Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ asking for paper or ordering the preparation of an army under Usâma’s command or deporting Merwân out of Medina may not have been by wahy. Each of these decisions was out of his own thought and ijtihâd. Those who did not carry out these (orders) cannot be called disbelievers. For we know other examples as well in which the As-hâb-i-kirâm did not agree (with Rasûlullah). We have already cited one of them above. At that time the wahy would be revealed and right and wrong would be distinguished from each other; those who disobeyed such commandments would not be blamed or reproached. Otherwise, if there had been the slightest disrespect towards Rasûlullah, Allâhu ta’âlâ would have immediately cautioned and dissuaded from it, warning that such acts would incur punishment. An example of this is the command in the second âyat of Hujurât sûra, which purports, “O those who have had the honour of having îmân! Do not raise thine voice louder than the voice of the Messenger of Allah. Do not call to him as you shout at one another! If a person shows disrespect to him, his worships will become null and void.” Sayyed Sherîf Alî bin Muhammad Jurjânî [740-816 (C.E. 1413)], who has explained the book Mawâqif, quotes Âmidî as having said, “All the As-hâb-i-kirâm, with the exception of munâfiqs, that is, those who concealed the impiousness of their hearts and pretended to believe, were in unity on the day when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passed away. Later on, there were some differences in their ijtihâds. These differences were not in principles of belief. None of them became a disbeliever on account of these differences. All such differences were based on the intention of upholding Islam and maintaining its correctitude. For instance, Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ asking for paper brought about (the first) difference. Then another difference of ijtihâd occurred in the matter of preparing an army for Usâma, whereby some of the As-hâb-i-kirâm said that Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam' order should be executed, while others, seeing that his illness was getting worse, were of the opinion that they should wait instead of wearying him.” If a person asserted something impossible, e.g. if he said, “Every ijtihâd of Rasûlullah's was by wahy. Therefore, all his words and behaviors were by wahy,” we would answer him as follows: His words and behaviors that were not based on ijtihâd were by wahy. Examples of these are the hadîth-i-sherîfs praising the three Khalîfas. These (hadîth-i-sherîfs) gave information about the unknown, which is possible only by wahy. He could not have said them out of ijtihâd. The fifty-ninth âyat-i-kerîma of En’âm sûra purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, knows the ghayb, [that is, things that are not known mentally, found out by calculation, or taught by Islam]. No one except Him knows them.” And the twenty-sixth âyat of Jinn sûra purports, “He, alone, knows secrets. Of the secret things He knows, He intimates the ones He chooses only to the one He likes (best) of Prophets, [that is, to Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’].” The âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “He does not talk from himself,” signifies the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the (pieces of) wahy revealed to him. Certainly, it would be kufr (disbelief) to deny such words and behaviors of his. There are many other hadîths explaining that the hadîth-i-sherîfs praising the three Khalîfas ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’ were revealed through wahy by Allâhu ta’âlâ. So many (scholars) narrated these hadîth-i-sherîfs that they have become mesh-hûr, and even mutawâtir, [29]hadîths. We will quote some of them:
I. He stated to Abû Bekr: “You are my companion in the cave. You are my companion by the Kawthar (Kevser) Pond (in Paradise).” (Tirmuzî).
II. “Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ came to me. He held me by the hand. He showed me one of my ummat entering through the gate of Paradise.” Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said, “O Rasûlallah! I want to be with you there.” He (Rasûlullah) stated, “O Abû Bekr! Among my Ummat, you will be the first to enter Paradise.” (Tirmuzî).
III. When he (the Prophet) stated, “I entered Paradise. I saw a villa. I saw a houri [maiden of Paradise] in it. I asked her: Who are you for? She said: I have been created for ’Umar ibni Hattâb. I wanted to go in and see her. But, O ’Umar, I thought it might hurt you!”, ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said, “I would sacrifice my mother, my father, and everything I have for your sake, O Rasûlallah!” (Bukharî and Muslim).
He (Rasûlullah) pointed to ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and said, “This (high) person’s rank in Paradise is higher than that of any of the rest of my Ummat.” (Ibni Mâja).
“I have not brought Abû Bekr and ’Umar (into a position) ahead of you all.Allâhu ta’âlâ has brought them ahead of you all.” (Abû Ya’lâ).
VI. “I asked Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ about the virtues of ’Umar. Were I to tell about the values he has as long as the period of Nûh’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ Prophethood [nine hundred and fifty years], I still would not be able to finish. All the values ’Umar has, on the other hand, are (equal to) only one of Abû Bekr’s values.” (Abû Ya’lâ).
VII. “In Paradise, after Prophets ‘alaihimus-salâm’, the highest ones of all mankind are Abû Bekr and ’Umar.”(Tirmuzî and Ibni Mâja).
VIII. Abû Mûsa-l-esh’arî narrates: We were sitting in the yard (of a house) in Medina, when someone knocked on the door. The Messenger of Allah ordered, “Open the door and give the visitor the good news that he shall go to Paradise!” When I opened the door, Abû Bekr Siddîq came in. I gave him the good news. He made hamd, (that is, he thanked, praised and lauded Allahu ta’âlâ).[30] Then there was another knock on the door. “Open the door and give the good news!”, said the Prophet again. I opened it, and ’Umar Fârûq came in. When I gave him the good news, he made hamd to Allâhu ta’âlâ. The door was knocked once more. The Messenger of Allah said, “Open it and give him the good news and tell him that he will suffer a catastrophe!” I opened (the door). It was ’Uthmân Zinnûreyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. I gave him the good news, and he made hamd. (Bukhârî and Muslim).
Supposing we were to acknowledge that Merwân’s deportation from Medina had been by wahy, this would not mean a lifelong deportation. Why should it not be possible that he might have been deported for a certain period of time? ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ knew the duration of deportation, and took him back to Medina when the time was over.
The âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “A person with îmân will not love the enemies of Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger,” prohibits from loving disbelievers. Merwân was not a disbeliever; why should it be forbidden to love him.
It is stated as follows in the booklet: “The hadîths praising the three Khalîfas do not exist in our books. On the other hand, the hadîths about (Rasûlullah’s asking for) paper and (his order for preparation of) Usâma’s army, which reprove the three Khalîfas, are recorded in your books, too. Furthermore, some of the scholars of Ahl as-sunna have said that it would be permissible to call a useful statement a hadîth. Therefore, hadîths that do not exist in the Shiite books are not dependable.”
With the help of Allâhu ta’âlâ, we give the following answer: Those who are too excessive in injustice, malign the three Khalîfas. So much so that they call them disbelievers. They consider that saying so is Islam and worship. Consequently, they do not believe the sahîh hadîths praising the three Khalîfas. They discard or change these hadîths. They even interpolate and slander Qur’ân al-kerîm, which is Islam’s basic document and which has been authenticated by all people throughout centuries and remained intact until the present time, and make changes in âyat-i-kerîmas. For instance, they have defiled the twenty-sixth âyat of Qiyâmat sûra, which reads, “Alainâ jam’a hu wa Qur- ’âna,” and changed it to,“Alîyan jama’a Qur’âna,” which means, “Alî compiled the Qur’ân.” Mad with inordinate bigotry, they attempt to allege that ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ expunged the âyats praising the Ahl-i-Bayt from Qur’ân al-kerîm. As we have explained above, in our discourse on their various groups, some of their groups say that it is permissible to bear false witness when and where it is considered useful. For this reason, any term of reproach would fall short of giving them their deserts. It would be sheer credulity to take them on trust, or to think they are right. Their books cannot be trusted. They are like the changed, defiled copies of the Torah and the Bible. The books of the Ahl as-sunnat, on the other hand, are as secure as steel. For instance, Bukhârî is the second most correct book after Qur’ân al-kerîm. There are many hadith-i-sherîfs praising the three Khalîfas in this book, as well as in the book Muslim and many another valuable book. These books do not contain any statement vilifying or reproving the three Khalîfas. Inferring such meanings as belittle the three Khalîfas from âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs is a sign of malevolence. What they infer is wrong, and what they suppose is out of place and illusory. This misconception of theirs is like the case with a person with deranged bile; this person will not enjoy the real taste of sugar because something sweet will taste bitter to him. Allâhu ta’âlâ defines these people as follows in the seventh âyat of ’Imrân sûra, which purports: “People with deranged hearts, in order to cover the truth and instigate mischief, will infer wrong meanings from Qur’ân al-kerîm, thus deviating into heresy.” Among the Ahl as-sunna people, there have been those saying that it would be permissible to call a useful statement a hadîth; yet the scholars of Hadîth have rejected this and explained in their books that such hadîths are false and slanderous. No one has valued them or adhered to them as hadîths. Therefore, it is an altogether irrelevant and nonsensical argumentation to introduce the so-called statement as an evidence. It is out of place also to say, “It is not disbelief not to obey a hadîth reported by only one person. For some of the mujtahids of Ahl as-sunna have not obeyed such hadîths.” A few of the hadîth-i-sherîfs praising and exalting the three Khalîfas were reported by one Sahabî, yet they have been narrated through various ways by many people and they have thus reached the degree of tawâtur. It is certainly disbelief to deny them. None of the mujtahids has disobeyed such hadîths. In fact, Imâm A’zam Abû Hanîfa ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who is the leader of the Ahl as-sunna, would hold a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by one person, and even the statements of the As-hâb-i-kirâm, higher than his own inferences (from Qur’ân al-kerîm), and would say that it would not be permissible to disregard them.
Seeing that there are many hadîths praising the three Khalîfas, and thus realising that they will not be able to withstand them, they take another turn and say, “The three Khalîfas were praised, but that was before their unbecoming deeds were seen. Such praises do not necessarily show that they would remain pious Believers till death. For it would have been unfair to blame a malefactor before he had committed the malefaction. By the same token, the Emîr-ul-mu’minîn Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ knew that Ibni Muljam[31] would commit a murder. Yet he did not punish him before he committed the murder.” However, various hadîth-i-sherîfs declare clearly that the three Khalîfas ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’ would remain good and virtuous till death and they would pass away as Believers. We have already quoted a few of them. Sahîh (authenticated) books contain many other such hadîth-i-sherîfs. We agree that a person will not be punished for some guilt he has not committed yet, even if it is known that he will commit that guilt. Nor would it have been correct, however, to praise a person if it had been known that he would turn out to be a wicked person, a person who would deserve punishment. Then, a person praised through hadîth-i-sherîf must always be good and virtuous, earlier and later alike. Likewise, the Emîr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not punish Ibni Muljam, yet he did not praise him, either. He neither castigated nor valued him. We shall expand this answer of ours in the explanation of the eighteenth âyat of Fat-h sûra.
2- The ’Ulamâ (savants, scholars) of Mâwarâ’un-nehr ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ state that: The three Khalîfas were among the people honoured with the eighteenth âyat of Fat-h sûra, which purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has been pleased with those who extended their hands to you and promised you under the tree. He loves them all.” It is therefore disbelief to vilify or curse them.
The enemies of the As-hâb-i-kirâm answer this as follows: “This âyat-i-kerîma shows that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves the promises, not the people who promised. We all believe this. All these three people did a couple of good deeds. We say that they did bad deeds, too. These malefactions of theirs nullified their promises. For instance, although the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ commanded plainly that Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ should be the (first) Khalîfa, they disobeyed this command and forced their way into the office of caliphate. As it is narrated in Bukhârî, they offended Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’. It is declared as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which the book Mishkât quotes in its chapter about Fâtimât-uz-Zehrâ: ‘He who hurts her will have hurt me. And he who hurts me will have hurt Allâhu ta’âlâ.’ The fifty-seventh âyat of Ahzâb sûra purports, ‘May those who torment Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger be accursed both in this world and in the Hereafter!’ On account of these malefactions, plus their disobeying the Prophet’s commands, such as when he asked for paper and when he ordered to prepare an army for Usâma, all three of them must be cursed and reproved. Taking the last breath in îmân (dying as a Believer) depends on doing good deeds, and first of all, obeying the Messenger of Allah, at the end of one’s life.”
Here’s our answer: When Allâhu ta’âlâ was pleased with the people who made a promise under the tree, He knew (what was in) their hearts, their intentions. He infused firmness and serenity into their hearts. The final part of the âyat-i-kerîma points out this fact. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ gave the good news that the three Khalîfas would go to Paradise. He declared plainly that they would pass away in îmân (die as Believers). He informed that they would abide by their promises, that they would not renege on their promises. If we admit that Allâhu ta’âlâ stated that He liked their promises and not their persons, (we will have to admit also the fact that), when Allâhu ta’âlâ likes their promises they must pass away in îmân. For Allâhu ta’âlâ will not like any deeds of disbelievers. Supposing a group of people were doomed to die as unbelievers, Allâhu ta’âlâ would not be pleased with any of their good deed, however pleasing, charitable and pious their deeds might seem to be. Their good deeds are depicted as follows in the thirty-ninth âyat of Nûr sûra, which purports, “The deeds performed by disbelievers are like a mirage perceived in a desert. Thirsty people will fancy it to be water when they see it from the distance. When they go near it, they will not find anything. They will realise their disillusionment.” Also, the fifty-seventh âyat of Mâida sûra purports, “If one of you parts with îmân and dies as a disbeliever, all the good deeds he has performed shall perish. They will do him no good, neither in the world, nor in the Hereafter.” To say that a deed that would do no good in the Hereafter might please Allâhu ta’âlâ, would be an inane assertion. To be pleased with something means to like it, to accept it to the last degree. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ did not advise that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ should be the first Khalîfa. If he had advised so, it would have spread through tawâtur and become known widely. If there had been such a command, be it by implication, the Emîr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ would have stated it, insisted on his due, and lodged an objection to Abû Bekr’s caliphate. As a matter of fact, Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Khalîfas are from the Qoureish tribe,” and said that he would not assent to the caliphate of a person from the Ansâr. And the Ansâr, on their turn, agreed with him and forfeited their claim for caliphate. It is stated as follows in a commentary of the book Tejrîd by Nasîr-ed-dîn Tûsî, [Allâma Muhammad bin Muhammad Nasîr-ed-dîn Tûsî, 672 [C.E. 1273)]: “Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ As-hâb fought against their own relatives and tribes for the sake of his way. They carried out all his commands with their utmost energy. They endured all sorts of difficulty in making progress in his way. They would not hesitate to sacrifice whatever they had for his sake. Now, what kind of mentality or understanding should a person have to admit the assertion that such faithful people as these disobeyed his open commandment and held an arbitrary election for caliphate even before his funeral. If there had been, let alone a commandment, a slight implication, a flimsy allusion (on the part of the Prophet) denoting that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ were to be the first Khalîfa, all of them would have raced to do it. Indeed, none of the scholars of Hadîth has reported any commandment, or any implication, showing that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ should be made the first Khalîfa; and those scholars who are known for their excessive fondness for hadrat Alî and who have always reported the hadîth-i-sherîfs commending his high virtues and heroic accomplishments and his services to Islam, are no exception. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not utter a single word to allude that he deserved to be the (first) Khalîfa, neither in his conversations or khutbas, nor during any of his struggles, nor on the occasions when he had to make talks, such as when there was some delay in the election of Abû Bekr as the Khalîfa or when he was nominated to be one of the six candidates to succeed ’Umar in the office of caliphate. During the meeting held for the six nominees for caliphate, Abbâs held his hand out to Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ and said: Give me your hand! Let everybody see that the (paternal) uncle of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ has made you Khalîfa and obey you! He refused this.”
The commandment warning against offending Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ is not an unexceptional commandment. For the Emîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ offended her a couple of times, and these behaviours of his were not considered culpable. By the same token,Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said to some of his wives: “Do not offend me by displeasing Âisha!Be it known that in her bed I am being revealed the wahy.”On the other hand, hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was really offended by hadrat Alî ‘radîy-Allâhu anh’. We can therefore say that the injunction, “Do not displease,” in the hadîth-i-sherîf, means, “Do not displease by falling for the desires of your nafs or the tricks of the devil.” Otherwise, it would not be forbidden in cases of inevitability such as executing an Islamic principle or establishing the truth. The reason why Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was offended with Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was because he would not give her a share of inheritance from Fedek. [Fedek was a village rich in its date orchards in the vicinity of Hayber fortress. According to a peace treaty made with the Jews, half of the village had been given to Rasûlullah]. On account of a hadîth-i-sherîf, which declared, “We, Prophets, do not leave inheritance. What we leave will become alms (to be given) to the poor,” Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ divided the income from the dates and distributed it to the poor. Obeying this hadîth-i-sherîf, he did not give a share to Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’. It would not be an offense because this behaviour of his did not originate from his nafs or from the devil. Should it be asked why Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was offended for something done with the sheer intention of obeying hadîth-i-sherîf, our answer will be: Her taking offence was the result of a frailty inherent in the human nature; it was not an attitude assumed purposely. This offending, which is inevitable, is not forbidden.
3- The scholars of Mâwarâ’un-nehr ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ stated: “Allâhu ta’âlâ referred to Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ as the Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ sâhib, that is, companion, in the fortieth âyat of Tawba sûra. It would not be permissible to censure, to curse the Prophet’s companion.”
The booklet gives the following answer to this: The thirty-fifth âyat of Kehf sûra purports, “As he spoke to his sâhib (companion), he said: Thou hast disbelieved thine Rabb (Allah), thine creator...”. Here, a disbeliever also is referred to as the Prophet’s sâhib (companion). As a matter of fact, in the thirty-ninth âyat of Yûsuf sûra, Yusûf ‘alaihis-salâm’ addressed the disbelievers ‘my sâhibs’, by saying, “O my companions in the dungeon...”. Yûsuf’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ addressing two idolaters ‘my sâhibs’ shows that the Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ referring to a person as his sâhib (companion) does not necessarily mean that he is a good person.
Our answer is this: Companionship established with mutual love is certainly effective. It has been stated (by the ’Ulamâ) that denying the effect of Sohbat is a sign of ignorance. Since a Muslim and a disbeliever will not love each other, their sohbat will not produce any effect, any use. There is yet another fact we would like to point out to this effect. The so-called two idolaters were honoured with becoming Muslims owing to the barakat, the fruitfulness of Yusûf’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ sohbat. Then, why should Rasûlullah’s sohbat not have had any effect on Siddîq (Abû Bekr) ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who had always been with Rasûlullah more than anyone else and loved him so much? Why should he not have benefited from his maturated ma’rifats? Indeed, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “All the ma’rifats, all the pieces of (occult) knowledge Allâhu ta’âlâ has poured into my chest, I have poured into Abû Bekr’s chest.” The more the love and the attachment, the more the benefits that will be attained. It is for this reason that Abû Bekr Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ became the highest of all the As-hâb. For his attachment to Rasûlullah was more than anybody else’s.
He (the Prophet) declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “The superiority of Abû Bekr is not because he makes namâz and fasts very much, but because he has something in his heart.” Our ’Ulamâ (profoundly learned Islamic scholars, savants) state that the thing he had in his heart was his love for Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. Then, how could it ever be justifiable to vilify, to curse such a companion?
4- The ’Ulamâ of Mâwarâ’un-nehr state that: Emîr Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ accepted the three Khalîfas although he was very powerful and very popular among the As-hâb-i-kirâm. He did not raise any objections. This shows that the three Khalîfas were rightful. Saying otherwise would mean to blame Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’.
The following answer is given in the booklet: “As the Emîr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was busy with the preparations for the funeral, the three Khalîfas convened most of the Sahâba under the brushwood shelter called Benî Sa’îda. They made Abû Bekr the Khalîfa. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ heard about this. Yet he thought it would be futile to fight because he had few men and he did not want the good people to die, and for some other good reasons unknown to us. This does not show that Abû Bekr was right. For one thing, Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was very strong and brave, yet he and Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and many Sahâba migrated from Mekka to Medina without making any war. They considered it inappropriate to fight at that time. As they and fifteen hundred Sahâbîs were on their way to Mekka in the sixth year of the Hegira, they made peace at a place called Hudaybiya and returned (to Medina). Since it was permissible for Rasûlullah and Alî and the other Sahâba not to fight at those places, it should certainly have been permissible for Alî not to make war by himself. As the fact that war was not made at those places would not show that the disbelievers of Qoureish were right, so Alî’s not making war would certainly not show that Abû Bekr was right. Likewise, Pharaoh maintained his claim to be a god for four hundred years in Egypt. Also, other kings such as Sheddâd and Nimrod continued this corrupt claim for many years. Allâhu ta’âlâ, the Almighty as He is, did not kill them. Even Allâhu ta’âlâ does not hurry to avenge on His enemies; why should it not be permissible, then, for a born slave not to oppose his enemy? The Emîr’s acquiescence to their caliphate was intended to act toward the situation. It was not a willing acceptance.”
Our answer to this will be: According to the ’Ulamâ of Mâwarâ’un-nehr, Alî’s not fighting Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, and obeying him, instead, shows that he (Abû Bekr) was the rightly-guided Khalîfa. And this fact cannot be refuted or denied by making a comparison of it to Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ not fighting against the disbelievers of Qoureish or Allâhu ta’âlâ’s delaying the killing of His enemies such as Pharaoh, Sheddâd and Nimrod. These examples given in the booklet confute its own argument. For Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and Allâhu ta’âlâ always reproved these enemies of theirs. They stated that those enemies were always evil and base. How can those people be examples for this case? Where is the similarity? Thwarted by the multitude of the reports stating that Alî accepted Abû Bekr’s caliphate and obeyed him ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, and seeing that it would be futile to deny this fact, these people have to change their course, and say that Alî accepted it unvillingly in order to act toward the situation. They cannot find a better answer to prove that Abû Bekr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ caliphate was unjust. They cannot find another way to resolve the dilemma they have driven themselves into. At this point, it will be appropriate to relate how Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was elected Khalîfa. We shall therefore have recourse to the most reliable sources, thus proving at the same time that it would be impossible to degrade Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ to the contemptible state of having committed a wrong deed in order to act toward the sitution because of the overpowering conditions.
When Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passed away, the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’ set about the election of the Khalîfa before beginning the procedures of funeral. They considered it their primary duty to find a president for the Believers. For there were some commandments of Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ to be carried out, such as the execution of the punishments called (Hadd), defending the country against enemies, organizing an army to this end, and the like. And these tasks, in their turn, could be performed only by the State. It was wâjib, therefore, for the Muslims to elect a president for the State. Upon hearing about Rasûlullah’s passing away, most people became so sad that they were at a loss as to what to do, and many others were verging on the insane. Someone to bandage this very serious wound of the people and to diminish the severe pains was prerequisite. Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, in a serene temperance inherent in his immaculately maturated character, convened the As-hâb-i-kirâm, and said aloud:
“O thou the blessed Companions of the Prophet ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’! If anyone here is worshipping Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, let him know that he is dead. And whoever is worshipping Allâhu ta’âlâ should know that He is always alive. He will never die!” The rest of his speech was equally effective. Yet, when he heard that the Ansâr had come together in order to elect the Khalîfa from among themselves, he went to their meeting place, taking Abû Ubayda and ’Umar along. He said to them, “I have heard that you have been electing to perform and execute the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Think and search! The Khalîfa is to be from among the Qoureish (tribe).” Then, pointing to Abû Ubayda and ’Umar, he added, “Elect one of these people.” Upon this, ’Umar said, “You are the Khalîfa, O