This topic will address Sheikh Turi’s IMAM ALI’S
UNDISPUTABLE LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, which was published in LEADERSHIPFRIDAY
of November 15, 2013. The contents of that piece were similar with what Sheikh
Turi tried to prove in the fifth and last subtopic of his article (Did The
Prophet (S) Really Certify His Successor Before Demise?) to which I have
been responding under different headings for quite some time now. Other than
the fifth subtopic (EXTRAORDINARY VIRTUES OF IMAM ALI), I have written
rebuttals of two to three articles on each subtopic of that piece by the
Sheikh. I feel what I shall present here will cover any response I might have
given to the fifth subtopic since, in both cases, (that of the fifth subtopic
and of the new article), Sheikh Turi was saying one and the same thing – that
the ‘extraordinary virtues’ and ‘leadership qualities’ of Imam
Ali made him the most suitable for the Caliphate after the Messenger of Allah
(SAW).
To prove IMAM ALI’S UNDISPUTABLE LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, Sheikh
Turi quoted this hadeeth: “O Ali you hold in relation to me the same
position as Haroon held in relation to Musa, except that there will be no
prophet after me.”
The above hadeeth is authentic, narrated by Sa’ad bin Abi
Waqqaas in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 700.
Sheikh Turi quoted only part of the hadeeth. If one cites
proof in support of a point, they should let their readers know the context in
which it was made for the purposes of completeness and transparency. This is
the fuller version of the hadeeth: “When the Prophet (SAW) was leaving for
the Tabuk expedition, he left ‘Ali in charge of his household in Madeenah. ‘Ali
said, ‘Are you leaving me among women and children? The Prophet (SAW) replied,
‘Would you not accept to be in the same position to me as Aaron was to Moses,
except that there will be no prophet after me?”
This hadeeth is not proof for Ali’s right the Caliphate after
the demise of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), since the analogy was based on Ali
taking the position of Harun (AS) who, actually died before Musa (AS), so, he
was never his successor.
Imam
al-Qurtubi, has the following explanation concerning the hadeeth, in his
Tafseer:
“There is no disagreement that Haroon died before Musa…and
(Haroon) was not a successor after him (Musa), for the successor (to Musa) was
Yusha bin Noon (i.e. Joshua), so if he (the Prophet) wanted by his saying (to
grant Ali) the Caliphate, he would have said “you will be to me like Yusha was
to Musa”, so when he didn’t say this it proved that he didn’t want that
meaning, but he (simply) wanted that “you are my deputy over my family in my
life and my absence from my family, like Haroon was deputy of Musa over his
people when he left to speak to his Lord.””
Harun was the elder brother of Musa and did not succeed him
as Caliph or Imam. Ali’s likeness to Harun was in his close relationship and
having been considered as a minister or assistant. If the Prophet (SAW) had
intended, by what he said, that Ali would succeed him as Caliph, he would have
likened him to Yusha’, and not Harun.
When the Prophet (SAW) left Madinah for the Tabuk expedition
he had 30,000 companions with him (the largest army that took part in an
expedition during the Prophet’s lifetime, and it was his last). Although the
Prophet (SAW) personally led the expedition, he entrusted command of the army
to Abu Bakr (RA). According to another hadeeth, he (SAW) appointed Ibn Umm
Maktum to act as his deputy in Madinah and Ali was charged with only the
responsibility of his family members.
We read the following in Tareekh al-Islam:
“Expedition
to Tabuk
“…The Munafiqoon were constantly in league with the Jews of
al-Medinah and were holding regular consultations against the Muslims. A band
of twelve Munafiqoon built their own separate mosque as a center for carrying
out their hostile activities and anti-Islamic propaganda, and for creating a
rift among the Muslims. When they saw the Muslims engaged in preparing for the
impending battle, they started passing discouraging remarks…
“Islamic
Army’s Departure
The Messenger of Allah set out for Tabuk with an army of
30,000 men from al-Medinah…and he put Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari in charge of
al-Medinah…The Prophet had left behind Ali to look after his family. The
Munafiqoon used this as an opportunity to spread false rumors about Ali. They
implied that the Prophet gave little importance to Ali and therefore left him
alone in al-Medinah. When his patience ran out, he (Ali) hurried from
al-Medinah and–joining the Prophet at al-Jurf–asked: “The Munafiqoon are saying
such-and-such about me and so I have come to you.” The Prophet of Allah said:
“They are liars. I have left you behind to look after my household, so go
back.” In order to soothe his feelings, the Prophet further added: “You are to
me as Haroon was to Musa, except that there will be no Prophet after me.” Ali
returned to al-Medinah pacified and satisfied.” (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.232)
“The
Expedition of Tabuk
“…The hypocrites in Medina seized this opportunity to plant
disaffection in the minds of the neophytes in Islam. They not only did not take
part in the campaign but also tried to dissuadeothers from doing so. In an
attempt to undermine the will and purpose of the Muslims, they began to spread
alarmist stories…
“Nevertheless, many Muslims responded to the appeal of the
Prophet, and took up arms to defend the faith. When a head-count was taken,
there were found to be 30,000 volunteers. It was the largest force ever
assembled in Arabia until then.
“The Prophet appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib his viceroy in
Medina during his own absence…For the hypocrites, there was nothing more
disagreeable than to see Ali in authority over them. When the army left Medina,
they began to whisper that the Apostle had left Ali in Medina because he wanted
to get rid of him. Ali was mortified to hear that his master had found him a
“burden.” He, therefore, immediately went after the army and overtook it at
Jorf. The Apostle was surprised to see him but when he (Ali) explained why he
came, he (the Apostle) said: “These people are liars. I left you in Medina to
represent me in my absence. Are you not content to be to me what Aaron was to
Moses except that there will not be any prophet after me.” (Restatement of History of Islam, http://al-islam.org/restatement/34.htm)
Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in Minhajus-Sunnah:
“As for the Messenger placing Ali in charge over Medinah,
then that is not an honour specific to him alone. He (the Prophet) had left Ibn
Makhtoom, Uthman bin Affan, and Abu Mundhir (in charge of Medinah, i.e. on
other occasions). This (being appointed over Medinah) is not an unrestricted
succession, which is why none of these people ever said they were the Caliph of
Allah’s Messenger…Ali left Medinah along with the Prophet to Badr, Hunayn and
other places, and (the Messenger) left others in Medinah as deputies.”
This hadeeth, I repeat, has not, in any way supported Sheikh
Turi’s position; it is rather a potent proof against whatever he was trying to
prove. Had the Prophet wished to imply that Ali was
his successor, then he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha (AS) rather than
Prophet Harun (AS).
Under what he captioned as ANTECEDENCE, Sheikh Turi said: “The
Imam was well engaged in the service of the noble messenger since the days of
seclusion in the cave of Hira at his young age. Thus on the advent of Islam he
was roughly less than ten! So he was never engaged in the service of any being
beside Allah the most high for the Sunnis chant-Karramallahu wajhahu-may Allah
honour his face, different from other companions…..”
Karramallaahu wajhahu, May Allah honour his face, is part of
Shi’ah Raafidah innovations in exceeding limits regarding Ali (RA). The
Sunnis who use Karramallaahu wajhahu exclusively after Ali’s name are
influenced by the Shi’ah or by the writings of scholars who copied from Shi’ah
sources. The same respect should be accorded to other companions; afterall, Abu
Bakr and Umar, (may Allah be pleased with them), are more deserving of that.
Ali (Radiyallaahu Anhu) was not the only companion that ‘never
engaged in the service of any being beside Allah the most high…’ Many other
companions were born in Islam. Ali (RA), even though he never prostrated to any
idol, was born, nevertheless, in the period of ignorance!
Karramallaahu wajhahu is not mentioned in any authentic
report from the Messenger of Allah (SAW). The best honour that we can accord to
any companion is what Allah Himself said about the Sahabah in the Glorious
Qur’an, Radiyallaahu Anhum; Allah is well-pleased with them (at-Taubah,
9:100). That is why we follow the name of each companion with Radiyallaahu
Anhu or (RA).
Sheikh Turi raised a number of issues when he was discussing
KNOWLEDGE, quoting verses that have nothing to do with the subject matter. This
jumbled presentation brought certain, purported sayings of the Prophet’s
companions without citing any authority. The Sheikh quoted Ali saying about
himself, “ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you could ask me about
anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it.
Ask me about the book of Allah, because by Allah there is no Qur’anic verse
that I did not know whether it was revealed on a plain or a mountain”. Then
Sheikh Turi said, ‘In another narration, the Imam added, “and none can claim
this except a liar!”’
The two sayings quoted above are not related, but the way
they are presented by Sheikh Turi will make many readers assume that they are. Let
us accept, (even though the first ‘narration’ is not reported in any authentic
source of Islamic Law), that Ali did say, “ask me before you lose me”. He
could say that at the time he was alleged to have uttered those words, as there
was neither Abu Bakr nor Umar. During the time of these Rightly Guided Caliphs,
as well as that of Uthman (RA), there was prevalence of learned people, who got
their knowledge directly from the Messenger of Allah (SAW). This saying of Ali
could have helped the case of Sheikh Turi if Ali had uttered those words when
Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman were alive, to prove that he was better than the rest
and more deserving of the Caliphate. But Ali said those words when he was in
Kufa, where, according to the sermons in Nahjul Balaghah, there was
concentration of miscreants at the time. There were very few people like Ali during
that period, who were the Prophet’s students. So, saying ‘ask me before you
lose me’ made sense at that time since with the death of Ali there would be
fewer people left who got knowledge directly from the Messenger of Allah (SAW).
Also in ‘ask me before you lose me’, we have seen,
contrary to Shi’ah claim, that Ali did not conceal knowledge. He urged the
public to ask him. He did not conceal what he knew or confine it to his sons.
He wanted to share what he had of knowledge with all the people.
The Shi’ah tell us that their imams possess equal degree of
knowledge which increase by the day. If this were true, Ali, being the first in
that line of imamate would not have said ‘ask me before you lose me’
since his sons who possessed similar degree of knowledge were there to continue
to from where he stopped. In other words, why will Ali insist on entertaining
questions from people in order to impart to them what he know before his death,
when he knew that after him, there were two other imams who inherited from him
both knowledge and the imamate?
Sheikh Turi connected this ‘ask-me-before-you-lose-me’
saying of Ali with another unrelated narration - “and none can claim this
except a liar!” – as if it was a completion of the first. It gave the
impression that Ali said, ‘ask me before you lose me…’ …“and none can claim
this except a liar!”. There was no connection between the two whatsoever.
This other saying is part of a narration where Ali said, “I
am a man of Allah, the brother of the Prophet, and the great truthful one
(as-Siddeeq al-Akbar); anyone who claims this other than me is a liar, I
offered Salah seven years before anyone else in this Ummah prayed.”
Let us accept for the sake of this discussion that the above
hadeeth is germane to the connection that Sheikh Turi was trying to make with
the first narration. Unfortunately, the narration is classified as Maudu’
(fabricated). It is recorded in al-Mustadrak of al-Haakim, and ‘Khasaa’is of Nasaa’i.
Imam
adh-Dhahabi stated: “This (Hadeeth) is a lie against Ali.” (Mizan al-I’ti’daal,
no.4126.)
Sheikh al-Albaaniy declared in “Silsilatud –Dha’eefah”
(Vol.10, no.4947) that this Hadeeth was fabricated.
Under FABRICATED AHADITH, Sheikh Turi said:
“With the well pronounced virtues of the Imam, others
tried their best by fabricating a number of sayings likened with the noble
messenger and the Ahlul bait members of his family.”
Whenever his English fails him, Sheikh Turi’s prose becomes abstruse.
The above sentence can only make sense when you read the examples he related in
the subsequent paragraph where he stated:
“For example, why could not Imam Ali narrate more with his
young age, exceptionally gifted talent and retentive memory – being the gate of
the city of knowledge or and wisdom as repeatedly emphasized by the noble
messenger?”
Interesting!
Sheikh Turi, in his attempt to refute the position of those
he accused of ‘fabricating a number of sayings’, has paraphrased a
fabricated hadeeth to buttress his point, where he said, ‘Ali….being the
gate of the city of knowledge or and wisdom....' Ironic. The exact words of
the hadeeth are, “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.” It was
related by al-Haakim, at-Tabarani and others. Another version in at-Tirmizi read,
“I am the House of Wisdom, and Ali is its Door.”
Sheikh al-Albaaniy declared the Hadeeth to be Maudu’
(fabricated). Daaraqutni labelled the Hadeeth as mudtarib (shaky), both
in isnad and text. Tirmizi labelled it is ghareeb (weak) and munkar
(rejected). Imam al-Bukhari said that the Hadeeth has no saheeh narration
and declared it un-acknowledgeable. Qurtubi said about this Hadeeth in al-Jame’
li Ahkaam al-Quran: “This Hadeeth is Baatil (false)!” Ibn Ma’een said that
the Hadeeth is a baseless lie. Dhahabi considered it a forgery and included it
in his book on forged Hadeeths. Al-Hakim declared that it is weak.
In his last paragraph under the same caption, citing more
examples of the FABRICATED AHADITH, Sheikh Turi said, “When the messenger of
said his grandsons were the leaders of the youth in paradise. Others narrated
that this and that were the leaders of the old in paradise? While there would
be no old in paradise! Examples of these are more than to count in different
collections.”
Any scholar worth his salt will not doubt the hadeeth that
the grandsons of the messenger were the leaders of the youth in Paradise, since
it is an authentic narration. At-Tirmidhi, al-Haakim, at-Tabaraani, Ahmad and
others reported that Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri said, that the Messenger of Allaah
(saw) said, "Hasan and Husayn are the leaders of the youth of
Paradise". This is proven by so many reports that reached the level of tawaatur
(unbroken chain of authority).
The problem is with the second sentence where Sheikh Turi
said, “Others narrated that this and that were the leaders of the old in
paradise?” Forget about the question mark at the end of the sentence. It is
sad that Sheikh Turi derogatorily referred to Abu Bakr and Umar as ‘this and
that’. But why should I be distressed by this when the Shi’ah have said
worse things against the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (SAW)?
The hadeeth he paraphrased this time, though authentic, did
not contain ‘leaders of the old’ as he claimed. It spoke about ‘leaders
of men’. A number of the Sahaabah, including 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Anas ibn
Maalik, Abu Hudhayfah, Jaabir ibn 'Abdullaah, and Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri reported
that the Messenger (saw) said, "Abu Bakr and 'Umar will be the leaders of
men of Paradise from the earlier and later generations." Ali (RA) was
among the reporters of an authentic hadeeth which Sheikh Turi rejected!
Insha Allah, next week, I will start responding to “WHY WAS
THE PROPHET NOT ALLOWED TO WRITE HIS WILL?”