Shattering the Mirage: A Response to ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din’s al Muraja’at: Letter 105 and 106

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Letter 105

 

Rabi’ al Thani 16, 1330

I. Requesting Narration of Other Such Incidents

 

We aspire to complete the benefit if you quote others besides the Imam and al Zahra’, and you will thus do us a favour, Wassalam.

 

Sincerely,

S

 

Letter 106

 

Rabi’ al Thani 18, 1330

I. Ibn ‘Abbas’s Argument,

II. Arguments of al Hasan and al Hussain,

III. Arguments of Prominant Shiah Sahabah,

IV. Reference to their Applying the Will as an Argument.

 

1) May I invite your attention to the dialogue between Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Umer in which the latter, in a lengthy conversation between both men, asked: “O Ibn ‘Abbas! Do you know what stopped your folks [from demanding the caliphate] after Muhammad (pbuh)?” Ibn ‘Abbas narrates saying: “I hated to answer ‘Umer’s question, so I said to him: ‘If I do not know, the commander of the faithful [i.e. ‘Umer] knows.’” ‘Umer said: “[Some people simply] hated that both prophethood and caliphate be confined to your House; so, they were happy about their scheme. Quraysh sought it for themselves, and were able to obtain it.” I said: “O commander of the faithful! Do you permit me to say something and promise to control your anger?” He answered in the affirmative; therefore, Ibn ‘Abbas said: “As regarding your statement, O commander of the faithful, that Quraysh sought it for themselves and were successful in obtaining it, I say that had Quraysh sought what Allah had chosen for them, their choice would have been unobjectionable and unblamed. As regarding your statement that they hated to see both prophethood and caliphate in our House, I say that Allah, the Exalted and the Sublime, has described some people to be malicious, saying, ‘… that is so because they hated what Allah has revealed, so He rendered their deeds vain.’” ‘Umer then said: “Impossible, O Ibn ‘Abbas, for I heard things about you which I hate to believe else your status in my eyes should be reduced.” I asked: ‘What are they, O commander of the faithful? If they are true, they should not lower my status in your esteem, and if they are not, I am capable of defending myself against false charges.’ ‘Umer then said: ‘It has come to my knowledge that you say that they have deprived you of it [caliphate] out of envy, oppression and injustice.’ I said: ‘As regarding your statement, O commander of the faithful, that it was oppression, then that has become quite obvious to those who are ignorant as well as to those who are clement. As regarding your statement about envy, then Adam was envied, and we are his descendants who also are envious.’ ‘Umer then said: ‘Impossible, impossible; your hearts, O descendants of Hashim, have become filled with envy that can never dissipate.’ I therefore said: ‘Wait, O commander of the faithful, do not attribute this to the hearts of those whom Allah has purified with a perfect purification.’”[1]

He argued with him in another incident, asking: “How did you leave your cousin?” Ibn ‘Abbas said he thought ‘Umer meant ‘Abdullah ibn Ja’fer; so, he answered: “I left him in the company of his friends.” He said: “I did not mean him; I meant the greatest among you, Ahlul Bayt.” Ibn ‘Abbas said: “I left him exiled, irrigating while reciting the Qur’an.” ‘Umer said: “O ‘Abdullah! I implore you not to be shy but tell me if he is still concerned about the issue of caliphate.” He answered in the affirmative. Then ‘Umer asked: “Does he claim that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has selected him for it?” Ibn ‘Abbas answered: “Yes, indeed; moreover, I even asked my father if there was any statement made by the Messenger of Allah regarding selecting him for the caliphate, and my father informed me that that was the truth.” ‘Umer then said: “The Messenger of Allah held him in very high esteem through his speeches and actions in a way that left no argument nor excuse for anyone,[2] and he kept testing the nation regarding him for some time;[3] nay, even when he was sick [prior to his demise], he wished to nominate him for it, but it was I who stopped him.”[4]

In a third dialogue between both men, ‘Umer said: “O Ibn ‘Abbas! I can see how wronged your friend [‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam] is.” Ibn ‘Abbas said: “O commander of the faithful, then affect justice on his behalf.” Ibn ‘Abbas said: “But ‘Umer pulled his hand from mine and went away whispering to himself for a good while. Then he stopped; so, I rejoined him, and he said to me: ‘O Ibn ‘Abbas! I do not think that his people denied him [the caliphate] for any reason other than his being too young for it.’ I said to him: ‘By Allah, neither Allah nor His Messenger regarded him as too young when they both ordered him to take Sürat Bara’a (Qur’an, Chapter 9) from him [from Abu Bakr].’ Having heard this, he turned away from me and started walking fast; so, I left him alone.”[5]

How often has ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, who is the scribe of the Muslim nation, the spokesman of the Hashimites, and cousin of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), encountered such stances? In Letter No. 26, you have come to see how he argues with the oppressive party by citing a tradition that counts ten exclusive merits of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam. It is a lengthy and eminent tradition in which he quotes the Prophet (pbuh) asking his cousins: “Who among you would be my supporter in [matters related to] this life and the life hereafter?” They declined, but ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam said: “I support you in this life as well as the life to come.” The Prophet (pbuh) then said to ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam: “You are my wali in this life and the life to come.” In another tradition, Ibn ‘Abbas narrates that during the Tabuk raid, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) went out, accompanied by many people, and ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam asked him: “Shall I accompany you?” The Messenger of Allah denied his request; so, ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam wept; whereupon the Prophet (pbuh) said to him: “Are you not pleased that your status to me is like that of Aaron to Moses, except there is no Prophet (pbuh) after me? I ought not leave except after you represent me in my absence.” The Messenger of Allah has also told him: “You are the wali of every believer after me,” and “Whoever accepts me as his wali, ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam [henceforth] is his mawla.”

2) The dignitaries among the descendants of Hashim often argued likewise. Once al Hasan ibn ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam came to Abu Bakr who had seated himself on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and told him to get down from a place his father was more worthy of. Al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam is reported to have said similarly to ‘Umer who was also seated on the same pulpit.[6]

3) Books written by imamites who dealt with this topic cite many incidents wherein the Hashimites and their followers among the sahabah and tabi’in argued likewise, and they ought to be reviewed by those who are interested in their contents. Suffices here to cite the book of arguments by imam al Tibrisi in which he quotes statements made by the Omayyad Khalid ibn Sa’id ibn al ‘As,[7] Salman al Farisi, Abu Tharr al Ghifari, ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, al Miqdad, Buraydah al Aslami, Abul-Haytham ibn al Tihan, Sahl and ‘Uthman sons of Hanif, Khuzaymah ibn Thabit of the two Shahadas, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Abu Ayyüb al Ansari, and many others among those who researched the history of Ahl al Bayt and of their followers. Yet they never missed any opportunity to prove their point by citing explicit or implicit references, strongly or smoothly worded, speeches and writings, poetry and prose, according to whatever their circumstances, though critical, permitted.

4) They repeatedly referred to the will, using it as an argument, as is well-known by researchers, Wassalam.

 

Sincerely,

Sh

=====================

[1] We have quoted it verbatim from Al Tarikh al Kamil by Ibn al Athir who includes it at the conclusion of ‘Umer’s biography among the events of the year 23 A.H., page 24, Vol. 3, and it is also quoted by the Mu’tazilite scholar in ‘Umer’s biography, too, page 107, Vol. 3, of Sharh Nahjul Balaghah.

[2] He means that the speech of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) praising ‘Ali indicates that ‘Ali enjoys quite a lofty status, obviously an admission by ‘Umer.

[3] He means that the Prophet (pbuh), due to praising ‘Ali in such wise words, is testing the nation to see if it would accept him as his successor.

[4] This is quoted by Imam Abul-Fadl Ahmed ibn Abu Tahir in his book Tarikh Baghdad, indicating his reliable source to be Ibn ‘Abbas. It is also quoted by the Mu’tazilite scholar who discusses ‘Umer in his Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, page 97, Vol. 3.

[5] This dialogue is quoted by authors of books of biographies in their discussions of ‘Umer, and we have quoted it here from Sharh Nahjul Balaghah by the Mu’tazilite scholar; so, refer to page 105 of its third volume.

[6] Ibn Hajar has quoted both cases in his fifth maqsad of the verse enjoining kindness to the Prophet’s kin, and it is verse 14, of the ones dealt with in Chapter 11 of his book Al Sawa’iq al Muhriqa; so, refer to page 160 of this reference. Al Dar Qutni has quoted the case of al Hasan with Abu Bakr, and Ibn Sa’d has quoted the case of al Hussain with ‘Umer in his biography of the latter in his Tabaqat.

[7] Khalid ibn Sa’id ibn al ‘As was among those who rejected Abu Bakr’s caliphate; he refused for three months to swear allegiance to him, as stated by a group of reliable Sunnis such as Ibn Sa’d in his biography of Khalid in his Tabaqat, page 70, Vol. 4, adding that when Abu Bakr dispatched troops to Syria, he prepared the standard for him and came in person to his house, but ‘Umer said to Abu Bakr: “Do you give charge to Khalid after having heard what he has said?” He continued trying till he sent Abu ‘Arwah al Dawsi with the message that “The successor of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) asks you to return our standard.” He did so saying: “Your government has never pleased us, nor has your deposition harmed us.” Having heard such a statement, Abu Bakr came to him to apologize, and he earnestly requested him not to mention ‘Umer in public. All writers who mention the incident of this campaign to Syria mention this incident as well, for it is one of such detailed incidents.

 

Discussions

In the latest theme of discourse, ‘Abdul Hussain has attempted to do three things in essence. Firstly, he sought to portray the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as men who habitually subordinated revelation to expedience. We have shown, however, that the incidents cited in support of this claim, when returned to their authentic contexts, are not instances of rebellion against nass. In several cases, their responses were actually ratified by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Secondly, he attempted to establish that ‘Ali and Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma themselves preserved an alternative narrative of the events after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise. One which portrays the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as usurpers. Again, this narrative was shown to collapse under scrutiny and that there was no sound evidence that supports such a claim.

Thirdly, ‘Abdul Hussain continues to portray the Sheikh al Azhar as gradually capitulating to the arguments that he provides. This strategy has already been revealed repeatedly; and that these portrayals serve only as an instrument through which objections are softened, and the author’s next move is invited.

In this letter, ‘Abdul Hussain is attempting to widen the circle of alleged testimony that portrays the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as usurpers. His first move is to place the argument upon the tongue of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. By citing alleged dialogues between Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhum, ‘Abdul Hussain tries to achieve two things at once: to show that the Banu Hashim regarded the caliphate as having been wrongfully diverted from them, and to make ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself appear to acknowledge that political considerations stood in the way of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu claim.

His second move is to involve al Hasan and al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. The reports about them objecting to Abu Bakr or ‘Umar sitting on the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam pulpit are meant to add emotional and symbolic force. Even if these reports do not amount to legal argument, they are used to suggest that the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam own grandsons understood the authority of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as an intrusion upon a space that properly belonged to their father.

His next step is to invoke a broader list of ‘Shi’i Sahabah’ and early supporters of the Ahlul Bayt. This creates the impression that the claim of ‘Ali’s designation was not a later sectarian construction, but a known position held by a recognisable early community. The purpose of this framing is to manufacture continuity: from ‘Ali and Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, to Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, to al Hasan and al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and then to selected Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and Tabi’in. The aim is to make the reader feel that the doctrine of Imamah was always present yet always resisted by the ruling order.

 

The narrations from Ibn ‘Abbas

The first failure of this narrative, even before the soundness of the alleged reports is examined, is that some of the very people cast as architects of usurpation were themselves involved in placing ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu within the sphere of recognised leadership. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, for example, included ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu among the members of the shura from whom the next Khalifah would be chosen. When ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu eventually accepted leadership, he did so based on the counsel and pledge of the Ummah, not by invoking an already binding doctrine of Imamah. After his passing, his son al Hasan radiya Llahu ‘anhu abdicated in favour of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, a historical fact acknowledged by both Shia and Sunni sources. He would have violated Imamah had such a doctrine had a basis. As a matter of fact, this poses a conundrum if one were to concede both the doctrines of Imamah and ‘Ismah as conceived of by the Twelver Shiah. Again, we remind the esteemed reader that these objective facts alone are sufficient to unsettle the narrative ‘Abdul Hussain is attempting to construct.

However, it would be in order if we were to demonstrate the status of the evidence that he has chosen to rest his case on. The first report upon which ‘Abdul Hussain attempts to build this portion of his argument is the alleged exchange between Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The report is meant to place upon the tongue of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu an admission that the Quraysh knowingly diverted the matter away from the Banu Hashim. In a way, it serves as a confession from within the very camp accused of usurpation.

The issue, as has broadly been the case in al Muraja’at, is that the report itself does not hold up to scrutiny. The versions cited in later historical works, such as Ibn al Athir’s al Kamil and Ibn Abi al Hadid’s Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, are presented without a chain through which the narration may be independently assessed. The source that does preserve the report with a chain is the Tarikh of Ibn Jarir al Tabari, and it is the very same narration in substance.

 

حدثني ابن حميد قال حدثنا سلمة عن محمد بن إسحاق عن رجل عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس قال بينما عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه وبعض أصحابه يتذاكرون الشعر فقال بعضهم فلان أشعر وقال بعضهم بل فلان أشعر قال فأقبلت فقال عمر قد جاءكم أعلم الناس بها فقال عمر من شاعر الشعراء يا ابن عباس قال فقلت زهير بن أبي سلمى فقال عمر هلم من شعره ما نستدل به على ما ذكرت فقلت امتدح قوما من بني عبد الله بن غطفان فقال

لو كان يقعد فوق الشمس من كرم	قوم بأولهم أو مجدهم قعدوا
قوم أبوهم سنان حين تنسبهم	طابوا وطاب من الأولاد ما ولدوا
إنس إذا أمنوا جن إذا فزعوا	مرزءون بها ليل إذا حشدوا
محسدون على ما كان من نعم	لا ينزع الله منهم ماله حسدوا

فقال عمر أحسن وما أعلم أحدا أولى بهذا الشعر من هذا الحي من بني هاشم لفضل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقرابتهم منه فقلت وفقت يا أمير المؤمنين ولم تزل موفقا فقال يا ابن عباس أتدري ما منع قومكم منهم بعد محمد فكرهت أن أجيبه فقلت إن لم أكن أدري فأمير المؤمنين يدريني فقال عمر كرهوا أن يجمعوا لكم النبوة والخلافة فتبجحوا على قومكم بجحا بجحا فاختارت قريش لأنفسها فأصابت ووفقت فقلت يا أمير المؤمنين إن تأذن لي في الكلام وتمط عني الغضب تكلمت فقال تكلم يا ابن عباس فقلت أما قولك يا أمير المؤمنين اختارت قريش لأنفسها فأصابت ووفقت فلو أن قريشا اختارت لأنفسها حيث اختار الله عز وجل لها لكان الصواب بيدها غير مردود ولا محسود وأما قولك إنهم كرهوا أن تكون لنا النبوة والخلافة فإن الله عز وجل وصف قوما بالكراهية فقال ذلك بأنهم كرهوا ما أنزل الله فأحبط أعمالهم فقال عمر هيهات والله يا ابن عباس قد كانت تبلغني عنك أشياء كنت أكره أن أفرك عنها فتزيل منزلتك مني فقلت وما هي يا أمير المؤمنين فإن كانت حقا فما ينبغي أن تزيل منزلتي منك وإن كانت باطلا فمثلي أماط الباطل عن نفسه فقال عمر بلغني أنك تقول إنما صرفوها عنا حسدا وظلما فقلت أما قولك يا أمير المؤمنين ظلما فقد تبين للجاهل والحليم وأما قولك حسدا فإن إبليس حسد آدم فنحن ولده المحسودون فقال عمر هيهات أبت والله قلوبكم يا بني هاشم إلا حسدا ما يحول وضغنا وغشا ما يزول فقلت مهلا يا أمير المؤمنين لا تصف قلوب قوم أذهب الله عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا بالحسد والغش فإن قلب رسول الله من قلوب بني هاشم فقال عمر إليك عنى يا ابن عباس فقلت أفعل فلما ذهبت لأقوم استحيا مني فقال يا ابن عباس مكانك فوالله إني لراع لحقك محب لما سرك فقلت يا أمير المؤمنين إن لي عليك حقا وعلى كل مسلم فمن حفظه فحظه أصاب ومن أضاعه فحظه أخطأ ثم قام فمضى

 

Ibn Humayd — Salamah — Muhammad ibn Ishaq — a man — ‘Ikrimah — Ibn ‘Abbas, who said:

While ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu and some of his companions were discussing poetry, some of them said, “So-and-so is the greatest of poets,” while others said, “Rather, so-and-so is the greatest poet.”

Ibn ‘Abbas said: I then approached them, whereupon ‘Umar said, “Now there has come to you the most knowledgeable of people concerning it.”

Then ‘Umar asked, “Who is the greatest poet of poets, O Ibn ‘Abbas?”

I replied, “Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulma.”

‘Umar said, “Recite to us some of his poetry by which we may understand your judgement.”

So, I said, “He praised a people from the Banu ‘Abdullah ibn Ghatafan, saying:

If a people, by virtue of their nobility and glory, could sit above the sun, they would have sat there.

A people whose father, when you trace their lineage, is Sinan; noble were they, and noble were the children they begot.

Human when secure, but like jinn when battle strikes; burdened with hardship by night when others gather.

Envied for the blessings they possess, yet Allah does not strip them of what they are envied for.”

‘Umar then said, “Excellent! And I know of no people more deserving of this poetry than this clan of the Banu Hashim, on account of the virtue of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and their closeness to him.”

So, I said, “You have spoken rightly, O Amir al Mu’minin, and may you always be granted success.”

Then ‘Umar said, “O Ibn ‘Abbas, do you know what prevented your people from attaining leadership after Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?”

I disliked answering him, so I said, “If I do not know, Amir al Mu’minin will inform me.”

‘Umar said, “They disliked combining Prophethood and the Caliphate within your house, lest you boast over your people with excessive pride. So, the Quraysh chose for itself, and its choice proved correct and was favoured by providence.”

I said, “O Amir al Mu’minin, if you permit me to speak, and withhold your anger from me, then I shall speak.”

He replied, “Speak [freely], O Ibn ‘Abbas.”

I said, “As for your statement, O Amir al Mu’minin, that the Quraysh chose for itself, and its choice proved correct and was favoured by providence; had the Quraysh chosen for themselves where Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, had chosen for them, then correctness would have remained in their hands, neither contested nor envied. And as for your statement that they disliked combining Prophethood and the Caliphate for us, then Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, has described a people with dislike, saying, ‘That is because they disliked what Allah revealed, so He rendered their deeds void.’”

‘Umar then said, “Far-removed indeed, by Allah, O Ibn ‘Abbas! Certain things have reached me about you which I disliked confronting you with, lest your standing in my eyes diminish.”

I asked, “And what are they, O Amir al Mu’minin? If they are true, they should not diminish my standing with you; and if they are false, then someone like me can dispel falsehood from himself.”

‘Umar said, “It has reached me that you say they diverted it away from us out of envy and oppression.”

I replied, “As for your statement, O Amir al Mu’minin, regarding oppression, then that has become apparent to both the ignorant and the forbearing alike. And as for your statement regarding envy, then Iblis envied Adam, and we are his envied descendants.”

‘Umar then said, “Far from it! By Allah, O Banu Hashim, your hearts refuse anything but an envy that does not depart, and a rancour and bitterness that do not fade.”

I replied, “Tread carefully, O Amir al Mu’minin. Do not describe the hearts of a people from whom Allah has removed impurity and purified thoroughly with envy and bitterness. The heart of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was from among the hearts of the Banu Hashim.”

‘Umar then said, “Enough now, O Ibn ‘Abbas.”

So, I replied, “As you wish.”

When I rose to leave, he became embarrassed before me and said, “Remain where you are, O Ibn ‘Abbas. By Allah, I am one who observes your rights and loves what pleases you.”

So, I said, “O Amir al Mu’minin, I indeed possess a right over you and over every Muslim. Whoever preserves it has acted rightly, and whoever neglects it has missed his due portion.”

Then he rose and departed.[1]

 

The chain, however, is defective at multiple levels. It passes through Muhammad ibn Humayd al Razi, whose weakness is quite significant. He was known for transmitting baseless material, and the severity of his weakness was indicated by numerous narrator critics, including al Bukhari and Abu Zur’ah al Razi.[2] However, he is not the only problem in the chain.

It also passes through Salamah ibn al Fadl al Abrash, another narrator who was criticised by the likes of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, al Nasa’i, and Abu Hatim al Razi, among many others. The remarks of the critics indicate a recurrent theme of narrating material that was not corroborated, together with an abundance of errors.[3]

Academic integrity nevertheless demands that the criticism against Salamah be qualified. Some critics observed that his narrations from Ibn Ishaq, specifically, whilst not independently reliable, were relatively better than the rest of his material when they occurred within the genre of Maghazi. This accommodation, however, is of little value when we consider the fact that this chain passes through an unidentified narrator after Ibn Ishaq.

Beyond the defects in the chain, the report itself carries the marks of artificial construction. The tone of the exchange is difficult to reconcile with what is soundly known regarding the relationship between Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

What is authentically transmitted of their relationship presents an entirely different picture. Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma himself relates that he wished to ask ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu about the two wives referenced in Surah al Tahrim, yet remained for an entire year unable to find a suitable opportunity to do so, out of reverence and awe. Only while accompanying him on a journey, and after serving him water, did he finally gather the courage to ask, “O Amir al Mu’minin, who were the two women?”[4]

It is difficult to reconcile this with the image constructed in the alleged exchange where Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma openly accuses the Quraysh of envy and oppression before the very Khalifah under whose authority he lived and from whom he learnt.

More telling still is what Ibn ‘Abbas himself authentically narrates concerning the events of Saqifah. In the well-known narration, he carefully preserves ‘Umar’s account of the bay’ah to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The account is detailed and entirely public in nature. Nowhere does Ibn ‘Abbas frame the event in a way that implies the suppression of a divinely designated Imam, nor does ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu speak from the perspective of a person burdened by a concealed admission of guilt. Rather, the narration revolves around consultation and the fear of communal fragmentation. Even the disagreement of ‘Ali and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma is narrated as part of the wider circumstance and not as resistance to the abandonment of a binding nass.

It is not difficult to determine which of the two more accurately reflects the historical memory preserved by the early community. This is further attested to by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu when he said:

 

إنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار فإن اجتمعوا عل رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ما خرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباع غير سبيل المؤمنين وولاه الله ما تولى

Shura belongs to the Muhajirin and the Ansar. If they agree upon a man and designate him as Imam, then that is a matter pleasing to Allah. If anyone departs from them by way of criticism or innovation, they are to bring him back to that from which he departed. If he refuses, they are to fight him for following a path other than the path of the believers, and Allah shall leave him to what he has chosen for himself.[5]

 

It might be argued that he did not actually mean the outward sense of his own words, but was merely arguing against his opponents upon the basis of principles they themselves accepted. Whilst it may be plausible for an isolated statement to require contextual interpretation, the problem here is that the more one insists that this statement, and the entire corpus of ones similar to it, does not mean what it plainly says, the more one is forced into a hermeneutic where almost nothing from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu can be taken at face value.

The broader transmitted reality about ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu presents a remarkably coherent picture. His participation within the political order established after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise, his acceptance by the Muhajirin and Ansar, his cooperation with the Khalifas before him, his familial and social ties with them, and the general historical recollection preserved independently across numerous strands, all converge toward a recognisable historical reality.

The alternative reading exists only by repeatedly suspending the outward meaning of these statements and relocating their “true” meaning into some hidden intention or strategic silence which eventually transforms the factual historical person of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu into something inaccessible except through retrospective sectarian reconstruction.

All the remaining narrations attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma within this round of al Muraja’at fall into the same general category. The issue is not merely that their modes of transmission contain weakness or instability in isolation. Rather, it is precisely this absence of reliable transmission that explains the increasingly strained nature of the narratives themselves. The problem, therefore, is not simply one of isolated narrator criticism, but of a broader pattern wherein the fragility of transmission manifests itself in the very material of the reports being transmitted.

The narrations of Wasiyyah and Manzilah have already been addressed.

 

The Incidents of the Sibtayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma

The next report cited by ‘Abdul Hussain concerns the alleged objection of al Hasan and al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma sitting upon the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam pulpit. The first point that must be noted is that the narration concerning al Hasan radiya Llahu ‘anhu addressing Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this manner is not located with any reliable chain. What is soundly transmitted is the report concerning al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, recorded by Ibn Sa’d and others through a reliable chain.[6]

Before even discussing what the report means, one observation immediately imposes itself: had this truly been a conscious political argument concerning a usurped divine office, it would imply that al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whilst still a child, displayed more public boldness regarding this alleged usurpation than his own father ever did. The absurdity of such a conclusion is self-evident.

The report itself gives no indication that the statement was understood in this manner by anyone present, least of all by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Rather, its natural reading is entirely uncomplicated. Al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu refers to the pulpit of his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, not the pulpit of his father. It was never known that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu possessed a pulpit distinctively associated with him, nor that he had previously ascended it as Khalifah at that stage. The remark therefore falls squarely within the kind of affectionate and impulsive speech not uncommon from a young child closely attached to his grandfather.

More telling than the statement itself is the reaction of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. There is no trace of hostility or insecurity in his response. On the contrary, the narration openly depicts a cheerful encounter which resonates with affection and exceptional regard towards al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He seated him beside him, later brought him to his home, enquired gently as to who had taught him such words, and thereafter expressed a desire that he visit him regularly.[7]

This was not empty sentiment. When the diwan stipends were organised, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu assigned al Hasan and al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma stipends equivalent to the senior participants of Badr due to their closeness to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, granting them more than his own son ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.[8]

Likewise, it is authentically reported that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu would carry al Hasan radiya Llahu ‘anhu upon his shoulders, saying:

 

بأبي شبيه بالنبي لا شبيه بعلي وعلي يضحك

“He resembles the Prophet, not ‘Ali,” at which ‘Ali laughed.[9]

 

What is especially revealing is that ‘Abdul Hussain is compelled to extract political meaning from the spontaneous remark of a child precisely because the actual conduct of the senior figures involved refuses to support the narrative he wishes to construct.

The relationship between the Ahlul Bayt and the al Khulafa’ al Rashidun was visible to the community at large. It unfolded publicly through companionship, mutual consultation, marriage ties, praise, and continued participation in the affairs of the Ummah. Had there truly existed a concealed doctrine of divinely designated succession coupled with a simmering conviction of usurpation, one would expect that reality to manifest itself clearly and consistently in the public conduct of ‘Ali, al Hasan, al Hussain, and the senior members of the Banu Hashim radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Instead, what the historical record overwhelmingly preserves is the exact opposite.

 

The Shi’i Sahabah

At this stage, ‘Abdul Hussain noticeably retreats from attempting to establish individual reports through demonstrable scrutiny and instead appeals to the sheer existence of later Imami compilations, which allegedly preserve “many incidents” of protest from selected Sahabah and Tabi’in.

These very figures continued to live within the wider body of the Muslim community, participated in its campaigns, prayed behind its leaders, engaged its institutions, and never established an independent sectarian structure built upon the later Twelver conception of divinely designated Imamah.

More importantly, the principal source invoked here is al Tabarsi’s al Ihtijaj—a work already notorious for transmitting uncorroborated material. The author himself openly states in the introduction that many of his reports are cited without a chain. In other words, ‘Abdul Hussain is no longer even attempting to anchor his case in rigorously transmitted historical evidence. Instead, later polemical literature is being cited to backproject a narrative about the earliest Muslims.

The incident of Khalid ibn Sa’id ibn al ‘As radiya Llahu ‘anhu suffers from a similar problem of reconstruction. Even if one were to momentarily overlook the strength of the narration, the report still fails to establish what ‘Abdul Hussain is attempting to extract from it.

At most, the narration suggests that Khalid initially delayed giving Bay’ah to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, the report itself makes it equally clear that he eventually accepted the political order thereafter, to the extent that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu entrusted him with a military banner during the Syrian campaigns. This alone is sufficient to dismantle the attempt to portray the incident as evidence of doctrinal opposition rooted in a belief in the exclusive Imamah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

Had Khalid regarded Abu Bakr’s Caliphate as a rebellion against a divinely designated Imam, it would have become exceedingly difficult to explain why he would subsequently accept military command under that very authority.

The editors of al Muraja’at were not satisfied with the ambiguity and dug out the report, and the translators added a spin to it. The statement:

 

والله ما سرتنا ولايتكم ولا ساءنا عزلكم

is stripped from its context and made to carry a meaning that aligns with sectarian reconstruction. The discussion was not about the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, but about the appointment and subsequent withdrawal of military command. What it actually means is “By Allah, your appointing us did not delight us, nor has your dismissing us upset us.” Once restored to its proper context, the incident ceases to function as evidence for an underground movement of resistance and instead reflects indifference towards being given the standard of the army or having it withdrawn.

 

Concluding observations

What remains after all the bubbles have dissipated is nothing more than a collection of isolated reports whose reliability, on the most part, is questionable and reinterpretations of otherwise ordinary incidents, with retrospective readings imposed upon figures whose actual lives are well documented.

Rather than uncovering a suppressed doctrine of Imamah preserved by the earliest generations, these reports instead reveal the later effort to project a fully developed sectarian theology backwards into a formative period whose transmitted historical reality does not naturally sustain it.

 

 

NEXT⇒ LETTER 107 and 108 – Coming soon…

---

[1] Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 4 pg. 223.

[2] Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 3 pg. 530.

[3] Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 2 pg. 192; al Kashif, Biography: 2043; Taqrib al Tahdhib, Biography: 2505.

[4] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 4915; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 1479.

[5] Nahj al Balaghah, vol. 3 pg. 7.

[6] Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 6 pg. 408.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Kitab al Amwal, vol. 1 pg. 286; Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 6 pg. 407.

[9] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3542, 3750.