government.[51]Accordingly, Ali and his party were secluded.

Imam Ali and his party could live peacefully with the two Sheiks­Abu­Bakr and Omar. The Prophet's progeny were preceded in distributing the imports of the state among people. Their souls and properties were secured in that period. The two Sheiks were wont to refer and seek the advise of Imam Ali in many questions. Affairs of the state were stable owing to the conquests and the two Sheiks' scorning their own caprices.

Not too long after Othman's being the caliph, the Sahaba left him gradually and the Umayids supplanted them. Othman's palace was suffocated with the Umayids who, actually, did not add anything new. The positions from which the Prophet's progeny were forbidden during the two Sheik's reigns, were not allowed for them during Othman's. The difference was that since Ali and his party were not to shun the flaws of Othman's men; the Umayids, the ruling authorities reckoned Ali's enjoining good and forbidding evil with the banned activities of the opposition. Therefore, they regarded Ali and his party as unwelcomed persons. In addition to the past throngs of hostility between the Hashemites and the Umayids, these motives were extended till they attained the climax when a military combat occurred between Muawiya, the governor of Syria, and Ali, the Imam and the leader of the Islamic nation. Power overcame legality. Muawiya was assigned as the actual king of the nation. That occurred in the year called later on ‘year of congruity’. A new era of persecuting Mohammed's progeny started. It was teary and bloody. Mohammed's progeny, hence, were almostly terminated. Maligning and reviling at them became a legislative imposing precept all over the state. People were the chorus whose job was repeating the ruler's

[50] Ibnul­Atheer's Al­Kamilu Fit­Tarikh part.3 page24 (the last lines of Omar in 23 A.H.), and bn­Abil­Hadid's Sharhu Nahjil­Belagheh and An­Nidhamus­Siyasi Fil­Islam page149 and on. [51] Al­Mas'udi's Muroujut­Theheb part.2 page353.

slanderous words. Mohammed's progeny were banished. Their testimonies were decided as inadmissible. Names of those who showed any sort of loyalty to Ali and his sons were erased from the general register of the state. Salaries and rights of such individuals were cut off.[52]

The New Stuff of Authority

The prevailing caliph, whoever he was, became the authority to whom people should refer in total mundane and religious affairs. He became substitute of the actual leader of this nation and head of the Prophet's household. Owing to their ultimate decency and their being people of the Paradise, Sahaba, unexceptionally, were the congregational authorities of this nation. They became the substitutes of the Prophet’s immaculate progeny. On that account, the Prophet's progeny showed their objection, while the Sahaba showed their satisfaction.

The Sahaba's followers became the congregational authority of this nation, whose mission was backing the supreme authority; the caliph, after their masters. The followers' followers should succeed. The scholars succeeded those followers' followers. They were seen as the prophets’ heirs. In association with rulers, those scholars should play the role of authority. Consequently, the role of the Prophet's progeny were belittled in front of this stuff.

Effects of Opposition

Trends and activities of the majority were translated into general satisfactory tendencies braced exclusively in the public's mentalities. Objectors of such satisfactory tendencies were seen as unbidden. They were confined, discriminated, denigrated, conflicted by mass media, decided as mutineers and dissidents, defamed. Their viewpoints were misrepresented. From these causes, accusing of atheism became more moderate than accusing of being loyal to the Prophet's progeny. Opportunity of repentance was offered to those who showed atheism. They would be welcomed if they accepted it. The loyal to the Prophet's

[52] bn­Asakir's Tarikh, part.3 page407. Al­Aqqad's Muawiya Fil­Mizan, page16. Mahmud Abu­Raya's Sheikhul­Madhira, page180.

progeny were offered nothing. He would not be accepted at all even if he showed releasing of his loyalty. Correspondingly, acceding to disbelievers was treated in a form of less extremity than acceding to Mohammed's progeny. These tendencies became a part of the nation's heritage received by successive generations. Like the inheritance of fathers and forefathers, Muslims, hence, inherited that Shias’ being atheists because they are betaking Ali as their god and reproving the virtuous Sahaba and…etc. Despite the fact that Muslims who received this idea from their fathers and forefathers will certainly transfer it to their sons and grandsons, none of these generations listened to Shias' viewpoints towards these accusals, nor did they exert efforts to scrutinize their cogency. Nothing but imitation, by which they learnt that Shias had been enemies of this nation, they did take as an evidence on cogency of these accusals. The present scholars, who are tutoring the morrow's scholars in universities, are also unaware of the significance, history and incentives of Shism and its emergence as an ideological and religious trend. They only report, literally, the 1400 year old viewpoints of the opponents of Shism whenever they attempt to provide Shias' perspectives. Hence, the adversary party became the narrator, arbiter and judge in the same time. Essentially, the divergence between the two parties is of political reasons. Shias, as a matter of fact, have received Islam from the Prophet's progeny. The sect of the Prophet's progeny is Mohammed's sect (peace be upon him and his family). They are indeed the saved group who followed the Prophet's progeny perfectly.