Conspiracy Against Imam Ali (AS)


A Sunni brother mentioned that:


     It is quite difficult for us to digest the so-called "conspiracy

     theory." Despite many years of companionship, how could only few

     people out of all his companions hold on to Muhammad's instructions on

     the issue of Caliphate and the rest disobey him?


I would certainly accept the argument of this brother if he can convince me

why almost all the companions of Moses became worshipers of a golden calf

after so many years of training?! According to Sahih al-Bukhari, the

Messeenger of Allah has told Ali that the story of Moses and Aaron (Haroon)

is similar to that of the story of him and Ali. The tradition is as



     "Your position to me is like the position of Aaron to Moses, except

     that there shall be no Prophet after me"



Sunni References:

(1) Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.56 and 5.700

(2) Sahih Muslim, Arabic, section of virtues of Ali, v4, pp 1870-71

(3) Sunan Ibn Majah, p12

(4) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174

(5) al-Khas'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16

(6) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309



Now, the position of Aaron (Haroon) to Moses is given by the verses of

Quran, among which are the following three:


     (Moses said: "O' Allah) assign me a vizier from my family, (that is)

     my brother Aaron (Haroon) ...," (Allah) said: "We granted your

     requests, O' Moses." (Quran 20:29-36).


Allah, Exalted, also said:


     "Surely We gave the book to Moses and assigned his brother Aaron as

     his vizier." (Quran 25:35).


He, Exalted He is, also said:


     "... And Moses said unto his brother Aaron: Take my place in my

     comunity." (Quran 7:142).                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Notice that "Ukhlufni" and "Khalifa" (Caliph) are exactly from the same

root. Now, to realized what was narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, we need to

replace the word "Moses" with "Muhammad" and "Aaron" with "Ali", and we are all set!! The sentence becomes "And Muhammad (PBUH&HF) said to his 'brother' Ali, take my place among my community." Of course, the tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari excluded the Prophethood for Imam Ali, and what remains for him is the leadership of the community.


Putting the above 3 verses of Quran beside what has been narrated by al-

Bukhari and Muslim, Ibn Majah and many others, we solves the mystery! Ali

is the "brother" and his deputy/successor. By the above authentic

tradition, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant that as Moses had left behind Aaron

to look after his people when he went to Miqaat (meeting Allah), in the


same way he was leaving Ali behind to look after the affairs of Islam after

he met Allah (i.e., his death).



Confirming what the above tradition implies, we find in the many reports

that Imam Ali (AS) received the title of the "brother" of Prophet when

Prophet established the "brothering" among his followers (see Sahih al-

Tirmidhi, v5, p363; Sirah Ibn Hisham, p504; Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, v4, p251).

Interestingly enough, the Prophet in that occasion made Abu Bakr and Umar

brother of each other (al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3, part 1, p123). If Abu

Bakr was really the closest to the Prophet, he would have chose him for

himself instead of Imam Ali.


In fact, if we look deeper to the situation of after death of Prophet

Mohammad (PBUH), and the leaving of Moses to MIQAAT (appointment with

Allah), we will see more analogy to what Prophet (PBUH) said to Ali (AS).

Quran states that: Moses (AS) with the order of Allah, assigned Haroon (AS)

as his successor (Caliph) and left his people to him, and left for MIQAAT

(appointment with Allah) for a total of forty days. After leaving of Moses,

most of his companions turned against Haroon, and were deceived by Sameri, and became worshipers of a golden calf. (See Quran 7:142, 20:90-97, 20:83-88).


The analogy that Prophet (PBUH) mentioned in the above tradition, seems to

be a reality after his demise. Most of companions (except Abu Dhar, Miqdad, Salman al-Farsi, Ammar, and ...) became disloyal to Ali (AS) after the death of Prophet (PBUH), turned against him, and preferred some other

people to him. The majority of people disobeyed Ali (AS), as their

forefathers disobeyed Haroon (AS).  They did not take lessons from Quran

and the history, and thus the history repeated over and over again. The

repetition of the history of the Children of Israel for Muslims is

confirmed by Prophet (PBUH&HF):


     Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.422

     Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:


     The Prophet said, "You will follow the ways of those nations who were

     before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so

     much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure (lizard), you

     would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the

     Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?"


This tradition is also narrated by Muslim in his Sahih , v8, p57. It is

also narrated in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 84, 94.


Think for a while... Why would the Prophet (PBUH&HF) compare his companions to the Jews and the Christians, knowing full well that the Jews and the Christians have mutilated and perverted the religion of Allah (SWT)?

Because Allah (SWT) had told him (PBUH&HF) that your companions will turn back, except the select few.


Imam Ali (AS) was still a divinely-appointed Imam during the time of the

first three rulers, and what these rulers could take from him was the

rulership (which is one of the rights of Imam) and not the position of

Imamat. As for Imam Ali pledging Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, he was

compelled to that since he had no choice and he was compled to do so. We,

however, never accuse the Imams of being cowards. What Imam Ali did was his duty which is similar to what Haroon did as his duty.


Quran states that when Moses (PBUH) came back from MIQAAT he was very angry since Allah had informed him that his community went astray during his absence. Moses came and started questioning his brother Haroon, that why he did not take action to prevent this corruption. Quran states that Haroon (Aaron) replied:


     "(O' Moses) people did oppress me and they were about to kill me."

     (Quran 7:150).



The above verse gives another striking similarity between Ali and Haroon.

Since Muslims all believe that Haroon was a true prophet of God, they do

not allow themselves to call him coward. In fact Taqiyya (dissimulation) is

mentioned in Quran in several verses. This requires another article by its

own, to explain the importance of Taqiyya according to Quran and the

numerous traditions of Prophet (PBUH&HF) reported in the authentic Sunni



Nevertheless Ali did his duty after the death of the Messenger of Allah, as

Haroon (Aaron) did:


     "Before this, Aaron had already said to them: 'O my people! you are

     being tested in this, for verily your Lord is (Allah) Most Gracious;

     so follow me and obey my order.'" (Quran 20:90).


Sahih al-Bukhari confirms that Imam Ali refused to give his allegiance to

Abu Bakr for six months.  He gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr only after the

martyrdom of his wife Fatimah al-Zahra, Daughter of the Holy Prophet, six

month after the departure of Prophet. (see Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English

version, Tradition 5.546).


After the death of Prophet (PBUH&HF), for forty days, Ali (AS) was

contacting the well-known people at night, reminding them the instructions

of prophet about his right to Caliphate, asking them to join him to get the

power. But non responded except Abu Dhar, Miqdad, and Salman al-Farsi and some more. The Prophet had already instructed Ali that if the number of his followers at that upheaval exceeds 40 men, he should take the action

otherwise he should keep silent since the only remaining pious people would

be killed without being able to help Islam. Ali (AS) was not afraid of

being killed, and he kept silent only to keep the faded lawn of Islam

alive. After he was sure that there would no success in his revolting, he

kept silent. During his silence, he indeed started cooperating with the

first 2 Caliphs as consultant and did his best to decrease the damage as

much as possible. If he had not done so, Islam would have been destroyed

completely. Imam Ali said: "I tolerated those periods as if there was a

thorn in my eye and a sharp bone stuck in my throat." (Nahjul Balagha,

the sayings of Imam Ali).


Islam was very young at that time (only 23 years old!) and division among

Muslims could have totally removed Islam from the surface of the earth. So

he kept silent, as Haroon (Aaron) kept silent to prevent division:


     (Moses) said: "O' Aaron! what kept you back when you saw them going

     wrong?"... (Aaron said:) "...Truly I feared you would say 'You caused

     a division among the Children of Israel and you did not respect my

     word!'" (Quran 20:92-94).


Abu Sufyan was one of those who wanted to destroy the young Islam by

encouraging Ali to revolt when he was sure that Ali will have no success

due to small number of his followers. But the revolt of Ali would at least

cause the civil war and the destruction of Islam. al-Tabari reported:


     When people gathered to give their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Abu

     Sufyan came while saying, "By God, I see a cloud of smoke which

     nothing but blood will clear. O family of Abd Manaf! Who is Abu Bakr

     that he should be the master of your affairs? Where are Ali and al-

     Abbas, the two oppressed ones?" He then said (to Ali): "O Abul Hasan!

     stretch your hand so that I give you the oath of allegiance."... Ali

     rebuked him, saying: "By God, you do not intend anything but (to stir

     up) Fitnah (dissension). For long you have desired evil for Islam. We

     do not need your advice."


Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v9, p199


As we quoted the tradition of al-Bukhari earlier, the Prophet confirmed

that the history of the Children of Israel will be repeated for Muslims.  In

fact Quran has mentioned the stories of the Children of Israel to give us a

way to understand the true history of Islam itself. There are many other

striking similarities in this regard written in Quran. Please see the

artcle of "The Twelve Imams (Part II)" for the Quranic verses in this




Side Comments


A Sunni brother mentioned that Aaron (Haroon) died during the liftime of

Moses, and as such, this is not a correct analogy to confirm the caliphate

of Ali using the tradition of Sahih al-Bukhari in which the Prophet said:

"Your position to me is like the position of Aaron (Haroon) to Moses but

there is no prophet AFTER me."


The claim that Aaron died during the life-time of Prophet Moses (if true)

does not hurt this argument at all, if you very carefully read the

following paragraphs:


As Moses (AS) had left behind Aaron to look after his people when he went

to Miqaat (meeting Allah), in the same way the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was


leaving Ali behind as his deputy to look after the affairs of Islam after

he met Allah (i.e., his death).



This assertion becomes more evdient when we look at the last phrase of the

tradition of al-Bukhari where the Messenger of Allah mentioned: "but there

is no prophet AFTER me". Think about the word "AFTER" in the statement of

the Prophet. Don't you think that the Prophet Muhammad is talking about

AFTER his death? That position (leadership) which the Prophet entrusted to

Ali was with Ali till his death. No body except the Prophet Muhammad can

take this position back from him.


Prophet Moses (AS) was away from his people for 40 days and he came back and met them along with Haroon (AS). Likewise, Prophet Muhammad is away from us (living in the heaven), but he will soon meet us and his companions as well as Imam Ali on the Day of Judgment. He will then question them the same way as Moses questioned his people, specially those who left his religion and worshipped the golden calf. Look at the following tradition from Sahih al-Bukhari to have some idea about the would-be conversation between Prophet Muhammad and some of his companions:


Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.585

Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa'd:


     The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-

     Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and

     whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come

     to me some people whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me,

     but a barrier will be placed between me and them." Abu Hazim added:

     Nu'man bin Abi 'Aiyash, on hearing me, said. "Did you hear this from

     Sahl?" I said, "Yes." He said, " I bear witness that I heard Abu Said

     Al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say:

     They are my companions. Then it will be said to me, 'You do not know

     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left'.


     I will say, 'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed


     after me." Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, "On the Day of

     Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be


     driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord

     (those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge


     as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as

     renegades (reverted from the true Islam)."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Another person claimed: Not all of the people of Moses worshipped the calf

and those who did not killed the ones who did by the order of God.


Perhaps, this brother has been told another story. But Quran tells us that

all the followers of Moses (except a few) were deceived by Sameri. The

companions of Moses did not kill Sameri either. The were rather about to

kill Aaron (AS) who tried to advise them on that affliction. If the number

of those who preserved their faith was a lot, Aaron wouldn't have been in

trouble. Here are some verses of Quran concerning the event:


7:148 And the community of Moses, after (he had left them), chose a calf

      (for worship), (made) out of their ornaments, of saffron hue, which

      gave a lowing sound. Saw they not that it spake not unto them nor

      guided them to any way? They chose it, and became wrong doers.



7:150 And when Moses returned unto his people, angry and grieved, he said:

      Evil is that (course) which ye took after I had left you. Would ye

      hasten on the judgment of your Lord? And he cast down the tablets,

      and he seized his brother by the head, dragging him toward him.

      (Aaron) said: "Son of my mother! Lo! People did oppress me and they

      were about to kill me. Make not the enemies rejoice over my

      misfortune nor count thou me amongst the sinful people."


20:90 Before this, Aaron had already said to them: "O my people! you are

      being tested in this, for verily your Lord is (Allah) Most Gracious;

      so follow me and obey my order."



20:91 They had said: "We will not abandon this cult but we will devote


      ourselves to it until Moses returns to us."



So the last verse disproves the claim that the true followers killed the

wrong doers before Moses (AS) come back. Yes, after Prophet Moses came

back, he punished the influential individuals among those who led people

astray. But he did not kill them:


20:97 (Moses) said (to Sameri): "Go! Your (punishment) in this life will be

      that you will say 'Touch me not'; and moreover (for a future

      penalty) thou hast a promise that will not fail: now look at thy god

      of whom thou hast become a devoted worshipper: we will certainly

      (melt) it in a blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!"



Another brother mentioned that if Ali wished could very well incite forcful

rebelion since he is from a very strong tribe Bani Hashm, and both Abu Bakr

and Umar from a week tribe Adiyy, and Taym. Then why did he keep silent and did not use force to restore his right after the election held in Saqifah?


If Bani Hashim were strong with respect to other tribes, as the above

brother claims, then Muslims wouldn't have had to migrate from Mecca to

Medina. Also they wouldn't have been subject to economical sanctions in

She'b Abi Talib.


The exceptional brevity of Imam Ali (AS) in various wars and his killing of

the most important warriors of Arabs, is well-known for even Sunnis. Imam

Ali mentioned that he himself has killed 40,000 infidels by his sword (this

figure includes those who were killed by him in the civil wars). Killing

the lions of Arabs developed a very intensive and long-lasting hatred in

the heart of the Arabs from different tribes. For this very reason, most

Arabs due to their tribal ties, even after embracing Islam, were not

friendly toward Imam Ali and other members of Ahlul-Bayt. This hatred gave

its fruit on the issue of Caliphate, and later in the civil wars at the

time of Imam Ali (AS) as well as the prosecution of Ahlul-Bayt and their

partisans after his martyrdom which continued with utmost brutality for a

number of centuries.


The hatred of the house of Umayyah against Bani Hashim (the clan of Prophet and Ali) is well-known. The wars of Abu Sufyan and his son Muawiyah against Prophet and Ali respectively, also the horrible massacre of the grandson of prophet at Karbala by the grandson of Abu Sufyan, are only some of top items among the long list of such crimes. You might also want to refresh the memory that when Muawiyah took over the power, he instituted the Sunnah of cursing Imam Ali. Sunni history books and Sunni collections of traditions clearly state that Muawiyah commanded all the Imams of the mosques throughout the Muslim world to CURSE Imam Ali in every Friday prayer. (Sunni references are available upon request).


Now, we turn to the events of Saqifah and the "election" of Abu Bakr:

During the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), the Mosque of Prophet was the center of all Islamic activities. It was there that the decision of war and

peace were made, delegations were received, sermons were delivered and

cases were decided. It is not surprising that when the news of the demise

of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) spread, the Muslims assembled in that very Mosque.


On the other hand, Saqifah of Bani Sa'idah was located three miles OUTSIDE Medina and was a secret location for the evil activities of some Arab tribes. (see Ghiyath al-Lughah, p228).


Why then Sa'd Ibn Ubadah and his fans as well as Abu Bakr and Umar, left

the Mosque secretly and without informing other prominent companions and

went three miles outside Medina to discuss the issue of Caliphate? Why

didn't they discuss the issue as important as this among the Muslims inside

the mosque? Wasn't that they wanted to usurp the Caliphate without the

knowledge of people? Why did Abu Bakr and Umar with Abu Ubaydah slip out the mosque secretly? Was it because Ali and Bani Hashim were present in the mosque and in the house of Prophet, and they did not want them to know the plot?


Also, we should keep in mind that it was the custom of the Arabs that once

a person was declared, even by a small group, to be the chief of the tribe,

others hesitated to oppose him, and willy nilly followed suit. Due to their

dislike of Imam Ali (AS) (which I discussed earlier), they did not respect

his right, nor did they even informed him of this meeting. They SIMPLY

neglected the last sermon of Prophet in Ghadir Khum where the Messenger of God declared him as his successor just two and a half months months before the incedent of Saqifah.


A Sunni brother mentioned that: If Imam Ali disaproved Uthman, then why did

he risk the lives of his beloved sons, al-Hassan and al-Hussain, trying to

protect the life of his adversary from the blood-thirsty rioters in Medina?


According to the Shia sources such news are dubious. We do not have any

strong evidence that Imam Ali sent his sons to support Uthman's House. In

fact, al-Tabari who is one of the important Sunni Historians said that Imam

Ali deserted Uthman since Uthman did insisted in keeping Marwan in his

administration. Here is the related part from the History of al-Tabari,

when the siege over Uthman was very severe:


     People informed Ali of the news.  Then Ali came to Uthman and

     said: "Surely you have satisfied Marwan (again), but he is satisfied

     with you only if you deviate from your religion and reason, like a

     camel carrying a litter that is led around at will. By God, Marwan is

     devoid of sense in regard to his religion and his soul. I swear by

     God, I think he will bring you in and then not send you out again.

     After this visit, I will not come again to chide you. You have

     destroyed your own honor and you have been robbed of your authority."


     When Ali departed, Uthman's wife told him: "I have heard that Ali said

     to you that he will never return to you, and that you have obeyed

     Marwan (again), who leads you wherever he wishes." Uthman said: "What

     shall I do?" She responded: "You should fear God alone, who has no

     partner, and you should adhere to the practice of your two

     predecessors (Abu Bakr and Umar). For if you obey Marwan, he will kill

     you. Marwan enjoys no prestige among the people, and inspires neither

     awe nor love. People have only abandoned you due to Marwan's position

     (in your councils). Send to Ali, then, and trust in his honesty and

     uprightness. He is related to you and he is not a man whom people

     disobey."  So Uthman sent to Ali, but he refused to come, saying: "I

     told him I would not return."


Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 176-179


Even we suppose that Imam Ali protected Uthman in his last days, the

protection was not because he loved Uthman to be on power. He did so (if

true) since he knew that this is a conspiracy, and he knew that those

companions who plotted to kill Uthman, would become the avenger of his

blood tomorrow, as it happened (e.g., the companions like Talha, Zubair,

Muawiyah, and ...) and it became a custom of assassination of Caliphs with

self-judgments including the assassination of Ali (AS) himself.


Another reader mentioned that, if some companions conspired against Imam

Ali and usureped his right of Caliphate, is it not a possibility that they

conspired to alter the Quranic text? The compilers and transmitters of the

Quran were fallible and sinners.


As for protection of Quran, it is the will of Allah! Even if all the

people of the world gather to change it they will fail. Muslims could

recall the history that Allah willed to raise and preserve Moses in the

house of His Enemy, Pharaoh.


Also there was no reason for Umar or Abu Bakr to delete something from

Quran, because the name of Imam Ali did not appear in Quran. (eventhough

his name was in the divine commentary which was revealed with Quran but was not a part of text of Quran. It is no surprise that this divine commentary

was suppressed). Nonetheless, Sunni documents agree that at least 300

verses of Quran directly revealed on the honor of Imam Ali. (reported by

Ibn Asakir, al-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar, etc.) Beside that that, Ibn Abbas said:


     "There is no verse in Quran in which the term 'Believers', unless Ali

     is at the top of them and the chief of them and the more virtuous one

     among them. Surely Allah has admonished the companions of Muhammad

     (PBUH) in Quran, but He did not refer to Ali except with honor."


Sunni references:

- Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p654, tradition #1114

- al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v3, p229

- Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p171

- Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, p89

- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 9, section 3, p196

- Others such as Tabarani and Ibn Abi Hatam


Also, not all were sinners. The Sunni traditionists and historians Imam Ali

(AS) was the FIRST who compiled Quran. It took Imam Ali one week after the

death of Prophet to Finnish his compilation. Imam Ali presented this Quran

to the rulers of that time and they had a chance to review it and learn

about the missing verses of their own collections and they did correct what

they missed. (Please see the article of "The Quran Compiled by Imam Ali"

for the references in this regard) As you see the one who corrected them

was an infallible one, and thus we have all reasons to believe that the

Quran that we have today is the very same as what was revealed to Prophet

except that it is not in the correct sequence. But nothing is missing from



A brother mentioned that according to the verse:


     If two parties among the Believers fall into fighting make peace

     between them. If then one of them transgresses against the other,

     fight that which transgresses until it complies with the command of

     Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice

     and be fair, for Allah loves those who are just. (Quran 49:9)


Quran did not remove the characeristic of belief from either of the two

warring factions. That two Muslims fight is not an indication that one of

them is unbeliever.


The above comment is correct. But the verse does not imply that any warring

faction is necessarily Muslim even though they say so by their tong. There

is no doubt that a believer can be killer of an innocent and also there is

no doubt that such killer will go to Hell for ever as the foolowing verse



     "And Whoever kills a believer deliberately, his reward is Hell

     forever, and the Wrath of Allah is upon him, He cursed him and

     prepared a great punishment for him." (Quran 4:93)


The above verse (4:93) does not exclude believers from that punishment.

Whoever does so, is entitled to the same punishment be it believer or



I also think you forgot to think about the latter portion of the verse you

quoted which was: "If then one of them transgresses against the other,

fight that which transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah."

Talha and Zubair are entitled to this last portion. Because Imam Ali

frequently asked them for reconciliation, but they killed his messenger

when he was carrying Quran to them for a sign of asking for reconciliation.

The story is written in the History of Tabari, v4, P312. So those

companions are "Baaggee" -- transgressor according to the verse you quoted, and should have been fought as Imam Ali did, and they will be the

companions of Hell forever.


A brother mentioned that according to Quran, Moses who was a Prophet of god was confused with the strange actions of al-Khidhr. But when at the end ,

Moses (AS) was told about the reasons behind those actions, he completely

admired them. Moses (AS) was a Prophet, but still He could not see the

complete picture related to these events; none of us are in the position of

Moses (AS). None of us has a clear picture of what we are criticizing from

the actions of the companions.


I would like to remind that brother that he is discrediting you the most

important investment which Allah gifted to everyone that is logic (Aql). If

I came to know God, it was due the using this investment. If I found that

Islam is the best religion, it is because I used my brain and concluded

that the instructions given in Quran are sound instructions and the

regulations of Islam are the best among all other alternatives.


If one discredit this precious thing, he will lose every thing including

his religion, and he will accept any irrational 'fatwa' as a religious

command, he will accept some killers of innocents go to paradise without

giving it a thought.


Moses (AS) did not discredit this precious thing, and he asked Prophet

Khidr for clarification, and he finally got the answers and was convinced

shortly after the incidents. Now, can provide any rational justification

for what some companions did after the demise of prophet?  It it about 14

centuries passed and we could not come up any justification for their

deads. So why should we still blindly follow their narrations and their

sayings which are in clear contradiction with tha sayings of Ahlul-Bayt?


Asking question is not sin. Remaining ignorant is a big loss though. Also

comparing a sinless prophet with a sinfull companion is like comparing

heavens with the earth.


A Wahhabi contributor claimed that the Shia do not follow the Sunnah of the

prophet since it was transmitted by his companions.


This Wahhabi fellow did not even give it a second thought that the Shia

follow Imam Ali (AS) who was the BEST of the companions of the Prophet and their most knowledgeable one, the Strong Rope of Allah (3:103), and His

Right Path (1:6). Neither his proximity of relationship with Prophet was

preceded (42:23), nor his preceding in accepting the religion (56:10-11).

We stick to the instructions of Ahlul-Bayt who are pure and infallible

according to Quran and Hadith. Hence, we do not need to follow those of

companions who opposed/fought Ahlul-Bayt.


Thus the Shia, indeed, follow the Sunnah transmitted by a Prophet's

companion, the best of them. However, Wahhabis follow the worst of them,

that is Muawiyah, and take his Sunnah which has no similarity with the

Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).


A Wahhabi mentioned: It is part of our Sunni dogma to respect and love the

all the companions of the Prophet. Our scholars remind us that vilification

of the companions is Kufr.


Interestingly enough that those companions who remained loyal to Ali

received severe punishment from the government of the time, and were not

respected at all. One example is Abu Dhar who was exiled to the worst

climate location in the reign of Uthman because they could not stop him

from telling the truth. They kept him there till he died (martyred). Abu

Dhar was the one that prophet said in his virtue that "The Earth does not

carry nor the Heavens cover a man more frank and truthful than Abu Dhar".


Wasn't Abu Dhar a great companion of prophet? So why shouldn't they have

respected him according to your judgment? It seems that even Uthman did not accept your type of judgment! nor Talha and Zubair when they were fighting against their legitimate Caliph Ali (AS). Are all of them Kafir by your



When the Shia reflect on the mistakes of the companions, they do so in

retrospect of history. It would be very interesting to look at some of the

comments of both the Wahabi and the Sunni scholars in this retrospect. Ibn

Taymiyyah, the Shaykhul Islam of the Wahabis, writes


        And merely abusing some one other than the Prophets does

        not necessarily make the abuser Kafir; because some of

        those who were in the time of the Prophet (i.e companions)

        used to abuse one another and none of them was declared

        kafir because of this (practice); and (also) because it is

        not Wajib to have faith particularly in any of the


        companions; therefore abusing any of them does not detract


        from the faith in Allah and His books and His messengers


        and the Last day.



Wahabi reference: As Sarimu l masul, Ibn Taymiyyah, page 579

                  Published in 1402/1982 by Alam al-Kutub



The name of Mulla Ali Qari requires no introduction to the Sunnis, and

he writes in his work of Sharah Fiqh al Akbar that


        To abuse Abu Bakr and Umar is NOT Kufr, as Abush Shakur


        as Salimi has correctly proved in his book, at Tamhid. And

        it is becuase the basis of this claim (claim that reviling

        the Shaykhan is kufr) is not proven, nor its meaning is



        It is so because certainly abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin) as

        is proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhan

        (Abu Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims) in

        this rule; and also if we suppose that some one murdered the

        Shaykhan, and even the two sons in law (Ali and Usman), all

        of them together, even then according to Ahlussunnah wa al-


        Jamah, he will not go out of Islam (i.e will not become


        kafir) ...


Sunni ref: Mulla Ali Qari, Sharah al Fiqh al Akbar

           Matba Uthmaniyah, Istanbul, 1303 page 130

           Matba Mujtabai, Delhi, 1348, page 86

           Matba Aftab e Hind, India, No date, page 86



Interesting note:


The above quote was taken from three (3) editions, printed in India and

Turkey. Now a new edition has been printed by Darul Lutubil Ilmiyah,

Beirut in 1404/1984, which claims to be the first edition, and from

which four pages (including the above text) have been OMMITED. The deleted portion contains the declaration that


        ... those who believe that Allah has a body are definitely

        kafir according to the Ijma without any difference of



Do I need to comment on Wahabi scholarship?


Another prson mentioned: Why is it that you want Sunnis accept a selected

number of traditions from the Sunni sources which refutes the integrity of

people like Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn al-Khattab? This point really irks me.


I am sorry it irks you! It is not completely correct, however. We have

nothing against the persons of Abu-Bakr, Umar and Ashia. We are looking at

history in retrospect and evaluating their actions - which should not be

considered a sin. Afterall, they were human beings who were capable of

making mistakes. Why not learn from their mistakes - particularly if done

in a sensetive way.


We just mentioned some traditions from Sunni books, actions and sayings of

the companions. If it sounds insulting it is not because the Shia put them

in there. I tried to give supportive evidence to my argument, objectively,

with no disrespect for the companions (khulafaa particularly).


We feel that they made ijtihad in certain cases, that we don't agree with -

we choose to follow the ijtihad and teachings of others such as Imam Ali

and th Imams of his decendent - what is wrong with that? We also feel that

there has been a lot that has been attributed to them in the form of

Hadiths, that they have not necessarily said or agree with. This is due, in

part, to the Umayads who hated Ahlul Bayt and wanted to make them look as

less than who they were, either by elevating the status of the people you

named and others, or by fabricating hadeeths in conflict.



                             About Saqifah



In the following tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari:


A)- Umar said that:


  One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance

  given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful.


B)- Umar said that Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, and Ansar

    disagreed with them :


  And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the

  Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali

  and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants

  gathered with Abu Bakr.               ^^^^^^^^^^^


C)- Umar gave his hand to Abu bakr without counselling with muslims.

    He gave his hand FIRST, and then others gave their hands too.


  Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose

  so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O

  Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged

  allegiance to him, and THEN all the emigrants gave the Pledge of

  allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards.


D)- There was news that Umar and his followers had killed Sa'd bin

    Ubada. (I am not saying that he did. What I am saying that this was

    a common news on those days. That is all.)



  One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied,

  'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.


E)- While Umar gave his hand to Abu bakr without consulting others, he

    ordered that such person should be killed:


  So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become

  a Caliph)  WITHOUT consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has

  selected should NOT be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be



F)- While he did not wish to accept others' decision, he, himself,

    applied his own decision to others:


  there was no greater problem [compared to death of the prophet] than

  the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we

  left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to

  one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent

  for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and


  caused great trouble.


Here is the tradition:


     Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.817

     Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:


     I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln

     (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was

     in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin al-Khattab during

     'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you

     had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar),

     saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so

     who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance

     to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu

     Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established

     afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will

     stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who

     want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of



     ... In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers

     for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having

     glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said,...


     ... (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says,

     'By Allah, if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance

     to such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying

     that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and

     it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the

     people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the

     qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of

     allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims,

     neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance

     was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.


     And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the


     Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali


     and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants


     gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari

     brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached

     them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final

     decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) !

     Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari

     brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry

     out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go

     to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of

     Bani Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped

     in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa'd bin

     'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.'

     After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the

     right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved,

     he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority

     of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and

     some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from

     practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.'


     When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a

     speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of

     Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to

     speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So

     Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than

     I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own

     prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it

     spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the

     qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question

     (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the

     Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that

     you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to

     either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu

     Ubada bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing

     of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather

     have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler

     of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of

     my death my own-self suggests something I don't feel at present.'


     And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel

     with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e.,

     I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There

     should be one ruler from us and one from you.'


     Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose

     so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O

     Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged

     allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of

     allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards.  And so we became

     victorious over Sa'd bin Ubada (whom al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler).

     One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied,


     'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from


     the great tragedy that had  happened to us (i.e. the death of the

     Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to

     Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might

     give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which

     case we would have given them our consent for something against our

     real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if

     any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a

     Caliph)  without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has


     selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be










وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ {41:18}

But We delivered those who believed and practised righteousness


 Conspiracy at Saqifa

Copyright 2011
All rights reserved

وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ     اللهم صلى على محد و ال محد.... و عجل فرجهم