With regard to your repeated claim that Abu Bakr and Umar were
not prevented from writing their wills, I admit it is true. It
is surprising, as all your historians and traditionists have recorded
in their authentic books, that Caliph Abu Bakr, at the time of
his death, asked Uthman Bin Affan to write down what he (Abu Bakr)
was saying. It was his will. He wrote down whatever Abu Bakr dictated
to him. Umar and others were also present on this occasion. No
one objected. Umar did not say: "The Book of Allah is sufficient
for us; we do not need Abu Bakr's will." But he did not allow
the Holy Prophet of Allah to write his will.
This shows that all this insulting behavior and preventing the
Holy Prophet from writing his will was nothing but political conspiracy.
Ibn Abbas was perfectly justified in weeping. The entire Muslim
world should shed tears of blood. If the Prophet had been given
the chance to write his will, the question of the caliphate would
have been clearly resolved. The previous pronouncements of the
Holy Prophet would have been confirmed. But the politicians revolted
against him and stood in his way.
Sheikh: Why do you claim that
the Holy Prophet wanted to say something about the caliphate?
Well-Wisher: Before the Prophet
died, all essential religious laws were revealed. The verse of
the "Perfection of Religion" made this clear. Of course
the matter of the caliphate was such that he wanted to make certain
that there would be no confusion regarding it. I have already
told you that Imam Ghazali in his Sirru'l-Alamin (Maqala IV) has
recorded that the Holy Prophet said: "Bring me ink and paper
so that I may remove from your minds any doubts about the caliphate
and that I may repeat to you who deserves that rank." His
words "so that you may not go astray after me" prove
that the aim of his will was the guidance of the community. In
the matter of guidance, no emphasis was required except in regard
to the caliphate and the imamate.
Apart from this we do not stress the point that the Holy Prophet
wanted to say something about the caliphate or imamate. Certainly
he wanted to write something concerning the guidance of the people
so that they might not go astray after him. Then why was he not
allowed to make his will? Even supposing that preventing him from
doing so was proper, was it also necessary to insult and abuse
These things make it quite clear that Ali was the immediate successor
of the Prophet of Allah. Although the latter repeatedly proclaimed
this fact in the past, he wanted at this last stage to record
it in his will so that the responsibilities of the Community might
be made secure. But the politicians knew what he wanted to do,
so they prevented him from doing so and insulted him.
The Holy Prophet had emphasized in many hadith that Allah Almighty
appointed vicegerents for the holy prophets: Adam, Noah, Moses,
Jesus and others, and that He appointed for him his vicegerent,
He also said, "Ali is my immediate successor (vicegerent)
after me in my Ahle Bait and my community."
Sheikh: If these reports are
taken to be true, they are not narrated with perfect continuity.
How can you derive authority from them?
Well-Wisher: The unanimity of
opinion concerning the Prophet's will according to us is proved
by the statements of the Holy Progeny of the Holy Prophet. Moreover,
you may recall that I told you on previous nights that your ulema
regard a lone report as valid. Besides, in these reports, if there
is no exact agreement of wording, there is certainly agreement
of general meaning.
Besides, you attach undue importance to continuity of reports.
When you are silenced by our arguments, you take shelter behind
the need for continuity. Can you prove the continuity of the hadith
'la nuris' (we leave no heirs)? You yourself admit that the narrator
of this hadith was Abu Bakr or Aus Bin Hadasan. But millions of
monotheists and sincere Muslims in every age have rejected this
so-called hadith. The best proof of the falsity of this hadith
is that it was rejected by the gate of the knowledge of the Holy
Prophet, Ali, and by the entire progeny of the Holy Prophet. These
people have proved that the hadith was concocted.
As I have already said earlier, the Holy Prophet said: "For
every prophet there is a vicegerent and heir; verily, Ali is my
vicegerent and heir."
If you say that their inheritance did not mean inheritance of
wealth but that of knowledge (although it has been proven that
they meant inheritance of wealth) my point of view becomes clearer.
The heir of the Prophet's knowledge deserved the position of caliphate
more than any one of those who were devoid of the Holy Prophet's
Second, it has been proven that the Prophet made Ali his immediate
successor and heir, according to the hadith narrated by your own
ulema. Allah appointed him to this rank. Could the Prophet have
neglected to tell his successor and heir ?
Moreover, it is very strange that in resolving questions regarding religious
laws Abu Bakr and Umar accepted Ali's decisions. Your own ulema
and historians have recorded the judgments pronounced by Ali during
the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.
Hafiz: It is very strange that you claim that the caliphs did not know the
religious ordinances and that Ali used to remind them.
Well-Wisher; There is nothing
strange about it. To know all the ordinances is very difficult.
It would not be possible for a man to have such perfect knowledge
unless he were the Prophet of Allah or the 'Gate of Knowledge'
of the Holy Prophet. Your own great ulema have recorded these
facts in their authentic books. I cite an example so that uninformed
men may not think that we say these things to offend them.
Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad; Imamu'l-Haram Ahmad Bin Abdullah
Shafi'i in his Dhakha'ir-e-Uqba; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha;
and Sheikh Sulayman Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Ch.56, quoting
from Ahmad Bin Abdullah; Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Qala'i; and Ibn Saman
report the following incident:
"Umar wanted to stone a woman because she had given birth
to a child after a six-month pregnancy. Ali said, 'Allah says
in the Holy Qur'an that the time, from conception till the prescribed
time of suckling, covers a period of thirty months. Since the
suckling period is for two years , the period of pregnancy is
six months. This means that a birth of a child is possible after
a pregnancy of six months.' So Umar set the woman free and said,
'If Ali had not been there, Umar would have perished.'"
In the same chapter he quotes from Ahmad Bin Hanbal's Manaqib:
"When Umar faced a difficult problem and was unable to understand
it, he relied upon Ali's understanding." A number of such
events took place during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Uthman.
When they became entangled in some difficulty, they called Ali
as the real arbiter. They themselves acted according to his decision.
Now you may wonder why they did not accept Ali's evidence in the
case of Fadak. Now in that case they chose to follow their own
desires and snatched away the right of Fatima.
The third argument to prove the falsity of this hadith is Caliph Abu Bakr's own statement and action. If the hadith were correct, whatever the Holy Prophet had left would have been confiscated. The heirs would have had no right over anything left behind, but Abu Bakr gave Fatima's apartment to her and also gave the apartments of the wives of the Holy Prophet, A'yesha, Hafsa, and others to them as their heritage.
Besides this, if the hadith were correct and if Abu Bakr believed
that it was the Holy Prophet's ordinance, then why, after confiscating
Fadak (which he considered to be charity belonging to the Muslims)
did he write a document that the property be returned to Fatima?
Later Caliph Umar intervened and destroyed the document.
Hafiz: This is a unique statement.
I have never heard that the Caliph returned Fadak. What is the
source of this report?
Well-Wisher: By now you are
probably aware that I never make a claim which I cannot fully
support. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha and Ali
Bin Burhanu'd-din Shafi'i in his Ta'rikh Siratu'l-Halabiyya, vol.
III, p. 391, write that Abu Bakr was moved to tears by Fatima's
impassioned speech. He wept because of Fatima's plight and subsequently
wrote a document stating that the property be returned to her.
But Umar destroyed the document.
It is however surprising that the same Umar, who during Abu Bakr's
caliphate objected to the returning of Fadak, returned it to its
heirs during his own caliphate. Similarly the Amawid and Abbasid
caliphs also returned it to the heirs of Fatima.
Hafiz: What you say is indeed
very surprising. How is it possible that Caliph Umar who, according
to your statement, had so bitterly interfered in the return of
Fadak to Fatima returned it to the heirs of Fatima?
Well-Wisher: Surprising it is,
of course. I submit, with your permission, the reports of your
accredited ulema on the authority of the caliphs who returned
and took back Fadak.