The Saqifa

4- No Text On the Canon of Choice

Ignoring our own words preceded pertaining to the corruption of the canon of choice we would like to inquire them into the practice or a proof that could establish its having had originated from the Prophet as it is their claim. Not a day he said nor did he enjoin to choose one as their Imam or leader when he would be no more among them.

There exists no such statement of his either clear or clandestine. Had there been any it could have never concealed in such a rife of motives under such a pressure since the beginning of Islam wherein a rich crop of opinions cultivated to be harvested later in an opportune season.

But among the gleaners in the field there is none to have traced a furrow that the Prophet might have tilled. Did it remain hidden from all of us and the narrators too?

Well, to revert to God the Almighty; He says in His Book:

"...And your Lord creates what He desires and Chooses -- at which to them there is choice." Then, this Quranic verse clearly denies; and, therefore, the Prophet could never say or act otherwise. To depend upon the choice of people is antipode to this verse; "...To them there is no choice."

If we circumduct and say that the Prophet was aware of the issue, but he remained silent leaving the matter to the choice of people after giving a definition of one of his companions and that his silence shows his consent. This seems to be cogent if we could convince ourselves to believe his silence after having had given the definition of his successor.

But the cogency loses ground in the absence of definition. We shall see into it in our discussion in (7) and (8) as to what the Shias and the Sunnis say pertaining to definition on Abu Baker or Ali Bin Abi Taleb.

A little thought will convince us that to adopt a way, occult and obscure, not plain to the understanding, in such a matter of importance that rifted the nation into such a wide division for such a man of wisdom besides his being a prophet was far from being congenial. There appears no reason to support his silence in spite of his knowledge of the events that were to betide.

If he had not defined any, it would have been better had he made known that the matter was left to their own choice. Then he should have confined it to those who settle the dispute and again with further definition as to whether they should be from the Madinians or from the capital.

Finally he should have selected one or two from them (as the Sunni scholars hold); then he should have made plain the characteristics of an Imam so that the people know whom they should choose. It seems that all these things we have to seek in his silence, and his silence is the proof; whoever doubts it, fully or partly, deserves Divine's dudgeon, and will be no more a Muslim but a Kafir?!?!

I can not believe in such a thing unless I lose the grip of reason.

5- Difference in my nation is a mercy

In my preceding discussion the strokes of my pen might have created a raucous din shouting religious slogans while I connived the plan I had charted to myself; this is what I fear. Hasty steps might raise dust; I shall slow down my paces to ensure that.

It has been narrated that the Prophet said: "Difference in my nation is a mercy." The word6 is not interpreted condign to the Islamic moral. What a pity 6- The word 'EKHTELAF' is narrated by Shia and Sunni sources. It is also interpreted by the Prophet's household members. A narration goes in ELALAL-SHARAYE like this: Imam Jafer Bin Mohammed al-Sadiq qas asked: "People narrate that the Prophet had said; 'Difference of my nation is a mercy." The Imam replied:

"They have told the truth." Then a remark was made to the Imam: "If their difference could be a mercy, their to have invented such a lie upon one who strive for the unity and campaigned with the word of brotherhood against the adhibition of pre-Islamic era; lifted the Arabs from a deep pit of division and difference.

The greatest phenomenon of Islam, rather its greatest achievement, is its invitation to an absolute unity in its widest sense that annihilates the rifts between individuals, groups and nations under the banner "Indeed, the faithful are brothers."

We do not discern any proof more perspicuous than the very practice towards attaining the unity among the believers to an extent to make them like a structure cemented and compact in which every brick is a base to another and each column a support to a ceiling and each ceiling a floor to another.

And such an edifice is displayed in the avenues of religious practices such as Friday prayers, mass prayers, 'Haj' (pilgrimage); and every thing deleterious, no matter however trifle, is prohibited such as back biting, carping, caviling, calumniating, winking and so forth. Such being the fact, how can a claim be laid that he invited the difference or endeavored towards it? This is a facinorous accusation. I seek forgiveness from God for writing it although for the sake of argument.

6- Consensus on the canon of choice

Our Sunni brothers with the exception of a few interpret the attributed silence as we pointed out in our preceding pages. They even proceed further to prove the sufficiency of a consensus on the basis of dedition to Abu Baker at SAQIFA. A gathering to them is authority on the basis of a narration that quotes the Prophet to have said: "My nation does not group at mistake." And "My nation does not group at deviation from the right course."

But, the Shias; they do not consider such concourse authentic or valid unless it is also attended by an infallible Imam. Dedition to Abu Baker was not concomitant with the consent of Imam that is Ali Bin Abi Taleb.

As such the concourse to them is not authentic. They still go as far as to say that the concourse never took place in all its conditions to validate the dedition to Abu Baker because of the disagreement of Ali upon whom rests the right and turns with him as he turns besides the disagreement of his people of Quraish and Sa'ad Bin Ebada and his son and a group of major companions like Salman, Abizar, Miqdad, Ammar, Zubair, Khalid Bin Sayeed, Huzaifa al-Yamani, Buraida and others.

None of them yielded to his authority and when yielded afterwards, he did so compelled and obliged in order to preserve Islam that was unity should be a chastisement." Imam Jafer al Sadiq gave this explanation: "It is not as you and others have reckoned. God means there would not remain a man in a group without understanding if some of them frequented to the Prophet and then returned to their country. It will be a mercy."

In MA'ANI AL-AKHBAR too it is mentioned: "The purpose is the frequency of visit to the Prophet and their towns. It is not to purport a different in the religion it is one."

NOTE: I add: EKHTELAF is interpreted as difference, which of course it does mean; but it also means a frequent visit. No one has bothered to penetrate into the word to probe onto the real dimension of the sense. Such is the richness of Arabic language that one words wombs quite a different meaning other than what at its surface could be understood. (TRANSLATOR)

yet in an imbroglio state like an egg and to protect the unity among the Muslims. Since they did not yield; better to deny them their status in society that they were not the men who settle the disputes; it is void of sense and reason.

Another argument that Shias put forward is that gathering of the men of word or the settlement does not stand a canon so as to have trust or belief in it because it was never repeated which shows no pre-appointment. Ali Bin Abi Taleb was the only exception because of the text from the Prophet and because of the characteristic of the office of 'IMAMAT' in which people have no choice beyond God.

The two sides differ thus. Perplexed I stand in between. To find a way out; indeed, is the need. Hence, I grub in the incident of SAQIFA at its every corner. Perhaps I might come across what could release me from the perplexity and convince me with a final judgment cogent enough to one of these two factions. What I find, I shall display in my coming discourse although I do not prognosticate the outcome.

As I see the matters interwoven I can not arrive at a decisive result merely digging into the affairs of SAQIFA or giving the text that gives definition of IMAM succeeding the Prophet. So I shall narrate the both sides' controversies and concurrence, their arguments and acknowledgements on the issue. Hence, I deposit my findings into the care and caution of my readers:

Reason shall not doubt in the light of preceding discussion that the Prophet did not give any remotest indication towards establishing a legislation of the choice of people to have their leader nor did he utter a loud word or whisper a silent one into any human ear however intimate to him nor did he wink at or wheedle one to take the officer of IMAMAT when all of them would miss him.

Anyway, the legislation such as this to select a leader by the choice of people is not legislated by him. So, what is the value of such legislation? If at all a concourse did take place and a choice was made; so what? How can it be a binding upon the people when it has not emanated from religion nor dictated by God through His Messenger?

On the other hand, we have seen its evil con- sequences and corruptful outcome in our previous discourse. The Prophet would never goad the nation to such a thing in spite of its being deleterious to them. As such, the blame rests upon the concourse itself for having done such a thing. On what authority it is done? It remains open to interrogation. It can not be dismissed as incontrovertible only because they have, however, done it.

The more we search more we get entangled. Why at all they gathered at SAQIFA without consulting or referring to the people who were present in Madina? If it is to be supposed that the meeting itself constitutes authority; then why such a meeting never convened ever since that very first one at SAQIFA -- at least to prove the legality or the credibility of the first?

So, it invalidates itself -- obviously and openly. Furthermore, and, therefore, Omar said to Sa'ad Bin Ebada when he made himself a candidate: "Kill him; may God kill him; he is a mischief monger." Why he should be killed? He did no more than to aspire the caliphate, as did the other.

If he was to be killed; then why not the other? He was a 'mischief monger' because he wanted to become a caliph. The other who too wanted the same; how it is that he was not a mischief monger? Supposingly, if it is proved that the meeting at SAQIFA was in line with the Prophet's indication or his direction; then Sa'ad Bin Ebada committed no crime to be wiped out from the face of the earth.

As for the text that is quoted: "The Imams are from Quraish this was not known on that day to the Emigrants (MUHAJAREEN) or they did not want to know it. Therefore, they did not put it forward as a proof. The argument that Abu Baker put forward was the relation with the Prophet, which the Arabs did not know except this part of the Quraish."