لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Sermons
Sermon
3
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-Asha'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 rafaa 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 َome 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-Mutazili 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 Jafar (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 (Shiite) 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-baraah 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 Said Abu Salamah ad-Dimashqi and he
from Khulayd ibn Dalaj 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 Mutazilite 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 Jafar
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;
Maani 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; Maani
al-akhbar, chap.22, p.361)
10) Abu Ahmad
al-Hasan ibn Abdillah ibn Said 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 Maani
al-akhbar.
11) as-Sayyid
Nimatullah 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-Numaniyyah, 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-Zafarani and he
from Muhammad ibn Zakariyyah al-Ghallabi and he from
Yaqub ibn Jafar 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 Jafar) al-Haffar related this
sermon to us. He related it from Abu'l-Qasim (Ismail
ibn Ali ibn Ali) ad-Dibili and he from his father and
he from his brother Dibil (ibn Ali al-Kuzai) and he
from Muhammad ibn Salamah ash-Shami and he from Zurarah
ibn Ayan and he from Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ali and
he from Ibn Abbas. (al-Amali, p.237)
14) ash-Shaykh
al-Mufid (Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn an-Numan, 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-Saadat 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 Saidah 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 Saidah 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-Asha
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, Sad 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 Sad 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 Sad 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 Sad 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 Sad 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-Maarif 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 rakah and people agitated
he was removed, but the Caliph put in his place a
hypocrite like Said ibn al-As. In Egypt Abdullah ibn
Sad ibn Abi Sarh, in Syria Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and
in Basrah, Abdullah ibn Amir were the governors
appointed by him (ibid.)
