Interpretations of Abu Bakr and his followers


The day of Saqeefa


When Abu Bakr stretched his hand to be paid homage as the caliph after the Prophet (S), some people paid him homage willingly and others - later on - paid homage unwillingly although they knew well that the Prophet (S) had entrusted his brother and cousin Ali bin Abu Talib (S) with the caliphate after him. They had seen the Prophet (S) and heard him mentioning this matter many times since the beginning of his prophethood until the end of his blessed life. The Prophet (S) had mentioned this tradition in different ways and all of them were clear in declaring that ‘Ali (as) would be the caliph after him.


Whoever wants to know more details about this subject, let him refer to our book “al-Muraja’at”, in which we have mentioned a full research on these traditions and all what have been said about them by the two sects; the Shia and the Sunni. We have exchanged deliberations with the sheikh of Islam and the teacher of the ulama Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri al-Maliki, the sheikh of al-Jami’ al-Azhar (al-Azhar University) at that time when I have been studying there. He was then the sheikh (dean) of al-Azhar University. He took much care of me as he always did to his students.


Arguments and written deliberations began between us about the caliphate after the Prophet (S) and the traditions concerning it. We tried our best to go deep in research and to be fair to the truth and because of the good soul of Sheikh al-Bishri, the result was the useful book “al-Muraja’at”, in which guidance shone in its brightest signs. Praise be to Allah for this success.


I hope that you scrutinize into the aims and the intents of the Prophet’s sayings and doings, which are the point of deliberation between us (the Shia) and the Sunni. Let passion not overcome your minds like those, who have dealt with the clear texts like their dealing with general or ambiguous sayings without caring for their (the texts’) rightness and clearness. Allah says:


“Most surely it is the Word of an honored messenger. The processor of strength, having an honorable place with the Lord of the Dominion. One (to be) obeyed and faithful in trust. And your companion is not gone mad” (Qur’an 81:19-22);

then whereto do you go, O you the Muslims!

“It is naught but revelation that is revealed. The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him” (Qur’an, 53:4-5).


I have not seen clear and recurrent traditions more than the traditions talking about the caliphate but they have been confiscated by the most of the Ummah while the wound has not recovered yet and the Prophet (S) has not been buried yet.


The life of the Prophet (S) after his prophethood was full of traditions that had talked about the caliphate of Imam ‘Ali (as) clearly since the (day of the warning) (The Prophet (S) had invited his close relatives to warn them. The last of his speech to them was that when he held Ali’s hand and said: “This is my brother, my vizier, my guardian and my caliph among you. Listen to him and obey him!” Refer to muraja’a no. 20 and the one after it in the book “al-Muraja’at”.in Abu Talib’s house and throughout the days after that until he had lain in the bed of death whereas his room was crowded with people when he said:

“O people, I am about to die and to be taken hastily. I have informed you. I have left among you the Book of Allah and my progeny”.

Then he raised Ali’s hand and said:

“This is Ali. He is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with him. They will never separate until they will come to me at the pond (in Paradise)”.

The traditions of thaqalayn (two weighty things) are enough to be the judge between the two sects; the Shia and the Sunni.


“Most surely there is a reminder in this for him who has a heart or he gives ear with full intelligence”.(Qur’an, 50:37).


They (the companions) had appropriated the matter (the caliphate) to themselves on the day of Saqeefa (Saqeefa means a shed. They (most of the Prophet’s companions) have gathered in the shed of Bani Sa’ida on that day to determine that caliphate after the Prophet (S).interpreting some prophetic traditions according to their own opinions without caring for anything else.


They had determined their matter among them without informing anyone of the Hashemites (Hashem was the Prophet’s ancestor.or any of their followers; the Hashemites, who were the family of the Prophet (S), the place of the divine mission, the descendance of the angels and the descendance of Gabriel and revelation. As if they had forgotten that the Hashemites were the weighty thing the Prophet (S) had left, the equal of the Book of Allah,(With reference to the clear traditions mentioned in the reliable books of traditions; those traditions that have made the Prophet’s progeny as the equal of the Qur'an to be the example that must be followed by the men of understanding. Refer to Muslim’s Sahih (book of Hadith), at-Tarmithi’s Sahih, an-Nassa’iy’s Sahih, Ahmad’s Musnad, at-Tabarani in his al-Kabeer, al-Hakim’s Mustadrak, ath-Thahabi’s Talkhees al-Mustadrak, Ibn Abu Shayba’s Sunan, Abu Ya’la’s Sunan, Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat and many others. For details refer to muraja’a no.8 in our book “al-Muraja’at”.) the protection of the Ummah from separation, (Referring to the Prophet’s saying: “My family is security for my Ummah from being separated. If a tribe of the Arabs objects to them, it will separate and then become the party of Iblis”. Refer to al-Hakim’s Mustadrak, vol.3 p.149.the ship of rescue for the Ummah from deviation (Referring to the Prophet’s saying: “The example of my progeny among you is like the Ark of Prophet Noah. Whoever rides on it will be saved and whoever lags behind it, will drown”. Refer to al-Hakim’s Mustadrak, vol.3 p.151.) and the gate of repentance for the Ummah.(Referring to the Prophet saying: “The example of my progeny is like the Ark of Prophet Noah. Whoever rides on it will be saved and whoever lags behind will drown. The example of my progeny among you is like the gate of repentance of the Israelites. Whoever enters into it will be forgiven”. Mentioned by at-Tabarani in his al-Awsat.)


It was as if they had forgotten that the Prophet’s family was to the Ummah as the head to the body and as the two eyes to the head. (Imam as-Sabban in his book Is’af ar-Raghibeen and Sheikh Yousuf an-Nabhani in his book ash-Sharaf al-Mu’ayyad and others mentioned that Abu Dharr had narrated the Prophet’s saying: “Make my family among you as the head to the body and as the two eyes to the head. The head is not rightly guided without the eyes”. For details refer to our book al-Muraja’at, muraja’a no.6 -13.)

 In fact they were as they had been meant by the saying of the poet:

The matter is determined when Taym is absent
And they
 are not asked permission when they are present.

Yes! The matter had been determined in the Saqeefa (Saqeefa means shed.) while the Prophet (S) was lying between his family and his close companions for three days. They were around him mourning bitterly and their hearts were about to be cut into pieces with sorrow that might tear the livers and with fear that might move the mountains. The world, with all its wideness, had become too narrow before them.

And those people were away from the ordeal for three days being busy preparing their determinations to seize his (the Prophet’s) authority and to plunder his rule. They did not pay any attention to any affair of him until they had determined their matter without caring for anything else.

As soon as they finished burying him, they surprised his guardians and lovers with asking them either to pay homage or to be burned with their houses. 

(They had threatened Imam ‘Ali (as) to be burned unless he would pay homage. Refer to Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari in his book as-Saqeefa, p. 130, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 1, p. 134, Ibn Jareer at-Tabari in his book Tareekh al-Umam wel Mulook, Ibn Qutayba in his book al-Imama was-Siyasa, Ibn Abd Rabbih al-Maliki, in al-Iqd al-Fareed, vol.2, al-Mas’oodi in Murooj ath-Thahab, Ibn ash-Shuhna in Rawdhatul Manadhir, Abul Fida’ in al-Mukhtasar fee Akhbar al-Bashar, ash-Shahristani in al-Milal wan-Nihal, Allama al-Hilli in Nahj as-Sidq quoted from al-Mahasin wa Anfas al-Jawahir, Ibn Khanzabah in al-Ghurar and Abu Makhnaf in a detailed book talking about the homage of the Saqeefa.)

The poet of the Nile, Hafidh Ibraheem had said in a famous poem:


And a saying to Ali said by Umar,
Honored is the listener and great is the sayer
I burn your house and let you not alive longer in it If you do not pay homage
Even if the daughter of al-Mustafa
 is in it.
No one save Abu Hafs
 that has said it Before the knight and protector of Adnan


If it has been supposed that there was no clear tradition showing that the caliphate was to be for one of the Prophet’s family and if it has been supposed that no one of them had good ancestry, rank, morals, knowledge, favors, jihad, faith, sincerity or excellent virtue but they were just like the rest of the Prophet’s companions, then was there any legal, rational or traditional excuse that prevented the companions from putting off their homage until the funerals of the Prophet (S) would finish??? Even if they would have ordered the army to control the situation temporarily until the matter of the caliphate would be settled???

Would it be not better for them to be somehow kind to the Prophet’s family, who were distressed with the great loss, if they had waited a little? The Prophet’s family was his deposit and his leftover among the Muslims. Allah has said:

“Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate”(Qur’an 9:128).


Had this Prophet, who became so grievous when his Ummah fell in distress, who strove for its prosperity and who was so kind to his people, not had a right on them that his family would not be constrained or surprised with what it had faced while the wound was not yet healed and the Prophet (S) was not yet buried?!


It was enough for his progeny, then, to worry, to pillow on insomnia, to suffer griefs, to chat with the stars, to bear pangs and to struggle against agonies. Waiting a little would have been worthier to console the Prophet’s progeny, to regard the Prophet’s dignity, to unite the Ummah and would have been nearer to wisdom. But the people had determined to turn the caliphate away from the Prophet’s family at any cost. They feared that waiting a little might lead them to other than what they had determined because if Muhammad’s family had attended the deliberations, their evidences and proofs would prevail; therefore they had hastened to carry out the homage and seized the opportunity when the Hashemites were busy with their ordeal and with the ceremonies of the funeral.


What helped those people in achieving their plan was the astonishment of the Muslims and their fear and confusion besides the meeting of the most of the Ansar (Ansar means helpers: the people of Medina, who had assisted (and believed in) the Prophet (S) and his companions when had emigrated from Mecca.) in the Saqeefa to nominate Sa’d bin Obada, the chief of al-Khazraj, (One of the greatest tribes in Medina.) for the caliphate but his cousin Basheer bin Sa’d bin Tha’laba and Osayd bin al-Khudhayr, the chief of al-Owss, (The other greatest tribe in Medina.) competed with him for the rule. They envied him and feared that he might be the caliph. They agreed among themselves to turn the caliphate away from him with all means.


Owaym bin Sa’ida al-Owssi and Ma’an bin Adiy, who were from the Ansar, agreed with them on that. These two men had been planned secretly with Abu Bakr and Umar and their party to act so. They had been from among the followers of Abu Bakr during the time of the Prophet (S) besides that they had had grudge against Sa’d bin Obada. Owaym hastened towards Abu Bakr and Umar inciting them to oppose Sa’d. He hastened with them, Abu Obayda, Salim the freed slave of Hudhayfa and then followed by others from their party of the Muhajireen (Muhajireen means the emigrants: the first Muslims, who had emigrated from Mecca to Medina.) to the Saqeefa.


The dispute flared up between the Muhajireen and the Ansar. The quarrel became serious and their shouts loudened until sedition was about to happen. Abu Bakr made a speech, in which he praised the Ansar and acknowledged their favors softly and leniently. Then he protested against them saying that the Muhajireen were the people of the Prophet (S) and the result of his efforts. He told them that they would be the viziers if the Muhajireen became the rulers.

Then he held Umar and Abu Obayda’s hands and ordered the attendants to pay homage to one of them. As soon as he said so, Umar and Basheer hastened to pay homage to Abu Bakr himself. Then he was paid homage by Osayd bin al-Khudhayr, Owaym bin Sa’ida, Ma’an bin Adiy, Abu Obayda bin al-Jarrah, Salim and Khalid bin al-Waleed and then these men tried their best to force the people to pay homage.

The extremist among them was Umar and then Usayd, Khalid and Qunfith bin Umayr bin Jad’an at-Tameemi.

(These persons were among the ones, who had broken into the house of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter (S), when intending to set fire to it. Refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.19. Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari narrated, as mentioned in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 1 p.130, that: “When Abu Bakr had been paid homage, Az-Zubayr, al-Miqdad and some other people often visited Ali in the house of Fatima (sa). Umar went to Fatima and said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah, none of the people in the world has ever been more beloved to us than your father and than you after your father. By Allah, this will not prevent me, if these people meet here in your house, from ordering to burn the house over them...”)

As soon as Abu Bakr was paid homage, the group that paid him homage came escorting him towards the Prophet’s mosque as in a wedding procession (Mentioned by az-Zubayr bin Bukar in his book al-Muwaffaqiyyat. Refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.8.whereas the Prophet (S) was still lain down among his pure lovers. Imam ‘Ali (as) then could not but to recite this verse of one of the poets:

Some people began saying whatever they like
And tyrannized when Zayd was afflicted with calamities

(Mentioned by Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhary in his book as-Saqeefa. Refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.5.)

Imam ‘Ali (as) knew well that people had determined to turn the caliphate away from him and that if he had asked for his right (the caliphate) they would have disputed against him and if he had fought them they would have fought him and that would lead to a sedition in the religion and would bring dangers over the Ummah; therefore he chose to retire preferring the general welfare and preferring the most important thing to the important thing in order to keep Islam safe from any danger. It was a covenant from the Prophet (S).

Ameerul Mo’mineen (“Ameerul Mo’mineen” means the commander of the believers. It is the title of Imam ‘Ali (as).) became patient unwillingly and restrained himself from carrying out the covenant. (for details refer to our thesis Falsafatul Meethaq wal-Wilaya (The Philosophy of the Covenant and guardianship) and refer to al-Muraja’at, muraja’a no.82, 84, and refer to chap.8 in our book al-Fusool al-Muhimma.) Yes! He remained at home. He was discontented with what they had done until they took him out by force.

(Abu Bakr al-Jawhari mentioned in his book as-Saqeefa - as in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.19 - a tradition narrated by ash-Shi’bi saying: “Umar and Khalid bin al-Waleed went to Fatima’s house. Umar came into and Khalid stayed at the door. Umar said to az-Zubayr: “What is this sword for?” He said: “I have prepared it to pay homage to Ali.” There were many people in the house. Among them were al-Miqdad and some of the Hashemites. Umar snatched the sword from az-Zubayr, struck it against a rock and broke it. They took az-Zubayr out to Khalid and his companions. There were many people with Khalid. Abu Bakr had sent them to support Umar and Khalid. Then Umar said to Ali: “Get up and pay homage!” He lagged and hesitated. Umar caught his hand and said to him: “Get up!” He refused. They carried him by force and delivered him to Khalid as they did with az-Zubayr. Umar and his companions drove Ali and az-Zubayr violently. People gathered looking at the scene. The streets of Medina became full of people. When Fatima (sa) saw what Umar had done, she cried and shouted. Many women of the Hashemites and others gathered with her. She went out of her room and shouted: “O Abu Bakr, how hasty you attacked the Prophet’s family. By Allah, I will not talk with Umar until I meet Allah.”

Whoever examines the events of those days will find the clear truth in Abu Bakr’s saying when he was about to die: “I wish I had not broken into Fatima’s house even if it would lead to war.” Abu Bakr al-Jawhari mentioned in his book as-Saqeefa another tradition narrated by Luhay’a from Abul Aswad: “Umar and his companions broke into the house while Fatima (sa) was crying and adjuring them before Allah. They took Ali and az-Zubayr out being driven by Umar”. Al-Jawhari mentioned too that: “Umar came to Fatima’s house with people of Ansar and some men of Muhajireen and said: “I swear by Him, in Whose hand my soul is, either you come out to pay homage or I shall burn the house over your heads.” Az-Zubayr came out drawing his sword but they gathered against him until his sword fell from his hand. Umar struck the sword against a rock and it broke and then he took them out of the house drawing them violently with their collars...” Refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.19.)

He protested against those, who had extorted his right, and how eloquent his protest was when he said to Abu Bakr:

If you protested against your opponents with kinship,
The others were worthier of the Prophet and closer than you
And if you ruled them by the shura,
How is that while the people of the shura were absent?

(These two verses are in Nahjul Balagha, the book, in which the speeches, the letters and the maxims of Imam ‘Ali (as) have been collected. Abdul Hameed bin Abul Hadeed and Sheikh Muhammad Abda had commented on these two verses in their books. It would be better to the researchers to refer to. I have mentioned them in al-Muaraja’at no. 80. Al-Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib once had protested against Abu Bakr with something that as if its meaning had been taken from these two verses. He said to Abu Bakr through an argument between them: “If you have pretended that the Prophet (S) is from you, then you have extorted our right and if you have evidenced with the believers, then we are the first and the best of the believers so if this matter (the caliphate) would not be legal to you unless with the agreement of the believers then it would not be legal while we were unwilling”. In another argument, as mentioned in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.1, he said to him: “As for your saying “we are the tree of the Prophet” you are its neighbors and we are its branches”.

This was the meaning of Imam Ali’s saying “You have argued about the tree but lost the fruit”. Al-Fadhl bin al-Abbas said, as narrated by az-Zubayr bin Bukar in his Muwaffaqiyyat and mentioned in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.8: “O people of Quraysh and especially you Bani Taym, you have taken the caliphate by means of the prophethood whereas we are its people rather than you but if we ask for this matter, which is our right, people will hate us more than to hate the others because of their envy and grudge towards us. We have known well that our man (Imam Ali) has a covenant that must be carried out.”
Otba bin Abu Lahab said, as mentioned in Mukhtasar of Abul Fida’ and in the last page of vol.2, Sharh Nahjul Balagha:
I have not thought that the matter (caliphate) will be turned away
From Hashem (the Hashemites) and then from Abu Hasan (Ali)
Was he not the first who had offered prayers toward your Qibla
And the most aware of the Qur'an and the Sunna among all people,
And the closest one to the Prophet and to Gabriel
When helping him (Gabriel) in washing and preparing his coffin? He has had nothing to be doubted
And none of them has had a bit of his virtues What made them deny him? Let us know
It was injustice that no else was greater than
Az-Zubayr bin Bukar, when mentioning these verses in his al-Muwaffaqiyyat, said: “…Ali sent for him (Otba bin Abu Lahab) and ordered him not to say such a thing again and said to him: “The safety of religion is more important for us than anything else”. Az-Zubayr also mentioned in al-Muwaffaqiyyat as in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.7 that once Abu Sufyan had passed by Ali’s house. He stopped before the house and recited:
O Bani Hashem, do not let people deem you weak Especially Taym bin Murra and Adiy
For the matter is just among you and for you No one deserves it save Abu Hasan Ali
O Abu Hasan, be determined for it
For you are the only well-qualified one for the hoped matter

His speech had no any effect on Imam. Ali said: “The Messenger of Allah has promised me with something and I am still keeping to it”. Abu Sufyan left Ali and went to al-Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib in his house. He said to him: “O Abul Fadhl, you are the well-qualified one for it (the caliphate) and worthier of the heritage of your nephew (the Prophet). Give me your hand to pay homage to you!” Al-Abbas laughed and said: “Ali refuses it and al-Abbas asks for it, how far!!!” Abu Sufyan went out disappointedly”.)

Their homage was a slip that Allah had saved the Muslims from its evil as they had pretended but its cost was on the expense of Ameerul Mo’mineen when he became patient before harm, silent before injustice and when he sacrificed his right for the sake of Islam. Allah may reward him for his favors on Islam and the Muslims with the best of His reward.

 The second situation


When Abu Bakr was about to die, he entrusted Umar with the caliphate! How odd! (How strange! As he had extorted it in his life, he had entrusted it to another one after his death. How much they have participated in its two udders!). (This is a part of one of Imam Ali’s speeches.) How strange! As if the man had given the other a piece of his own properties! He had entrusted it to whoever he wished without fearing any punishment, blaming or criticizing. How strange! As if he had forgotten or pretended that he had forgotten the covenant of the caliphate the Prophet (S) had given to Ali and then after him to the infallible Imams of his progeny, who were one of the two weighty things that whoever kept to would never deviate and whoever turned away from their path would never be guided to the path of the truth.

They were equal to the Qur'an. They (the Qur'an and the Prophet’s progeny) would never separate until they would come to him at the pond in Paradise. They were like the Ark of Noah (S). Whoever rode on it would be rescued and whoever lagged behind it would drown. They were like the gate of repentance. Whoever entered through it would be forgiven.

They were the security for the people of the earth from being tortured and they were the security of the Ummah from separation (in religion). If a tribe opposed them, its people would disagreed among themselves and become the party of Iblis…etc. to the rest of the clear traditions that had declared their right of the caliphate and made that compulsory on the whole peoples. We have mentioned many of such traditions in our book al-Muraja’at.

(You find them in muraja’a no.8 p.20 (the third edition) until muraja’a no.14. The dispute through the muraja’at between me and Sheikh al-Bishri flared up until he said to me in the last of his letters he had written about this subject: “You have sublimated and corrected my thinking in your last letter, from whose contents the lights of your star shone and the signs of your victory appeared”. I said: “Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, for granting success and victory”.)

The third situation 


The battle of Mu’ta: it took place in Jumada al-Oola, the eighth year of hijra, in which the Prophet (S) had appointed Zayd bin Haritha as the leader of the army. The Prophet (S) said: “If Zayd is struck, then Ja’far bin Abu Talib will be the leader and if he is struck then Abdullah bin Rawaha will be the leader”. This has been said by all the Sunni whereas the Shia say that the first leader, according to the Prophet’s tradition, is Ja’far, the second is Zayd and the third is Abdullah bin Rawaha. Our traditions on this subject are true and recurrent from the pure infallible Imams (S).

Muhammad bin Ishaq has confirmed this in his Maghazi when mentioning the poems of Hassaan bin Thabit and Ka’b bin Malik on praising and elegizing Ja’far when he has been martyred. (Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 3 p.607.)

However the order of these three leaders was, the fact was that the Prophet (S) had appointed Zayd as a leader whether he was the first or the second one. The army and the rest of the companions had heard the Prophet (S) appointing Zayd as the leader. After that there was no any excuse for those who had objected to this order unless it was possible for non-infallible one to interpret (change), according to his own opinion, a tradition said by an infallible one!!!

The reason of this battle was that the Prophet (S) had sent his companion al-Harth bin Umayr to the king of Busra (In Syria.) inviting him to be a Muslim. When he was on his way, Shurahbeel bin Amr stopped him and asked him: “Where are you going to?” Al-Harth said: “To Sham”. He said: “Are you one of Muhammad’s messengers?” Al-Harth said: “Yes, I am.” Shurahbeel ordered his mates to tie al-Harth and then he killed him. No one of the Prophet’s messengers had been killed except this one. When the Prophet (S) had been informed of this, he ordered the army to march and appointed these three leaders according to the order we have mentioned before.

The Prophet (S) sent this army and another army under the leadership of Usama bin Zayd to conquer Sham. Their hearts were full of the dignity of Islam and the Muslims and the hearts of the Romans were filled with fear and regard when they saw the seriousness, steadfastness, devotedness and competing towards martyrdom among the two armies.

How brave Ja’far bin Abu Talib was with his three thousand soldiers when they attacked bravely Hercules and his two hundred thousand soldiers. (One hundred thousand soldiers from the Romans and one hundred thousand from the Arabs from Najm, Jutham and other tribes as mentioned by Ibnul Atheer in his al-Kamil and by others.

Ja’far recited:

How nice Paradise is and its becoming near!
How good it is with its cold drinks
And the Romans are waiting for their near torment
They are unbelievers and strangers for me
I will strike them in the meeting

When the fighting became so violent, Ja’far broke into on his horse. He slaughtered his horse and attacked the enemy. His hands were cut and then he was killed. Ja’far was the first one, who had slaughtered his horse in Islam. More than eighty wounds were found on his body.

It was narrated that the Prophet (S) had said: “Last night (in dream) Ja’far and some angels passed by me. He had two wings. His primaries were dyed with blood”.

(Al-Kamil by Ibnul Atheer (the battle of Mu’ta) and other books of Hadith and history. The surname of Ja’far among all the Muslims is “the two-winged” man.)

How great the situation of Zayd bin Haritha was when he broke through the spears of the enemy! May Allah raise high his position as he has been honored in this life.

And how great the situation of Abdullah bin Rawaha was when he encouraged himself to face an army of two hundred thousand soldiers! He recited:

O my soul, if you are not killed, you will die
This is the death you are in now
Whatever you have wished, you have been given
If you do one of them, you will be guided then

He also recited:
O my soul, I swear that you must submit to death
Willingly or you will be forced to it
As people have got ready to meet the hope So why you hate Paradise
How long you have been reassured

Then he got off his horse. One of his cousins came to him with a piece of meat and said: “Support yourself with this for you have got much tiredness.” He ate a bit and then he heard a clamor coming from a side of the army. He said to himself: “Do hear this and you are still alive?” He threw the piece of meat and approached to fight until he was martyred.

Some Muslims of this army, after finding that the enemy army was about two hundred thousands, thought to inform the Prophet (S) about that but Abdullah bin Rawaha encouraged them to keep on by saying: “By Allah, we do not fight by equipments, powers or numbers. We fight by this religion, with which Allah has honored us. Go on! It is not but one of two good things; either victory or martyrdom”. The people said: “By Allah, he is right”. They went on without feeling weak or submissive. By Allah, it is the honor that goes high on the wing of the eagle and competes with the Gemini. Yes! It is the real faith in Allah and His messenger. I wish I were with them to get the great victory!

 The army of Usama bin Zayd


The Prophet (S) had cared much for this army. He ordered his companions to get ready and incited them too much to join this army. He himself mobilized them in order to sharpen their determinations and to awaken their ardors. He let no one of the Muhajireen and Ansar, like Abu Bakr, Umar, (The historians agreed upon that Abu Bakr and Umar were in this army and they proved that as an irrefutable fact. Refer to at-Tabaqat by Ibn Sa’d, At-Tabari’s Tareekh, Ibnul Atheer’s Tareekh, as-Seera ad-Dahlaniyya and others. Al-Halabi mentioned in his Seera, vol.3: “When al-Mahdi (the Abbasid caliph) came to Basra, he met Iyas bin Mo’awiya, who was very clever and intelligent. He was a young boy and behind him there were four hundred of ulama and notable men. Al-Mahdi said: “Woe to these beards! Is not there among them a notable man to be at the head other than this boy?” Then al-Mahdi turned toward the boy and said to him: “How old are you, boy?” The boy said: “O Ameerul Mo'mineen, may Allah make you live long! My age is as the age of Usama bin Zayd bin Haritha when the Prophet (S) has appointed him as the leader of an army, in which Abu Bakr and Umar were.” Al-Mahdi said: “Come on! May Allah bless you”. Al-Halabi mentioned that Usama was seventeen years old then.Abu Ubayda, Sa’d and their likes, unless he mobilized him for the army.(Umar often said to Usama: “The Prophet (S) died and you were the emir over me”. Some historians mentioned this like al-Halabi in his Seera when talking about the army of Usama.This was in Safar, the eleventh year of hijra.


The next day the Prophet (S) sent for Usama and said to him: “Go (with the army) to the place where your father has been killed. Let your horses tread on them (the Romans and the people of Sham). I have appointed you as the emir of this army. Attack the people of Ubna (It is a village in Syria between Asqalan and ar-Ramla near Mu’ta, where Ja’far bin Abu Talib, Zayd bin Haritha and Abdullah bin Rawaha were martyred.) in the morning. Set fire to them. Hasten to precede the news. If Allah makes you defeat them, do not stay long there. Take some guides with you and send spies and pioneers before you”.

On the twenty-eighth of Safar, the Prophet (S) began to feel ill. He got fever and headache. In the morning of the twenty-ninth he found that his companions (the army) were sluggish. He went to them and urged them to move. He himself gave the banner to Ussama with his honored hand in order to motivate their zeal and to awaken their determination. Then he said:

“Move in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah! Fight those who have disbelieved in Allah!” Usama moved with the army. He gave the banner to Burayda. They camped in al-Jurf and they became sluggish there. They did not leave there in spite of the clear orders they had heard from the Prophet (S) ordering them to hasten like his saying “Attack the people of Ubna in the morning…” and “Hasten to precede the news…” and many other orders that they did not obey.

Some of them rejected the leadership of Usama as they had rejected the leadership of his father before. They criticized him too much and argued too much although they saw that the Prophet (S) himself had appointed him as the leader and had given him the banner of the emirate while he was ill. All that did not prevent them from rejected the leadership of Usama until the Prophet (S) became very angry. He went out wrapped with his plush and his head was bandaged suffering from fever and headache. (Refer to Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, al-Halabi’s Seera, ad-Dahlani’s Seera and all the books that talked about the army of UsamaIt was Saturday, the tenth of Rabee’ul Awwal, two days before his death (according to the date mentioned by the Sunni).

He ascended the minbar, praised Allah and said (as mentioned by the Sunni and the Shia and by all the historians): “O people, what is this saying, which I have been informed of, said by some of you criticizing my appointing Usama as the emir of the army? As you criticize my appointing Usama as the emir, you have criticized my appointing his father as the emir before. By Allah, he (Usama’s father) was well-qualified for the emirate and his son after him is well-qualified for it too”.

He urged the people to progress as quickly as they could. They began to farewell him and they went to the camping in al-Jurf. His case (illness) became worse. He kept on saying: “Prepare the army of Usama…let the army of Usama move…send the army of Usama…” He repeated that while they were still inactive.

On Sunday, the twelfth of Rabee’ul Awwal, Usama came from his camp to the Prophet (S). The Prophet (S) ordered him by saying: “Move in the morning with the blessing of Allah”. Usama farewelled the Prophet (S) and left to his camp and then he returned with Umar and Abu Ubayda. They came to the Prophet (S) while he was about to die. He died on that same day.

The army came back to Medina. They determined to cancel sending the army this time. They talked with Abu Bakr about that and insisted on him too much in spite of that they had seen the Prophet (S) caring much for this army and insisting on sending it. They decided to cancel sending the army but the Caliph Abu Bakr was determined and he insisted on sending the army. Then Umar came to Abu Bakr requesting him to depose Usama and to appoint another one instead of him.

It was not a long time after the anger of the Prophet (S) when they rejected his appointing Usama as the emir and his going out of his house angrily while he was too ill and his legs were about to fail him and it was not a long time after he had confirmed his orders by swearing, when they decided to turn over everything but the caliph Abu Bakr refused to respond to them to depose Usama and he refused to cancel sending the army. He got up, caught the beard of Umar (Al-Halabi in his Seera, ad-Dahlani in his Seera, Ibn Jareer at-Tabari in his Tareekh, the events of the eleventh year of hijra and other historians.) and said: “Your mother may lose you O you Ibn al-Khattab! The Prophet (S) has appointed him and you want me to depose him!”

When they sent the army - and they were about not to do - Usama moved with three thousand warriors, among whom there were one thousand knights. (He attacked the people of Ubna, burnt their houses, cut their palm-trees, made the horses tread on their properties, killed many of them and captured the rest. On that day he killed his father’s killer. No one of the Muslims was killed on that day.)

 Some people, whom the Prophet (S) had ordered to join the army, did not join the army. The Prophet (S) had said: “Prepare the army of Usama! Allah may curse whoever does not join this army!” (Ash-Shahristani in his book al-Milal wan-Nihal, the fourth introduction.)

They lagged behind the army at the first and refused to join it finally in order to firm the bases of their policy and to establish its pillars preferring their benefits to obeying the clear orders of the Prophet (S). They thought that their doing would be better to be carried out and worthier to be cared for because the army would not stop if they lagged behind or if they did not join it whereas the caliphate would be turned away from them to others if they went to the battle before the death of the Prophet (S).

The Prophet (S) wanted the capital to be empty of them so that the situation would be clear and safe for Ameerul Mo'mineen Ali bin Abu Talib (S). If they came back after the covenant of the caliphate would have been determined to Ali, they would have no good chance to dispute or disagree then.

The Prophet (S) had appointed Usama, who was seventeen years old, (This was the most certain saying. It was also said that he was 18, 19 or 20 years old but no one had said more than the emir over them in order to degrade the haughty ones, to control the fancy of others and to be safe in the future from the disputing of the competitors if he had appointed one of them as the emir but they realized what the Prophet (S) had planned to, so they rejected the emirate of Usama and refused to go with him to fight. They did not leave their camping in al-Jurf until the Prophet (S) went to the better world and then they intended to cancel the battle one time and to depose Usama in another time. At last they did not join the army of Usama and at the head of them were Abu Bakr and Umar. 

(He was not in the army of Ibn Zayd (Usama) to be led by Ibn Zayd

nor was he afraid on the day of the cave
nor hid himself on the day of al-Fareesh
nor was he deposed on the day of Bara’a
nor was he led behind in a prayer
a young man who has not got a root from Taym bin Murra nor from the evil Abdul Lat
an imam of guidance who preferred the others to have his disc of bread
and so the red disc of the sun was returned white to him
Gabriel competed with him under the garment

Composed by Ibn Abul Hadeed al-Mu’tazily al-Hanafi (about Imam ‘Ali (as)))

These were five things in the matter of the army of Usama, which they (the companions) had not obeyed whereas they (these things) were declared clearly by the prophetic sayings, preferring their fancies and their own ijtihad to the clear traditions of the Prophet (S).

Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri justified the companions doing in some of our arguments (muraja’at). He said: “Yes, the Prophet (S) urged them to hasten with the army of Usama and ordered them many times until he said to Usama: ‘Attack the people of Ubna in the morning…’ and he did not give him time even to the evening and he said to him: ‘Hasten…’ He did not accept from him except hastening but immediately after that the Prophet (S) became so ill until it was feared for him.

Their selves did not allow them to leave him while he was in such a state. They remained in al-Jurf waiting to see how he would become. This was because of their pity for him and their love for him. The aim behind their sluggishness was just waiting for one of two things; either to be delighted if he would restore his health or to win the honor of carrying out his funerals and to establish the affairs of the one, who would rule over them after him. They were excused and would not be blamed for that.

As for rejecting the emirate of Usama before the death of the Prophet (S) in spite of the clear sayings and orders of the Prophet (S), it was just because Usama was too young while they were middle-aged and old men and the souls of the middle-aged and old men would refuse - in their natures - to be led by the young and hate to submit to the orders of the youth so their rejecting his emirate was not a heresy but it was due to the human nature”.

And as for their request to depose Usama after the death of the Prophet (S), some of the ulama justified that in a way that the companions might think it would be permissible if the caliph Abu Bakr would have preferred to depose him due to the general welfare according to their own opinions.

Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri added: “Indeed I do not know any justification that mind may accept concerning their request to depose Usama especially after the Prophet (S) has become so angry when they have rejected his appointing Usama as the emir and he has come out, although he was seriously ill, wrapped with his plush and his head was bandaged because of fever and headache and he has reproached them in his speech from above the minbar. It was one of the famous historical events, that has spread everywhere. Justifying their doing, after all that, is something unknown save by Allah.

As for their intention to cancel sending the army after they have seen the Prophet (S) caring too much to send it and insisting on hastening to send it and his many traditions about this matter, it was because of their precautions that the capital of Islam might be overcome by the polytheists after it would be empty of the forces. After the death of the Prophet (S) hypocrisy appeared, the Jews and the Christians became powerful, many tribes apostatized and other tribes refused to pay the zakat.

The companions asked our master Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq to prevent Usama from moving with the army but he refused and said: “By Allah, if I am snatched away by birds, is better to me than to change anything before carrying out the order of the messenger of Allah (S)”. This is what has been mentioned by our ulama about the situation of Abu Bakr but as for the others, they are excused because they have had no intention save their fearing for Islam.

As for when Abu Bakr, Umar and others had abstained from joining the army of Usama, when it went to fight, it was just to establish the Islamic rule and the Muhammadan state and to save the caliphate, which the religion and its people would not be saved then except with.

We found what you have quoted from ash-Shahristani in his book al-Milal wan-Nihal as mursal and not musnad.

(Mursal is a tradition narrated without a series of narrators or the narrators are unknown or unreliable. Musnad is a tradition narrated by truthful and reliable narrators)

Al-Halabi and ad-Dahlani said in their Seeras: “No tradition has been narrated about the subject at all”. If you, may Allah assist you, have a tradition narrated by the Sunni, please guide me to it and thanks be to you”.

We said when replying to the sheikh: “You have - may Allah keep you safe - acknowledged that those companions have been sluggish in al-Jurf and then they have not joined the army when moving to fight although they have been ordered by the Prophet (S) to hasten in doing that. You have acknowledged too that they rejected the emirate of Usama in spite of the clear sayings and orders of the Prophet (S).

You have acknowledged that they have requested Abu Bakr to depose Usama after the Prophet (S) has been so angry for that and that he has come out wrapped and bandaged because of illness. And then he has reproached them in his speech he made on the minbar that you have said it was a famous historical event. It was the speech, in which the Prophet (S) had declared that Usama and his father, before him, were well-qualified for the emirate.

You have acknowledged their requesting the caliph to cancel sending the army, which the Prophet (S) has ordered to be sent, although they have seen the Prophet (S) insisting on that and inciting his companions to hasten moving toward Sham and his sayings were too clear and firm.

You have acknowledged that some companions, whom the Prophet (S) has ordered to join the army, had not joined the army.

You have acknowledged all these things, which have been mentioned by all the historians, and you have said they (those companions) were excused for doing that. The conclusion of what you have mentioned as a justification for their doings was that they have just preferred the welfare of Islam as they have thought and not according to the sayings and orders of the Prophet (S). We have not said, in this concern, more than this.

In another word, we want to ask: have they offered their worships according to all of the prophetic traditions or not? You have chosen the first and we have chosen the second. Your acknowledgment, now, that they have not acted in these matters according to the prophetic traditions confirms what we have chosen and whether they were excused or not, certainly has nothing to do with the subject of the research.

Since it has been proved that they have preferred the benefit of Islam, concerning the matter of the army of Usama, by acting according to their own opinions rather than to act according to the Prophet’s orders, then why do you not say that they have preferred, in the matter of the caliphate after the Prophet (S), the benefit of Islam according to their own opinions too rather than to follow the prophetic traditions of al-Ghadeer and their likes?!

You have justified the doing of those companions, who have rejected the emirate of Usama, by saying that they have rejected his emirate because he was too young and they were middle-aged and old men and you have said that the souls of the middle-aged and old men would refuse in their nature to be led by a young man. Then why have you not said the same about those who have not carried out the prophetic traditions of al-Ghadeer that have determined the caliphate of Ali, who was a young man then, over the middle-aged and old men of the companions for they - in the same way - have considered him as too young as they have considered Usama when the Prophet (S) has appointed him a leader over them in that army?

What difference between the emirate of an army and the caliphate is! If their souls - according to their human nature - refused to be led by a young man in an army for a short period of time, they would, no doubt, refuse to be ruled by a young caliph throughout his lifetime and in all the worldly and afterlife affairs!

You have mentioned that “the souls of the middle-aged and old men refuse - according to their human natures - to be led by the young”. It is not probable that you have meant to generalize this criterion because the faithful souls of the sincere old men will never refrain from obeying Allah and His messenger in being led by the young or in anything else. Allah says:

“But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission;” (Qur’an 4:65)  and

“… and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back”; (Qur’an, 59:7) and

“And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.” (Qur’an, 33:36).

As for the word of ash-Shahristani concerning those, who had refused to join the army of Usama, it has come in a musnad tradition mentioned by Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari in his book Kitab as-Saqeefa. Here I quote the tradition as it has been mentioned:

“Ahmad bin Ishaq bin Salih narrated from Ahmad bin Yasaar from Sa’eed bin Katheer al-Ansari from his companions that Abdullah bin Abdurrahman had said: “The Prophet (S), during his illness that led to his death, appointed Usama as the leader of an army, which consisted the most of the Muhajireen and the Ansar, among whom were Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubayda bin al-Jarrah, Abdurrahman bin Owf, Talha and az-Zubayr. He ordered him to attack Mu’ta where his father Zayd had been killed and to invade the valley of Palestine.

Usama lagged and all the army lagged with him. The Prophet’s health changed between a day and another but he still insisted on carrying out the task of the army of Usama until Usama said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother die for you! Would you please allow me to stay some days until Allah restores your health?” The Prophet (S) said to him: “Go and set out with the blessing of Allah!” Usama said: “O Messenger of Allah, if I leave while you are still in this case, I will leave and my heart will be full of pain”. The Prophet (S) said: “Set out with victory and good will!” He said: “O Messenger of Allah, I hate to ask the travelers about you”. The Prophet (S) said: “Do what I have ordered you!”

Then the Prophet (S) fainted and Usama left and got ready to set out. When the Prophet (S) regained his consciousness, he asked about Usama and his army. It was said to him that Usama and his army had been preparing to move. The Prophet (S) said: “Let the army of Usama set out. Allah may curse whoever does not join Usama.” He repeated that many times.

Usama set out with the banner fluttering over his head and the companions around him until he arrived at al-Jurf. He camped there and with him there were Abu Bakr, Umar and most of the Muhajireen and from the Ansar there were Usayd bin Khudhayr, Basheer bin Sa’d and many other notable personalities. Then the messenger of Umm Aymen (She was the Prophet’s (S) nursemaid.) came saying to Usama: “Come back to Medina! The messenger of Allah is dying”. Usama immediately came back to Medina and the banner was with him. He came and fixed the banner at the door of the Prophet’s house where the Prophet (S) had died then”.

This tradition has been mentioned by several historians like Ibn Abul Hadeed al-Mu’tazili in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 2 p.20, Egypt Edition.

 The share of those whose hearts are made to incline (to the truth)


Allah, in His holy Book, has assigned a share from the zakat for a certain group of people when saying:

“The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.” (Qur’an, 9:60).

The Prophet (S) used to give those people, whose hearts had been reconciled (to the Truth) this share from the zakat. They were different kinds of people. Among them there were notable men of the Arab tribes, whom the Prophet (S) gifted to become Muslims in order to be safe from their dangers and others who had become Muslims but their determinations were weak; therefore the Prophet (S) attracted them by gifting them profusely like Abu Sufyan and his son Mo’awiyya, Uyayna bin Hissn, al-Aqra’ bin Habis and Abbas bin Mirdass, and among them there were those people, who were waiting for their equals of the Arab personalities to become Muslims so that they themselves, then, would become Muslims.

The first kind of those people might be those people, whom the Prophet (S) gifted from the sixth of the khums  (A type of religious levy, equivalent to one fifth of taxable income.) (fifth), which was his own pure share, and he had prepared some of those people, by gifting them with a part of the zakat, to fight the unbelievers.

Thus was the conduct of the Prophet (S) towards those, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, since this verse had been revealed to him until he left to the better world. He had never ordered anyone to annul it after him at all. All the Ummah has agreed unanimously upon this.

When Abu Bakr became the caliph, those people came to receive their shares as it was usual during the time of the Prophet (S). Abu Bakr wrote them a book confirming their right. They took the book to Umar to be signed by him. Umar tore the book and said to them: “We are not in need of you. Allah has strengthened Islam and made us no longer need you. Either you become Muslims or the sword will be between us and you.” They went back to Abu Bakr and said to him: “Are you the caliph or he?” Abu Bakr said: “It is he inshallah” and he agreed to what Umar had done.

(Refer to al-Jawhara an-Nayyira ala Mukhtasar al-Qaddoori on Hanafite jurisprudence, vol.1 p.164. Also it has been mentioned by other historians when talking about the qualities of the two caliphs.

How many cases like this one Umar had done! One of them, for example, as mentioned by the historians, was: “Once Uyayna bin Hissn and al-Aqra’ bin Habiss came to Abu Bakr and said to him: “There is a piece of inarable land that has neither plant nor any advantage”. Abu Bakr said: “I see to grant it to you that Allah may make it useful”. Abu Bakr asked the people around him: “What do you say?” They said: “It is ok.” He wrote them a book about that. They took the book to Umar to witness on it. Umar took the book from them, spit on it and erased it. They became so angry and said to him bad words. Then they came back to Abu Bakr complaining. They said to Abu Bakr: “By Allah, we do not know who the caliph is, you or Umar!” Abu Bakr said: “It is he!” Umar came and stopped before Abu Bakr while he was angry. He said to Abu Bakr: “Tell me about this land that you have granted to these two. Is it yours or it is for the Muslims?” Abu Bakr said: “It is for the Muslims.” Umar said: “So what made you grant it to these two?” Abu Bakr said: “I consulted with the people around me.” Umar said: “Did you consult with all the Muslims and get their consent?” Abu Bakr said: “I have said to you before that you are better than me in this matter (the caliphate) but you forced me to it”. Mentioned by Ibn Abul Hadeed in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 12 p.108, al-Asqalani in his Isaba when mentioning the biography of Uyayna and it has been mentioned by others.

Would that they had consulted all the Muslims on the day of as-Saqeefa and would that they had waited a little until the Hashemites would have finished the funerals of the Prophet (S) to be able to attend that consultation for they no doubt were the worthiest of that among the Ummah!)

The matter had been settled by the two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, and those, who had adopted their opinion, and they determined to deprive those people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, of their share and turned it from them to the other classes mentioned in the Qur'anic verse.

Some virtuous ulama have talked about this subject that it would be better to quote their speech and to test it because it has some advantages.

Professor ad-Dawaleebi (He is Sheikh Muhammad Ma’roof, the professor in jurisprudence and Roman laws in the College of Laws - Syrian University.) said in his book Usool al-Fiqh: (Where he has mentioned examples about changing the verdicts according to the changes of the ages in p.239.) “The ijtihad of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) on stopping the gift that the Holy Qur'an had determined for the people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, might have been the first of the verdicts that Umar had done according to “the change of benefits due to the change of time” although the Qur’anic text about the subject was still valid and had not been annulled just because he had preferred his own opinion, which had led to his ijtihad.” Ponder on what he has said and scrutinize his following speech.

He added: “Allah, the Almighty has assigned, at the beginning of the advent of Islam and when the Muslims were still weak somehow, a gift to be given to some people, whose dangers against the Muslims were feared and whose goodness was expected, to reconcile their hearts to Islam. They were among the groups, whom the Qur'an had mentioned to be gifted from the charities of the treasury. Allah said:

“The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer” (Qur’an, 9:60).

Thus the Holy Qur'an had put those people, whose hearts were reconciled, among the groups of people, who received their shares of the charities, and had assigned for them certain allowances as some countries do nowadays when assigning some expenses from their budgets for the political propaganda.” (They (the countries) might have learnt this from the Qur’anic verse talking about those, whose hearts have been reconciled to Islam. England, U.S.A. and their likes supply the poor and needy people of the weak countries with food and clothes and reformative projects although these countries are not in need of those weak countries or their peoples but they follow the maxim, which is the aim of the Qur'an out of giving those people to reconcile their hearts.)

He added: “But when Islam became strong and its rule became firm, Umar determined to deprive those people of their gifts, which the Qur'an had assigned for them”.

I say: The professor has repeated his saying that Umar had stopped the gift of those people that the Qur'an had determined as a fixed right in a clear verse just to prefer his own opinion and then the professor has justified the doing of the caliph Umar by saying:

“…That did not mean that Umar had annulled a Qur'anic verdict but he had noticed the cause of the text (verse) and not its apparent form and he considered gifting those people as was related to temporary circumstances when Islam was weak yet and to be safe from their evils but when Islam became strong and the circumstances requiring to gift those people were changed then it became obligatory to act according to the cause (There was no cause here, on which the verdict relied, that following it would be required by the text (verse). Reconciling those people, whom Allah had assigned this share from the charities for, was not a cause for this legal verdict but it was from among the maxims and benefits that had been noticed in legislating it. The ulama know well that the cause of a certain verdict is something and the maxim, which is the benefit in legislating it, is something else. Have you not seen that the benefit behind the obligatory iddah (a prescribed period, during which a widow or a divorcee may not remarry, beginning from the death of her husband or from the divorce) on the divorced women is to keep the lineages of the fetuses that may be in their mothers’ wombs? In spite of that the iddat of a woman is obligatory even if it becomes certain that she is not pregnant!of the verse and to stop that gift”.

I say: there is no doubt that the verse talking about gifting those people is absolute and not limited and this is clear in the Qur'an without any disagreement or ambiguity. We are not to limit it to some conditions or to justify it according to something unless there is an authority from Allah or His messenger. It is certain that there is no authority on this concern. (The revelation of the Qur'an at the beginning of Islam and when Islam was still weak was not limited to any restrictions.)

Then how could we consider gifting those people as being justified according to temporary circumstances of a certain time, when it was to reconcile their hearts to Islam when Islam was still weak and not in other times?

If the Muslims became safe from the evils of those people, whose hearts would be reconciled, in a certain time, their becoming Muslims because of gifting them would not stop. In fact this might increase due to the powerful authority of Islam and this hope would be sufficient to reconcile their hearts by gifting them. The Prophet (S) reconciled many classes of people by giving them gifts; some to be Muslims and consequently their peoples would be Muslims, some had become Muslims but their faith was somehow weak and so the Prophet (S) wanted to strengthen their faith by gifting them and some were gifted in order that the Muslims would be safe from their evils.

Let us suppose that we were safe from the dangers of the evil ones; nevertheless this gift should be given to those, whose followers would be Muslims when they themselves became Muslims, or to those, whose weak faith would be strengthen and fixed, imitating, by that, the Prophet (S) and whoever imitated his prophet, surely would be the most beloved one to Allah among His people.

The power of Islam that had defeated the enemies of the Muslims and made them safe from their dangers changed into the opposite situation. The foreigners conquered the Muslims and forced them to flatter the foreigners and to attract their pity by paying them gifts or by other things as it is seen nowadays or it has been seen some time ago. Hence it became clear that annulling the share of those people, whose hearts had been attracted to Islam by being gifted, when Islam had become strong was just due to their being deceived by their state at that time but the Holy Qur'an is from Allah, the Knowing, the Wise.

Now we come back to our research on the absolute text and limiting it to the benefit that changes according to the changes of the different ages and due to that a legal verdict changes. We research on this principle according to its conditions.

We, the Shia, all in all and unanimously do not pay any attention to the benefit in specializing a general verdict or limiting an absolute verdict except if the Shari’ah has a clear text confirming this regard. If there is no source in the Shari’ah confirming this matter (specializing a general verdict or limiting an absolute verdict) whether positively or negatively it will have no any value near us. If there is a benefit or not it will be the same for us. (The details of this matter are available in the books of the Shia jurisprudence, which are widespread everywhere.)

This opinion is adopted too by the two sects; the Shafiites and the Hanafites.

As for the Hanbalites, although they have taken in their consideration the benefits that have no source in the Shari’ah, they do not make the benefits stand against the clear texts of the Shari’ah but they put the benefits after the texts. (Ad-Dawaleebi in his book Usool al-Fiqh, p.294.)

Thus they do not limit the clear verse talking about the people, whose hearts have been attracted to Islam by gifts. Then they may be added to the Shia, the Shafiites and the Hanafites in this concern.

The opinion of the Malikites towards the text talking about the people, whose hearts have been reconciled to Islam, is also like the others, although they have taken the benefits in their consideration and made them oppose the text but they oppose with that the traditions narrated by single narrators (not proved by others) and the traditions that have not been proved definitely and they also oppose, with the benefits, the general verse of the Qur'an, which have not had definite meanings. But as for the texts that have been proved to be true and the ones that have assigned definite meanings like the verse talking about the people, whose hearts have been attracted to Islam by gifts, they do never make the benefits stand against such texts at all (Usool al-Fiqh by ad-Dawaleebi, p.206.) because they are definite in being true and definite in meaning as well.

After all, the principles of jurisprudence according to all these sects do not permit to justify depriving those people of their shares as Professor ad-Dawaleebi has justified it.

If the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) had not annulled - after the Prophet’s death - the share of that class of people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, and stopped their right, which had been determined by the Holy Qur'an, we could have said that the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) had not contradicted the Qur'anic verse even if they had not given those people their shares then because Allah had made those eight classes of people, mentioned in the verse, as the only ones, on whom the charities were to be spent just to limit the spending of the charities to them and not to other than them.

The verse had not made it compulsory to spread the charities among all the eight classes mentioned. That is to say: if someone gives all his charity to only one class from among these eight classes, he will act correctly and will not be blamed exactly as if he has spread the charity among the eight classes. This has been agreed upon unanimously by all the Muslims and such they have done after the Prophet (S). So the doing of Abu Bakr and Umar would have been accepted if they had not annulled this right and invalidated it in spite of the clear Qur'anic text, which has been still fixed and not annulled.

Before we end this research, we think that we have to draw the attention of Professor ad-Dawaleebi to review what he has quoted about the Shia (p.207, 209 in his book Usool al-Fiqh.) that they believe in the benefits and prefer them to the definite texts. This is not true and no one of the Shia has ever said it. Sulayman at-Touffi was one of the fanatic people, who had been ascribed unjustly to the Shia by the opponents.

The opinion of the Shia in this concern is as what we have mentioned previously. All the Shia have agreed upon this unanimously. Their books are available everywhere. Let the professor refer to them and quote from them directly instead of quoting from the books of Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah forgive him).

The share of the relatives


It is the share that has been mentioned by this verse:

“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth (The two sheikhs al-Bukhari and Muslim mentioned in their Sahihs (books of Hadith) a tradition narrated by Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (S) had said to the delegation of Abdul Qays when ordering them to believe in Allah, the One and the Only: “Do you know what believing in Allah alone is?” They said: “Allah and His Messenger are more aware”. He said: “Witnessing that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, offering the prayers, paying the zakat, fasting in Ramadan and giving the fifth of one’s income”.) of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near relatives and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if you believe in Allah (The meaning of this conditional phrase is that the khums (fifth) is a legal right that must be paid to the ones mentioned in the verse. The verse said: Do not be greedy for this right and pay it to its deserving ones if you have believed in Allah.) and in that which We revealed to Our servant, on the day of distinction, the day on which the two parties met; and Allah has power over all things” (Qur’an 8:41).

The Muslims have agreed unanimously that the Prophet (S) has taken a share of the khums for himself and given another share to his near relatives and he has never changed this matter nor had he ordered any one to change it until he had been invited by Allah to be in the better world.

When Abu Bakr became the caliph, he interpreted the verse according to his own thinking and he omitted the share of the Prophet (S) and the share of his relatives after his death. (Refer to al-Kashshaf when talking about the verse of the khums. The author mentioned a tradition narrated by Ibn Abbas: “The khums is six shares; two shares for Allah and His Messenger and a share for the Messenger’s relatives…but Abu Bakr made it three shares”. He mentioned the same about Umar and the caliphs after him (except Imam Ali). He mentioned that Abu Bakr had prevented the Hashemites from getting their share of the khums.)

 He prevented the Hashemites from getting their right of the khums and he considered them as same as the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the other Muslims.

Fatima (sa) sent a messenger to Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance of what her father (S) had left in Medina and Fadak and what had remained of the khums of Khaybar but Abu Bakr refused to give her anything of that. She became very angry with him. She deserted him and did not talk to him until she died. She lived for six months after the death of the Prophet (S). When she died, her husband ‘Ali (as) buried her at night without letting Abu Bakr know or attend the funerals…. (Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.3 p.36, Muslim’s Sahih vol.2 p.72 and mentioned in other places of their Sahihs.)

Muslim mentioned in his Sahih a tradition narrated by Yazeed bin Hurmuz saying: “Najda bin Aamir al-Harawri the Kharijite wrote a letter to Ibn Abbas. I was there when Ibn Abbas read the letter and when he wrote his reply. Ibn Abbas said: “By Allah, I want just to prevent him from being in error; otherwise I will not write to him even one word.” He wrote to him: “You have asked about the share of the relatives that Allah has mentioned in His Book… and who they are! We have seen that we are the relatives of the Prophet (S) but our people denied that…” (Vol.2 p.105.)

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal mentioned this tradition in his Musnad, vol.1 p.294. The tradition has been mentioned in many books of Hadith in true ways and by reliable narrators. What has been mentioned in the tradition expresses the real opinion of Ahlul Bayt (as).

But most of the Sunni Imams have adopted the opinion of the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) without assigning a special share from the khums to the relatives (of the Prophet (S)).

Malik bin Anas had determined that all the khums would be spent according to the opinion of the Imam, who would spend it on the benefits of the Muslims as he liked, and there was no shares for the relatives (of the Prophet (S)), the orphans, the poor or the wayfarers at all.

Abu Haneefa and his followers had omitted the share of the Prophet (S) and the share of his relatives and divided them among the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the rest of the Muslims where there was no difference, according to their opinion, between the Hashemites and the other Muslims.

Ash-Shafi’iy had made it five shares; a share for the Prophet (S) to be spent in the same ways that the Prophet (S) had been used to spend on the benefits of the Muslims like supplying the army with horses (equipments), weapons and the likes and a share for the relatives from Bani Hashem and Bani Abdul Muttalib and not Bani Abd Shams and Bani Nawfal to be divided in a way that a male would get as double as the share of a female. The rest of the khums was to be divided among the other three classes; the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers.

We , the Shia, divide the khums into six shares; (Al-Jihad wes-Siyyer, vol.2 p.105.) two for Allah and His messenger, and these two shares besides the share of the relatives (the Prophet’s progeny) are for the (disappeared) Imam, who represents the Prophet (S), and the rest three shares are to be given to the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the Prophet’s progeny especially where no one of the common people has a right to be given from the khums because Allah has made charities impermissible for the Prophet (S) and his progeny and so He has compensated them for that by giving them the khums. This has been mentioned by at-Tabari when talking about Imam Ali bin al-Husayn as-Sajjad (S) and his son Imam Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir (S).

Our ulama have agreed unanimously that the khums is obligatory to be deducted from every benefit one gets from business, trade, crafts, agricultural products, cattle and others. It is also obligatory on found (by chance) treasures, minerals, precious things got from the bottom of the sea by diving and other sources of wealth. This is mentioned in our jurisprudence and traditions narrated from the Prophet (S) and the infallible imams. Our evidence in that is he Qur’anic verse:

“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near relatives and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer” (Qur’an 8:41).

“Gain” includes all that man can make use of. The lexicons have shown this meaning clearly and the point of discussion here is the ijtihad to omit the share of the relatives (of the Prophet) although the verse has confirmed it so clearly.

Bequeathing by the Prophets


Allah has said:
“Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether there is little or much of it; a stated portion” (Qur’an 4:7) and

“Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females” (Qur’an 4:11).

These verses are general in concerning the Prophet (S) and the rest of the peoples equally. They are like the other general verses such as

“O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you…” (Qur’an 2:184) and

“..but whoever among you is sick or on a journey, then (he shall fast) a (like) number of other days” (Qur’an 2:184) and

“Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter…”(Qur’an 5:3)

and many other verses that concern the legal verdicts, which includes the Prophet (S) and the rest of the peoples with no difference but the orders are addressed to the Prophet (S) to act according to them and to inform the others of them to act according to them too. In this case the verses just show that the Prophet (S) is worthier than the others in keeping to the verdicts.

Allah has said:
“…and those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah” (Qur’an 8:75).

In this verse Allah has determined that the right of inheritance is for the relatives of the bequeather. Before the revelation of this verse, bequeathing was among the rights of wilayah (guardianship) in religion, but when Islam and the Muslims became powerful and prevailing, the rights of those, who were among the inheritors previously, were annulled by this verse. The right of inheritance became limited to the relatives of the bequeather; the nearest, the nearer and so on, whether the bequeather was the Prophet (S) or any of the other people according to the apparent meaning of the verse.

Besides these verses, Allah has said when talking about Zachariah:

“When he called upon his Lord in secret; he said: My Lord! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, my Lord! I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee, and surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren; therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased” (Qur’an 19:3-6).

Fatima az-Zahra’ (S) and the infallible imams of her progeny have protested with this verse when asking about their extorted inheritance. Definitely this verse shows that the prophets bequeath wealth and properties and the word “inherit” mentioned here refers to inheriting properties and not inheriting knowledge or prophethood. All the Shia ulama have adopted this opinion and said that the word “inheritance” in the language and the Shari’ah does not refer except to movable wealth and properties and it is not used to refer to other than properties except figuratively and metaphor does never change a certain fact into a metaphor without a clear evidence.

Zachariah has said in his invocation:
“..and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased” (Qur’an 19:6).

This means: O my Lord, make the one, who will inherit me, pleased near You and make him obedient to Your orders. So if we interpret “inheritance” as inheriting prophethood, then the saying of Zachariah will be nonsense and vain. Do you not think that it is nonsense when someone invokes Allah by saying: “O Allah, send us a prophet and make him sane and well-mannered”? Definitely all the prophets, whom Allah has sent to guide His people, are the highest examples of morals.

What evidences our opinion is that Zachariah (S) has declared that he feared that his cousins might extort his properties after his death when saying: (I fear my cousins after me) so he has invoked Allah to grant him a child to inherit him. Surely he feared his cousins for his properties and not knowledge and prophethood because Prophet Zachariah (S) was aware and did not fear a bit that Allah might entrust someone, who was not qualified, with prophethood nor would Allah make bad people inherit His knowledge and wisdom.

Someone may say that this argument ascribes stinginess to Prophet Zachariah (S).

God forbid! We do never believe so. Wealth is granted (by Allah) to a believer and to a disbeliever, to a good man and to a bad man. Prophet Zachariah (S), because his cousins were bad, feared that they would spend his wealth on corruption. This was the wisdom of Prophet Zachariah (S) because supporting corrupt people and assisting them to keep on their bad doings is prohibited by religion and reason. He, who considers this as stinginess, will be unfair.

His saying (I fear my cousins after me) means that he fears their immorality and bad doings. So he fears that his cousins may inherit his wealth and spend it on disobedience; therefore he invokes Allah to grant him a good child to spend his wealth on what will please Allah.

In short, we are to interpret “inheritance” in this verse to mean wealth and not prophethood or other things according to the real meaning of the word, which comes to mind, without supposing other meanings for there is no any context referring to prophethood or other things. In fact all the evidences in the verse lead to the real meaning of the word “inherit” and not a figurative meaning.

This is the opinion of the infallible imams (S) about this Qur’anic verse and no doubt that the infallible imams (S) are equal to the Qur'an and they both, the Qur'an and the infallible imams, will not separate until the Day of Resurrection. All people have known what there was between Fatima az-Zahra’ (S), the head lady of the worlds’ women, and Abu Bakr. She had sent a messenger to Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance of her father’s properties. Abu Bakr said: “The messenger of Allah said: “We (the prophets) do not bequeath. What we leave is to be considered as charity”. (This tradition has been refuted by Fatima (sa) and the infallible imams. Refer to al-Bukhari’s Sahih, chap. The battle of Khaybar)

Aa’isha said: “Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima anything of her inheritance and he appropriated all the Prophet’s properties to the treasury; therefore Fatima became very angry with Abu Bakr. She turned away from him and did never talk to him until she died. She lived after the Prophet (S) for six months and when she died, her husband Ali buried her in the night according to her own will (This tradition has been refuted by Fatima (sa) and the infallible imams. Refer to al-Bukhari’s Sahih, chap. The battle of Khaybar) …and Abu Bakr did not attend the funerals…”. (Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.3 p.37, Muslim’s Sahih, vol.2 p.72, Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.1 p.6)

Yes! She became very angry…she put on her veil and gown and came, with her maids and some of her fellow-women walking exactly like her father’s gait, to Abu Bakr, who was among a crowd of the Muhajireen, the Ansar and other people. A curtain was put between her and the people. She moaned in a way that all the people began to cry and the meeting shook. She waited until they stopped crying and became quiet. She began her speech with praising Allah and then her eloquence streamed…

She preached the people in the best of speeches
As if she talked with the tongue of al-Mustafa

(Al-Mustafa is one of the Prophet’s surnames; Fatima’s father.)

The sights submitted and the souls surrendered. If politics was not prevailing over the minds at those days, she would turn back the strayed tendencies and bridle the worldly greed, but it was politics that had gone too far with its tendencies without caring for anything.

He, who reads her speech on that day, (The progeny of Ali and Fatima narrated the speech of Fatima, which she had given on that day, one after the other until it reached us. We, the Fatimites, narrate this speech from our fathers and our fathers narrate it from their fathers and so on for all generations until the times of the infallible imams. To see this speech, refer to al-Ihtijaj by at-Tabarsi, Biharul Anwar by al-Majlisi and refer to the Sunni books like as-Saqeefa and Fadak by Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari, in which there are many traditions about this speech, some of which are narrated from Zaynab, the daughter of Ali and Fatima (sa), Imam Muhammad al-Baqir(S) and Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan. Refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 4 p.78, 93, 94. Zayd bin Ali bin al-Husayn bin Ali bin Abu Talib said: “I have heard the notables of the Talibites narrating this speech from their fathers and teaching it to their children”.) will find what there was between her and those people (the caliph Abu Bakr and his followers).

(She said to Abu Bakr when he deprived her of her right (inheritance): “O Abu Bakr, if you die, who will inherit you?” He said: “My children and family”. She said: “Then why have you inherited the Messenger of Allah instead of his children and family?” He said: “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, I have not done that”. She said: “Yes, you have! You have extorted Fadak, which was the Prophet’s pure property. You have dared to take it from us and you have dared to change what Allah has revealed concerning us.” It has been mentioned in as-Saqeefa and Fadak by Abu Bakr al-Jawhari; refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 4 p.87. Abu Bakr al-Jawhari mentioned in his book a tradition narrated by Abu Salama saying: “When Fatima asked for her inheritance, Abu Bakr said to her: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying: “A prophet does not bequeath”. But I will sustain whomever the Messenger of Allah has been sustaining and I will spend on whomever he has been spending on”. She said: “O Abu Bakr, do your daughters inherit you whereas the Prophet’s daughters do not inherit him?” He said: “It is so”. Another tradition like this one has been mentioned by Ahmad in his Musnad, vol. 1 p.10. Al-Jawhari mentioned in his book as-Saqeefa and Fadak - as in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 4 p.81 - a tradition narrated by Umm Hani bint Abu Talib: “Fatima said to Abu Bakr: “Who will inherit you when you die?” He said: “My children and family.” She said: “Then why do you inherit the Messenger of Allah instead of us?” He said: “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, your father has not bequeathed anything.” She said: “Yes, he has. It is the share (Fadak) that Allah has given to us and it is in your hand now.” He said: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying: “It is but nourishment that Allah has granted to us and when I die it will be for the Muslims.” Al-Jawhari mentioned another tradition like this one narrated by Abut Tufayl. The traditions talking about this speech are so many and especially those, which have been narrated by the infallible Imams. She has another speech concerning the caliphate after the Prophet (S). It has been mentioned by al-Jawhari in his book as-Saqeefa and Fadak - as in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 4 p.87 - narrated from Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan that his mother Fatima bint al-Husayn has said: “When Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet) became so badly ill, the women of the Muhajireen and the Ansar gathered around her. They said to her: “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, how have you become now?” she said: “By Allah, I have disliked your world and hated your men…” It is one of the most eloquent speeches among the speeches of Ahlul Bayt (as). It has also been mentioned by Imam Abul Fadhl Ahmad bin Abu Tahir in his book Balaghaatun Nissa’. It has been mentioned by al-Majlisi in Biharul Anwar, at-Tabarsi in al-Ihtijaj and by others.)

She quoted many clear verses to evidence her inheritance. They were irrefutable evidences that could never be denied. Among what she had said on that day was this passage:

“Have you intendedly turned away from the Book of Allah and left it behind your backs? Allah says in His Book:

“And Solomon was David's heir” (Qur’an 27:16)

and He says when talking about Prophet Zachariah:

“..therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased” (Qur’an 19:6).

He also says:
“… and those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah” (Qur’an 33:6and

“Allah enjoins you concerning your children; the male shall have the equal of the portion of two females” (Qur’an 4:11) and

“It is prescribed for you, when death approacheth one of you, if he leave wealth, that he bequeath unto parents and near relatives in kindness. (This is) a duty for all those who ward off (evil)” (Qur’an 2:180).

Has Allah distinguished you with a verse that He has excluded my father from? Or are you more aware of the special and general verdicts of the Qur'an than my father and my cousin (Ali)? Or do you say: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”?

She protested against the caliph and evidenced her protest by quoting the clear Qur’anic verses (of Zachariah and Solomon) that had confirmed bequeathing by the prophets. By Allah, she is more aware of the meaning of the Qur'an than those, who have come a long time after the revelation of the Qur'an and who have distorted the real meaning of inheritance into inheriting wisdom and prophethood instead of wealth and properties. They have just preferred the figurative meaning to the real meaning without any evidence at all to drive the real meaning to another one. This is impermissible. If it was probable, then Abu Bakr or any one of that crowd of the Muhajireen and the Ansar would refute Fatima’s claim on that day.

(They had not opposed her on that day with this excuse but they had just confiscated her inheritance. Abu Bakr said to her: “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, I swear that Allah has not created anyone more beloved to me than your father. I wished the sky fell over the ground on the day when your father died. By Allah if Aa’isha (Abu Bakr’s daughter) becomes needy is much better to me than to see you being needy. Do you think I give white and red people their rights and I deprive you of your right whereas you are the daughter of the Messenger of Allah? This wealth was not for the Prophet (S) but it was among the wealth of the Muslims, with which the Prophet (S) used to spend on the armies and to spend for the sake of Allah and when he died I managed it as he had been managing it.” She said: “By Allah, I will not talk with you for ever.” He said: “By Allah, I will never desert you at all.” She said: “By Allah, I will invoke Allah against you.” He said: “By Allah, I will invoke Allah for you.” When she was about to die, she recommended that Abu Bakr should not offer the prayer (for the dead) for her. It has been mentioned by Abu Bakr al-Jawhari in his book as-Saqeefa and Fadak as mentioned in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 4 p.80. You see here that Abu Bakr has not opposed Fatima (sa) by refuting her evidence of bequeathing out of the two verses of Prophet David (S) and Prophet Zachariah (S) but he has pretended that the wealth was not the Prophet’s. She was not satisfied with his pretense anyhow for she was more aware of her father’s affairs than the others. We are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return!)

She also protested against the caliph, when asking for her inheritance, by referring to the general verses concerning inheritance and especially this general verse

“Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females…”(Qur’an 4:11)

She denied his limiting the general verdicts without any legal evidence from the Qur'an or the Sunna. She said denyingly: “Has Allah distinguished you with a verse that He has excluded my father from?” She confirmed by this saying that there was no any evidence in the Qur'an that might limit these general verdicts. Then she said: “Or are you more aware of the special and general verdicts of the Qur'an than my father and my cousin (Ali)?” By this saying she confirmed too that there was no any evidence in the Sunna that might limit these general verdicts.

In fact she denied any kind of limitation at all because if there was something of that, then the Prophet (S) or his guardian ‘Ali (as), would declare it to her and they would not let her unaware of it because that would be a kind of negligence in informing of the Shari’ah, dilatoriness in warning, hiding the truth, encouraging ignorance, inciting to ask for the untruth, injuring her dignity and would make her argue and confront and would expose her to enmity and hatred without having the right of what she would ask for. Definitely this is impossible for the prophets and for their guardians.

In short, the Prophet’s love and kindness to his daughter was over any love of the kind fathers towards their dutiful children. He covered her with the shadow of his great mercy, sacrificed himself for her (Once the Prophet (S) mentioned his daughter Fatima (sa) and said: “Her father may die for her! Her father may die for her!” He repeated that three times. This tradition has been narrated by Ahmad bin Hanbal and others as mentioned by Ibn Hajar in his book as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa, ch.11, p.159.) and delighted greatly when being with her. He tried whatever he could to educate her and to honor her to the utmost. He taught her the knowledge of Allah and the knowledge of His laws. He didn’t spare any effort in that until he made her at the top of every virtue and honor.

After that, was it possible for him to conceal such a verdict without letting her know her legal obligation? God forbid! Would he expose her, by this concealment, to all of the troubles she had got after his death because of her inheritance? In fact all the Ummah faced a bad sedition, which was the consequence of depriving her of her inheritance.

And was her husband, the Prophet’s guardian and spiritual brother, in spite of his abundant knowledge, wisdom, precedence in Islam, kinship to the Prophet (S), honor, high position and guardianship, unaware, too, of this tradition “We, the prophets, do not bequeath”? And why the Prophet (S) had concealed that from his spiritual brother, his guardian, the guard of his secrets, the gate of the city of his knowledge, the best judge among his Ummah; the gate of repentance, the ship of rescue and the safety of the Ummah from being separated? And why had his uncle al-Abbas and the rest of the Hashemites not heard of this tradition until they were surprised with it after the death of the Prophet (S)? And why had the Prophet’s wives not known about it so that they sent Othman to ask for their inheritance after the Prophet’s death? How had the Prophet (S) dared not to inform his wives of this legal verdict? Definitely the Prophet (S) was not indifferent a bit at all! He used to announce the verdicts of Allah openly. His morals were not so towards his relatives. He was so kind and mindful as he had been ordered by Allah:

“And warn your nearest relatives” (Qur’an 26:214).

One word remained for Fatima (sa), by which she provoked the zeal of people and excited their anger to the utmost. She said: “Or do you say: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”? She meant that the general verdicts of inheritance were not to be limited according to those people’s own pretenses. The Prophet (S) had said: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”. She wanted to say to them: “You deprive me of my inheritance to say that I am not on my father’s religion and so you will have a legal evidence on that!” We are Allah’s and to Him we shall return!

The donation of Fatima


When Allah the Almighty assisted the Prophet (S) to conquer Khaybar and cast horror into the hearts of the people of Fadak, they submitted to the Prophet (S) servilely. They made peace with him by giving him a half of their land (It is mentioned that they have given the Prophet (S) all of their land.) and the Prophet (S) accepted that from them and so a half of Fadak became a pure property for him where

“..whatever Allah restored to His Messenger from them you did not press forward against it any horse or a riding camel but Allah gives authority to His messengers against whom He pleases” (Qur’an 59:6)
and upon this all the Ummah had agreed unanimously with no any objection by anyone.

When Allah revealed:

“And give to the near of kin his due” (Qur’an 17:26),

the Prophet (S) donated Fadak to his daughter Fatima (sa). It was still in her hand (The infallible Imams and their followers have not had any doubt that the Prophet (S) had donated Fadak to Fatima (sa) and that it had been in her hand until it had been extorted from her. Imam ‘Ali (as) said to his administrative official on Basra, Othman bin Hunayf: “...Yes, Fadak was in our hands out of all what was under the sky but some people felt greedy for it and others withheld themselves from it but the best of judges is Allah...” Refer to Nahjul Balagha. There are many traditions narrated from the infallible I mams talking about the same matter. The reliable narrators have narrated a tradition from Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri saying: “When Allah has revealed (And give to the near of kin his due), the Messenger of Allah gave Fadak to Fatima.” Refer to Majma’ul Bayan by at-Tabarsi when interpreting this verse 17:26. You will find there that it is this tradition that has made al-Ma’moon, the Abbasid caliph, give Fadak back to the progeny of Fatima.) until it had been extorted from her to be added to the treasury.

This was what Fatima (sa) had claimed after the death of the Prophet (S) and because of this she had been subjected to trial.

Al-Fakhr ar-Razi said: “When the messenger of Allah died, Fatima (sa) claimed that the Prophet (S) had donated Fadak to her. Abu Bakr said to her: “It hurts me to see you needy and it delights me to see you needless but I do not know whether your saying is true or not; (By Allah O you Abu Bakr, have you really not known whether Fatima’s claim was true or not after Umm Aymen (the Prophet’s nursemaid) and Imam ‘Ali (as) had witnessed it was true? Have you considered them all to be liars, aggressive or mistaken? Certainly not! But “Nay, but your minds have beguiled you into something. (My course is) comely patience. And Allah it is Whose help is to be sought in that (predicament) which ye describe” (Qur’an 12:18).) therefore I can not judge for you.” Umm Aymen and another mawla (follower) of the Messenger of Allah (The other witness besides Umm Aymen was Ameerul Mo’mineen Ali bin Abu Talib (S) undoubtedly. As if ar-Razi found the rejection of Imam Ali’s witness by Abu Bakr abominable so he did not mention the name of Imam Ali respecting Imam Ali and Abu Bakr together so he said “a mawla of the messenger of Allah”.) witnessed for Fatima but Abu Bakr wanted a witness, whose witnessing would be accepted according to the Shari’ah”. (Tafseer Mafateehul Ghayb by ar-Razi, vol.8 p.125.)

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami in his book as-Sawa’iq said: “Fatima, in her claim th

at the Prophet (S) had donated Fadak to her, did not bring except Ali and Umm Aymen as witnesses and so the quorum was not complete…” (P. 21 in his book Shubah ar-Rafidha.)

The same has been said by Ibn Taymiyya, Ibnul Qayyim and other Sunni ulama concerning this case.

May Allah forgive them and us and may He be pleased with Abu Bakr and make Fatima, her father, her husband and her son forgive him! Would he have preferred a suitable decision in order not to put Fatima (sa), the prophet’s trust, who had recently lost her father, in those bad situations; once because of her inheritance, another time because of her donation of Fadak, a third time, a fourth time…worries and griefs…would he have not let her go angry and disappointed and then to die on her anger and to recommend in her will what she had recommended!

Glory be to Allah! Where was the deliberateness of the caliph (Abu Bakr)? Where was his patience? Where was his insight about the ends of the affairs and where was his caring for the benefits of the Muslims?

Would he have avoided the fail of Fatima (sa) in her situations as possible as he could with all wisdom he had! Had he done so, it would have been much better for him and it would have kept him away from regretting and being blamed and it would have been better to unite the Ummah!

He could have protected the trust of the Prophet (S) and the only daughter of him, Fatima (sa), from being disappointed and then to go back upset stumbling with her garment. What would he have lost, where he had occupied the position of her father, if he had given Fadak to Fatima (sa) without a trial? An imam could do that due to his general guardianship and what the value of Fadak was before the general advantage of the Muslims and before avoiding evils!

This is what many earlier and later scholars have wished that Abu Bakr had done.

Here we quote a word concerning this subject said by Professor Mahmood Abu Riyya, the Egyptian coeval scholar:

“There is a matter that we have to say a frank word about; it is the situation of Abu Bakr towards Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her), the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and what he has done to her concerning the inheritance of her father. Let us suppose that we submit to the traditions narrated by a single narrator and submit that they may limit the general verdicts of the Qur’an and that the Prophet (S) has said: “We, the Prophets, do not bequeath”; nevertheless Abu Bakr could give Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) some of her father’s inheritance and that Fadak might be considered as a part of that inheritance. This would be his right that no one could refute because he was the caliph and the caliph could give whatever he liked to whomever he liked.

The caliph himself had donated some of the Prophet’s inheritance to az-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, (He was the caliph’s son-in-law. His wife was Asma’, the daughter of Abu Bakr.) Muhammad bin Maslama and others. (Abu Bakr had given his daughter Aa’isha the prophet’s house, in which she buried him beside the tomb of the Prophet (S) after his death and in which she buried Umar later on but when Imam Hasan (as), the Prophet’s beloved grandson, died she refused to let him be buried in his grandfather’s house and then a sedition was about to happen! Just to Allah we resort!This very Fadak itself had been donated to Marwan by the caliph Othman after a short time!” (Refer to ar-Risala al-Misriyya magazine, vol.518, 11th year, p.457.)

Ibn Abul Hadeed mentioned in his book Sharh Nahjul Balagha some speech of some earlier scholars, who had criticized the two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, due to their situations toward Fatima az-Zahra’ (S) after her father’s death: “It would be better for them to be more generous, besides their faith, than to commit what they had committed toward the daughter of the Messenger of Allah”. Ibn Abul Hadeed commented: “This speech has no answer!” (Vol. 4, p.106.)

Let us away from generosity and let us discuss the matter of the trial. The legal evidences were sufficient to make it obligatory to judge for Fatima (sa) in order to get her donation back. These evidences, besides that they were sufficient, were numerous. This was clear to the fair people of understanding.

It was enough that the ruler (the caliph), at that time, had already been certain that the claimer (Fatima), with her holiness, was equal to the Virgin Mary (According to the true traditions; Ibn Abdul Birr said in his book al-Istee’ab when mentioning the biography of Fatima (sa): “The Prophet (S) visited Fatima when she was ill and said to her: “O my daughter, how are you today?” She said: “I feel pain and what hurts me more that I have nothing to eat.” He said: “O my daughter, are you not satisfied that you are the head lady of the women of the worlds?” She said: “O father, what about Mary the daughter of Imran?” He said: “She is the head lady of the women of her world and you are the head lady of your world. By Allah, I have married you to a master in this world and in the afterworld”. Many such traditions have been mentioned by other scholars and historians.) or better than her (The infallible imams and their followers have agreed unanimously that Fatima (sa) is better than the Virgin Mary (S). Many Sunni scholars have declared that she is better than all the women of the worlds even the Virgin Mary (S), such as at-Taqiy as-Sabki, al-Hallal as-Sayooti, al-Badr, az-Zarkashi, at-Taqiy al-Maqreezi, Ibn Abu Dawood and al-Mannawi. Refer to ash-Sharaf al-Mu’ayyad by Allama an-Nabahani, p.59 when talking about the virtues of Fatima (sa). The same has been said by Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, the mufti of the Shafiites when talking about the marriage of Fatima and Ali in his book as-Seera an-Nabawiyya.) and that she and Mary, Khadeeja (the Prophet’s wife) and Asiya (the Pharaoh’s wife) were the best of the women of Paradise (It has been mentioned by Ahmad bin Hanbal in his Musnad, vol.1 p.293, by Abu Dawood as in al-Istee’ab, the biography of Khadeeja and by Qasim bin Muhammad as in al-Istee’ab, the biography of Fatima (sa).) and that she and these three women were the best of the women of the worlds (Narrated by Abu Dawood from Anas as mentioned in al-Istee’ab when talking about Khadeeja’s biography and narrated by Abdul Warith bin Sufyan as in al-Istee’ab, biographies of Fatima (sa) and Khadeeja.) and it was she, to whom the Prophet (S) had said: “O Fatima, are you not satisfied to be the head lady of the believing women or the head lady of the women of this Ummah?”

(Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.4 p.64, Muslim’s Sahih, vol.2, the virtues of Fatima (sa), at-Tarmithi’s Sahih, al-Jam’ bayna as-Sahihhayn, al-Jam’ bayna as-Sihah as-Sitta, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal’s Musnad, vol.6 p.282, Ibn Abdul Birr’s Istee’ab, Muhammad bin Sa’d’s Tabaqat, vol.2, vol.8. Al-Bukhari said in his Sahih, vol.4 the last page of chap. al-Isti’than: “Musa bin Owana narrated from Firas from Aamir from Masrooq that Aa’isha (the Prophet’s wife) had said: “We, the wives of the Prophet, were all with him and none of us left him when Fatima came walking like the walking of the Messenger of Allah (S). When the Prophet (S) saw her, he said: “O my daughter, welcome!” Then he seated her beside him. He whispered in her ears and she began crying bitterly and when he saw her crying, he whispered in her ears again and she smiled. I, from among the Prophet’s wives, asked her: “The Prophet (S) confided a secret to you from among all of us but you began crying!” When the Prophet (S) left, I asked her: “What secret did the Prophet (S) confide to you?” She said: “I would never disclose the Prophet’s secrets”. When the Prophet (S) died, I said to her: “I adjure you with my right on you to tell me what the Prophet (S) has whispered in your ears”. She said: “Yes, now I shall do. The first time he told me that Gabriel was used to dictate the (entire) Qur'an to him once a year but that year Gabriel had dictated the Qur'an to him twice and so he thought that he would die soon. He said to me: “Fear Allah and be patient. I have been to you the best of fathers.” So I began crying as you saw. When he saw me crying, he said to me: “O Fatima, are you not satisfied to be the head lady of the believing women… or the women of this Ummah?” Ibn Hajar in his book al-Isaba and other authors mentioned: “…are you not satisfied to be the head lady of the women of the worlds?” However the tradition is true and preferring Fatima (sa) to all of the other women is clear. Ibn Sa’d in his book at-Tabaqat, vol.2 mentioned a tradition narrated by Umm Salama saying: “When the Prophet (S) was about to die, I asked Fatima about her crying and smiling on that day. She said: “He (the Prophet (S)) told me that he would die within a short time and then he told me that I was the head lady of the women of Paradise”. It has been mentioned by Abu Ya’la and other scholars of Hadith.)

All the Muslims have known well that Allah the Almighty has chosen Fatima (sa) from among the women of the Ummah, chosen her two sons from among all the sons and chosen her husband from among the near people to be the elite with the Prophet (S) on the day of Mubahala (supplication) where Allah has revealed:

“But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars” (Qur’an 3:61).

Ar-Razi said in his book at-Tafseer al-Kabeer when interpreting this Verse: “The Prophet (S) came out wearing a black garment of wool while he was embracing al-Husayn and leading al-Hasan with his hand. Fatima was walking behind him and behind her was Ali. He said to them: “If I invoke Allah, you say Amen”. The bishop of Najran (A place between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It was a centre for the Christians before Islam.) said: “O Christian people, I see faces, which if ask Allah to remove a mountain, He will remove it for them. Do not defy them; otherwise you will perish and no Christian will remain on the earth until the Day of Resurrection”. (This tradition has been mentioned by the interpreters, the narrators, the historians and by everyone, who has recorded the events of the tenth year of hijra, in which this event has taken place.)

Also the Muslims have agreed unanimously that Fatima (sa) was one of those, about whom Allah has revealed this Verse:

“Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying” (Qur’an 33:33)

and she was one of those, whom Allah has ordered the Muslims to love as a reward for (informing of) the mission when revealing this Verse:

“Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives” (Qur’an 42:23)

and she was one of those, whom Allah has imposed upon His people to pray for in their prayers as He has imposed upon them shahada.

Imam ash-Shafi’iy said, as mentioned in as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa:

“O people of the Prophet’s family,
loving you is an obligation imposed by Allah in His Qur'an.
It suffices you, with your high position,
that whoever dose not pray for you (in his prayer) his prayer will be not accepted”.

Sheikh Ibnul Arabi said, as in as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa:

“I find my allegiance to the progeny of Taha (Prophet Muhammad (S).) an obligation that, in spite of my farness, will make me near to Allah. The Beneficent has not asked for a reward in return to informing of guidance except to love the relatives (of the Prophet (S))”.

Allama an-Nabhani said in his book ash-Sharaf al-Mu’abbad:

“O progeny of Taha, you are a progeny of the best of the Prophets.
Your grandfather is elite and you are elite.
Allah has purified you from uncleanness, O you Ahlul Bayt, since long before, so you are the purest.
Your grandfather has not asked for reward, when informing the mission, save loving and kindness to his relatives”.

And also Fatima (sa) is the best of the righteous, about whom Allah has said:

Surely the righteous shall drink of a cup the admixture of which is camphor. A fountain from, which the servants of Allah shall drink; they make it to flow a (goodly) flowing forth. They fulfill vows and fear a day the evil of which shall be spreading far and wide. And they give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive. We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks” (Qur’an 76:5-9). (The Shia have agreed, following their Imams, unanimously that these verses have been revealed to concern Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn because of a charity (food) they paid to a poor one, an orphan and a prisoner of war in three successive nights whereas they themselves were badly in need of that charity. They kept on fasting during those three days without having except some water for they had been offering a vow. Az-Zamakhshari in his book al-Kashshaf has mentioned this matter in a tradition narrated from Ibn Abbas. It has been also mentioned by al-Wahidi in his book al-Baseet, Abu Ishaq ath-Tha’labi in his book at-Tafseer al-Kabeer and by Abul Mu’ayyad Muwaffaq bin Ahmad in his book al-Fadha’il. Many other scholars and authors have considered it as a reliable tradition.)

In short, Fatima (sa) was so holy near Allah, near the Prophet (S) and near the believers that would impose upon the all to trust in whatever she said. She would not need a witness to prove what she claimed. Her tongue was too far above every untruth. She would never say but the truth. Her very claim showed her definite truthfulness without a bit of doubt. No one of those, who had known her, would doubt this at all.

Abu Bakr had known her very well and believed in whatever she said but the fact was as Ali bin al-Fariqi, who was one of the famous scholars of Baghdad, a teacher in the western school (in Baghdad) and one of the teachers of Ibn Abul Hadeed (the author of Sharh Nahjul Balagha), had said when being asked by Ibn Abul Hadeed if Fatima (sa) had been truthful in her claim about her donation of Fadak: “Yes”. Ibn Abul Hadeed said to him: “Then why did Abu Bakr not give her Fadak while he knew well she was truthful?” He smiled and said nice words and then he added: “If he had given her Fadak that day just according to her claim, she would ask him the next day for the caliphate to be given to her husband (Imam Ali) and she would move him away from his position and then he would not find any excuse for that because he would have confirmed that she had been truthful in all what she had claimed without any need for witnesses”.

Hence Abu Bakr has allowed himself to deny the witness of Ali bin Abu Talib (S), when witnessing for Fatima (sa) concerning her donation, whereas the Jews of Khaybar, in spite of their meanness and in spite of that Imam ‘Ali (as) has destroyed them, have considered him (Ali) too exalted for committing a false testimony. And so the matters were mixed together that Abu Bakr considered Fatima (sa), in whose possession Fadak was, as a claimer, who had to have evidences to prove her possession. It was clear that this matter had been planned under darkness!

If we forgot many things, we would not forget Abu Bakr’s saying to Fatima (sa) “I do not know whether your saying is true or not” whereas her saying was merely the truth and the clearest evidence, due to which he had to judge for her as she had claimed.

If we gave up all that and we admitted that Fatima (sa) was like any other good believing woman, who had to prove her claim with a true evidence, then what about Imam ‘Ali (as), who had witnessed to her? It was ‘Ali (as), who was the Prophet’s spiritual brother and who was to the Prophet (S) as was Aaron to Moses. Imam ‘Ali (as) was the lofty witness of the truth, with whose witnessing the lights of certainty shone. Was there anything beyond certainty that a judge would seek in his judgments? Therefore the Prophet (S) had considered the witness of Khuzayma bin Thabit as a witness of two truthful persons. By Allah, Imam ‘Ali (as) was worthier of such a witness than Khuzayma and the others and he was worthier of every virtue than the rest of the Muslims.

If we gave up this too and admitted that the testimony of Imam ‘Ali (as) was like the testimony of one man of the fair Muslims, then was it not possible for Abu Bakr to ask Fatima (sa) to swear to be as the second witness? If she swore, he would accept her claim and if she did not, he would reject her claim. But he did not do that! He rejected the claim disregarding the testimony of Imam ‘Ali (as) and Umm Aymen.

(Umm Aymen was the woman who had brought up the Prophet (S) after the death of his mother. Her name was Baraka bint Tha’laba. The Prophet (S) said about her: “Umm Aymen is my mother after my (real) mother”. The Prophet (S), when looking at her, often said: “She is one of my family”. He said that she would be in Paradise. She had been mentioned in al-Isaba by Ibn Hajar, al-Istee’ab by Ibn Abdul Birr and by all the authors, who had mentioned the biographies of the Prophet’s companions. They had mentioned her virtues, good faith, reason and loyalty. Her son Aymen had been martyred during the battle of Khaybar when fighting with the Prophet (S). She did not worry for that but she became patient hoping for the divine reward in the Hereafter.)

Imam ‘Ali (as) was the equivalent of the Qur'an. He was with the Qur'an and the Qur'an was with him. They would not separate.(With reference to the Prophet’s saying narrated by Umm Salama that she said: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying: Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali. They will never separate until they come to me at the pond (in Paradise)”. It has been mentioned by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, vol.3 p.124 and by ath-Thahabi in his Talkhees. The Prophet (S), during the illness that led to his death, said while the room was crowded of his companions: “O people, I am about to die soon and I will inform you of something so that I will be excused before you. I have left among you the Book of my God, the Almighty, and my family.” Then he lifted Ali’s hand and said: “This is Ali. He is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali. They do never separate”. Refer to as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa, chap.2 p.75.

With reference to the famous tradition of (ath-Thaqalayn - the two weighty things), which has been mentioned in the books of Hadith (Sihah) and many other books. The Prophet (S) said: “I have left among you what if you keep to, you will never go astray at all; the Book of Allah and my family”. Definitely the head of his family was Imam ‘Ali (as).)

 In the Verse of Mubahala he was considered as the very self of the Prophet (S). But alas! In spite of all that, his testimony in this trial was considered as null! What a misfortune in Islam we have received that we cannot but say: we are Allah’s and to Him we shall return!

 Hurting Fatima (sa)


Rejecting Fatima’s claim about her inheritance was against the clear traditions rather than its reasons and environments.

Among those traditions is the one that has been mentioned by Ibn Abu Aasim (as in al-Isaba - Fatima’s biography). He mentioned that the Prophet (S) had said to his daughter Fatima (sa): “Allah becomes angry when you become angry and He becomes pleased when you become pleased”. It has also been mentioned by at-Tabarani and others as in ash-Sharaf al-Mu’abbad by an-Nabhani al-Beiruti.

Al-Bukhari and Muslim mentioned - as in al-Isaba and other books when talking about Fatima’s biography - a tradition that al-Musawwir had said: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying from above the minbar: Fatima is a piece of me. Whatever hurts her hurts me and whatever distresses her distresses me”.

Sheikh Yousuf an-Nabhani mentioned in his book ash-Sharaf al-Mu’abbad a tradition quoted from al-Bukhari that the Prophet (S) had said: “Fatima is a piece of me. Whatever makes her angry makes me angry”. In al-Jami’ul Sagheer it is mentioned that the Prophet (S) has said: “Fatima is a piece of me. Whatever depresses her depresses me and whatever pleases her pleases me”.

She has said to Abu Bakr and Umar: “I adjure you by Allah, have you not heard the messenger of Allah saying: “The contentment of Fatima is my contentment and her discontentment is my discontentment. Whoever loves my daughter Fatima loves me, whoever pleases Fatima pleases me and whoever discontents Fatima discontents me”? They said: “Yes, we have heard this from the Messenger of Allah”. (Al-Imama was-Siyasa by Ibn Qutayba and other books of history.)

He, who ponders on these traditions and who appreciates the Prophet (S), will find that these traditions refer to the infallibility of Fatima (sa) because they show that depressing her, discontenting her, pleasing her, displeasing her, her contentment or her anger do not occur inexcusably. It is as same as depressing, discontenting, pleasing or displeasing the Prophet (S) himself and this is the essence and reality of infallibility.

Some Sunni scholars, like Ahmad bin Hanbal, have mentioned a tradition narrated by Abu Hurayra saying: “Once the Prophet (S) looked at Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and Fatima and said: I am at war against whoever fights you and at peace with whoever makes peace with you”. (Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.2 p.442. It has also been mentioned by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak and by at-Tabarani in his al-Kabeer.)

At-Tarmithi has mentioned a tradition narrated by Zayd bin Arqam - as in al-Isaba, Fatima’s biography - that once the Prophet (S) mentioned Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn and said: “I am a war against whoever fights them and peace to whoever makes peace with them”. (t has been mentioned by Ibn Habban in his Sahih, al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, ad-Dhiya’ in his Mukhtarat, at-Tabarani and Ibn Shayaba from Zayd bin Arqam and by Abu Ya’la in as-Sunna and ad-Dhiya’ in al-Mukhtarat from Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas. Also mentioned by other famous scholars like Allama Alawi in his book al-Qawl al-Fasl, vol.2 p.7.)

Abu Bakr said: “Once I saw the Messenger of Allah (S) erecting a tent. (This tent might be the garment, with which the Prophet (S) covered them (Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn) when Allah revealed to him: “Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying”. (Qur’an 33:33) Refer to chapt.2 in this book for details.)

He was leaning on an Arab bow while inside the tent there were Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn. The Messenger of Allah said: “O people, I am at peace with whoever makes peace with the people in the tent, at war against whoever fights them and a guardian to whoever follows them. He, who loves them, is lucky and of a good origin and he, who hates them, is wretched and of a bad origin”.
Professor Abbas Mahmood al-Aqqad has mentioned this tradition in his book Abqariyyatu Muhammad under the chapter “The Prophet, the Imam and the companions”.

Ahmad bin Hanbal mentioned a tradition narrated by Abdurrahman al-Azraq that Imam ‘Ali (as) had said: “Once the Messenger of Allah (S) came to me while I was sleeping. Al-Hasan or al-Husayn asked for some water (or some milk). The Prophet (S) went to our ewe, which had no milk. He milked it and it gave much milk. Then al-Hasan came to the Prophet (S) but the Prophet (S) put him aside. Fatima said: O Messenger of Allah, I think he is the most beloved one to you. He said: But he (al-Husayn) asked for some milk before him. Then the Prophet (S) added: I, you, these two boys and that sleeping one will be in one place on the Day of Resurrection”. (Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.1 p.101.)

Among their (the Prophet’s progeny’s) rights on the Ummah and especially the men of authority was that they should not have been taken by surprise by the appropriation of their position in the Ummah after the Prophet (S) and doing without them even in consultation besides being so severe to them in the matter of the caliphate and denying their rights, khums, inheritance and donation as well as considering them as the rest of the ordinary people while the wound had not yet recovered and the Prophet (S) had not yet been buried!

Those who had seized the Ummah at that time and their assistants had arranged their affairs in a way that they had not left any chance to any one to oppose them otherwise that one would separate the Ummah and so they had become safe from the opposition of Imam ‘Ali (as) and his followers. For full details about this matter, please refer to al-Muraja’at.

Among the principles of the rulers at that time was to be strict in carrying out the verdicts without differentiating between this and that or between the noble and the low. They controlled the treasury and enriched it with wealth and monies and they equalized between the recidivists and the others in the judgments.

What assisted them in carrying out their principles was their satisfaction and being away from greediness and transient pleasures of this worldly life besides their asceticism and so they satisfied the public and therefore they ruled with no troubles. But when the matter became serious on the trial of Fatima (sa), they considered Fatima who was the part of the Prophet, to be like any other woman, who was not purified from fabricating and lying. 

(In fact she was not even treated as an ordinary Muslim woman, because when a Muslim woman, who was not purified from fabrication, had one witness (a fair Muslim man) on her claim, then it would be enough for her, instead of the other witness, to be put to oath and her claim would not be rejected unless she abstained from the oath. As for Fatima (sa), her husband Imam ‘Ali (as) had witnessed for her and so the rulers had to put her to oath and if she abstained from oath then they would reject her claim. They did not do that. They just hastened to reject her claim without asking her for any kind of oath.

In fact she had Fadak in her possession and had full control over it and so she did not to have to give evidence to prove her possession but the opposite side had to give evidence according to the saying of the Prophet (S) “Evidence is on him who claims, and oath is on him who denies”. This is one of the clear traditions that they have opposed depending on their own ijtihad.)

The Prophet (S) orders Abu Bakr and Umar


The Prophet (S) had ordered Abu Bakr and Umar to kill Thu ath-Thadiyya but they did not kill him.

Thu ath-Thadiyya was al-Khusayra at-Tameemi Harqoos bin Zuhayr,(Ibnul Atheer mentioned his biography in his book Usdol Ghaba and mentioned another tradition narrated by Abu Sa’eed saying: “As the Messenger of Allah was taking an oath one day, al-Khuwaysara at-Tameemi said: “O Messenger of Allah, be just!” The Prophet (S) said: “Woe unto you! And who is just if I am not?” It was mentioned by Muslim too.) who was the head of the apostates. The Prophet (S) wanted to uproot the ravage and corruption of this apostate man when he ordered to kill him but the hypocrisy of this man and his false reverence in his praying deceived Abu Bakr and Umar and so they hated to kill him and they let him alive.

This has been mentioned by the scholars, the historians and the authors of the books of Hadith.

Abu Ya’la has said in his Musnad - as mentioned in al-Isaba by Ibn Hajar, Thu ath-Thadiyya’s biography: “At the age of the Messenger of Allah (S) there was a man, whose worship and loyalty we had admired too much. We mentioned his name to the Prophet (S) but the Prophet (S) did not know him. We described him to the Prophet (S) and he did not know him. After a little the man came towards us. We said to the Prophet (S): “It is him.” The Prophet (S) said: “You have told me about a man, in whose face there is a scorch of the Satan.”

He came until he stopped before us but he did not greet us. The Prophet (S) said to him: “I adjure you by Allah, did you say, when you stopped before the people: there is no one among this people better than me?” He said: “Yes, I did.” Then he went in to offer prayer. The Prophet (S) said: “Who kills him?” Abu Bakr said: “I do.” Abu Bakr went to him and he found him offering prayer. He said: “Glory be to Allah, shall I kill a praying one whereas the Messenger of Allah has prohibited killing a praying one?” He came back. The Prophet (S) said: “What did you do?” Abu Bakr said: “I hated to kill him while he was praying and you have prohibited killing praying people.”

The Prophet (S) said: “Who kills him?” Umar said: “I do.” He went to him and found him lying prostrate and his forehead touching the ground. Umar said to himself: “Abu Bakr is better than me” and he came back. The Prophet (S) said to him: “What did you do?” He said: “I found him prostrate before Allah and I disliked killing him.” The Prophet (S) said: “Who kills him?” Ali said: “I do.” The Prophet (S) said: “Yes, you do if you find him.” Ali went to him and found that he had gone. The Prophet (S) said: “If he was killed, then no two men of my Ummah would ever disagree.”

Al-Hafidh (memorizer) Muhammad bin Musa ash-Shirazi has mentioned this tradition in his book, which he had written according to the tafseers (interpretations) of Ya’qoob bin Sulayman, Yousuf al-Qattan, al-Qassim bin Salam, Muqatil bin Hiyad, Ali bin Harb, as-Sadiy, Qatada, Waqee’, Ibn Jurayh and others.

Some scholars have mentioned this tradition and considered it as true like Ibn Abd Rabbih al-Andalusi in his book al-Iqd al-Fareed. He mentioned at the end of the tradition that the Prophet (S) had said: “This is the first horn that appears in my Ummah. If you kill him, no two men will disagree after him. The Israelites have separated into seventy-two groups and this Ummah will separate into seventy-three groups, all of which will be in Hell except one group.”

 The Prophet (S) orders Abu Bakr and Umar for the second time


The Prophet (S) ordered Abu Bakr and Umar to kill this apostate for the second time but they did as they had done in the first time.

A friend of mine, whom I trust in his virtue, piety and knowledge, told me that once Abu Bakr passed by this apostate (Thu ath-Thadiyya), after he had been ordered to kill him but he disliked to kill him, and he found him offering prayer in one of the valleys where no one could see him save Allah. He admired his devotedness and supplication. He thanked Allah that he did not kill him. He came to the Prophet (S) interceding for that man. He mentioned to the Prophet (S) the sincerity and submissiveness of that man while offering his prayer where no one could see him save Allah. The Prophet (S) did not accept Abu Bakr’s intercession and he ordered him immediately to kill that apostate man. When Abu Bakr did not kill the man, the Prophet (S) ordered Umar and then ordered Imam ‘Ali (as) and stressed on killing him and his companions.

This is what I have been told by the one, whom I know well and know about his deep research and careful study. (He is the pious Sheikh Mirza Husayn an-Noori, the author of al-Mustadrakat ala al-Wasa’il.) He has confirmed it to me but I forgot to ask him about the source of the tradition. I began to research by myself until I found the tradition, and all thanks be to Allah, in Ahmad bin Hanbal’s Musnad, vol.3 that Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri had said: “Once Abu Bakr came to the Prophet (S) and said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, I passed through the valley of so and so and I saw a good looking man offering prayer reverently.” The Prophet (S) said to him: “Go and kill him!” Abu Bakr went to him and when he saw him in that state, he disliked killing him and then he came back to the Prophet (S).

Then the Prophet (S) said to Umar: “Go and kill him!” Umar went to him and he saw him in that state, which Abu Bakr had seen him in. he disliked to kill him and he returned to the Prophet (S). He said to the Prophet (S): “O Messenger of Allah, I found him offering prayer reverently and I disliked killing him.” The Prophet (S) said to Ali: “Go and kill him!” Ali went but he did not find the man. He came back to the Prophet (S) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, I did not find him.” The Prophet (S) said: “This man and his companions (Later on, during the rule of Imam ‘Ali (as), they seceded from Imam Ali and were called the Kharijites.) recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an does not go past their clavicles. They get out of religion as an arrow that slips away from a hunted animal. Kill them for they are the worst of people.”

He, who ponders on these two traditions concerning this apostate man; the tradition mentioned by Abu Ya’la and narrated by Anas and the tradition mentioned by Ahmad bin Hanbal and narrated by Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri, will know that the Prophet (S) has ordered to kill this man two times in different events. The first tradition narrated by Anas shows that the Prophet (S) has not known this apostate man before. The Prophet’s companions mentioned and described the man to the Prophet (S) but he did not know him until he saw him and knew him because of the scorch in his face and because of his self-conceit and then the Prophet (S) ordered his companions to kill him.

The prayer of that apostate, which pleased Abu Bakr and Umar on that day, was in the mosque whereas the second tradition mentioned by Ahmad and narrated by Abu Sa’eed showed that Abu Bakr had seen this apostate offering his prayer in one of the valleys and not in the mosque where Abu Bakr had admired this apostate’s devotion and reverence where no one saw him save Allah the Almighty. Abu Bakr told the Prophet (S) about that and the Prophet (S) immediately ordered him to kill that man without seeing the man. This was because the Prophet (S) had already ordered before to kill that man so the traditions talked about two events with a period of time between them. Here the clear orders of the Prophet (S) were opposed by Abu Bakr and Umar due to their own ijtihad.

The Kharijites


The Kharijites were the Muslims, who apostatized from religion when they rebelled against Imam ‘Ali (as). They denied the arbitration (between Imam ‘Ali (as) and Mo’awiya), which they themselves had forced Imam ‘Ali (as) to accept. They were about eighty thousand or more. Imam ‘Ali (as) sent for them to remind them of Allah and the hereafter and to show them their faults and mistakes in what they had thought and kept to

“..and most surely the frailest of the houses is the spider's house if they but knew” (Qur’an 29:41)

but they refused to come to him and they asked him to acknowledge that he had become unbeliever and he had to repent. When they did not come to him, Imam ‘Ali (as) sent to them Abdullah bin Abbas, who tried his best to refute their opinions with clear evidences but they insisted on their deviation as if there was deafness in their ears and there were veils on their hearts.

They agreed unanimously on considering every Muslim, who did not adopt their opinions, as unbeliever and that he and his family were to be killed and his properties were to be appropriated. They rebelled against the Muslims and they killed whoever passed by them. Among those, whom they had killed, was Abdullah bin al-Khabbab bin al-Arth at-Tameemi. They cut open his wife’s abdomen while she was pregnant. Their evils spread everywhere. Imam ‘Ali (as) came to them preaching to them and showing them that they were mistaken when they rebelled against him. He refuted their excuses and warned them that if they insisted on their deviation, they would be killed and in the hereafter they would be in Hell.

They insisted on their transgression without intending to repent and they became like the people of Noah when

“..they put their fingers in their ears, cover themselves with their garments, and persist and are puffed up with pride” (Qur’an 71:7)

and then Imam ‘Ali (as) fought them and killed them. (By doing that Imam ‘Ali (as) just followed the orders of the Qur'an and the Sunna. Allah said: “..fight that (group) which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command..” (Qur’an 49:9) and: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered… ” (Qur’an 5:33). As for the orders of the Sunna, I shall mention them in the main text of the book inshallah.) Only ten of them escaped death and only ten of Imam Ali’s companions were killed. This was exactly what Imam ‘Ali (as) had predicted when warning them but they did not desist from doing evil.

Then some deviant people, who believed in the opinions of the Kharijites concerning the arbitration and rebelling against the walis, joined the few Kharijites, who had not been killed.

When Abdullah bin az-Zubayr became the wali, some of those people appeared with Nafi’ bin al-Azraq in Iraq and some appeared with Najda bin Aamir al-Harawri in Yamama (in the Arabia). Najda went too far in his opinions and he even exceeded the doctrine of the Kharijites themselves. He considered every one who did not join him and his followers to fight the Muslims, as unbeliever.

They annulled the verdict of stoning a married adulterer. They made it obligatory to cut a thief’s arm from the armpit. They made it obligatory on a woman to offer prayers during the period of menstruation and many other heresies that there is no need to mention here.

Until now there is a remainder of them spread here and there. The explorer Ibn Batuta met some of them in Oman during his travel in the eighth century of hijra. He has mentioned them in his book Rihlat Ibn Batuta (Ibn Batuta’s travel) (Vol.1, p.172.) and said:

“They are Ibadhite in doctrine. They offer Friday prayer in four rak’as and when they finish it, their imam recites some verses of the Qur'an and then he praises Abu Bakr and Umar but he does not mention Othman and Ali. If they want to mention Ali, they nickname him by saying “the man”. They praise the cursed Abdurrahman bin Muljam (Imam Ali’s killer) and call him as “the good servant of Allah” in spite of the great sedition he has caused. Their women commit adultery too much and their men do not deny that nor have they jealousy.

One day I was with their chief Abu Muhammad bin Nabhan, who was from the tribe of al-Azd. A young beautiful woman came and said to him: “O Abu Muhammad, the Satan has played with my mind (her sexual lust was provoked)”. He said to her: “Go and drive the Satan away from your mind!” She said: “I cannot do unless you protect me.” He said: “Go and do whatever you like.” When she left, he said to me: “This one, and whoever does like her, will be under my protection. She goes to commit adultery and neither her father nor any of her relatives will be able to show their jealousy. If they kill her they will be killed in return because she is under my protection”.

The Messenger of Allah (S) informed of the truth when he said: “O Ali, no one hates you but a bastard, a child of menstruation (That he has been created out of making love during a period of menstruation.) or a hypocrite”.

Killing the Kharijites


Many traditions have been narrated about killing the Kharijites especially from the infallible Imams (S). Here we mention some of those traditions, which have been mentioned by the Sunni scholars. The Prophet (S) said describing the Kharijites: “They recite the Qur'an but it does not go past their clavicles. They kill the Muslims and set the idolaters free. They apostatize from Islam like an arrow slipping out of a game animal. If I live until they appear, I shall kill them like the killing of the people of Aad.” (Muslim’s Sahih, vol.1 p.393.)

In another tradition the Prophet (S) said: “If I live until they appear, I shall kill them.” (Ibid. vol.1 p.394.)

In a third tradition the Prophet (S) said describing them: “They are young and foolish. They repeat the best of saying. They recite the Qur'an but it does not go past their clavicles. They apostatize from religion like an arrow that slips away from a hunted animal. If you find them, you are to kill them. Whoever kills them will be rewarded by Allah on the Day of Resurrection.” (Narrated from Imam ‘Ali (as) and mentioned by Muslim in his Sahih, vol. 1 p.396.)

There are many other traditions like this mentioned in the books of Hadith. These traditions show that these people are unbeliever for killing them is like killing the people of Aad and Thamood.

They are the worst of people


The tradition narrated from the infallible Imams (S) and showing that the Kharijites are the worst of people are clear and recurrent but here we mentioned the traditions mentioned by the Sunni scholars. Muslim mentioned in his Sahih a tradition narrated by Abu Dharr and Rafi’ bin Umar al-Ghifari that the Prophet (S) had said: “After me there will be some people of my Ummah who recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an does not go past their throats.(It means that their hearts do not perceive what they recite and they do not benefit from it. They do nothing but utter the words of the Qur'an in their mouths when reciting them. Their hearts are covered with the stain of the (ill) which they do! Nothing of the light of the Qur'an gets into their hearts. Neither their reciting the Qur'an nor any of their doings will be accepted by Allah.) They get out of religion as an arrow that slips away from a hunted animal and then they do not go back to it (religion). They are the worst of people.” (Vol.1, p.398.)

Muslim mentioned in his Sahih another tradition narrated by Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri that the Prophet (S) had mentioned some people, who would appear from among his Ummah, and said: “… They are the worst of people. They will be killed by the righteous people.” And then the Prophet (S) gave an example when saying: “…like a man, who shoots his arrow at an animal and then he looks at the arrowhead but he does not see anything and he looks at the bowstring and he does not see anything.” (Vol.1 p.395 and Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.3 p.5.)

Ahmad mentioned in his Musnad a tradition narrated by Abu Barza in two ways that the Prophet (S) had described the Kharijites and said: “…They recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an does not go past their clavicles. They get out of religion as an arrow that slips away from an animal and they do not go back to religion. They will still appear until the last of them will be killed with ad-Dajjal (the fraud). If you meet them, you are to kill them for they are the worst of people and the worst in nature. They are the worst of people and the worst in nature. They are the worst of people and the worst in nature.” (Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.4 p.422, 424.)

If they were the worst of people and the worst in nature, then the idolaters and the unbelievers would not be worse than them and this would be a clear evidence showing their unbelief.

The Kharijites’ apostasy


There have been many clear prophetic traditions talking about the apostasy of the Kharijites. Here are some of them besides the ones we have mentioned above. Al-Bukhari and Muslim have mentioned in their Sahihs a tradition narrated by Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri saying: “While we were with the Prophet (S), who was taking an oath, Thul Khuwaysira, who was a man from the tribe of Tameem, said: “O Messenger of Allah, be just!” The Messenger of Allah said: “Woe unto you! And who is just if I am not? Surely I shall fail and lose if I do not do right.”

Umar said (to the Prophet (S)): “Would you allow me to kill him?” (Would that he had killed him when he had been ordered to!) The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Let him alone! He has companions, who exaggerate in offering prayers and in fasting. They recite the Qur'an but it does not go past their clavicles. They apostatize from religion as an arrow that slips away from a game animal…their sign is a black man whose upper arm is like a woman’s breast or like a dangling piece of flesh…they will appear at the time of a good group of people.” (The group of Imam ‘Ali (as) and his followers.)

Abu Sa’eed said: “I witness that I heard this tradition from the Messenger of Allah and I witness that Imam ‘Ali (as) fought them and I was with him. Imam ‘Ali (as) ordered that man to be brought. When he was brought, I looked at him and I saw that he was as the Prophet (S) had described him.” (Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.3 p.56.)

The prophetic traditions talking about the evil doings and aspects of the Kharijites are true and recurrent whether have been narrated from the infallible Imams (S) or the Sunnis. These traditions were among the signs of the Prophet (S) and Islam due to the unseen that appeared like the light of morning to people after the death of the Prophet (S). People saw clearly the apostasy of that group (the Kharijites) from religion when they revolted against Imam ‘Ali (as), who was the legal caliph.(The Prophet (S) had predicted that: “They will revolt against the best group. (He meant Imam ‘Ali (as) and his followers).”)

Their rising was when people had separated into two groups. (heir appearance was in Siffeen when the people were in two groups; one with Imam ‘Ali (as) and the other with Mo’awiya.) They were killed and their killer was the Imam of the truth. (The Prophet (S) said: “They will be killed by the one, who is the nearest to the truth” or “…the worthiest of the truth” in another tradition mentioned by Muslim in his Sahih.) They, as the Prophet (S) had predicted, killed the faithful people and let the idolaters free. They became too strict in religion where there was no necessity for strictness. They recited the Qur'an but it did not go past their clavicles because their hearts were covered with their apostasy. Nothing of the light of the Qur'an got into their hearts.

They exaggerated in offering prayer and fasting but they ignored the rights of Islam by apostatizing and being away from its guidance. Their sign, as the Prophet (S) had predicted, appeared to the people. It was a black man whose upper arm was like a woman’s breast or like a dangling piece of flesh as the Prophet (S) had said. The Prophet (S) had confirmed, through his sayings about this apostate group, that the Ummah would remain prevailing unlike what the fabricators had fabricated. It was the unseen that Allah had revealed to the Prophet (S). Allah said:

“The Knower of the unseen! So He does not reveal His secrets to any except to him whom He chooses as a messenger; for surely He makes a guard to march before him and after him” (Qur’an 72:26-27). 

Let us finish our speech about this apostate group with a tradition narrated by Jundub (Jundub bin Zuhayr bin al-Harith bin Katheer bin Sab’ bin Malik al-Azdi al-Ghamidi was one of Imam Ali’s close companions. Ibn Hajar has mentioned him in his book al-Isaba. There was a debate about his companionship with the Prophet (S) but there was no doubt that he was one of the great successors and he was one of their heads and ascetics. He fought with Imam ‘Ali (as) in the battles of al-Jamal, Siffeen and an-Nahrawan. In the battle of an-Nahrawan he was the leader of the infantrymen. Abu Durayd mentioned in his book al-Amali a tradition narrated by Abu Ubayda that Younus had said: “Abdullah bin az-Zubayr had lined us up on the day (the battle) of al-Jamal. Salih came out to us saying: “O people of Quraysh, I warn you of two men; Jundub bin Zuhayr and (Malik) al-Ashtar because you cannot stand against their swords.” This Jundub bin Zuhayr was not Jundub, who had killed the magician. The one, who had killed the magician, was Jundub bin Ka’b al-Abdi and he had been killed in the battle of Siffeen when fighting with Imam ‘Ali (as). This has been mentioned by az-Zubayr bin Bukar in his book al-Muwaffaqiyyat quoted from Ibnul Kalbi and others.) and mentioned by at-Tabarani in his book al-Awsat. Jundub said: “When the Kharijites parted with Ali, he decided to pursue them and we joined him. We moved until we reached their camp. There were noises like those of bees. They were busy reciting the Qur'an and among them there were notable and respected persons. When I saw them, I hesitated to fight them.

I stepped aside, fixed my spear in the ground, got down of my horse, put off my burnoose, spread my armor on me, held the halter of my horse and began praying. I said in my prayer: “O Allah, if fighting these people is obedience to You, allow me to fight them and if it is disobedience to You, show me the truth.” As I was doing so, Ali bin Abu Talib came near to me and said: “O Jundub, ask Allah to protect you from His wrath!” I beseeched him. He began praying.

Then a man came to him saying: “O Ameerul Mo’mineen, have you anything to do with the people?” He said: “What is there?” The man said: “They (the Kharijites) crossed the river and gone away.” Ali said: “They have not crossed the river.” The man said: “Glory be to Allah!” Another man came and said to him: “They have crossed the river and gone away.” Ali said: “They have not crossed the river and they will never cross it. They will be killed before it. It is a promise from Allah and His Messenger.”

Then he rode on his horse and said to me: “O Jundub, I will send to them a man to invite them to the Book of their God and the Sunna of their Prophet but when he will come to them, they will shoot at him with arrows. O Jundub, less than ten persons from us will be killed and less than ten persons from them will escape death.” Then he said: “Who will take this Qur'an and go to the people (the Kharijites) to invite them to the Book of Allah and to the Sunna of His Messenger but he will be killed and will go to Paradise?” A young man from Bani (Bani means “the family of” or “the tribe of”.) Aamir bin Sa’sa’a responded to him.

The young man, holding the Qur'an, went towards the Kharijites. As soon as he became near to them, they began shooting at him with arrows. Then Ali said: “Attack them!” I (Jundub) myself had killed eight persons of them before I offered Dhuhr (Dhuhr means noon.) Prayer. Less than ten persons from us were killed and less than ten from them escaped death as Ali had predicted. Praise be to Allah.” (Kanzol Ummal, vol.6 p.71.)

 Fighting innocent people


Abu Bakr ordered to fight the people who had hesitated to pay him the zakat. They did so because they had doubted whether Abu Bakr was the legal guardian after the Prophet (S) or not.

Abu Bakr had gathered the companions to consult with them about fighting those people. Umar and many other Muslims thought that they were not to fight faithful people, who had believed in Allah and His Messenger, and instead they were to make use of them to fight the enemy. (As-Siddeeq by Ahmad Hasanayn Haykal, p.104.) 

Those, who had adopted this opinion, were the most of the attendants whereas those, who had thought to fight against those people, were few.

The debate about this serious matter might have taken a long time until Abu Bakr himself interfered supporting the opinion of the few companions. He insisted on this opinion and this was clear out of his saying: “By Allah, if they refused to give me even a headband that they were used to give to the Messenger of Allah (S), I would fight them for that.” This saying did not deter Umar from seeing that such a fight would expose the Muslims to dangers and bad ends. Umar said sharply: “How do you fight these Muslims whereas the Messenger of Allah (S) has said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight people until they say “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”. Whoever says that, his life and monies will be safe except their due. It is Allah, Who will punish people.”

But Abu Bakr did not hesitate to answer Umar by saying: “By Allah, I will fight whoever separate between offering prayers and paying zakat. Zakat is the due on properties and he (the Prophet (S)) said: “except their due”.

I say: May Allah forgive Abu Bakr! He brushed aside this clear tradition and interpreted it as he liked according to his policy of fighting. No one of the believers, who had been fought and killed on that day, separated between prayer and zakat but they just hesitated to submit to Abu Bakr because they doubted (the legality of) his replacement for the Prophet (S) (We shall explain this matter later on inshallah.) and they were excused for that and in fact they would be rewarded for that.

They had the right not to obey except the orders of Allah and His Messenger or the orders of the one, whose guardianship was determined by Allah and His Messenger (S).

If Abu Bakr perceived those people’s excuse, he would consider it as an evidence against him but how would those oppressed people be treated fairly by Abu Bakr on that day!

The Sihah and books of Hadith are full of true traditions that show the impermissibility of shedding the blood of those faithful people and their likes and there is no tradition that annuls this verdict; nevertheless their blood was shed by the order of the caliph, who interpreted the prophetic traditions according to his own tendency.

As for the zakat that Abu Bakr had talked about it was just an obligation on the Muslims. The guardian, who replaced the Prophet (S), was to ask the Muslims for the zakat and he was to take it from them. If they refused to pay it willingly, he then had to force them to pay it unwillingly by using his power but without fighting or killing them.

Fighting them just to take the zakat from them contradicted the verdicts that had determined to protect their bloods and monies.

Here are some of these traditions that have been mentioned by Muslim in his Sahih (Vol.2 p.324.) under the chapter of “Ali’s virtues”. The Messenger of Allah (S) said to Ali when he gave him the banner on the day (the battle of) Khaybar: “Move and do not turn.” Imam Ali walked a little and then he stopped but did not turn. He cried: “O Messenger of Allah, what for shall I fight the people?” The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Fight them until they witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they do, they will spare their blood and monies except for their due and they will be answerable before Allah.”

In al-Bukhari and Muslim’s Sahihs there is a tradition narrated by Usama bin Zayd saying: “The Messenger of Allah (S) sent us (among an army) to al-Mahraqa. In the morning we reached there. We defeated the people. I and another man from the Ansar followed after a man from those people. When we caught him, he said: “There is no god but Allah.” My companion abstained from killing him but I stabbed him with my spear. When we came back, the Prophet (S) knew about what we had done. He said to me: “O Usama, did you kill him after he had said “there is no god but Allah”?” I said: “He just wanted to save his life.” The Prophet (S) kept on repeating this question until I wished I had not become a Muslim before that day.”

He did not wish that unless he thought that all what he had offered of faith, prayers, zakat, fasting, companionship (with the Prophet (S)), jihad and other things before that day would not compensate for this sin and that all his good doings had come to nothing because of this sin. His saying showed clearly that he feared that Allah would not forgive him for ever after that sin and so he wished he had not become a Muslim before that day in order to be included by the Prophet’s saying: “(Believing in) Islam forgives all the sins committed before.”

It is a sufficient evidence that shows the dignity of the people of “there is no god but Allah” and the protection of their blood.

Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Sahih that a man had said to the Prophet (S): “O Messenger of Allah, fear Allah!” The Prophet (S) said: “Woe unto you! Am I not the worthiest among all the people of the earth of fearing Allah?” Khalid (bin al-Waleed) said: “O Messenger of Allah, do you allow me to kill him?” The Prophet (S) said: “No, he may offer prayers.” 

(This tradition has been mentioned by Ahmad in his Musnad, vol. p.4 and by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his book al-Isaba when talking about Sarhooq the hypocrite that he was brought to be killed. The Prophet (S) said: “Does he offer prayers?” It was said: “When people see him (it means when he thinks that people may see him during the time of prayers, he offers prayers).” The Prophet (S) said: “I have been prohibited killing the prayers (ones who offer prayer).” Ath-Thahabi in his Mizan, when talking about the biography of Aamir bin Abdullah bin Yasar, mentioned a tradition narrated by Anas who said: “Once a man was mentioned to the Prophet (S) and it was said that he had been the head of the hypocrites. When people mentioned many bad things about him, the Prophet (S) allowed them to kill him and then he asked: “Does he offer prayers?” The companions said: “Yes, when people see him.” The Prophet (S) said: “I have been prohibited from killing those who offer prayers.”

Would that Khalid bin al-Waleed had regarded the prayer of Malik bin Nuwayra and refrained from killing him when Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatada al-Ansari had witnessed that Malik had offered Fajr (dawn) prayer with them! But Khalid had been charmed by Malik’s beautiful wife as his contemporary, the poet Abu Zuhayr as-Sa’di had said in his poem: Khalid killed him aggressively just for his wife. He had desired her before that.)


In al-Bukhari and Muslim’s Sahihs there is a tradition narrated by Ibn Umar that the Prophet (S) has said in Mina while he was pointing at the Kaaba: “Do you know what country is this?” His companions said: “Allah and His Messenger are more aware.” He said: “This is a prohibited country.” Then he said: “Do you know what day is this?” They said: “Allah and His Messenger are more aware.” He said: “It is a prohibited day. Do you know what month is this?” They said: “Allah and His Messenger are more aware.” He said: “It is a prohibited month. Allah has prohibited your blood, your monies and your honor like the prohibition of this day in this month in this country.”

The Sihah and books of Hadith are full of such traditions, whose contents are clear to the Muslims. According to these traditions fighting a Muslim just because he has hesitated in paying the zakat to the imam is prohibited especially if his hesitation is due to his doubting about the real imam as what has happened among some tribes when the Prophet (S) has left to the better world. A great sedition has happened at that time and its evils spread everywhere. Many Muslims apostatized. The Muhajireen and the Ansar disagreed about the matter of the caliphate. Each of them had two opinions and the Ansar might have three opinions.

During this sedition and evils Abu Bakr was paid homage as the caliph and his homage was as a slip that Allah had protected the Muslims from its evil as Umar had said! It was naturally at that time that people might doubt about the legality of such homage and the unanimous agreement on it while people were in disagreement. In fact the state at that time was much worse than what had been mentioned. So there was no blame on those, who had doubted the caliphate of Abu Bakr, when they did not submitted to him concerning the matter of zakat and other things until they would become certain that he was the legal caliph after the Prophet (S).

 The day of al-Bitah


It was the day of al-Bitah or the day of Malik bin Nuwayra and his people and what they had got from Khalid bin al-Waleed. Khalid was the absolute leader of the armies at that time so he ordered as he liked and he judged as he wished. He was satisfied with killing the believers but he exceeded in mutilation, capturing women and violating what Allah had prohibited of monies, honor and legal verdicts. He committed sins and evils that had never happened even in the pre-Islamic times.

Who was Malik?


Malik bin Nuwayra bin Hamza bin Shaddad bin Abd bin Tha’laba bin Yarboo’ at-Tameemi al-Yarboo’iy was the top of honor for Bani Tameem and the peak of glory for Bani Yarboo’. He was one of the famous notables among the Arabs and an example of magnanimity, generosity, courage and valor in all their meanings. He was like the kings. When he became a Muslim, all the people of his tribe became Muslims. The Prophet (S) had entrusted him with the charities of his people because he had great confidence and trust in him.

What was Malik’s crime?


Malik’s crime, according to Abu Bakr’s thought, was his situation concerning the matter of zakat and other religious obligations. Malik was looking for his legal duty according what Allah and His Messenger had legislated.

He did not intend, out of his situation, to cause a separation among the Muslims, to cause sedition or to cause a fight. He was surprised by the raid led by Khalid bin al-Waleed at the beginning of Abu Bakr’s caliphate where disagreement was still burning about the caliphate. Ahlul Bayt (as) and their followers had their own opinion and Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubayda, Salim and their followers had their own opinion.

The Ansar, who had protected and supported the Prophet (S), were defeated especially their chief Sa’d bin Ubada, who had sworn if he had assistants, he would fight against Abu Bakr and his party but he withdrew from political life and he did not participate in those people’s occasions until he died lonely in Hawran. Add to that the disasters that were caused (by the ruling party) around the houses, about which Allah had said:

“O you who believe! do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you” (Qur’an 33:53)

and the distresses that were caused to the Prophet’s daughter Fatima (sa) just because she asked for her inheritance, donation and khums although she faced them with clear evidences, besides many other matters that the Qur'an had warned of.

Hence it was naturally for a man like Malik, who had a high position among his people, to look for the one, who would carry out the will of Allah and who would lead the people to the truth. Malik waited in order to see the true man, who was qualified to replace the Prophet (S), and then he would pay him the zakat so that he would achieve his covenant with Allah. The ruling party had to give him enough time to look for the ambiguous truth at that confused time. They had not to surprise him with those disasters for he was not among those, who had denied the zakat, nor was he among those, who had separated between the prayer and zakat, nor was he among those who had permitted fighting Abu Bakr or other Muslims.

This was the truth of the situation of Malik and his companions; leading to it his advise to his people to keep to Islam and not to stand against Khalid. He ordered his people to separate in order not to clash with the army of Khalid and he forbade them from gathering in one place so that Khalid and his army might think that they were camping to be ready to fight. (All that has been mentioned by Professor Muhammad Hasanayn Haykal in his book As-Siddeeq Abu Bakr, p.144. Professor Mahmood Abbas al-Aqqad in his book Abqariyat Khalid, p.131 said when talking about Malik’s situation: “It was not a situation of obstinacy or being ready to fight.” But Professor al-Aqqad has been mistaken when he has interpreted Malik’s verses of poetry into other than their real meaning.)

Khalid’s advance towards al-Bitah


When Khalid finished his battles against Bani Asad and Ghatafan, he decided to move towards al-Bitah to meet Malik and his people but Malik had withdrawn from al-Bitah and had ordered his people to separate here and there - as we have said before - for he was looking forward to peace in order to protect Islam at that critical time. When the Ansar knew that Khalid would go to fight Malik and his people, they refused to go with him and they said: “This is not the order of the caliph. The caliph has ordered that when we finish fighting al-Buzakha we are to camp until he will write to us again.”

Khalid said: “The caliph has not entrusted you with anything. He has ordered me to go on. I am the emir and the orders come to me. If no book or order comes to me, I will find any opportunity to seize and then I will inform the caliph. If we face something that the caliph has not sent his order about, we will decide the best to do. Malik bin Nuwayra is in view of us and I will go to face him with my men.” (As-Siddeeq Abu Bakr by Professor Haykal, p.143 and Abqariyatu Umar by Professor al-Aqqad, p.267. You see here through this dialogue that the caliph had not ordered the army to attack Malik but Khalid claimed that the caliph had entrusted him especially with the order of the attack and according to this the caliph had used trick to show the people that he was not responsible for the crimes that had been committed on the day of al-Bitah but it was Khalid who was responsible for that and then he would protect Khalid by justifying his doing by saying that he had interpreted the verdict but he had mistaken. This event showed that Abu Bakr was too skilful in politics. Then he went with his men towards al-Bitah but when they arrived there, they did not find anyone. 

(The historians agreed upon that when Khalid occupied al-Bitah with his army, he did not find anyone of its people. That was because Malik had separated his people here and there and had ordered them not to fight against Khalid and his army. He had advised his people to keep to Islam and to remain separated until Allah would regather them. Refer to As-Siddeeq Abu Bakr by Haykal, p.144.)

Killing Malik and his people


When they did not find any one of Malik’s people in al-Bitah, Khalid sent his brigades to follow after them. They came back with Malik and some of his people. They were put in prison and then they were killed in a bad way which we will detail later on.

At-Tabari mentioned a tradition narrated by Abu Qatada al-Ansari, who was one of the leaders of the brigades of Khalid’s army. He said: “When we found Malik and his companions and it was night, they took their weapons and got ready. We said: “We are Muslims.” They said: “We are Muslims too.” We said: “Then why have you got your weapons ready?” They said to us: “And why have you got your weapons ready?” We said: “If you are as you say then put your weapons down.” Then we offered prayer and they offered prayer.”

But after the prayer they (Khalid’s soldiers) hastened to seize the weapons of Malik and his companions and then they tied Malik and his companions and drove them as captives to Khalid. Among them was Malik’s wife Layla bint al-Minhal Umm Tameem, who was (as Professor Abbas Mahmood al-Aqqad said in his book Abqariyatu Umar according to the historians) one of the most beautiful women among the Arabs especially her eyes and legs. It was said that no one had seen more beautiful than her eyes and legs.

Therefore Khalid was attracted by her beauty while he was debating with Malik while she was beside him.

Khalid said to Malik: “I will kill you.” Malik said: “Has your master (Abu Bakr) ordered you of this?” Khalid said: “By Allah, I will kill you.”

Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatada al-Ansari were present then. They talked with Khalid about this matter but he rejected their talks. Then Malik said: “O Khalid, send us to Abu Bakr and he will decide what to do to us. You have sent to him other than us whose guilt is greater than ours.” Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatada insisted on Khalid to send Malik and his companions to the caliph but Khalid refused and said: “Let Allah not forgive me if I do not kill him.”

Khalid asked Dhirar bin al-Azwar al-Asadi to kill Malik. Malik turned towards his wife and said to Khalid: “It is she who has killed me!” Khalid said: “It is Allah Who has killed you because you have apostatized from Islam.” Malik said: “I am still on Islam.” Khalid said to Dhirar: “Kill him!” Dhirar killed Malik. Khalid arrested Malik’s wife and married her in that very night.

Khalid ordered his companions to put the captives (Malik’s people) in prison. It was very cold. In a dark night Khalid’s caller called out: “Warm your prisoners!” According to the dialect of Kinana this was a metonymy to mean killing and so all the prisoners were killed.

Khalid had ordered the executioners of his men to kill the prisoners when they heard this call. This was a trick used by Khalid to show that he was not responsible for this crime but it was obvious to Abu Qatada and his likes of the acute people. It was unknown just for the ordinary people, who had been deceived by the powerful rulers and their prevailing policies.

This is the truth behind the event that has happened between Khalid and Malik. Whoever studies carefully what has been mentioned by the historians about the event of al-Bitah, will find this truth clearly.

Let not the contradicting sayings scattering here and there keep you away from the truth; those sayings which have been woven by the personal tendencies and the flattery to the caliph and to the general leader of his armies in order to justify their mistakes.

We studied this event carefully and we did not find except a clear evidence showing that the caliph tried to distort the truth due to his loyalty in his love to Khalid and in defending him.

Allah is the witness over all!

The anger of Abu Qatada and Umar


Professor Haykal says in his book as-Siddeeq Abu Bakr: (p.147.) “Abu Qatada al-Ansari became too angry at the crime of Khalid when he killed Malik and married his wife. Abu Qatada left Khalid and went to Medina deciding that he would never be under the leadership of Khalid at all. Mutammim bin Nuwayra, Malik’s brother, went with him. When they arrived at Medina, Abu Qatada, who was still too angry, went to Abu Bakr and told him of what Khalid had done to Malik and his wife. He added that he had sworn by Allah not to be under the leadership of Khalid at all. But Abu Bakr was too pleased with Khalid and his victories and he became displeased with Abu Qatada. In fact he denied all what Abu Qatada said about the sword of Islam (Khalid)!”

Professor Haykal adds: “Do you think that Abu Bakr’s anger frightened Abu Qatada and made him keep silent? Certainly not! His revolt against Khalid was too violent; therefore he went to Umar bin al-Khattab and told him all the story and showed him Khalid as the man, whose tendencies prevailed over his duties and who ignored the orders of Allah in order to satisfy himself. Umar confirmed Abu Qatada’s opinion and participated with him in criticizing Khalid.

Umar went to Abu Bakr and he was too angry at what Khalid had done. He asked Abu Bakr to depose Khalid. Umar said to Abu Bakr that Khalid’s sword had committed a sin and the caliph had to punish Khalid. But Abu Bakr would not have punished any of his officials! (In doing so Abu Bakr behaved according to his own ijtihad and ignored the order of Allah when saying: “And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life…” (Qur'an, 5:45).)

 Therefore Abu Bakr said when Umar insisted on him many times to punish Khalid: “O Umar, let him alone. He interpreted but he mistook. Do not blame him any more!” But Umar was not satisfied with this answer and he did not refrain from asking to punish Khalid. When Abu Bakr became unable to bear the insistence of Umar, he said to him: “O Umar, no! I would not have to sheathe a sword that Allah has unsheathed against the unbelievers.”

Professor Haykal adds: “But Umar found that Khalid’s doing was abominable and so his conscience was displeased. How, then, would he keep silent and let Khalid at ease feeling as if he had not committed any sin or crime? Umar had to repeat his request to Abu Bakr and to mention to him frankly that the enemy of Allah had killed a Muslim man transgressively and committed adultery with his wife and it was not fair at all not to be punished for his crime.

Before the fiery anger of Umar, Abu Bakr could not but to send for Khalid and ask about what he had done. Khalid came to Medina. He came into the mosque with his war material wearing a garment, whose iron parts were rusty, and inserting some arrows into his turban. When Umar saw him coming into the mosque, he hastened to him, pulled the arrows out of his turban, destroyed them and said to him: “You have killed a Muslim man and committed adultery with his wife. By Allah, I will stone you until you die.” Khalid kept silent and did not apologize.

He came to Abu Bakr and told him the story of Malik and his hesitation (in paying the zakat). Khalid justified his doing with some excuses and Abu Bakr excused him and forgave him but he blamed him for marrying a woman, whose husband’s blood had not dried yet. The Arabs hated sleeping with women during the wars and considered that as disgrace.”

I say: Islam prohibits marrying a woman, whose husband has died, until she finishes her iddah. (Woman’s prescribed waiting period after divorce or death of husbandIf a man gets married to a woman during her iddah, she will be prohibited for him forever. If we suppose that Khalid has considered Malik’s wife as a captive, also getting married to a captive woman is not permissible except after the legal absolution (Legal absolution here means that a woman has to pass at least one menstruation to be sure that she is not pregnant from the previous husband.) whereas Khalid had killed Malik and married his wife in the same night.

Professor Haykal adds: “Umar did not change his opinion a bit about what Khalid had committed. When Abu Bakr died and Umar became the caliph, the first thing he did was sending a letter to Sham announcing the death of Abu Bakr and with it there was a book having a decree of deposing Khalid from the emirate of the army.”

Professor Haykal says: “The historians agreed unanimously that Umar had remained on his situation towards Khalid concerning the matter of killing Malik and marrying his wife and this situation had had its effect on the caliph when he had deposed Khalid.”

How strange it is!


How strange and odd it was that during the reign of Abu Bakr all that blood, honor and properties were wasted in vain! Allah’s sacred rites were violated and His penalties were annulled. Khalid was not deposed in spite of all what he had committed! He kept on his extravagancy until the caliph died but when Umar became the caliph, he deposed him immediately.
Abu Bakr’s opinion about the criminals on the day of al-Bitah was the first of the opinions that contradicted the Qur'an and the Sunna. He preferred benefit to obeying Allah.

Stating an opinion


Professor Haykal says in his book as-Siddeeq Abu Bakr when talking about Abu Bakr’s opinion and excuse: “Abu Bakr thought that the situation was more dangerous than to regard such things.(This is an exaggeration. Yes, the situation was too dangerous but this did not lead to ignore what was possible for the sake of what was not possible. The possible thing, which was the least thing that must be done, at that time was to depose Khalid from his position and to appoint a qualified one like Umar, Abu Ubayda, Ma’ath bin Jabal, Sa’d or any other one and to put off the trial of Khalid until the circumstances would become suitable and then to be punished according to the legal verdicts.)

 Was there any importance of killing a man or a group of men due to a mistake in interpretation or even without a mistake where dangers surrounded all the state and the revolts had broken out throughout the Arab countries?

(This is an exaggeration too. His saying “due to a mistake in interpretation or even without a mistake” is just a fabrication. Malik’s faith in Islam was doubted neither by Khalid nor by Abu Bakr and marrying Malik’s wife while she was under her iddah deserved stoning according to the consensus of the Muslims. This was what Umar wanted to do if he could. His saying “was there any importance of killing a man or a group of men” shows indifference to killing whereas Allah says:

“whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men” (Qur’an 5:32) and “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it” (Qur’an 4:93) and “And they who do not call upon another god with Allah and do not slay the soul, which Allah has forbidden except in the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication and he who does this shall find a requital of sin. The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement” (Qur’an 25:68-69).)

He said: “This leader, who was accused of being mistaken, (Khalid was really a killer and an adulterer. He intended to do prohibited things and he did not miss them. In fact he got them intendedly even after being forbidden by the caliph.) was one of the greatest powers, by which disasters and dangers were repelled. (He could be replaced by any other qualified man as we have mentioned above.)

 What was the problem in marrying a woman unlike the traditions of the Arabs if it was done by a conqueror, who had conquered countries and consequently had captive women who would be his possession?”

(I do not think that Professor Haykal believed in this saying and the sayings before and after it nor did Abu Bakr! I do not think that Professor Haykal is indifferent to the honors when saying: “What was the problem in marrying a woman unlike the traditions of the Arabs if it was done by a conqueror…” and I do not think that he allows every conqueror to do what Khalid has done! This may be allowed to a Muslim conqueror, who conquers a country of Muslims, who do not believe in Allah, and most surely that Malik and his people were among the believers “who keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and of the hereafter they are sure”.)

Professor Haykal adds: “If we apply the Shari’ah, then we have not to criticize the great personalities like Khalid (Uttering such a word by one like Professor Haykal is something odd and astonishing. As long as you live, you see many wonders! How strange! Professor Haykal says that the legal verdicts do not allow criticizing great persons like Khalid whereas Allah has created the Paradise to every one, who obeys Him even if he is a black Abyssinian, and has created the Hell to every one, who disobeys Him even if he is a Qurayshi master. There is no flattery between Allah and any of His creatures; people are equal before Him. A noble man is low until the others’ right is taken from him and he is punished and a low man is honorable until his right is restored to him.) especially if that will harm the state and expose it to dangers”. 

(If carrying out the legal penalties causes dangers, then the penalties should be put off until the dangers disappear. But the caliph (Abu Bakr) did not put off executing the penalties nor did he wait for the dangers to disappear. Rather he forgave all those sins and crimes and became pleased to the full with those criminals.)

“The Muslims were in need to the sword of Khalid. They were in need of Khalid on the day when Abu Bakr sent for him and scolded him more than their need of him before. Musaylama the Liar with forty thousand men revolted in Yamama near al-Bitah and their revolt was the worst against Islam and the Muslims. (This meaning has been repeated by Professor Haykal and here we say again that Khalid could be replaced with another leader and even if there was no one like Khalid, the orders of Allah could never be annulled for any reason. Executing the penalties could be put off but it could never be annulled at all. Abu Bakr behaved as if there were no crimes and no criminals!)

 Was it possible to let the Muslim armies be defeated by Musaylama and the religion of Allah be struck with many dangers just for the murder of Malik bin Nuwayra or for the sake of beautiful Layla who had captivated Khalid?

(Yes, Khalid had to be deposed and to be killed immediately according to the verdict of Allah. A killer must be killed and an adulterer, who has a wife, must be stoned. If there is danger in executing the penalties, they will be put off until the danger disappears. The penalties can never be annulled for ever. All the Muslims have agreed on this matter unanimously.)

Khalid was the sign of Allah and his sword was the sword of Allah. It was the policy of Abu Bakr when he sent for Khalid to be satisfied with scolding (But Allah would not be satisfied with that! The legal verdicts that have determined to kill the killer and to stone the adulterer are clear but Abu Bakr interpreted them as he liked and he preferred his own opinion to those divine verdicts.) him and to order him at the same time to move with his army towards al-Yamama to meet Musaylama and his men”.

Professor Haykal says: “When Abu Bakr ordered Khalid at that time to go to fight Musaylama, he might want to show the people of Medina, especially those who had adopted Umar’s opinion, that Khalid was the qualified man who would defeat the difficulties and that he (Abu Bakr) had thrown him into a hell which would swallow him and that would be the punishment for what he had committed with Layla and her husband Malik (Let us ponder on what Professor Haykal says as he quotes Abu Bakr’s thoughts. Do you think that Abu Bakr and Haykal have ignored that an adulterer, who has a wife, must be punished by the Muslim ruler? Have they ignored that the punishment must be stoning especially and not to throw the adulterer into the hell of Yamama or other hells?) or victory would purify him and then he would come back to the Muslims as triumphant and so he would calm their fears and then his doing committed in al-Bitah would be unmentionable thing beside his victory”.

“Yamama has tested and purified Khalid (What purifies the sinners is returning to Allah by repenting and doing good deeds sincerely for the sake of Allah only. Allah says: “Save him who shall repent and believe and do right” (19:60) .) even if not long after that he married a young girl as he had done with Layla while the Muslims’ bloods were not dried yet nor were the bloods of Musaylama’s followers. Abu Bakr scolded him for this doing more than he had scolded him for his doing with Layla before." (This young girl might have had a husband and Khalid committed adultery with her as he had done with Layla; therefore Abu Bakr scolded him for that more than he had scolded him after his sin with Malik’s wife. If it had been not so, Abu Bakr would have not scolded him severely or in fact he would have not scolded him at all.)(As-Siddeeq Abu Bakr, p.152.)

Professor Haykal has showed clearly that Abu Bakr had preferred the benefits to the acting according to the verdicts of Allah and His Messenger. Such was the opinion of many of the virtuous scholars of al-Azhar University about Abu Bakr. They themselves told me of that when I had met them in al-Azhar University in 1392 A.H. and later.

But Umar, even he himself had gone too far in interpreting the divine verdicts according to his own opinion, did not agree with Abu Bakr when he had forgiven Khalid. Professor Haykal declares Umar’s opinion in details when saying:

“Umar was the exact example of Justice. He thought that Khalid had killed a man transgressively and committed adultery with his wife before she had finished her iddah and so Khalid could never remain as the leader of the army lest he would commit another sin like that and then he would defame the Muslims and dishonor their position among the Arabs. Khalid could never be left without punishment for what he had committed with Layla.

“If it was as Abu Bakr said that Khalid interpreted the verdict but he mistook in his interpretation when he killed Malik, which Umar did not accept at all, then Khalid would be punished for the sin he had committed with Layla. Even if Khalid was the sword of Allah and he was the victorious leader, this would not be an excuse to protect him from being punished or to justify his crimes.

“If it was so, then Khalid and every one like Khalid would be free to commit any crime and sin as they liked without being punished and this would be the worst example of the Muslims who had to submit to the Book of Allah absolutely. Therefore Umar insisted on Abu Bakr to punish Khalid until Abu Bakr sent for Khalid and scolded him.”

This is the very speech of Professor Haykal about Umar’s opinion and evidence about the matter of Khalid quoted from his book As-Siddeeq Abu Bakr, p.151.

Some fairness


Professor al-Aqqad, after mentioning the contradictory sayings about the murder of Malik to defend Khalid, says: “Out of all these sayings we have to consider the true and indisputable one among them. It was not clear or decisive that Malik bin Nuwayra had to be killed. (In fact it was the impermissibility of killing Malik that was clear and decisive. This murder was one of the great sins that must lead the murderer to the legal punishment because Malik was a sincere Muslim with no doubt at all. This was a clear fact to every one who had known the truth of the event of al-Bitah and had known the secret behind the violent revolt of Umar, Abu Qatada and all the people of Medina against Khalid. The last thing that Malik had said was “I am on Islam”. Abu Bakr and Umar confessed that Malik was a Muslim when he died. Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Khalid has committed adultery and you have to stone him.” Abu Bakr said: “I will not stone him. He interpreted (the verdict) but he mistook.” Umar said: “He has killed a Muslim and you have to kill him.” Abu Bakr did not say to Umar that Khalid had killed an apostate but he said: “I will not kill him. He interpreted (the verdict) but he mistook.” This was a confession by Abu Bakr that Malik had been a Muslim; therefore Abu Bakr had paid the diyah (blood-money) to Malik’s family from the public treasury of the Muslims and he had considered the captives of Malik’s family as free people and so he had set them free besides that he had not accepted from Khalid his capturing them.)

 Malik was worthier to be sent to the caliph than the chiefs of Fazara tribe and others, whom Khalid had sent to Abu Bakr to judge how to deal with, after the battle of al-Buzakha. Khalid got married to Malik’s wife and took her with him to Yamama after meeting the caliph. (Suppose that when Khalid committed adultery with Malik’s wife, he was mistaken in his interpretation, then what was the excuse of Abu Bakr when he kept Khalid as the leader of his armies especially after meeting him and scolding him and what was the excuse of Abu Bakr when he kept Khalid in his position after taking Malik’s wife with him to Yamama committing adultery with her while he had a wife?)

After these facts, the truth obliges us to say that the event of al-Bitah was a page in Khalid’s history. It would be better for him if this page would have been omitted and not mentioned with any of the justifications at all.” 

(Abqariyyatu Khalid, p.134.)



We end our speech about this subject with reference to those who have written about Malik concerning his position among the Arabs and among the Muslims and concerning the calamity that has afflicted Malik and his people on the day of al-Bitah. Here are some of the books that have detailed the matter of Malik; Tareekh al-Umam wal Mulook by Muhammad bin Jareer at-Tabari, Jamharat an-Nasab by Ibnul Kalbi, al-Kamil by Ibnul Atheer, Kitab ar-Riddah wal Futooh by Sayf bin Umar, al-Muwaffaqiyyat by az-Zubayr bin Bakar, al-Aghani by Abu Faraj al-Isfahani, ad-Dala’il by Thabit bin Qassim, Nuzhat al-Manadhir by Ibn Shuhna, al-Mukhtasar by Abul Fida’, Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Ibn Abul Hadeed and other books of history and biographies.

The judge Ibn Khillikan said in his book Wafiyyatul A’yan when mentioning the biography of Wuthayma bin Musa bin al-Furat al-Washsha’ al-Farisi: “Malik bin Nuwayra was a noble man who accompanied the kings. Malik was mentioned in the proverbs; it was said: “No pasture like sa’dan, (A kind of herbage.) no water like (that of) Sada’ (A famous spring whose water was very pure and palatable.) and no youth like Malik.” He was a knight, a poet and an obeyed notable man among his people. He was somehow proud. He had a great group of companions. He was called al-Jafool. (Al-Jafool: the one who is always ready to help and aid the others; whenever he hears a call for help he hastens towards the caller.)


He came to the Prophet (S) among the Arabs who had come to declare their faith in Islam. He became a Muslim and the Prophet (S) entrusted him with the zakat of his tribe…his situation with Khalid bin al-Waleed on the day of al-Bitah had been detailed. There had been a long argument between them. Khalid said to Malik: “I am going to kill you.” Malik said: “Has your friend (Abu Bakr) ordered you to do that?” Khalid said: “By Allah, I will kill you.”

Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatada were present then. They mediated to solve the problem but Khalid paid no attention to their speech. Malik said to Khalid: “Send us to Abu Bakr and he will decide what to do with us for you have sent other than us whose guilt was greater than ours.” Khalid said: “Let Allah not forgive me if I do not kill you.” He asked Dhirar bin al-Azwar to behead Malik. Malik turned to his wife Umm Tameem and then said to Khaild: “It is she who has killed me!” Malik’s wife was very beautiful. Khalid said to Malik: “Allah has killed you because you have apostatized from Islam.” Malik said: “I am still on Islam.” Khalid said to Dhirar: “Behead him!” He cut his head and made it as an andiron under a pot.”

Ibnul Kalbi said in his book Jamharat an-Nasab: “Malik was killed on the day of al-Bitah and Khalid captured his (Malik’s) wife and married her. About this matter the poet Abu Zuhayr as-Sa’di had composed a poem.”

After that Ibn Khillikan mentioned Umar’s revolt against Khalid and his saying to Abu Bakr: “Khalid has committed adultery and you have to stone him.” Abu Bakr said: “I do not stone him. He interpreted (the verdict) but he mistook.” Umar said: “He has killed a Muslim man and you have to kill him for that killed one.” Abu Bakr said: “I do not kill him for that one because he interpreted but he mistook.” Umar said: “Then depose him!” Abu Bakr said: “I will not sheathe a sword that Allah has unsheathed against them.”

Ibn Khillikan mentioned more details about the matter. He said that Mutammim bin Nuwayra, Malik’s brother, stood beside Abu Bakr leaning on his bow and began reciting his poem:

“The best one you have killed O you son of al-Azwar,
When the wind wept behind the houses.
Have you invited him by Allah and then you betrayed him?
If he has invited you with a pact,
He will never betray you.”

He made a sign to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr said: “By Allah, I have neither invited him nor have I betrayed him.” Then Mutammim bin Nuwayra recited the rest of his poem. He wept and collapsed from his bow to the ground.

Ibn Khillikan talked too much about Malik’s qualities such as his courage, generosity, zeal and high position among his people.

Among the historians, who had talked about Malik in their books, was Abul Fadhl Ahmad bin Ali famous as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. He said in the first part of his book al-Isaba fee Tamyeez as-Sahaba (At-Tabari mentioned Malik in his Mu’jam and said: “He is Malik bin Hamza at-Tameemi. The Prophet (S) has entrusted him with the zakat of Bani Yarboo’ after he and his brother Mutammim had become Muslims.) “His name was Malik bin Nuwayra bin Hamza bin Shaddad bin Abd Tha’laba bin Yarboo’ at-Tameemi al-Yarboo’iy. He was surnamed as al-Jafool. Al-Marzabani said that Malik was a noble poet, a great knight and one of the honored notables among his people in the pre-Islamic period. He was a companion of the kings. The Prophet (S) had entrusted him with the zakat of his people. When the Prophet (S) died, he stopped taking the zakat (He stopped taking the zakat from his people after the Prophet (S) had gone to the better world because he wanted to be certain that the one who would be the caliph after the Prophet (S), would be the right one and then he would carry out his duty concerning the zakat. You will find that clearly in his poetry which we have mentioned herein with our comment.) and he spread (the zakat that had been already in his hand) among his people. (He spread the zakat among the poor and needy people of his tribe because he had taken it from them as he had the guardianship over the zakat from the Prophet (S) when he was alive and so he thought that he had had the right to dispose of it according to its legal ways. Malik was known for his pity towards the orphans, the widows and the poor as it had been showed through the poem of his coeval poet as-Sa’di when saying: Who will be for the orphans and the widows after him? And who will be for the poor and needy people?)

He recited:

I said: Take back your monies.
I am not afraid nor expecting what tomorrow will bring. (
By this verse he meant that he had not committed any wrong or a sin (when he took the zakat or when he spread it again) that he might fear on the Day of Resurrection.)

If a right one will undertake the religion,
We will obey (
This verse has been mentioned with the phrase “we will obey” by al-Asqalani in his book al-Isaba, by Ibn Sa’d and by Alamul Huda ash-Shareef ar-Radhiy in his book “ash-Shafi’iy” who had mentioned other verses when saying: “When Malik knew that the Prophet (S) had died, he stopped taking zakat from his people and he said to them: “Wait until a guardian will undertake the rule after the Prophet (S) and then we will see what to do.” He indicated that in his poetry when saying:

“Some men said: Malik has done right today. Some men said Malik has not done right.
I said: Let me alone. I have not done wrong.
I said: Take back your monies.
I am not afraid nor expecting what tomorrow will bring. Here are the monies. They are yours.
I will defend you what you fear with my soul, And I will achieve the truth as I say.
If a right one will undertake the religion,
We will obey and say: the religion is that of Muhammad.”

But Professor Haykal in his book as-Siddeeq Abu Bakr and Professor al-Aqqad in his book Abqariyat Khalid have mentioned the verse with the phrase “we will refrain (or stop)”. I think that they have quoted the verse from someone of the historians who have taken sides against Malik to defend Khalid or Abu Bakr. Anyhow there is nothing in the verse showing apostasy or anything like that.) and say: the religion is that of Muhammad.”

Malik and his companions were killed. He was mutilated. His wife was raped. The verdicts of Allah were annulled. His sanctity was violated. The cause behind all that was that they (Abu Bakr, Khalid and their likes) had interpreted the divine verdicts according to their own opinion and they had been mistaken. We are Allah’s and to Him we shall return!

 Preventing from writing down the prophetic traditions


Al-Hakim mentioned in his Tareekh a tradition narrated by Abu Bakr that the Prophet (S) had said: “He, who has written down knowledge or a tradition from me, will be granted with (divine) reward as long as that knowledge or tradition will remain.” (The prophetic traditions that the umma has narrated from Abu Bakr are one hundred and forty-two which have been mentioned in a special chapter by as-Sayooti in his book Tareekh al-Khulafa’. This tradition is the eighty-ninth one among them. The narrators have confirmed its content by the traditions they have narrated from Imam ‘Ali (as), Abdullah bin Umar, Abdullah bin Mas’ood, Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri, Abud Darda’, Anass bin Malik, Ma’ath bin Jabal and Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (S) had said: “Whoever has kept forty traditions for my umma, Allah will resurrect him on the Day of Resurrection among the jurisprudents and ulama.” In another tradition “…Allah will resurrect him as a jurisprudent and as an aalim.” In the tradition narrated by Abud Darda’ it has been mentioned as “…I will be his witness and his intercessor.” In the tradition of Ibn Mas’ood “…he will enter into Paradise from any gate he likes.” In the tradition of Ibn Umar “…he will be considered as one of the ulama and he will be resurrected with the martyrs.” They might have confirmed this tradition by the tradition in which the Prophet (S) had said: “Let the present of you inform the absent…may Allah have mercy on one who has heard my saying and he perceived it and spread it as he has heard it.”) In spite of that no tradition had been written down during the reign of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Abu Bakr, during his rule, had decided to write down the prophetic traditions. He had written down five hundred traditions but he had become upset. He could not sleep and he tossed about in his bed all that night. Aa’isha, his daughter, said: “I was uncomfortable because he was upset. In the morning he said to me: “O my daughter, bring me the traditions that are with you.” I brought them to him and he burnt them…” 

(Mentioned by Imadudeen bin Katheer in Musnad as-Siddeeq from al-Hakim bin Abu Abdullah an-Naysaboori and mentioned by Abu Umayya al-Ahwas bin al-Mufadhdhal al-Ghilabi. It has been mentioned in Kanzol Ummal, vol.5 p.237.)

Az-Zuhri mentioned from Urwa that once Umar bin al-Khattab wanted to write down the prophetic traditions. He consulted with the Prophet’s companions about the subject and they counseled him to write them down. He went asking Allah to inspire him with the best decision. He kept on that for a month and then he said: “I wanted to write down the prophetic traditions but I remembered some peoples before you who had written some books and then they kept to their books and ignored the Book of Allah. By Allah, I will not corrupt the Book of Allah with anything at all.” (Kanzol Ummal, vol.5 p.239, al-Mukhtasar by Ibn Abdul Birr, p.33, it also has been mentioned by Ibn Sa’d from az-Zuhri as in Kanzol Ummal, vol.5 p.239.)

Abu Wahab said: “I have heard Malik (bin Anas) saying that Umar wanted to write down the prophetic traditions or he had already written them down but then he (Umar) said: “There is no book with the Book of Allah.” 

(Kanzol Ummal, vol.5 p.239, al-Mukhtasar by Ibn Abdul Birr, p.32.)

Yahya bin Ju’da said: “Once Umar wanted to write down the Sunna but then he changed his mind and decided not to write it down. He sent a decree to the countries saying: “Whoever has written down some of the Sunna, has to delete it.” (Al-Mukhtasar by Ibn Abdul Birr, narrated by Ibn Khaythama as in Kanzol Ummal, vol. 5 p.239.)


Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr said: “The (writing down of) traditions had been increased during the reign of Umar so he asked the people to bring him those (written) traditions. When the people brought him the traditions, he ordered to burn them.” (Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, vol. 5 p.140.)

Ibn Umar said: “Once Umar wanted to write down the traditions. He prayed to Allah for a month to inspire him with the best choice. Then he said: “I remembered that there were peoples before you who had written some books and they kept to those books and ignored the book of Allah.” (As-Salafi in his book at-Tuyooriyyat and as-Sayooti in his Tareekh al-Khulafa’.)


During the rule of Umar one of his companions came and said to him: “O Ameerul Mo’mineen, when we have conquered the different countries, we have got some books of the Persian sciences and other wonderful subjects.” Umar began striking those books with his stick until they were torn. Then he recited:

“We narrate to you the best of narratives, by Our revealing to you this Qur'an” (Qur’an 12:3)

and then he said to the man: “Woe unto you! Are these stories better than the Book of Allah?” 

(This tradition has been mentioned in the books of Hadith. Ibn Abul Hadeed has mentioned in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 3 p.122. The caliph Umar should have checked those books to see which of them was useful and which was not and then tear the useless ones. This was the right of the umma and the right of the books themselves. Islam never permits tearing the useful books such as those of medicine, mathematics, geology and history of the previous and ancient nations. Imam ‘Ali (as) has said: “Knowledge is the long-sought aim of the believers. Try to gain knowledge even from the polytheists.” He also has said: “Wisdom is the long-sought goal of the believers. They are to look for it even it is in the policemen’s hands.” These two traditions of Imam ‘Ali (as) have been mentioned by Ibn Abdul Birr in al-Mukhtasar, p.51)

The news showing that Umar had prevented people from writing and collecting the prophetic traditions and everything of the Sunna were certain and recurrent. He might have prevented them from narrating any prophetic tradition at all and he might have detained the great figures in Medina so that they would not spread the traditions in the other countries. 

(Abdurrahman bin Awf said: “By Allah, Umar, before he died, had sent for the Prophet’s companions who were in the different countries. He sent for Abdullah bin Huthayfa, Abu Darda’, Abu Dharr and Uqba bin Aamir and said to them: “What are these traditions of the Prophet (S) that you have spread throughout the countries?” They said: “Do you prevent us from doing that?” He said: “No! You stay here! You will never be away from me as long as I am alive.” Refer to Kanzol Ummal, vol.5 p.239.)

No doubt that many corruptions had happened because of the decisions of the two caliphs (when preventing from writing down the Sunna) and those corruptions could not be avoided. Would that the two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, had tried with Imam ‘Ali (as) and Ahlul Bayt (as) to collect the Prophet’s traditions and Sunna and to write them down in a special book that the later Muslims and their successors of every generation in this umma would inherit!

The holy Qur'an has analogous and ambiguous meanings. The Sunna explains the analogous and ambiguous meanings of the Qur'an and it details many of its special verdicts. It makes the scholars perceive the essence of the Qur'an and so it saves many verdicts of the Qur'an from being lost. It would have been better for the two caliphs if they had written down the Sunna because in doing that they would have saved the umma and the Sunna from the fabricators who had fabricated many lies against the Prophet (S).

If the Sunna had been written down at that time in a book, which the umma would have sanctified, fabricators and liars would refrain from distorting or inserting any lie in the Sunna. And since the Sunna had not been collected in a special book, so the fabricators, who fabricated lies against the Prophet (S), were too active and politics played a great rule in distorting the Sunna especially during the reign of Mu’awiya and his oppressive party until imposture spread everywhere and vanities and trifles sold well.

The two caliphs and their followers could have saved the umma from the evil of those people if they had written down the Sunna. In fact they had known the great use of that and they had known that it was very necessary but their greed and tendencies, which they had prepared and got ready to achieve, did not meet with many of those clear prophetic traditions.

As for the Prophet (S), he had entrusted the Book, the Sunna and the heritage of the prophets with his guardian Ali bin Abu Talib (S) and hence he had recorded them in a clear book which falsehood should not come to from before nor from behind. He asked Imam ‘Ali (as) to entrust the infallible Imams after him with this trust. Hence this trust, the Qur'an, the Sunna and the prophet’s heritage, would be guarded by the infallible Imams (S) one after the other until they would come to the Prophet (S) at the pond (in Paradise) on the Day of Resurrection.

The Prophet (S) has said: “Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali. They will not separate until they will come to me at the pond.” 

(Al-Hakim’s Mustadrak, vol.3 p.124 and ath-Thahabi’s Talkhees. We would like to attract the reader’s attention that this sacred accompaniment between Imam ‘Ali (as) and the Qur'an has been continuous every moment until they will come to the Prophet (S) at the pond in Paradise without a moment of separation between them at all. Imam ‘Ali (as) has died hundreds of years before coming with the Qur'an to the pond in Paradise so how would the inseparability between him and the Qur'an be valid?

“Most surely, it is the Word brought by an honored Messenger. And it is not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe. Nor the word of a soothsayer; little is it that you mind. It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds”. (Qur'an, 69:40-43).)


A task


Some polytheists had come to the Prophet (S) for some task and he had referred to his two companions (Abu Bakr and Umar) in order to reject the polytheists’ task but they (Abu Bakr and Umar) behaved as intercessors for the polytheists.

The story was when some polytheists came to the Prophet (S) saying: “O Muhammad, we are your neighbors and allies. Some of our slaves have resorted to you neither for religion nor for jurisprudence but they have fled from our farms and properties. Please return them back to us.” The Prophet (S) did not respond to them lest they would spoil the faith of those slaves.

The Prophet (S) did not want to tell them the truth openly so he referred to Abu Bakr saying: “O Abu Bakr, what do you say?” and he hoped that Abu Bakr would reject their request. Abu Bakr said: “O Messenger of Allah, they are right.” The Prophet (S) blushed because Abu Bakr’s answer was not as Allah and His Messenger wanted. Then the Prophet (S) asked Umar hoping that he would be frank with them: “O Umar, what do you say?” Umar said: “O Messenger of Allah, they are right. They are your neighbors and allies.” The Prophet (S) blushed again…”

This tradition has been mentioned by Ahmad bin Hanbal in his Musnad, vol.1 p.155 (traditions concerning Imam Ali) and by an-Nassa’iy in al-Khasa’is al-Alawiya, p.11. Here is the tradition as it has been mentioned by an-Nassa’iy: “…then the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “O people of Quraysh, I swear by Allah that He will empower over you a man from you, whose heart Allah has tested with faith. He will strike you to keep to the religion.” Abu Bakr said: “O Messenger of Allah, is it me?” The Prophet (S) said: “It is the one who is mending the shoes.” The Prophet (S) had given his shoes to Ali in order to mend them.”



Ove knjige su samo jedno skromno djelo. To je prica o putovanju i velikom otkricu, ali ne onom kao u tehnickim ili prirodnim naukama, nego otkricu u polju religije i filozofije. Posto je svaki pronalazak zasnovan, prvenstveno na zdravoj pameti i jasnom razumijevanju - po cemu se ljudi i razlikuju od drugih stvorenja - ove knjige su posvecene svakoj zdravoj pameti. Pameti koja stavlja istinu na provjeru i razlikuje je od zla koje lezi u zabludi.Pameti koja procjenjuje sve sto je receno po mjerilu pravde i uvijek daje prednost logici. Pameti koja poredi rijeci i kazivanja i posjeduje sposobnost da razlikuje izmedju logicnog i onog sto nije bas logicno - da razlikuje izmedju jasnog i zbunjujuceg.



A call for good faith

O brothers, until when will this disagreement last? What are these enmities and hatred for? Allah, the One and Only, is the Lord of us all. Islam is our religion. The holy Qur'an is the Book of all of us. The Kaaba is our Qiblah. The master of the prophets and the last of the messengers Muhammad bin Abdullah is our Prophet. His sayings and doings are our Sunna. The daily five prayers, fasting Ramadan, zakat and hajj are our obligations.

The permissible things are the things that Allah and His Messenger have permitted and the impermissible things are the things that they have prohibited. The truth is what they have determined as the truth and the untruth is what they have rejected. The guardians of Allah and His Messenger are our guardians and the enemies of Allah and His Messenger are our enemies. The day of Resurrection will come no doubt and Allah will resurrect the dead from their graves

“ that He rewards those who do evil, according to their deeds, and He rewards those, who do good, with what is best” (Qur’an 53:31).