Translated by: Muhammad hassan heidary
Did Ali [AS] believe that the caliphate of caliphs is legitimate?
Hello, please explain about Imam Ali’s [AS] letter to “Mu’awiyah” about people’s allegiance with previous caliphs and god’s satisfactory of these allegiances.
Commander of faithful writes in his letter to “Mu’awiyah”:
إِنَّهُ بَايَعَنِي الْقَوْمُ الَّذِينَ بَايَعُوا أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَ عُمَرَ وَ عُثْمَانَ عَلَي مَا بَايَعُوهُمْ عَلَيْهِ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِلشَّاهِدِ أَنْ يَخْتَارَ وَ لا لِلْغَائِبِ أَنْ يَرُدَّ وَ إِنَّمَا الشُّورَي لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَ الْأَنْصَارِ فَإِنِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَي رَجُلٍ وَ سَمَّوْهُ إِمَاماً كَانَ ذَلِكَ لِلَّهِ رِضًا فَإِنْ خَرَجَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِمْ خَارِجٌ بِطَعْنٍ أَوْ بِدْعَةٍ رَدُّوهُ إِلَي مَا خَرَجَ مِنْهُ فَإِنْ أَبَي قَاتَلُوهُ عَلَي اتِّبَاعِهِ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَ وَلَّاهُ اللَّهُ مَا تَوَلَّي.
Nahj Al balaqah
Indeed, those who sworn me an allegiance, did so to “Abu bakr”, “Omar” and “Osman” with the same conditions, so the one who swore allegiance, can’t select another as caliph, and the one who was absent can’t avoid accepting people’s allegiance, indeed Muslims council is for “Ansar” and migrants [they make decision], if they select someone as caliph, god will be pleased of that as well.
If someone dispraises what they did or makes innovation, he is told to swear allegiance, if he avoids it, he must be fought because he’s not taken the path as other Muslims, and god will leave him in his negligence.
Relying on this letter, some say that the reign of “Abu Bakr” and “Omar” was legitimate, they say:
In this letter, Ali [AS] says decisively that the consensus of “Ansar” and “Migrants” about one’s caliphate will make it legitimate, and says that god is pleased of that decision and opponents will be fought.
Response: some points in this letter must be paid attention:
1:what clear is that, Ali [AS] isn’t talking about a general rule, but he’s performing formula with the enemy that believes the legitimacy of caliphs’ caliphate via the allegiance of “Ansar” and “migrants”.
In another word, Ali [AS] says to “Mu’awiyah” who was the governor of “Sham” appointed by “Oamr” and “Osman” and knew them the legitimate caliphs:
If in your perspective, the criteria of their caliphate’s legitimacy, was the consensus of “Ansar” and “Migrants”, the same criteria exists about my caliphate.
2: since the intention of the author of “Nahj Al Balaqah”, was to quote the eloquent parts of Ali’s [AS] talks, he hasn’t quoted part of this letter and other authors such as: “Nasr ibn muzahim” and “Ibn qatibah” have quoted it in detailed and there’re some points in that quotation that show the mentioned fact.
3: it says at the first of the letter:
فإنّ بيعتي بالمدينة لزمتك و أنت بالشام .
As allegiance with “Abu Bakr” and “Omar” was done in “Medina” and you were committed to it in “Shaam”, you should surrender to swearing an allegiance to me.
Seffin event, Ibn muzahim - Page 29 – searched by: Abdul Salam Mohammed Harun- - Ibn Qatibah Al dynvary – researcher: shiry - Vol 1, p 113, Al manaqeb - al-Khwarizmi - Died 568 - Page 202 - the searched by: Sheikh Mahmoudi –the jewel of issues- Shafi 'i, Ibn Damascus - Volume 1 - Page 367- searched by: Sheikh Mahmoudi – the history of city of “Damascus- Ibn Asaker - v-59 - Page 128.
And what Ali [AS] told, is because of the ridiculous reasoning of “Mu’awiyah” who said: I don’t swear allegiance to you because people of “Sham” didn’t do so:
وأما قولك أنّ بيعتي لم تصحّ لأنّ أهل الشام لم يدخلوا فيها كيف وإنّما هي بيعة واحدة ، تلزم الحاضر والغائب ، لا يثني فيها النظر ، ولا يستانف فيها .
the description of “Nahj al balaqah”, “ibn abi al hadid”, v 14, p 43
as for what you said, and questioning my caliph because people of “Sham” didn’t swear an allegiance to me, it’s a baseless remark, because, when Muslims’ caliph is sworn an allegiance in the center of Islamic government, it’s necessary for everyone – presents or absents- to follow it and no one can reconsider it or swear an allegiance to someone else.
In the last part of letter, Ali [AS] mentions to the story of “Talha” and “Zubair” who broke their allegiance and then he wants “Mu’awiyah” to bow before government like other Muslims, and don’t make trouble otherwise he will fight against him:
وإن طلحة والزبير بايعاني ثم نقضا بيعتي، وكان نقضهما كردّهما، فجاهدتهما . علي ذلك حتي جاء الحق وظهر أمر اللّه وهم كارهون. فادخل فيما دخل فيه المسلمون، فإن أحب الأمور إلي فيك العافية، إلا أن تتعرض للبلاء . فإن تعرضت له قاتلتك واستعنت اللّه عليك.
Swear to my soul, if the condition of selecting leader is the presence of all people, there is no way for its fulfilling, but those who are qualified will elect caliph and leader and their act have advantage over other Muslims, then neither those who swore allegiance can reconsider, nor can absents select another caliph.
Seffin event, p 20 and 29, Emamat and policy, v 1, p 113, virtues, Khwarizmi, p 202, description of Nahj al balaqah, ibn abi al hadid v 14, p 36
If Ali [AS] believed that swearing allegiance to triple caliphs is the reason of their legitimacy, so why didn’t he swear an allegiance to them?
This fact that Ali [AS] didn’t swear an allegiance to them is obvious, even this fact has been admitted in Sunni books.
“Muhammad ibn Ismail” writes:
وعاشت بعد النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم، ستة أشهر فلما توفيت دفنها زوجها علي ليلا ولم يوءذن بها أبا بكر وصلي عليها وكان لعلي من الناس وجه حياة فاطمة فلما توفيت استنكر علي وجوه الناس فالتمس مصالحة أبي بكر ومبايعته ولم يكن يبايع تلك الأشهر .
Fatimah [AS] lived six months after prophet’s [PBUH] death, when she died, her husband buried her at night without informing “Abu Bakr” and himself said prayer for her, as long as Fatimah [AS] was alive, Ali [AS] was respectable amongst people but when she passed away, people turned their back on him then Ali [AS] swore allegiance to “Abu Bakr”, during six months that Fatimah [AS] was alive, Ali [AS] didn’t swear “Abu Bakr” allegiance.
Shahi Bukhari, v 5, p 82\
And Ali [AS] didn’t swear allegiance willingly, they forced him to do so, as Ali [AS] says in “Nahj Al balaqah”, letter 28:
إنّي كنت أقاد كما يقاد الجمل المخشوش حتي أبايع .
They dragged me to the mosque, the same way that camel is controlled and deprive it from any will and move.
And when Ali [AS] went to the mosque, they told him to swear an allegiance to “Abu Bakr”, he said what if I don’t? They said: swear to god we’ll behead you, Ali [AS] said: if you do so, you’ve killed god’s servant and prophet’s brother, then “Abu bakr” said nothing:
فقالوا له : بايع . فقال : إن أنا لم أفعل فمه ؟ ! قالوا : إذا والله الذي لا إله إلا هو نضرب عنقك ! قال : إذا تقتلون عبد الله وأخا رسوله . وأبو بكر ساكت لا يتكلم .
Al Emamat and policy, searched by: Al shiri, 31, chapter: the method of Ali’s [AS] allegiance
It’s written in the book “the proof of successor”: they dragged Ali [AS] to “Abu Bakr” and said: you should swear an allegiance. His fist was clinched they tried to open it to put in “Abubakar’s hand but they couldn’t, “Abu Bakr” went to him and dragged his hand on Ali’s hand as allegiance.
فروي عن عدي بن حاتم أنه قال : والله ، ما رحمت أحدا قط رحمتي علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام حين اتي به ملببا بثوبه يقودونه إلي أبي بكر وقالوا : بايع ، قال : فإن لم أفعل ؟ قالوا : نضرب الذي فيه عيناك ، قال : فرفع رأسه إلي السماء ، وقال : اللهم إني اشهدك أنهم أتوا أن يقتلوني فإني عبد الله وأخو رسول الله ، فقالوا له : مد يدك فبايع فأبي عليهم فمدوا يده كرها ، فقبض علي أنامله فراموا بأجمعهم فتحها فلم يقدروا ، فمسح عليها أبو بكر وهي مضمومة .... .
Proving the successor, Al masudi: p 146, al-Shafei: 3/244, Grift house, form: Qomi narrator: 118,
Ali [AS], didn’t believe that the manner of “Abu Bakr” and “Omar” is legitimate.
6: if Ali [AS] considered their caliphate as legitimate, why on the day of six-person council, when he was offered to follow “Omar’s and Abu bakr’s” manner to swear an allegiance to him, Ali [AS] rejected it decisively and said: the criteria of my government is just “Quran and prophet’s tradition” and I don’t need following others’ manner.
“Yacouibi”, famous Sunni historian says:
وخلا بعلي بن أبي طالب ، فقال : لنا الله عليك ، إن وليت هذا الامر ، أن تسير فينا بكتاب الله وسنة نبيه وسيرة أبي بكر وعمر . فقال : أسير فيكم بكتاب الله وسنة نبيه ما استطعت . فخلا بعثمان فقال له : لنا الله عليك ، إن وليت هذا الامر ، أن تسير فينا بكتاب الله وسنة نبيه وسيرة أبي بكر وعمر . فقال : لكم أن أسير فيكم بكتاب الله وسنة نبيه وسيرة أبي بكر وعمر ، ثم خلا بعلي فقال له مثل مقالته الأولي ، فأجابه مثل الجواب الأول ، ثم خلا بعثمان فقال له مثل المقالة الأولي ، فأجابه مثل ما كان أجابه ، ثم خلا بعلي فقال له مثل المقالة الأولي ، فقال : إن كتاب الله وسنة نبيه لا يحتاج معهما إلي إجيري أحد . أنت مجتهد أن تزوي هذا الامر عني . فخلا بعثمان فأعاد عليه القول ، فأجابه بذلك الجواب ، وصفق علي يده .
History of yacoubi, p 2, v 162
“Abu al Rahman ibn Awf” came to Ali [AS] and said: we’ll swear an allegiance to you provided you live up to “Quran, prophet’s [PBUH] tradition and follow the manner of “Abu Bakr” and “Omar”, Ali [AS] said: I’ll live up to “Quran and prophet’s tradition” as much as I can.
“Abd al Rahman” went to “Osman” and said: we’ll swear an allegiance to you provided you live up to “Quran, Prophet’s [PBUH] tradition and follow the manner of “Abu Bakr” and “Omar”, he said: I’ll do so. “Abd al Rahman” went to Ali [AS] and heard the same response as first time, he went to “Osman” again, he repeated his response, for the third time he went to Ali [AS] and made the same offer, Ali [AS] said:
When we have god’s book and prophet’s tradition, we don’t need to follow others’ manner, you’re trying to keep me away of caliphate.
For the third time he went to “Osman” and made the same offer, “Osman” repeated his response, then “Abd Al Rahman” held his hand and gave caliphate to him.
“Ahmad ibn Hanbal” quotes in his book:
عن أبي وائل قال قلت لعبد الرحمن بن عوف كيف بايعتم عثمان وتركتم عليا رضي الله عنه قال ما ذنبي قد بدأت بعلي فقلت أبايعك علي كتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما قال فقال فيما استطعت قال ثم عرضتها علي عثمان رضي الله عنه فقبلها .
Musnad of “Ahmad ibn Hanbal”/ Al Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal- v 1, p 75/ the history of Damascus- Ibn Asaker, v 39, p 202 and…..
“Abu vael” says: I said to “Abd Al Rahman”: why did you swear an allegiance to “Osman” not Ali [AS]? He said: it’s not my fault I said to Ali [AS], I’ll swear you an allegiance provided you live up to “Quran and prophet’s [PBUH] tradition and follow the manner of “Abu Bakr” and “Omar”, Ali [AS] said: I can’t, I said to “Osman” and he accepted.
The meaning of what Ali [AS] said is that, “Quran and prophet’s [PBUH] are faultless to need to be attached others’ manner, it means, I don’t know their manner as legitimate and it’s impossible to make something that is illegitimate part of Islam. And “Abd Al Rahman” knew that Ali [AS] will never accept such condition, that’s why he set this condition to keep caliphate away of Ali [AS].
If Ali [AS] believed that their caliphate is legitimate, he would never reject his offer till he doesn’t have to stay away of caliphate for another twelve years.
Does Ali [AS] believe in council-caliphate?
But this sentence of Ali [AS]:
وَ إِنَّمَا الشُّورَي لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَ الْأَنْصَارِ فَإِنِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَي رَجُلٍ وَ سَمَّوْهُ إِمَاماً كَانَ ذَلِكَ لِلَّهِ رِضًا.
Though, some have used of this sentence to make legitimate the caliphate of someone who’s been selected by the council of “Ansar” and “migrants”, but this idea is quite wrong, because:
“Mu’awiyah” was neither from “Ansar” nor “Migrants”.
1: Ali [AS] is talking to “Muawiyah” who wanted to question Ali’s [AS] allegiance by his absenteeism, Ali [AS] says in this letter:
وَ إِنَّمَا الشُّورَي لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَ الْأَنْصَارِ.
Assuming that selecting caliph is based on council’s decision, this council is for “Ansar” and “Migrants” and you’re neither from “Ansar” nor “Migrants”, but you became Muslim in the year of conquering “Mecca” in a pretense way.
Ali [AS] says decisively about “Muawiyah’s companion in “Seffin” war,
فَوَ الَّذِي فَلَقَ الْحَبَّةَ وَ بَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ مَا أَسْلَمُوا وَ لَكِنِ اسْتَسْلَمُوا وَ أَسَرُّوا الْكُفْرَ فَلَمَّا وَجَدُوا أَعْوَاناً عَلَيْهِ أَظْهَرُوهُ .
Swear to god who split seed and created phenomenon, they didn’t embrace Islam but they pretended that they’ve become Muslim and hid their blasphemy and revealed it when they found some companion.
“Ammar Yaser” Ali’s [AS] loyal companion says:
.واللّه ما أسلموا ، ولكن استسلموا وأأَسَرُّوا الْكُفْرَ فَلَمَّا رأوا عليه أَعْوَاناً عَلَيْهِ أَظْهَرُوهُ
Swear to god, they didn’t become Muslim, but pretended that they’ve embraced Islam, and when they got strong, they showed their blasphemy.
And after conquering “Mecca” migration was over, as “Bukhari” has quoted:
لاَ هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ فَتْحِ مَكَّةَ.
Sahih bukhari, v 4, p 38
He has quoted from “Ayesha” as well:
انْقَطَعَتِ الْهِجْرَةُ مُنْذُ فَتَحَ اللَّهُ عَلَي نَبِيِّهِ صلي الله عليه وسلم مَكَّةَ.
When god conquered “Mecca” for his prophet, migration got finished.
Sahih bukhari, v 4, p 38
The caliphate of “Abu Bakr” was sudden event
2: as for “Abu Bakr”, there wasn’t council, as he restates:
Al Ansab Al Ashraf, Belazeri, v 1, p 590
إنّ بيعتي كانت فلتة وقي اللّه شرّها وخشيت الفتنة .
My allegiance was a sudden state and was just an event, but god saved us from its evil and I accepted it to avoid riot.
And “Omar” says:
Description of “Nahj Al balaqah”, ibn Abi Al Hadid, v 1, p 590,
إنّ بيعة أبي بكر كانت فلتة وقي اللّه شرّها فمن عاد إلي مثلها فاقتلوه .
Swearing “Abu Bakr” an allegiance, was a sudden state, but god saved us of its evil, and kill that person who wants to become caliph via such allegiance.
Ali Believes “appointing” caliphate
3: Ali [AS] believes in appointed-caliphate and believes that selected-caliphate is against “Quran and tradition”, this point is in different parts of “Nahj Al Balaghah”, he knows caliphate special for prophet’s dynasty and proves his claim by prophet’s [PBUH] will:
ولهم خصائصُ حقِّ الولاية، وفيهم الوصيّةُ والوِراثةُ.
Guardianship is particular for Muhammad’s [PBUH] dynasty, and they’re prophet’s [PBUH] heirs and successor.
“Nahj AL balaghah” [subhi saleh], second sermon, p 43
And writes in his letter to people of Egypt
فو اللّه ماكان يُلْقَي في رُوعِي ولا يَخْطُرُ بِبالي أنّ العَرَب تُزْعِجُ هذا الأمْرَ من بعده صلي اللّه عليه وآله عن أهل بيته ، ولا أنّهم مُنَحُّوهُ عَنّي من بعده.
Swear to god, I didn’t believe that nation of Arab turn their back on prophet’s [PBUH] advises like this and keep the caliphate away from prophet’s [PBUH].
Nahj al balagha, ibn abi al hadid, v 6, p 95, Emammat and policy, v 1, p 133
And he says in 74th sermon:
لَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمْ أَنِّي أَحَقُّ النَّاسِ بِهَا مِنْ غَيْرِي وَ وَ اللَّهِ لَأُسْلِمَنَّ مَا سَلِمَتْ أُمُورُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهَا جَوْرٌ إِلَّا عَلَيَّ خَاصَّةً الْتِمَاساً لِأَجْرِ ذَلِكَ وَ فَضْلِهِ وَ زُهْداً فِيمَا تَنَافَسْتُمُوهُ مِنْ زُخْرُفِهِ وَ زِبْرِجِهِ.
Indeed they know that I deserve to be caliph more than others, swear to god, I’ll accept what you’ve done till Muslims wouldn’t encounter problem and no one except me is oppressed, and I expect the reward of this patience, silence and excellence from god, and I avoid of all this finery that you’re seeking them.
Ali [AS] knows the caliphate of “Abu Bakr” as Autocratic
4: Ali [AS] believes that caliphs’ caliphate isn’t based on democracy, but he says decisively that they got usurped caliphate in an autocratic way; as he said to “Abu Bakr”
ولكنّك استبددت علينا بالأمر وكنّا نري لقرابتنا من رسول اللّه صلي اللّه عليه وسلم نصيباً حتّي فاضت عينا أبي بكر .
You oppressed me, and due to my relation with prophet [PBUH] my caliphate was certain, after listening to Ali’s [AS] talks, “Abu Bakr” began shedding tear.
Sahih Bukhari, v 5, p 82,
5: and when Ali [AS] found out that “Abu Bakr” wants to appoint “Omar” as his successor, he announces his opposition decisively, as “Ibn Sa’ed” has quoted in the book “Al-tabaqat”:
عن عائشة قالت لما حضرت أبا بكر الوفاة استخلف عمر فدخل عليه علي وطلحة فقالا من استخلفت قال عمر قالا فماذا أنت قائل لربك قال بالله تعرفاني لأنا أعلم بالله وبعمر منكما أقول استخلفت عليهم خير أهلك.
“Ayesha” quotes: when “Abu bakr” was at the death’s door, Ali [AS] and “Talha” went to him and said: who did you appoint as next caliph, he answered: “Omar”, they said: what will you say to god, he answered: I know god more than you and “Omar”, I’ll say to god, I appointed your best servant as caliph.
Al-tabqat, v 3, p 196
6: and he shows his opposition to “Osman’s caliphate, to the extent that “Abd Al-Rahman ibn awf” threatens him to murdering:
قال عبد الرحمن بن عوف : فلا تجعل يا علي سبيلاً إلي نفسك ، فإنّه السيف لا غير .
Al Emamat and policy, searched by: Al shiri, v 1, p 45
And he opposes to Omar’s six-person council decisively and shouts:
فَيَا لَلَّهِ وَ لِلشُّورَي مَتَي اعْتَرَضَ الرَّيْبُ فِيَّ مَعَ الْأَوَّلِ مِنْهُمْ حَتَّي صِرْتُ أُقْرَنُ إِلَي هَذِهِ النَّظَائِرِ لَكِنِّي أَسْفَفْتُ إِذْ أَسَفُّوا وَ طِرْتُ إِذْ طَارُوا فَصَغَا رَجُلٌ مِنْهُمْ لِضِغْنِهِ وَ مَالَ الآخَرُ لِصِهْرِهِ مَعَ هَنٍ وَ هَنٍ إِلَي أَنْ قَامَ ثَالِثُ الْقَوْمِ نَافِجاً حِضْنَيْهِ بَيْنَ نَثِيلِهِ وَ مُعْتَلَفِهِ وَ قَامَ مَعَهُ بَنُو أَبِيهِ يَخْضَمُونَ مَالَ اللَّهِ خِضْمَةَ الْإِبِلِ نِبْتَةَ الرَّبِيعِ إِلَي أَنِ انْتَكَثَ عَلَيْهِ فَتْلُهُ وَ أَجْهَزَ عَلَيْهِ عَمَلُهُ وَ كَبَتْ بِهِ بِطْنَتُهُ.
I refuge to god of this council, when I was equal with the member of council, that now they think I’m equal with them and put me in the same level as them, I had no choice, I came off it, I adapted myself to them, one of them turned his back on me due to his grudge towards me and another one gave his groom advantage over the truth, and those two [“Talha” and “Zubair”], it’s not worth calling their name.
Till the third one- “Osman”- became caliphate, his kidneys have inflated of overeating, he was always wandering between kitchen and toilet and his father’s relatives from the “Umayyad” arose, and looted public property along with him like a hungry camel eating spring plants, “Osman’s deeds surprised people and his overeating destroyed him.
Nahj Al Balaghah, sermon 3
7: Ali [AS] know “Abu Bakr” and “Omar” as traitor, sinful, liar and tricky.
As it’s written in the book “Sahih muslem” -which is the most correct book after “Quran” in the perspective of Sunni- that “Omar” says to Ali [AS] and “Abbas”:
فلمّا توفّي رسول اللّه صلي اللّه عليه وآله، قال أبو بكر: أنا ولي رسول اللّه... فرأيتماه كاذباً آثماً غادراً خائناً... ثمّ توفّي أبو بكر فقلت : أنا وليّ رسول اللّه صلي اللّه عليه وآله، ولي أبي بكر، فرأيتماني كاذباً آثماً غادراً خائناً ! واللّه يعلم أنّي لصادق، بارّ، تابع للحقّ! .
After prophet [PBUH] passed away, “Abu Abakr” claimed the caliphate, and you two [Ali and Abbas] knew “Abu Bakr” as a liar, sinful, traitor and tricky. And after his death I claimed the caliphate, and you knew me liar, sinful, tricky and traitor.
Sahih Muslem, v 5, p 152
8: Ali [AS] doesn’t know the caliphate of former caliphs legitimate and says that they’re usurpers of my caliphate:
فَجَزَتْ قُرَيْشاً عَنِّي الْجَوَازِي فَقَدْ قَطَعُوا رَحِمِي وَ سَلَبُونِي سُلْطَانَ ابْنِ أُمِّي.
May god punish “Quraysh” tribe for their bad deeds, they cut out my kinship ties, and stole the government of my mother’s son [prophet [PBUH] from me.
Nahj al balaghah,
And “ibn abi al hadid” quotes from Ali [AS]:
وغصبوني حقي ، وأجمعوا علي منازعتي أمرا كنت أولي به.
“Quraysh” usurped my due and argued with me in caliphate matter, despite I was competent more than anyone else.
Description of nahj al balaghah, v 4, p 104
When “Abu Bakr” sent “Qunfuz” to Ali [AS] and said to him:
يدعوكم خليفة رسول الله (ص)
Prophet’s [PBUH] caliph has called upon you
Ali [AS] answered:
لسريع ما كذبتم علي رسول الله (ص)
How quickly you ascribe lie to prophet [PBUH] and called “Abu Bakr” his caliph.
Emamat and policy, searched by al shiri, p30
Regarding to seven mentioned points, is that possible to say that Ali [AS] believes the role of council in caliphate or knows the caliphate of former caliphs legitimate?!!
Does companions ‘consensus shows god’s satisfaction?
But about this sentence:
فَإِنِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَي رَجُلٍ وَ سَمَّوْهُ إِمَاماً كَانَ ذَلِكَ لِلَّهِ رِضًا .
If “Ansar” and “Migrants” have consensus about one’s caliphate, and call him “Imam”, god’s satisfaction is in that decision.
Sunnis can’t rely on this sentence from commander of faithful [AS] to prove the legitimacy of caliphs, because:
Firstly: in some of editions of the book “Nahj Al Balaghah” this sentence «كَانَ ذَلِكَ رِضًا» is written [without”لِلَّهِ”] instead of this sentence “كَانَ ذَلِكَ لِلَّهِ رِضًا”
Refer to this edition of “nahg Al Balaghah”: Egypt, Cairo, Al esteqamat, the word «للّه» is in guillemot.
it means if “Ansar” and “Migrants” select someone for caliphate, it shows their satisfaction about this selection and it wasn’t done by force and sword.
Secondly: assuming that the word “الله” is in the sermon, that doesn’t mean if “migrants” and “Ansar” including Ali [AS], Fatimah [AS], Hasan [AS] and Hussein [AS] have consensus about one’s caliphate, it’ll definitely show god’s satisfaction.
Did Fatimah [AS] swear an allegiance to “Abu Bakr”?
Isn’t it true that based on valid narratives Fatimah’s [AS] satisfaction is prophet’s [PBUH] satisfaction and her anger is prophet’s anger, as “Hakem Neisaburi” quotes that prophet [PBUH] says to Fatimah [AS]:
إنّ اللّه يغضب لغضبك، ويرضي لرضاك.
God gets angry by your anger, and will get pleased by your satisfaction.
Then he says:
هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه.
This narrative is valid but “Bukhari” and “Muslem” have quoted it.
Mustadrak, 3/153, tahzi al tazhib, 21/392
And “Bukhari” has quoted that prophet [PBUH] says:
فاطمة بَضْعَة منّي فمن أغضبها أغضبني .
Fatimah [AS] is part of me, anyone who makes her angry has angered me.
Sahih Bukhari, 4/210, the book of Companions’ virtues, chapters: 12 and 29
And quoted by “Muslem Neishburi”, prophet [PBUH] said:
إِنَّمَا فَاطِمَةُ بَضْعَةٌ مِنِّي يُؤْذِينِي مَا آذَاهَا.
Fatimah [AS] is part of me, anyone who bothers her has bothered me
Sahih Muslem, 7/141, the book of Companions’ virtues, chapter: 15
There is no doubt that not only Fatimah [AS] didn’t swear an allegiance to “Abu Bakr”, but she passed away while she was mad at “Abu Bakr” And wasn’t in speaking term with him.
فَغَضِبَتْ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلي الله عليه وسلم فَهَجَرَتْ أَبَا بَكْرٍ، فَلَمْ تَزَلْ مُهَاجِرَتَهُ حَتَّي تُوُفِّيَتْ.
Fatimah [AS] prophet’s [PBUH] daughter got angry with him and didn’t talk to him till she passed away.
Sahih Bukhari, v 4, p 42,
And she was buried at night by Ali [AS], as she willed, without informing “Abu Bakr” who called himself prophet’s caliph, they said prayer for her.
فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَتْ، دَفَنَهَا زَوْجُهَا عَلِيٌّ لَيْلاً، وَلَمْ يُؤْذِنْ بِهَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَصَلَّي عَلَيْهَا .
Sahih Bukhari, v 5, p 82
Was Ali [AS] amongst “Ansar” and “Migrants”?
As “Bukhari” and “Muslem” have quoted, Ali [AS]didn’t swear an allegiance to “Abu Bakr” till six months after prophet’s [PBUH] death:
وعاشت بعد النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم، ستة أشهر... ولم يكن يبايع تلك الأشهر.
Fatimah [AS] was alive till 6 months after prophet’s [PBUH] death, and during this time Ali [AS] didn’t swear an allegiance to “Abu Bakr”.
Sahih bukhari, v 5, p 82
Doesn’t Ali’s [AS] avoidance of swearing an allegiance show that Abu Bakr’s caliphate is illegitimate?
Didn’t “Bani Hashim” avoid swearing an allegiance following Ali [AS]?
“Abd Al razzaq” quotes:
فقال رجل للزهري : فلم يبايعه عليّ ستة أشهر ؟ قال : لا ، ولا أحد من بني هاشم .
A man said to “Zahri”: is that true that Ali [AS] didn’t swear an allegiance for 6 months? He answered: neither Ali [AS] nor anyone from “Bani Hashim” didn’t swear an allegiance during this time.
“Beihaqi” has quoted the same expression in the book “traditions”, “tabari” in the book “history” and “Ibn Asir” in his history and “Rejal” books, have quoted it as well.
Doesn’t “Ibn Hazm” a Sunni famous scholar say?
ولعنة اللّه علي كلّ إجماع يخرج عنه علي بن أبي طالب ومن بحضرته من الصحابة.
God damn that council that Ali [AS] and his companions aren’t in that council.
Al mahali, searched by: Ahmad Muhammad, v 9, p 345