The Saqifa

The Prophet's Stand Toward the Caliphate

1-whether the Prophet was knowing about the affair of the caliphate?

Do you see yourself inclined to believe that the Prophet had no knowledge of the affairs that were to betide after his death; the differences and the incidents for the sake of caliphate? Do you reckon him negligent about what should have been done in this respect?

If you are so prone, then I have nothing to address you. My dear reader, you better put aside the book and do not bear with me till the end of discussion. I assume my reader a Muslim who believes in the Prophet and in his mission besides his acquaintance with the proprieties of a prophet, which serves a repudiation of such a maggot.

He who embraces Islam with a tilt of belief should have had been proved to him that the Messenger had revealed more than once the events that would overtake the nation after us death. He said repeatedly: "My nation will be divided into seventy three factions; a faction is safe while the rest in the fire."

Moreover he did not make any exemption among his companions. What he said is this; they shall enter the fire for heir disowning and turning back on their heels, or come to him at the pool and shall shiver for what they did after his earth.

In some narration's he is quoted to have said: "They remained pagans upon their own hind disowning the faith ever since I departed them."4 He had disclosed that the traditions that proceeded they allowed inch by inch so arduously as to enter the hole of mastigure.

As for caliphate he pointed out that it would turn after thirty years into a property attractive enough to be held under gritted teeth; and the twelve Imams, all of them from Quraish, shall survive in that atmosphere. Finally, he hinted: "He who does not know the Imam of his time shall die a death of ignorance (i.e. in a state prior to Islam)."

Anyway, his conversations and his conduct establish clearly his knowledge of the difference that his nation will fall in. Hence, the caliphate or the IMAMAT was his first concern.

2- Did the Prophet contrive a solution to the difference?

So, the Prophet was cognizant that the time will turn a page upon his nation fraught with divisions, differences, travails and tests; and then the suzerainty shall be their need.

We have to suppose that he suggested a satisfactory solution, which ought to end the dispute and be the criterion so as to serve a weapon in the hands of Muslims and a yoke upon the hypocrites and insurgents. Such a supposition is congruous with the belief that he was one delegated by God with His Message to the World and that the Message was not meant to his time alone; and, 4- SAHEEH MUSLIM vol.8 page 107. therefore, he can not leave the nation to wander.

To save only a faction and keep the reason of safety or the path to be paced a secret from the others is a thing far from the justice of a leader; and, hence, too incogent to even conjecture.

If at all we suppose that neither a saying of the Prophet nor the history has indicated a way to rely on; but we cannot suppose him to have had been negligent to such an egregious extent to leave the nation, without care or a responsibility into a chaos of no stint -- to surmise, to scuffle, to contradict to conflict and ultimately to kill each other shedding in thousands the Muslim blood. Lo, all this at a time when he being at pre -- Knowledge?!

If at all we swim against the current of reason, we shall not coast any shore because Islam did not come to give a push to mankind so as to sink further into its pandemonium; but mercy it was that down poured over the world to fecundate the barrens.

That bloodshed's of humanity, without reservation and without restriction never experienced by history nor witnessed in the age of pagan hood, can not be the outcome of a sanction.

The blame, indeed, lies with the history for hiding the facts or obfuscating them intentionally or otherwise. For the benefit of supposition, if we do not acknowledge Mohammed Messenger of God who uttered and acted only upon revelation; we have to vouchsafe this much that he was a politician and there was none greater than him.

An issue of such an importance concerning the nation but rather the whole world throughout the verdure of time can not remain out of the measure of clairvoyance of such a man. Hence, it was upon him to resolve in its raw if not repel before it could ripe.

We do not have in our conspicuity any wise to leave them upon the mercy of orexis, though for a short protensity, while he is able to set right the things for them and this after having entertained the responsibility of their affairs, and even beyond, those of a nation. Yes, unless he should be deprived of every decency or of deportment with depravation. But the Prophet as a mercy for the world; a manifestation of manners and the pinnacle that posed a prohibition to the past prophets from proceeding further. He was one, through his tongue, God said after the last pilgrimage: "Today I have completed for you your religion."

Whenever he left Madina he appointed a deputy. When he left this world, he neglected to do so, neglecting the nation in quandary; this is a thing which can not cotton on him.

**3- Left to the choice of the Nation: ** Let us view the issue from this angle that the Prophet left the matter to the choice of the people or to the choice of those who were efficient in resolving the disputes particularly in determining the issue of caliphate.

Viewing such does not gratify the curiosity nor does it cater satisfaction. Apparently it is not the solution. To appoint a president through a franchise is the most advanced method which already proceeded in Islam; and, therefore, one of its privileges; some might argue thus. Hence, let us discuss the pros and cons of this subject. Justice, heed and open mindedness is my hope from the reader so that the distensions of passions should not influence and it should not pain if the privilege affixed to Islam proved to be not worth praising.

It is a chaos -- in its very sense -- tantamount to push the people from a precipice into an abyss of differences that has no stint, no bottom; if a nation is left throughout the cycle of time to choose its own president. This is the chaos we ran from in the preceding pages.

The reason; people are different and divided. Two among them do not concur in thought or taste or passion or practice or adhibition or action -- even if they were twins. An incidental or adventitious similarity that of near or that of remote could be the only element of analogy as it is the case with their bodies and features although in a similitude, yet different. But the fact is that the people vary from one another in every thing -- structure, character, spirit, and habit.

There is not one single thing that could unite the two- even the fingerprints. It is generally said that to every individual there is a category of his own in his mind.

It is, therefore, impossible to unite the people of a town on a rule or on a work; no saying goes to a big nation such as that of Islam regardless of the continuity of time, particularly if the thing happened to be the government -- a general leadership wherein there is every possibility for every element to play its role such as personal interests, affections and inclinations. From this we can deduce that the public opinion does not exist at all in reality. Any nation in the world can never attain it.

One when demands to create a general public opinion or unanimity among a nation at a choice of a thing; indeed, he has erred in his own opinion. Such an endeavor it is impossible to prevent from bloody disputes and drastic disturbances if the required thing be of importance unless the ruler separates his antagonists by iron rod as it is the case currently with the civilized nations in the elections.

Hence, judgment of the majority is the only good solution to the dispute and naturally the puissance to crush the disturbances. Judgment by majority, in fact, is a subterfuge from forming a true public opinion and a confession of its impossibility. On the other hand, we should not wink at the fact that there is no way out other than majority in the settlement of various tortuous factors that have bearing especially the ruling power.

And, this has taken to itself a power to silence all and a tradition to satisfy all. This too should not be ignored that it is the medium to reach at the average of opinion. But the true agreement on the things in their details shall ever stand a mighty alps which the 'majority' too can not conquer.

As the man failed throughout the corridor of centuries in attaining a true unity of thought, the rule of majority finally dawned upon him as the best substitute towards securing peace among the nations of course, this does not mean to the majority makes no mistakes.

When there is a dedition to desire; and thoughts that conjecture low and high; and groups that list as per the weight of their lusts; the 'majority' is the only resort to relax in, and not a security to obtain the correct opinion. Although election has become a most cultivated legislation presently to appoint a president, it does not convey us beyond of the fact that a tradition entertained by the people of present age has been honored; and nothing more. This thing Islam never proceeded.

Any claim that the Prophet left the choice to the nation to settle the issue of caliphate does not womb in itself a claim that the Prophet legislated the law of majority; because of no evidence nor there a proof in any of the past books. Majority! As said earlier, is not safe from mistakes and, therefore, can not be attributed to the Prophet who did not speak but on revelation nor did he desires but reality.

It is facinorous to say that the Prophet left the choice to his nation as it is tantamount to say that he, the Prophet, deliberately launched the nation into a gulf of everlasting dispute that claims lives, lacerates morals and harries the harmony besides weakening Islam.

However and whatever we try to coast this legislation by taking the nation granted for those skilled and efficient ones able to resolve the disputes and differences, we confront a prominent setback because the disputes and difference radicate from these very skilled and efficient ones.

They do not differ with the rest of the people in the difference of their sentiments, irritations, resentments, contradictions and conflicts. As great they, so greater these divisions in them.

They could scarcely be expected to remain at such a distance where the personal interests or inclinations could not obumbrate so as to pollute them; and they so humble as to not raise their heads to dart a greedy look at the office of such an excellence and then dwarf themselves into the ambush awaiting the opportunity to hunt as famished wolves at their prey.

If at all there be no intention but proclivity is the mineral if every person that prevails upon its possessor towards every wrong posing it as right? As such it is never to be felt that there had been a deviation from a right path. This likelihood can not be dismissed that self-ego would bring home to him that his leadership is the best for the nation. Direction from the self-love is another proof to contend him with his own opinion, which to him is the most correct.

Abu Baker appointed his successor and rather hasted too. This he did against the very legislation which was too recent and by means of which he had attained the caliphate; and which had stood a base for his being the caliph. He himself had witnessed the circumstance that surrounded the dedition to his authority at SAQIFA. So, he knew better than others how risky the game was.

What it is to pass through the hole of a needle, if others could not know; he knew well and also he knew that the occupation of people in their calamity of losing the Prophet had kept them from knowing what was taking place at SAQIFA and that such a situation would not repeat itself again. So, he did against his own established criterion.

Therefore, we can easily infer that Abu Baker himself had not banked any belief in the salubrity of this legislation and was afraid of its repercussions. Hence, he appointed Omar his successor instead of leaving him adrift in a franchise.

His successor, Omar, too paced in the same track of his predecessor. He appointed a committee of six persons. These six could not fix an opinion. Passions, sentiments and inclinations kept them away from one another although sitting all together. One leaned because of the enmity the other was sharing in; the other favored his son-in-law as Imam Ali later described. To bring them, a group of six persons, to one opinion became impossible. But this impossibility did not render Omar to not act the impossible.

He gave them a deadline of three days to agree among themselves; the side which Abdul Rehman Bin Owf happened to be in was to be considered a majority incase if their opinion ran at parity due to the number in which they were. Still if they failed to agree within three days, they had to die by the sword already in the hands of those who were vested with the office of execution in advance.

Why this threat; and why such a binding? Then what happened to that rule established by them -- reverting to the choice of the people? Of course, he wanted to avoid a greater division, which is a natural consequence of such a thing -- the choice. So, he had to send a rope down into the pit dug by him.

It is very interesting to note when the turn of Omar Bin Khattab came to bear the brunt of appointing a successor to him he aspired to have availed one of these three, Abu Obaida Bin Al-Jarrala, Salem Moula Abi Hazifa and Ma'az Bin Jabal -- and all these three had died long back. He did this in order to do that which was his intention -- first, to strengthen his plan; second, to produce his choice from behind the excuse.

It is not a matter to wonder that Abu Baker and Omar had already been aware of the corruption which is a natural consequence of this legislation that leaves the affair open to the choice of the people and the dispute and the scuffle that would spring there from. But the wonder is to attribute this legislation to the Prophet whose deeds depended upon revelation from God. Above all to claim having had understood the Prophet and Islam is yet far astonishing.

The caliph, Othman, had he availed an ear to hear him he would have whispered his choice. But that day obedience to him had vanished as he was under a besiege, desperate, disappointed, without a power to retain neither his life nor a puissance to retard the approaching assassination. Otherwise, he was not the one to depart without determining who to arrive at place.

A concatenation of such incidents enhance upon our belief that the choice of people is so parched a desert that to dig into its sands is a maggot and to bury therein such a huge social problem a megrim. Of course, it did work only once.

It was in real sense a peoples' choice which brought Ali Bin Abi Taleb to caliphate. But with regards to Abu Baker; "Yielding to his authority was a mischief (or a tawdry). God protected its evil"; this is what Omar had said while he himself had laid down the foundation. Again it is Omar who declared: "Whosoever invites to such a thing there is no yielding to him or to that on whose behalf it would be."5 5- KANZUL OMMAL vol.3 No. 2326.

As for Imam Ali; when the consensus surrendered the caliphate to him, and it is the legislative procedure in the view of the experts, still we find him deserted by those who settled the disputes and they were the highest in that phalanx of companions. All this when every thing was yet new and nothing had gone old.

Then, the wars, those of 'JAMAL' and 'SIFFEEN'; on what canon they were raged? Wreck, ruin, bloodshed; they left nothing else. The progress of Islam paralyzed and the religious sanctuary were pulled down.

Then we do not see any caliph coming to power through this legislation but by appointment by the predecessor or by the threat of sword. Indeed, swords played a great role ruthless and fueful; navigated the boat of Islam in a bloody ocean,

made every greedy a wicked miser to whom appeared the caliphate too worthy to rage the ward and the wars made legislation that of the choice of people and the choice opened the way to Talha and Zubair to ignite the battle of JAMAL as it paved way to Mawiya for his crimes and to Ibn Zubair to lift a hand against caliphate though it was short as it opened the avenue for Abassides to revolt against Ommiyds and so on and so forth and as much as history could say and what it says there are ramifications further and farther.

All these incidents and evidences are enough a cataclysm to uproot one's belief, whether in redundance or in rudiment, in the salubrity of the legislation of the choice of people or those efficient enough to settle the disputes. Such a contagion is attributed to have come down from the Prophet! What a contagious this conjecture itself is!

Ayesha says to Omar in trepidation through his son, Abdulla; "Don't leave the nation of Mohammed without a shepherd. Appoint one upon them and don't let them as an animal infant. I am afraid of mischief to them. "Lo, what a pity! Such a possibility struck Ayesha's mind but never entered into the prospicience of a man like the Prophet.

It is far from comprehension as to why nobody asked Mohammed to appoint one or give the minimum indication of the method of succession when he would be no more amidst them so that the most dreaded mischief could be eschewed as Ayesha indicated to Omar? They used to ask the Prophet every trifle and titanic, but did not ask this thing; why...?

The sane is this; he was asked, and he answered! The history quailed and neglected but got immured in the annals of the history of Shia.