|
SERMON 3
Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah(1)
Beware! By Allah the son of
Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)(2)
dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my
position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in
relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird
cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself
detached from it.
Then I began to think
whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of
tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old
and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his
death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser.
So I adopted patience
although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification)
in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first
one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after
himself.
(Then he quoted al-A`sha's
verse).
My days are now passed on
the camel's back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I
enjoyed the company of Jabir's brother Hayyan.(3)
It is strange that during
his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed
it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders
strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure
where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in
plenty and so also the excuses therefore.
One in contact with it was
like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very
nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown.
Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness,
unsteadiness and deviation.
Nevertheless, I remained
patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went
his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group(4)
and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with
this "consultation"? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first
of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low
when they were low and flew high when they flew high.
One of them turned against
me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to
his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man
of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder.
With him his children of his
grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah's wealth(5)
like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down,
his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.
At that moment, nothing took
me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards
me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and
Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were
torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I
took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned
disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not
heard the word of Allah saying:
That abode in the
hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in
the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for
the pious ones. (Qur'an, 28:83)
Yes, by Allah, they had
heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes
and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain
(to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and
supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge
of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in
the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have
cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the
last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen
that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a
goat.
(It is said that when Amir
al-mu'minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed
him over a writing. Amir al-mu'minin began looking at it, when Ibn `Abbas
said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you
broke it." Thereupon he replied, "O' Ibn `Abbas it was like the foam of a
Camel which gushed out but subsided." Ibn `Abbas says that he never
grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir
al-mu'minin could not finish it as he wished to.)
ash-Sharif ar-Radi says: The
words in this sermon "like the rider of a camel" mean to convey that when
a camel rider is stiff in drawing up the rein then in this scuffle the
nostril gets bruised, but if he lets it loose in spite of the camel's
unruliness, it would throw him somewhere and would get out of control.
"ashnaq an-naqah" is used when the rider holds up the rein and raises the
camel's head upwards. In the same sense the word "shanaqa an-naqah" is
used. Ibn as-Sikkit has mentioned this in Islah al-mantiq. Amir
al-mu'minin has said "ashnaqa laha" instead of "ashnaqaha", this is
because he has used this word in harmony with "aslasa laha" and harmony
could be retained only by using both in the same form.
Thus, Amir al-mu'minin has
used "ashnaqa laha" as though in place of "in rafa`a laha ra'saha", that
is, "if he stops it by holding up the reins."
(1).
This sermon is known as the sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah, and is counted
among the most famous sermons of Amir al-mu'minin. It was delivered at
ar-Rahbah. Although some people have denied it to be Amir al-mu'minin's
utterance and by attributing it to as-Sayyid ar-Radi (or ash-Sharif
ar-Radi) have laid blame on his acknowledged integrity, yet truth-loving
scholars have denied its veracity.
Nor can there be any ground
for this denial because `Ali's (p.b.u.h.) difference of view in the matter
of Caliphate is not a secret matter, so that such hints should be regarded
as something alien. And the events which have been alluded to in this
sermon are preserved in the annals of history which testifies them word by
word and sentence by sentence.
If the same events which are
related by history are recounted by Amir al-mu'minin then what is the
ground for denying them? If the memory of discouraging circumstances faced
by him soon after the death of the Prophet appeared unpalatable to him it
should not be surprising.
No doubt this sermon hits at
the prestige of certain personalities and gives a set back to the faith
and belief in them but this cannot be sustained by denying the sermon to
be Amir al-mu'minin's utterance, unless the true events are analysed and
truth unveiled; otherwise just denying it to be Amir al-mu'minin's
utterance because it contains disparagement of certain individuals carries
no weight, when similar criticism has been related by other historians as
well. Thus (Abu `Uthman) `Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz has recorded the following
words of a sermon of
Amir al-mu'minin and they
are not less weighty than the criticism in the "Sermon of
ash-Shiqshiqiyyah."
Those two passed away and
the third one rose like the crow whose courage is confined to the belly.
It would have been better if both his wings had been cut and his head
severed.
Consequently, the idea that
it is the production of as-Sayyid ar-Radi is far from truth and a result
of partisanship and partiality. Or else if it is the result of some
research it should be brought out. Otherwise, remaining in such wishful
illusion does not alter the truth, nor can the force of decisive arguments
be curbed down by mere disagreement and displeasure.
Now we set forth the
evidence of those scholars and traditionists who have clearly held it to
be Amir al-mu'minin's production, so that its historical importance should
become known. Among these scholars some are those before as-Sayyid
ar-Radi's period, some are his contemporaries and some are those who came
after him but they all related it through their own chain of authority.
1) Ibn Abi'l-Hadid
al-Mu`tazili writes that his master Abu'l-Khayr Musaddiq ibn Shabib
al-Wasiti (d. 605 A.H.) stated that he heard this sermon from ash-Shaykh
Abu Muhammad `Abdullah ibn Ahmad al-Baghdadi (d. 567 A.H.) known as Ibn
al-Khashshab and when he reached where Ibn `Abbas expressed sorrow for
this sermon having remained incomplete Ibn al-Khashshab said to him that
if he had heard the expression of sorrow from Ibn `Abbas he would have
certainly asked him if there had remained with his cousin any further
unsatisfied desire because excepting the Prophet he had already spared
neither the predecessors nor followers and had uttered all that he wished
to utter.
Why should therefore be any
sorrow that he could not say what he wished? Musaddiq says that Ibn
al-Khashshab was a man of jolly heart and decent taste.
I inquired from him whether
he also regarded the sermon to be a fabrication when he replied "By Allah,
I believe it to be Amir al-mu'minin's word as I believe you to be Musaddiq
ibn Shabib." I said that some people regard it to be as-Sayyid ar-Radi's
production when he replied: "How can ar-Radi have such guts or such style
of writing.
I have seen as-Sayyid
ar-Radi's writings and know his style of composition. Nowhere does his
writing match with this one and I have already seen it in books written
two hundred years before the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Radi, and I have seen
it in familiar writings about which I know by which scholars or men of
letters they were compiled. At that time not only ar-Radi but even his
father Abu Ahmad an-Naqib has not been born."
2) Thereafter Ibn
Abi'l-Hadid writes that he saw this sermon in the compilations of his
master Abu'l-Qasim (`Abdullah ibn Ahmad) al-Balkhi (d. 317 A.H.). He was
the Imam of the Mu'tazilites in the reign of al-Muqtadir Billah while
al-Muqtadir's period was far earlier than the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Radi.
3) He further writes that he
saw this sermon in Abu Ja`far (Muhammad ibn `Abd ar-Rahman), Ibn Qibah's
book al-Insaf. He was the pupil of Abu'l-Qasim al-Balkhi and a theologian
of Imamiyyah (Shi`ite) sect. (Sharh of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol.1, pp.205-206)
4) Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani
(d. 679 A.H.) writes in his commentary that he had seen one such copy of
this sermon which bore writing of al-Muqtadir Billah's minister
Abu'l-Hasan `Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Furat (d. 312 A.H.). (Sharh
al-balaghah, vol.1., pp.252-253)
5) al-`Allamah Muhammad
Baqir al-Majlisi has related the following chain of authority about this
Sermon from ash-Shaykh Qutbu'd-Din ar-Rawandi's compilation Minhaj
al-bara`ah fi Sharh Nahj al-balaghah:
ash-Shaykh Abu Nasr
al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim informed me from al-Hajib Abu'l-Wafa'
Muhammad ibn Badi`, al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Badi` and al-Husayn ibn
Ahmad ibn `Abd ar-Rahman and they from al-Hafiz Abu Bakr (Ahmad ibn
Musa) ibn Marduwayh al-Isbahani (d. 416 A.H.) and he from al-Hafiz
Abu'l-Qasim Sulayman ibn Ahmad at-Tabarani (d. 360 A.H.) and he from
Ahmad ibn `Ali al-Abbar and he from Is'haq ibn Sa`id Abu Salamah
ad-Dimashqi and he from Khulayd ibn Da`laj and he from `Ata' ibn Abi
Rabah and he from Ibn `Abbas. (Bihar al-anwar, 1st ed. vol.8,
pp.160-161)
6) In the context
al-`Allamah al-Majlisi has written that this sermon is also contained in
the compilations of Abu `Ali (Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab) al-Jubba 'i (d.
303 A.H.) . 7) In connection with this very authenticity al-`Allamah
al-Majlisi writes:
al-Qadi `Abd al-Jabbar ibn
Ahmad al-Asad'abadi (d. 415A.H.) who was a strict Mu`tazilite explains
some expressions of this sermon in his book al-Mughni and tries to prove
that it does not strike against any preceding caliph but does not deny
it to be Amir al-mu'minin's composition. (ibid., p.161)
8) Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn
`Ali, Ibn Babawayh (d. 381 A.H.) writes:
Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn
Is'haq at-Talaqani told us that `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Yahya al-Jaludi (d.
332 A.H.) told him that Abu `Abdillah Ahmad ibn `Ammar ibn Khalid told
him that Yahya ibn `Abd al-Hamid al- Himmani (d. 228 A.H.) told him that
`Isa ibn Rashid related this sermon from `Ali ibn Hudhayfah and he from
`Ikrimah and he from Ibn `Abbas. (`Ilal ash-shara'i`,vol.1, chap. 122,
p.144; Ma`ani al-akhbar, chap.22, pp.360-361)
9) Then Ibn Babawayh records
the following chain of authorities :-
Muhammad ibn `Ali
Majilawayh related this sermon to us and he took it from his uncle
Muhammad ibn Abi'l-Qasim and he from Ahmad ibn Abi `Abdillah (Muhammad
ibn Khalid) al-Barqi and he from his father and he from (Muhammad) Ibn
Abi `Umayr and he from Aban ibn `Uthman and he from Aban ibn Taghlib and
he from `Ikrimah and he from Ibn `Abbas. (`Ilal ash-shara'i`, vol.1,
chap.122, p.l46; Ma`ani al-akhbar, chap.22, p.361)
10) Abu Ahmad al-Hasan ibn
`Abdillah ibn Sa`id al-`Askari (d.382 A.H.) who counts among great
scholars of the Sunnis has written commentary and explanation of this
sermon that has been recorded by Ibn Babawayh in `Ilal ash-shara'i` and
Ma`ani al-akhbar. 11) as-Sayyid Ni`matullah al-Jaza'iri writes:
The author of Kitab
al-gharat Abu Is'haq, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ath-Thaqafi al-Kufi (d. 283
A.H.) has related this sermon through his own chain of authorities. The
date of completion of writing this book is Tuesday the 13th Shawwal 255
A.H. and in the same year, Murtada al-Musawi was born. He was older in
age than his brother as-Sayyid ar-Radi. (Anwar an-Nu`maniyyah, p.37)
12) as-Sayyid Radi ad-Din
Abu'l-Qasim `Ali ibn Musa, Ibn Tawus al-Husayni al-Hulli (d. 664 A.H.) has
related this sermon from Kitab al-gharat with the following chain of
authorities:-
This sermon was related to
us by Muhammad ibn Yusuf who related it from al-Hasan ibn `Ali ibn `Abd
al-Karim az-Za`farani and he from Muhammad ibn Zakariyyah al-Ghallabi
and he from Ya`qub ibn Ja`far ibn Sulayman and he from his father and he
from his grand-father and he from Ibn `Abbas. (Translation of
at-Tara'if, p.202)
13) Shaykh at-Ta'ifah,
Muhammad ibn al- Hasan at-Tusi (d. 460 A.H.) writes:
(Abu'l-Fath Hilal ibn
Muhammad ibn Ja`far) al-Haffar related this sermon to us. He related it
from Abu'l-Qasim (Isma`il ibn `Ali ibn `Ali) ad-Di`bili and he from his
father and he from his brother Di`bil (ibn `Ali al-Kuza`i) and he from
Muhammad ibn Salamah ash-Shami and he from Zurarah ibn A`yan and he from
Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Ali and he from Ibn `Abbas. (al-Amali, p.237)
14) ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
(Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn an-Nu`man, d. 413 A.H.) who was the teacher of
as-Sayyid ar-Radi writes about the chain of authorities of this sermon:
A number of relaters of
traditions have related this sermon from Ibn `Abbas through numerous
chains. (al-Irshad, p.135)
15) `Alam al-Huda (emblem of
guidance) as-Sayyid al-Murtada who was the elder brother of as-Sayyid
ar-Radi has recorded it on pp. 203,204 of his book ash-Shafi. 16) Abu
Mansur at-Tabarsi writes:
A number of relaters have
given an account of this sermon from Ibn `Abbas through various chains.
Ibn `Abbas said that he was in the audience of Amir al-mu'minin at
ar-Rahbah (a place in Kufah) when conversation turned to Caliphate and
those who had preceded him as Caliphs, when Amir al-mu'minin breathed a
sigh and delivered this sermon. (al-Ihtijaj, p. 101)
17) Abu'l-Muzaffar Yusuf ibn
`Abdillah and Sibt ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi (d. 654 A.H.) writes:
Our ash-Shaykh Abu'l-Qasim
an-Nafis al-Anbari related this sermon to us through his chain of
authorities that ends with Ibn `Abbas, who said that after allegiance
had been paid to Amir al-mu'minin as Caliph he was sitting on the pulpit
when a man from the audience enquired why he had remained quiet till
then whereupon Amir al-mu'minin delivered this sermon extempore.
(Tadhkarat khawass al-ummah, p.73)
18) al-Qadi Ahmad ibn
Muhammad, ash-Shihab al-Khafaji (d. 1069 A.H.) writes with regard to its
authenticity:
It is stated in the
utterances of Amir al-mu'minin `Ali (Allah may be pleased with him) that
"It is strange during life time he (Abu Bakr) wanted to give up the
Caliphate but he strengthened its foundation for the other one after his
death." (Sharh durrat al-ghawwas, p.17)
19) ash-Shaykh `Ala
ad-Dawlah as-Simnani writes:
Amir al-mu'minin Sayyid
al-`Arifin `Ali (p.b.u.h.) has stated in one of his brilliant Sermons
"this is the Shiqshiqah that burst forth." (al-`Urwah li ahl al-khalwah
wa'l-jalwah, p3, manuscript in Nasiriah Library, Lucknow, India)
20) Abu'l-Fadl Ahmad ibn
Muhammad al-Maydani (d. 518 A.H.) has written in connection with the word
Shiqshiqah:
One sermon of Amir
al-mu'minin `Ali is known as Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah (the sermon of
the Camel's Foam). (Majma` al-amthal, vol.1, p.369)
21) In fifteen places in
an-Nihayah while explaining the words of this sermon Abu's-Sa`adat Mubarak
ibn Muhammad, Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari (d. 606 A.H.) has acknowledged it to
be Amir al-mu'minin's utterance. 22) Shaykh Muhammad Tahir Patni while
explaining the same words in Majma` bihar al-anwar testifies this sermon
to be Amir al-mu'minin's by saying, "`Ali says so." 23) Abu'l-Fadl ibn
Manzur (d. 711 A.H.) has acknowledged it as Amir al-mu'minin's utterance
in Lisan al-`Arab, vol.12, p.54 by saying, "In the sayings of `Ali in his
sermon 'It is the camel's foam that burst forth then subsided.'" 24)
Majdu'd-Din al-Firuz'abadi (d. 816/817 A.H.) has recorded under the word
"Shiqshiqah" in his lexicon (al-Qamus, vol.3, p.251):
Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah
is by `Ali so named because when Ibn `Abbas asked him to resume it where
he had left it, he said "O' Ibn `Abbas! it was the foam of a camel that
burst forth then subsided."
25) The compiler of Muntaha
al-adab writes:
Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah
of `Ali is attributed to `Ali (Allah may honour his face).
26) ash-Shaykh Muhammad
`Abduh, Mufti of Egypt, recognising it as Amir al-mu'minin's utterance,
has written its explanations.
27) Muhammad Muhyi'd-Din
`Abd al-Hamid, Professor in the Faculty of Arabic Language, al-Azhar
University has written annotations on Nahj al-balaghah adding a foreword
in the beginning wherein he recognises all such sermons which contain
disparaging remarks to be the utterances of Amir al-mu'minin.
In the face of these
evidences and undeniable proofs is there any scope to hold that it is not
Amir al-mu'minin's production and that as-Sayyid ar-Radi prepared it
himself?
(2).
Amir al-mu'minin has referred to Abu Bakr's accession to the Caliphate
metaphorically as having dressed himself with it. This was a common
metaphor. Thus, when `Uthman was called to give up the Caliphate he
replied, "I shall not put off this shirt which Allah has put on me." No
doubt Amir al-mu'minin has not attributed this dressing of Caliphate to
Allah but to Abu Bakr himself because according to unanimous opinion his
Caliphate was not from Allah but his own affair. That is why Amir
al-mu'minin said that Abu Bakr dressed himself with the Caliphate.
He knew that this dress had
been stitched for his own body and his position with relation to the
Caliphate was that of the axis in the hand-mill which cannot retain its
central position without it nor be of any use. Similarly, he held "I was
the central pivot of the Caliphate, were I not there, its entire system
would have gone astray from the pivot. It was I who acted as a guard for
its organisation and order and guided it through all difficulties.
Currents of learning flowed from my bosom and watered it on all sides.
My position was high beyond
imagination but lust of world seekers for government became a tumbling
stone for me and I had to confine myself to seclusion. Blinding darkness
prevailed all round and there was intense gloom everywhere. The young grew
old and the old departed for the graves but this patience-breaking period
would not end. I kept watching with my eyes the plundering of my own
inheritance and saw the passing of Caliphate from one hand to the other
but remained patient as I could not stop their high-handedness for lack of
means."
NEED FOR THE PROPHET'S CALIPH AND THE MODE OF HIS APPOINTMENT.
After the Prophet of Islam
the presence of such a personality was inevitable who could stop the
community from disintegration and guard the religious law against change,
alteration and interference by those who wanted to twist it to suit their
own desires. If this very need is denied then there is no sense in
attaching so much importance to the succession of the Prophet that the
assemblage in Saqifah of Banu Sa`idah should have been considered more
important than the burial of the Prophet.
If the need is recognised,
the question is whether or not the Prophet too realised it. If it is held
he could not attend to it and appreciate its need or absence of need it
would be the biggest proof for regarding the Prophet's mind to be blank
for thinking of means to stop the evils of innovations and apostasy in
spite of having given warnings about them.
If it is said that he did
realise it but had to live it unresolved on account of some advantage then
instead of keeping it hidden the advantage should be clearly indicated
otherwise silence without purpose would constitute delinquency in the
discharge of the obligations of Prophethood. If there was some impediment,
it should be disclosed otherwise we should agree that just as the Prophet
did not leave any item of religion incomplete he did not leave this matter
either and did propose such a course of action for it, that if it was
acted upon religion would have remained safe against the interference of
others.
The question now is what was
that course of action. If it is taken to be the consensus of opinion of
the community then it cannot truly take place as in such consensus
acquiescence of every individual is necessary; but taking into account the
difference in human temperaments it seems impossible that they would agree
on any single point. Nor is there any example where on such matters there
has been no single voice of dissent.
How then can such a
fundamental need be made dependent on the occurrence of such an impossible
event - need on which converges the future of Islam and the good of the
Muslims. Therefore, the mind is not prepared to accept this criterion. Nor
is tradition in harmony with it, as al-Qadi `Adud ad-Dinal-'Iji has
written in Sharh al-mawaqif:
You should know that
Caliphate cannot depend upon unanimity of election because no logical or
traditional argument can be advanced for it.
In fact when the advocates
of unanimous election found that unanimity of all votes is difficult they
adopted the agreement of the majority as a substitute for unanimity,
ignoring the difference of the minority. In such a case also it often
happens that the force of fair and foul or correct and incorrect ways
turns the flow of the majority opinion in the direction where there is
neither individual distinction nor personal merit as a result of which
competent persons remain hidden while incompetent individuals stand
forward. When capabilities remain so curbed and personal ends stand in the
way as hurdles, how can there be expectation for the election of correct
person.
Even if it is assumed that
all voters have an independent unbiased view, that none of them has his
own objective and that none has any other consideration, it is not
necessary that every verdict of the majority should be correct, and that
it cannot go astray. Experience shows that after experiment the majority
has held its own verdict to be wrong.
If every verdict of the
majority is correct then its first verdict should be wrong because the
verdict which holds it wrong is also that of the majority. In this
circumstances if the election of the Caliph goes wrong who would be
responsible for the mistake, and who should face the blame for the
ruination of the Islamic polity. Similarly on whom would be the liability
for the bloodshed and slaughter following the turmoil and activity of the
elections. When it has been seen that even those who sat in the audience
of the Holy Prophet could not be free of mutual quarrel and strife how can
others avoid it.
If with a view to avoid
mischief it is left to the people of authority to choose anyone they like
then here too the same friction and conflict would prevail because here
again convergence of human temperaments on one point is not necessary nor
can they be assumed to rise above personal ends. In fact here the chances
of conflict and collision would be stronger because if not all at least
most of them would themselves be candidates for that position and would
not spare any effort to defeat their opponent, creating impediments in his
way as best as possible. Its inevitable consequence would be mutual
struggle and mischief-mongering.
Thus, it would not be
possible to ward off the mischief for which this device was adopted, and
instead of finding a proper individual the community would just become an
instrument for the achievement of personal benefits of the others. Again,
what would be the criterion for these people in authority? The same as has
usually been, namely whoever collects a few supporters and is able to
create commotion in any meeting by use of forceful words would count among
the people of authority.
Or would capabilities also
be judged? If the mode of judging the capabilities is again this very
common vote then the same complications and conflicts would arise here
too, to avoid which this way was adopted.
If there is some other
standard, then instead of judging the capabilities of the voters by it why
not judge the person who is considered suitable for the position in view.
Further, how many persons in authority would be enough to give a verdict?
Apparently a verdict once accepted would be precedent for good and the
number that would give this verdict would become the criterion for future.
al-Qadi `Adud ad-Din al-'Iji writes:
Rather the nomination of
one or two individuals by the people in authority is enough because we
know that the companions who were strict in religion deemed it enough as
the nomination of Abu Bakr by `Umar and of `Uthman by `Abd ar-Rahman.
(Sharh al-mawaqif, p.351 )
This is the account of the
"unanimous election" in the Hall of Bani Sa`idah and the activity of the
consultative assembly: that is, one man's action has been given the name
of unanimous election and one individual's deed given the name of
consultative assembly. Abu Bakr had well understood this reality that
election means the vote of a person or two only which is to be attributed
to common simple people. That is why he ignored the requirements of
unanimous election, majority vote or method of choosing through electoral
assembly and appointed `Umar by nomination. `A'ishah also considered that
leaving the question of caliphate to the vote of a few particular
individuals meant inviting mischief and trouble. She sent a word to `Umar
on his death saying:
Do not leave the Islamic
community without a chief. Nominate a Caliph for it and leave it not
without an authority as otherwise I apprehend mischief and trouble.
When the election by those
in authority proved futile it was given up and only "might is right"
became the criteria-namely whoever subdues others and binds them under his
sway and control is accepted as the Caliph of the Prophet and his true
successor. These are those self-adopted principles in the face of which
all the Prophet's sayings uttered in the "Feast of the Relatives," on the
night of hijrah, at the battle of Tabuk, on the occasion of conveying the
Qur'anic chapter "al-Bara'ah" (at-Tawbah, chap.9) and at Ghadir (the
spring of) Khumm.
The strange thing is that
when each of the first three caliphates is based on one individual's
choice how can this very right to choose be denied to the Prophet himself,
particularly when this was the only way to end all the dissension, namely
that the Prophet should have himself settled it and saved the community
from future disturbances and spared it from leaving this decision in the
hands of people who were themselves involved in personal aims and objects.
This is the correct
procedure which stands to reason and which has also the support of the
Prophet's definite sayings.
(3).
Hayyan ibn as-Samin al-Hanafi of Yamamah was the chief of the tribe Banu
Hanifah and the master of fort and army. Jabir is the name of his younger
brother while al-A`sha whose real name was Maymun ibn Qays ibn Jandal
enjoyed the position of being his bosom friend and led a decent happy life
through his bounty.
In this verse he has
compared his current life with the previous one that is the days when he
roamed about in search of livelihood and those when he led a happy life in
Hayyan's company. Generally Amir al-mu'minin's quoting of this verse has
been taken to compare this troubled period with the peaceful days passed
under the care and protection of the Prophet when he was free from all
sorts of troubles and enjoyed mental peace.
But taking into account the
occasion for making this comparison and the subject matter of the verse it
would not be far fetched if it is taken to indicate the difference between
the unimportant position of those in power during the Prophet's life time
and the authority and power enjoyed by them after him, that is, at one
time in the days of the Prophet no heed was paid to them because of `Ali's
personality but now the time had so changed that the same people were
masters of the affairs of the Muslim world.
(4).
When `Umar was wounded by Abu Lu'lu'ah and he saw that it was difficult
for him to survive because of the deep wound, he formed a consultative
committee and nominated for it `Ali ibn Abi Talib, `Uthman ibn `Affan,
`Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf, az-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, and
Talhah ibn `Ubaydillah and bound them that after three days of his death
they should select one of themselves as the Caliph while for those three
days Suhayb should act as Caliph.
On receipt of these
instructions some members of the committee requested him to indicate what
ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their
light. `Umar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. He
said that Sa`d was harsh-tempered and hot headed; `Abd ar-Rahman was the
Pharaoh of the community; az-Zubayr was, if pleased, a true believer but
if displeased an unbeliever; Talhah was the embodiment of pride and
haughtiness, if he was made caliph he would put the ring of the caliphate
on his wife's finger while `Uthman did not see beyond his kinsmen.
As regards `Ali he is
enamoured of the Caliphate although I know that he alone can run it on
right lines.
Nevertheless, despite this
admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative
Committee and in selecting its members and laying down the working
procedure he made sure that the Caliphate would take the direction in
which he wished to turn it.
Thus, a man of ordinary
prudence can draw the conclusion that all the factors for `Uthman's
success were present therein. If we look at its members we see that one of
them namely `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf is the husband of `Uthman's sister,
next Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas besides bearing malice towards `Ali is a relation
and kinsman of `Abd ar-Rahman. Neither of them can be taken to go against
`Uthman. The third Talhah ibn `Ubaydillah about whom Prof. Muhammad `Abduh
writes in his annotation on Nahj al-balaghah:
Talhah was inclined
towards `Uthman and the reason for it was no less than that he was
against `Ali, because he himself was at at-Taymi and Abu Bakr's
accession to the Caliphate had created bad blood between Bani Taym and
Banu Hashim.
As regards az-Zubayr, even
if he had voted for `Ali, what could his single vote achieve. According to
at-Tabari's statement Talhah was not present in Medina at that time but
his absence did not stand in the way of `Uthman's success. Rather even if
he were present, as he did actually reach at the meeting (of the
Committee), and he is taken to be `Ali's supporter, still there could be
no doubt in `Uthman's success because `Umar's sagacious mind had set the
working procedure that:
If two agree about one and
the other two about another then `Abdullah ibn `Umar should act as the
arbitrator. The group whom he orders should choose the Caliph from among
themselves. If they do not accept `Abdullah ibn `Umar's verdict, support
should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf, but
if the others do not agree they should be beheaded for opposing this
verdict. (at-Tabari, vol.1, pp.2779-2780; Ibn al-Athir, vol.3, p.67).
Here disagreement with the
verdict of `Abdullah ibn `Umar has no meaning since he was directed to
support the group which included `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. He had ordered
his son `Abdullah and Suhayb that:
If the people differ, you
should side with the majority, but if three of them are on one side and
the other three on the other, you should side with the group including
`Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. (at-Tabari, vol.1, pp.2725,2780; Ibn al-Athir,
vol.3, pp.51,67).
In this instruction the
agreement with the majority also means support of `Abd ar-Rahman because
the majority could not be on any other side since fifty blood-thirsty
swords had been put on the heads of the opposition group with orders to
fall on their heads on `Abd ar-Rahman's behest. Amir al-mu'minin's eye had
fore-read it at that very moment that the Caliphate was going to `Uthman
as appears from his following words which he spoke to al-`Abbas ibn `Abd
al-Muttalib:
"The Caliphate has been
turned away from us." al-`Abbas asked how could he know it. Then he
replied, "`Uthman has also been coupled with me and it has been laid
down that the majority should be supported; but if two agree on one and
two on the other, then support should be given to the group which
includes `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. Now Sa`d will support his cousin `Abd
ar-Rahman who is of course the husband of `Uthman's sister." (ibid )
However, after `Umar's death
this meeting took place in the room of `A'ishah and on its door stood Abu
Talhah al-Ansari with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Talhah
started the proceedings and inviting all others to be witness said that he
gave his right of vote to `Uthman. This touched az-Zubayr's sense of
honour as his mother Safiyyah daughter of `Abd al-Muttalib was the sister
of Prophet's father.
So he gave his right of vote
to `Ali. Thereafter Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas made his right of vote to `Abd
ar-Rahman. This left three members of the consultative committee out of
whom `Abd ar-Rahman said that he was willing to give up his own right of
vote if `Ali (p.b.u.h.) and `Uthman gave him the right to choose one of
them or one of these two should acquire this right by withdrawing. This
was a trap in which `Ali had been entangled from all sides namely that
either he should abandon his own right or else allow `Abd ar-Rahman to do
as he wished. The first case was not possible for him; that is, to give up
his own right and elect `Uthman or `Abd ar-Rahman. So, he clung to his
right, while `Abd ar-Rahman separating himself from it assumed this power
and said to Amir al-mu'minin, "I pay you allegiance on your following the
Book of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of the two
Shaykhs, (Abu Bakr and `Umar).
`Ali replied, "Rather on
following the Book of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and my own
findings." When he got the same reply even after repeating the question
thrice he turned to `Uthman saying, "Do you accept these conditions." He
had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance
was paid to him. When Amir al mu'minin saw his rights being thus trampled
he said:
"This is not the first day
when you behaved against us. I have only to keep good patience. Allah is
the Helper against whatever you say. By Allah, you have not made `Uthman
Caliph but in the hope that he would give back the Caliphate to you."
After recording the events
of ash-Shura (consultative committee), Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has written that
when allegiance had been paid to `Uthman, `Ali addressed `Uthman and `Abd
ar-Rahman saying, "May Allah sow the seed of dissension among you," and so
it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other and `Abd
ar-Rahman did not ever after speak to `Uthman till death. Even on death
bed he turned his face on seeing him.
On seeing these events the
question arises whether ash-Shura (consultative committee) means confining
the matter to six persons, thereafter to three and finally to one only.
Also whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs for
Caliphate was put by `Umar or it was just a hurdle put by `Abd ar-Rahman
between `Ali (p.b.u.h.) and the Caliphate, although the first Caliph did
not put forth this condition at the time of nominating the second Caliph,
namely that he should follow the former's footsteps. What then was the
occasion for this condition here?
However, Amir al-mu'minin
had agreed to participate in it in order to avoid mischief and to put an
end to arguing so that others should be silenced and should not be able to
claim that they would have voted in his favour and that he himself evaded
the consultative committee and did not give them an opportunity of
selecting him.
(5).
About the reign of the third Caliph, Amir al-mu'minin says that soon on
`Uthman's coming to power Banu Umayyah got ground and began plundering the
Bayt al-mal (public fund), and just as cattle on seeing green grass after
drought trample it away, they recklessly fell upon Allah's money and
devoured it. At last this self-indulgence and nepotism brought him to the
stage when people besieged his house, put him to sword and made him vomit
all that he had swallowed.
The maladministration that
took place in this period was such that no Muslim can remain unmoved to
see that Companions of high position were lying uncared for, they were
stricken with poverty and surrounded by pennilessness while control over
Bayt al-mal (public fund) was that of Banu Umayyah, government positions
were occupied by their young and inexperienced persons, special Muslim
properties were owned by them, meadows provided grazing but to their
cattle, houses were built but by them, and orchards were but for them.
If any compassionate person
spoke about these excesses his ribs were broken, and if someone agitated
this capitalism he was externed from the city. The uses to which zakat and
charities which were meant for the poor and the wretched and the public
fund which was the common property of the Muslims were put may be observed
from the following few illustrations;
1) al-Hakam ibn Abi'l-`As
who had been exiled from Medina by the Prophet was allowed back in the
city not only against the Prophet's sunnah but also against the conduct of
the first two Caliphs and he was paid three hundred thousand Dirhams from
the public fund. (Ansab al-ashraf, vol.5, pp.27, 28, 125)
2) al-Walid ibn `Uqbah who
has been named hypocrite in the Qur'an was paid one hundred thousand
Dirhams from the Muslim's public fund. (al-`Iqd al-farid, vol.3, p.94)
3) The Caliph married his
own daughter Umm Aban to Marwan ibn al-Hakam and paid him one hundred
thousand Dirhams from the public fund. (Sharh of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol.1,
pp.198-199).
4) He married his daughter
`A'ishah to Harith ibn al-Hakam and granted him one hundred thousand
Dirhams from the public fund. (ibid.)
5) `Abdullah ibn Khalid was
paid four hundred thousand Dirhams. (al-Ma`arif of Ibn Qutaybah, p.84)
6) Allowed the khums (one
fifth religious duty) from Africa (amounting to five hundred thousand
Dinars) to Marwan ibn al-Hakam. (ibid)
7) Fadak which was withheld
from the angelic daughter of the Prophet on the ground of being general
charity was given as a royal favour to Marwan ibn al-Hakam. (ibid.)
8) Mahzur a place in the
commercial area of Medina which had been declared a public trust by the
Prophet was gifted to Harith ibn al-Hakam. (ibid.)
9) In the meadows around
Medina no camel except those of Banu Umayyah were allowed to graze. (Sharh
of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol.l, p.l99)
10) After his death
(`Uthman's) one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars (gold coins) and one
million Dirhams (silver coins) were found in his house. There was no limit
to tax free lands; and the total value of the landed estate he owned in
Wadi al-Qura and Hunayn was one hundred thousand Dinars. There were
countless camels and horses. (Muruj adh-dhahab, vol.l, p.435)
11) The Caliph's relations
ruled all the principal cities. Thus, at Kufah, al-Walid ibn `Uqbah was
the governor but when in the state of intoxication of wine he led the
morning prayer in four instead of two rak`ah and people agitated he was
removed, but the Caliph put in his place a hypocrite like Sa`id ibn
al-`As. In Egypt `Abdullah ibn Sa`d ibn Abi Sarh, in Syria Muawiyah ibn
Abi Sufyan, and in Basrah, `Abdullah ibn `Amir were the governors
appointed by him (ibid.)
|