The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “O People, I leave amongst you two things which if you follow, you will never go astray. They are the Book of Allah and my Ahl al-Bayt (family).
He also said: The messenger of my God is about to come to me and I shall answer. I am leaving with you the two weighty things: The first is the Book of Allah, in which you find guidance and enlightenment, and the people of my household. I remind you, by Allah, of the people of my household...I remind you by Allah of the people of my household."1
If we examine with some care this honorable tradition, which has been cited by the Sihahs of the Sunnis and al-Jamaah, we will find that the Shiites alone followed the two weighty things: "The Book of Allah and honorable members of the Prophet's Household." On the other hand, the Sunnis and al-Jamaah followed the saying of Umar "The Book of Allah is sufficient for us", but I wish they had followed the Book of Allah without interpreting it in their own ways.
If Umar himself did not understand the meaning of al-Kalalah and did not know the Qur'anic verse regarding the Tayammum and other rules, so how about those who came later and followed him without the ability to interpret the Qur'anic texts?
Naturally they will answer me with their own quoted saying, and that is: "I have left with you the Book of Allah and my tradition (Sunnah)."2
This tradition, if it were correct, and it is correct in its general meaning, would correspond to the tradition of the two weighty things, because when the Prophet(saw) talked about his Household (Ahl al-Bayt) he meant that they should be consulted for two reasons. Firstly, to teach the tradition (Sunnah), or to transmit to people the correct tradition because they are cleared from telling any lies, and because Allah, praise be to Him, made them infallible in the purification verse.
Secondly to explain and interpret the meanings and aims of the tradition, because the Book of Allah is not enough for guidance; There are many parties who claim to follow the Qur'an but in actual fact they have gone astray, and the Messenger of Allah said, "How many are the readers of the Qur'an whom the Qur'an curses!”
The Book of Allah is silent and could be interpreted in various ways, and it contains what is vague and what is similar, and to understand it we have to refer to those who are well endowed with knowledge as regards the Qur'an, and to Ahl al-Bayt, as regards to the Prophet's traditions.
The Shiites referred everything to the infallible Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet's Household), and they did not interpret anything unless it had a supporting text.
We refer in every case to the Companions, whether it concerns Qur'anic commentary or the confirmation of the Sunnah and its explanation, and we know about the Companions and their interpretations and their personal opinions vies-a-vies the clear texts, and there are hundreds of them, so we cannot rely upon them after what they have done.
If we ask our religious leaders, "Which Sunnah do you follow?" They answer categorically, "The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah!"
But the historical facts are incompatible with that, for they claim that the Messenger of Allah said, "Take my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs after me. Hold firmly to it." But the Sunnah they follow is often the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and even the Messenger's Sunnah which they claim to follow is in fact transmitted by those people.
However, we read in our Sihahs that the Messenger of Allah prevented them from writing his Sunnah so that it was not confused with the Qur'an. Abu Bakr and Umar did the same thing during their caliphate; we therefore have no proof for the saying, "I left you my Sunnah."3
The examples that I have cited in this study, besides many that I have not mentioned, are enough to refute this saying, because there are elements in the Sunnah of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman which contradict and negate the Prophet's Sunnah, as is so apparent.
The first incident that took place immediately after the death of the Messenger of Allah, which the Sunnis as well as the historians recorded, was the argument between Fatimah al-Zahra and Abu Bakr regarding the alleged saying, "We, the prophets, do not leave an inheritance, all that we leave behind should go to charity."
Fatimah denied and refuted this saying, with the support of the Book of Allah, and protested against Abu Bakr's allegation and said that her father, the Messenger of Allah, could not contradict the Book of Allah which was revealed to him, for Allah, praise be to Him the Most High, said:
“Allah enjoins you concerning your children. The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females..." (Holy Qur'an 4:11).
This Qur'anic verse is general and is applicable to prophets and non-prophets alike.
She also protested with the following words of the most High:
"And Sulaiman was Dawood's heir" (Holy Qur an 27:16),
and both of them were prophets. Allah, Glory be to Him, also said:
"...Grant me from Thyself an heir, who should inherit from me and inherit from the children of Yaqub, and make him, my Lord, one with whom You are well pleased." (Holy Qur'an 19:5-6)
The second incident that involved Abu Bakr during the early days of his caliphate, which the Sunni historians recorded, was his disagreement with the nearest of all people to him, Umar ibn al-Khattab. The incident revolves around Abu Bakr's decision to fight those who refused to pay Zakat (alms) and kill them, but Umar protested and advised him not to fight them because he had heard the Messenger of Allah saying: I have been ordered to fight the people until they say, "There is no other god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." And he who says it can keep his wealth to himself and I have no right to his (blood), and he is accountable to Allah.
This is a text cited by Muslim in his Sahih: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave the flag to ‘Ali on the Day of Khayber, and ‘Ali said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what am I fighting them for?’ The Messenger of Allah replied, ‘Fight them until they testify that there is no other god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and if they do that then they will prevent you from killing them and taking their wealth, except by justice, and they will be accountable to Allah.’4
But Abu Bakr was not satisfied with this tradition and said: "By Allah, I will fight those who differentiate between the prayers and Zakat because Zakat is justly charged on wealth." And also said: "By Allah if they refuse me a rope which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah. I will fight them for it." After that Umar ibn al-Khattab was satisfied and said, "As soon as I saw Abu Bakr determined I felt very pleased."
I do not know how Allah could please somebody who is preventing the tradition of the Prophet. This interpretation was used to justify their fight against Muslims although Allah had prohibited making war against them, and Allah said in His Glorious Book:
O You who believe! When you go to war in Allah's way, make investigation, and do not say to anyone who offers you peace, "You are not a believer." Do you seek the goods of this world's life? But with Allah there are abundant gains, you too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; therefore make investigation surely Allah is aware of what you do." (Holy Qur'an 4:94)
Those who refused to give Abu Bakr their Zakat did not deny its necessity, but they only delayed it to investigate the matter. The Shiites say that these people were surprised by the succession of Abu Bakr, and some of them had been present with the Messenger of Allah at the Farewell Pilgrimage and had heard the text in which he mentioned ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. Therefore they decided to wait for a while until they obtained a clarification as to what had happened, but Abu Bakr wanted to silence them lest they spoke the truth. Because I do not reason with nor protest against what the Shiites say, I will leave this issue to somebody who is interested in it.
However, I should not forget to note here that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had an encounter with Tha'alabah who asked him repeatedly to pray for him to be rich and he promised Allah to give alms. The Messenger of Allah prayed for him and Tha'alabah became so rich that his sheep and camels filled al-Medinah, and he started to neglect his duties and stopped attending the Friday Prayers. When the Messenger of Allah sent some officials to collect the Zakat, he refused to give them anything saying that it was a Jiziah (head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule) or similar to it, but the Messenger of Allah did not fight him nor did he order his killing, and Allah revealed the following verse about him:
"And there are those of them who made a covenant with Allah. If He gives us out of His Grace, we will certainly give alms and we will certainly be of the good. But when He gave them out of His Grace, they became niggardly of it and they turned back and they withdrew."(Holy Qur'an 9:75-76)
After the revelation of the above Quranic verse, Tha'alabah came to the Messenger of Allah crying and asked him to accept his Zakat, but the Messenger of Allah refused to accept it, according to the story.
If Abu Bakr and Umar were following the tradition of the Messenger why did they allow the killing of all these innocent Muslims just because they refused to pay the Zakat?
As for those apologists who were trying to correct Abu Bakr's mistake when he interpreted the Zakat as a just tax on wealth, there is no excuse for them nor for Abu Bakr after considering the story of Tha'alabah who withheld the Zakat and thought of it as "Jiziah". Who knows, perhaps Abu Bakr persuaded his friend Umar to kill those who refused to pay the Zakat because otherwise their call would have spread throughout the Islamic world to revive al-Ghadir's text in which ‘Ali was confirmed as successor (to the Messenger of Allah). Thus Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted to fight them, and it was he who threatened to kill and burn those who remained in Fatimah's house in order to extract the acclamation from them for his friend.
The third incident which took place during the early days of Abu Bakr's caliphate in which he found himself in disagreement with Umar, and for which certain Qur'anic and Prophetic texts were interpreted, was that of Khalid ibn al-Walid who killed Malik ibn Nuwayrah and took his wife and married her on the same day. Umar said to Khalid, O enemy of Allah, you killed a Muslim man, then you took his wife ... by Allah, I will stone you."5
But Abu Bakr defended Khalid, and said, "O Umar, forgive him, he made a mistake, but do not rebuke him."
This is another scandal that history has recorded for a prominent Companion, and when we talk about him, we talk with respect and reverence; we even gave him the title 'The ever drawn sword of Allah." What can I say about a Companion who did all that? Who killed Malik ibn Nuwayrah, the honorable Companion, leader of Bani Tamin and Bani Yarbu, famous for his courage and generosity, and furthermore the historians tell us that Khalid killed Malik and his followers after they put down their arms and stood together to pray.
They were tied by ropes and with them were Leyla bint al-Minhal, wife of Malik, who was considered to be one of the most beautiful Arab ladies of her time, and Khalid was captured by her beauty. Malik said, "O Khalid, send us to Abu Bakr and he will be our judge.” And Abdullah ibn Umar together with Abu Qutadah al-Ansari intervened and urged Khalid to send them to Abu Bakr, but he refused and said, "Allah will never forgive me if I do not kill him."
Malik then turned to his wife Leyla and said, "This is the one who will kill me." After that Khalid ordered his execution and took his wife Leyla and married her that very night.6
What can I say about those Companions who trespassed on what Allah deemed to be forbidden; they killed Muslims because of personal whims and permitted themselves to have women that Allah had forbidden us to have. In Islam, a widow cannot be wed by another man before a definite period of time had elapsed, and this period of time has been specified by Allah in His Glorious Book.
But Khalid followed his whims and debased himself, for what would this period of time ('Iddah) mean to him after he had already killed her husband and his followers despite the fact that they were Muslims. Abdullah ibn Umar and Abu Qutadah have testified to this, and the latter became so angry about Khalid's behaviour that he returned to al-Medinah and swore that he would never serve in an army led by Khalid ibn al-Walid.7
As we are talking about this famous incident, it is worth looking at what Haykal said in his book "al-Siddiq Abu Bakr" in a chapter entitled "The opinion of Umar and his reasoning on the subject matter": “Umar, who was an ideal example of firm justice, saw that Khalid had dealt unjustly with another Muslim man and took his widow before the end of her ('Iddah), therefore he should not stay in command of the army. So that no such incident would be repeated again and spoil the affairs of the Muslims and give them a bad name amongst the Arabs, he said, ‘It is not right to leave him unpunished after his affair with Leyla.’
Let us suppose that it was right that he passed a judgment on Malik but got it wrong, which was something Umar would not permit, what he had done with his widow alone would have meant that he had to be brought to justice.
Furthermore, being the "sword of Allah" and the commander of the victorious army, did not give him the right to do what he had done, otherwise people like Khalid would abuse the law. Worse still, they would be bad examples for all Muslims on how to respect the Book of Allah. Thus Umar kept the pressure on Abu Bakr until he recalled Khalid and rebuked him.”8
May we ask Mr. Haykel and his like from our scholars, who would compromise in order to preserve the honor of the Companions: Why did Abu Bakr not bring Khalid to justice? And if Umar was an ideal example of firm justice, as Haykel puts it, why did he only remove him from the command of the army, and not bring him to justice so that he would not be a bad example for all Muslims of how to respect the Book of Allah, as he said. And did they respect the Book of Allah and discharge the laws of Allah? Nay! It was politics! It does wonders; it changes the truth and throws the Qur'anic texts over the wall.
Some of our scholars tell us in their books that the Messenger of Allah (saw) once became very angry when Usamah tried to mediate on behalf of an honorable woman accused of stealing, and the Messenger said, "Woe unto you! Do you mediate about one of the laws of Allah? By Allah if it was Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, I would cut her hand. He destroyed those before you because they would let the thief go if he was an honorable person, but would bring him to justice if he was a weak one."
How could they be silent about the killing of the innocent Muslims, and the marriage of their widows on the same night despite the tragic loss of their husbands? I wish they had remained silent! But they try to justify Khalid's misdeed by inventing various virtues for him, they even called him "The ever drawn sword of Allah" I remember being surprised by a friend of mine, who used to like joking and changing the meaning of the words, when I mentioned the virtues of Khalid ibn al-Walid during my days of ignorance and called him "The ever drawn sword of Allah.” He replied, "He is the crippled sword of the devil!"
I was surprised then, but after my research, Allah has opened my eyes and helped me to know the true value of those who seized the caliphate, changed the laws of Allah and violated the boundaries of Allah.
There is a famous story about Khalid which happened during the lifetime of the Prophet who sent him on a mission to Bani Judhaymah to call them to Islam, but did not order him to fight them. But they did not declare their Islam very well, instead they said, "We are turning to... we are turning (to Islam).” As a result Khalid started to kill them and took prisoners from them, and pushed them towards his friends whom he ordered to kill those prisoners.
But some of his friends refused to do what they were told because they realized that these people had been truly converted to Islam, and they went back and told the Prophet what had happened. He said. "O Allah I am innocent of Khalid's deed." He said it twice,9 and then sent ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to Bani Judhaymah with money to pay compensation for their dead and for the loss of their wealth, even down to a dog. The Messenger of Allah stood up and faced the Qiblah (the direction of al- Ka'ba) and raised his hands to the sky then said, “O Allah, I am innocent of Khalid's deed three times.”10
May we ask where the alleged fairness of the Companions, which these people claim to have had, is? If Khalid ibn al-Walid, who is considered to be one of our greatest military leaders, was the sword of Allah, does that mean that Allah drew his sword to kill the innocent Muslims and to violate the integrity of people? There is a clear contradiction here, because Allah forbids the killing of human beings and prohibits the committing of vile deeds, but Khalid seems to have drawn the sword of injustice to kill innocent Muslims and to confiscate their wealth and to take their women.
There is a blatant lie and a clear deception. Praise and thanks he upon You our God, Blessed be You the Most High, Praise be upon You, You did not create the skies and the earth and what is in between them unjustly. These are the doubts of those who blaspheme. Woe to those who committed blasphemy, for Hell is awaiting them. How did Abu Bakr, who was the caliph of the Muslims, allow himself to listen to all these crimes and be silent about them?
Moreover he asked Umar to stop attacking Khalid and was very angry at Abu Qutadah because he protested strongly about Khalid's action. Was he convinced that Khalid had passed a judgment but got it wrong? What excuse could be given to those corrupt criminals who violated human integrity and claimed to have passed judgment? I do not think that Abu Bakr was trying to pass judgment on Khalid who Umar ibn al-Khattab called "The enemy of Allah".
Umar thought that Khalid should be killed because he had killed an innocent Muslim, or be subjected to a hell of stones because he had committed adultery with Leyla, the widow of Malik. But nothing like that happened to Khalid; rather he defeated Umar because he had the full support of Abu Bakr who knew the whole truth about Khalid more than anybody else.
Historians have recorded that after this terrible misdeed, Abu Bakr sent Khalid on a mission to al-Yamamah, from which he came out victorious and subsequently married a girl from there in the same way as he had Leyla, before the blood of those innocent Muslims and the blood of the followers of Musaylama had dried. Later, Abu Bakr rebuked him about what he had done and used stronger words than those he used during the affair of Leyla.11
Undoubtedly, this girl's husband was killed by Khalid who took her for himself, in the same way as he had Leyla, the widow of Malik. It must have been so, otherwise Abu Bakr would not have rebuked him using stronger words than the previous event. The historians mention the text of the letter which Abu Bakr sent to Khalid ibn al-Walid in which he said: "O Ibn Umm Khalid. Upon my life you are doing nothing but marrying women, and in the yard of your house there is the blood of one thousand two hundred Muslims yet to dry!".12 When Khalid read the letter, he commented, "This must be the work of al-A'sar" meaning Umar ibn al-Khattab.
These are the strong facts that made me shun these types of Companions, and their followers who support them and defend them eagerly and invent various texts and stories to justify the deeds of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Muawiyah, Amr ibn al-As and their brethren. O Allah! I am innocent of the deeds and the sayings of those people who opposed Your rules, violated Your prohibitions and trespassed on Your territories. I am innocent of their followers and their supporters, despite their full knowledge of the latter's misdeeds, forgive me for my previous support for them because I was ignorant and Your Messenger said: "He who does not know (the ignorant) cannot be excused for his ignorance."
O Allah! Our leaders have led us astray and veiled the truth from us and presented us with distorted pictures of those renegade Companions and led us to believe that they were the best people after Your Messenger. There is no doubt that our forefathers were victims of the deception and the intrigues of the Umayyads and later the Abbasids.
O Allah! Forgive them and forgive us because You know what is in our inner souls. They loved and respected those Companions out of goodwill assuming that they were supporters of Your Messenger, may Your blessings and peace be upon him and upon those who love him. You know, my Lord their and our love for the purified family, the Imams whom You cleansed and purified and, at their head, the master of all Muslims, the Commander of the Believers, chief of the singularly radiant, Imam of all those who fear Allah our lord ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
O Allah! Let me be one of their followers who have committed themselves to their cause and followed their path. Let me be on their ship and help me to hold on to their strong link. Let me enter their doors and assist me in dedication to their love, help me to follow their words and their deeds, and let me be grateful to their virtues. O Allah! Let me be with them, for Your Prophet (saw) said, "Man is assembled together (on the day of Judgment) with those whom he loves."
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.”13
He also said: “My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Gate of Repentance of the children of Israel; whoever entered therein was forgiven.”14
Ibn Hajjar cited the above tradition in his book "Al-Sawa'iq al-Mahriqa" and gave the following commentary: The idea behind comparing them with the Ark (ship) is to say that whoever loves them and reveres them as a sign of his gratitude for their graces, and whoever is guided by their learned people, will be saved from the darkness of contradictions. On the other hand whoever decides to stay behind, will sink in the sea of ingratitude and will be destroyed in the wilderness of tyranny. The reason for comparing Ahl al-Bayt with the Gate of Repentance is that Allah - the Most High - made the Gate of Repentance (the Gate of Jericho or Jerusalem) a sign of His forgiveness. Similarly, Ahl al-Bayt are the means of Repentance for this nation.
I wish I could ask Ibn Hajjar if he was one of those who went on board the ship and entered the door and was guided by the religious leaders (Ulama), or was he one of those who order what they do not do in practice and contradict their belief. There are many of those unfair people when I ask them or argue with them they say. "We are in a more favorable situation vies-a-vies Ahl al-Bayt and lmam ‘Ali than others, we respect and appreciate Ahl al Bayt and nobody can deny their graces and their virtues."
Yes, they say with their tongues what is not in their hearts, or they respect them and appreciate them but follow and imitate their enemies who fought them and contradicted them, or even perhaps on many occasions do not know who Ahl al-Bayt are, and if you ask them who Ahl al-Bayt are, they answer you immediately, "they are the Prophet's wives from whom Allah kept the dirt away and purified them." When I addressed the question to one of those people, he solved the puzzle by giving me the following answer, "All the Sunni people and al-Jama'ah follow Ahl al-Bayt." I was surprised and said, "How could that be?" He answered, "The Messenger of Allah said that we should take half of our religion from this Humayra, meaning Aisha, therefore we took half of the religion from Ahl al-Bayt."
On this basis one could understand their respect and appreciation for Ahl al-Bayt, but when you ask them about the twelve Imams they would only know ‘Ali, al-Hasan and al-Husayn from them, and they would not accept the Imamate of al-Hasan nor al-Husayn. Besides, they respect Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan who poisoned al-Hasan and killed him (they call Muawiyah "The writer of the Revelations"), and they also respect Amr ibn al-As in the same way as they respect Imam ‘Ali.
This is nothing but contradictions and confusion and an attempt to cover the right with the wrong and the light with darkness. For how could the heart of the believer contain the love of Allah and the devil at the same time, and Allah said in His Glorious Book:
"You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the Latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their (own) fathers, or their sons or their brothers or their kinsfolk; these are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith and whom He has strengthened with an inspiration from Him: and He will cause them to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow abiding therein; Allah is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased with Him; these are Allah's party: now surely the party of Allah are the successful ones.” (Holy Qur'an 58:22).
Allah also said:
"O You who believe! Do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends. Would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of truth?" (Holy Qur'an 60:1).
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Whoever wishes to live and die like me, and to abide in the Garden of Eden after death should acknowledge ‘Ali as his patron and follow Ahl al-Bayt after me, for they are my Ahl al-Bayt and they have been created out of the same knowledge and understanding as myself. Woe unto those followers of mine who will deny the Ahl al-Bayt their distinctions and who will disregard their relationship and affinity with me. May Allah never let them benefit from my intercession."15
As you can see, the above tradition is one of those clear sayings which do not require any interpretation, nor indeed gives any scope for the Muslims to choose, rather, it eliminates any excuse. If he does not follow ‘Ali and acknowledge Ahl al-Bayt, the Prophet's Family he will be deprived of the mediation of their grandfather, the Messenger of Allah (saw). It is worth noting here that at the early stage of my research, I felt doubtful about the authenticity of this tradition and I thought it carried a great threat to those who are not in agreement with ‘Ali and Ahl al-Bayt, especially when the tradition does not allow any scope for interpretation.
I became rather worried when I read the book "Al- lsabah" in which Ibn Hajjar al-Asqalani gives the following commentary on the tradition: "I based the tradition on what Yahya ibn Ya'la al-Muharibi had said, and he is feeble." In fact Ibn Hajjar removed some of the doubt that remained in my minds for I thought that Yahya ibn Ya'la al-Muharihi fabricated the tradition and could not be a reliable transmitter.
But Allah - Praise be to Him the Most High - wanted to show me the whole truth. I read a hook entitled Ideological discussions on the writings of Ibrahim al-Jabhan.16 This book clarified the situation and it became apparent to me that Yahya ibn Ya'la al-Muharibi was a reliable transmitter of Hadith and the two Shaykhs, Muslim and al-Bukhari depended on what he transmitted. I myself followed his case and found that al-Bukhari cited a few traditions transmitted by him regarding the batttle of al-Hudaybiyah, and they were put in Volume 3, Page 31.
Muslim also cited a few traditions in his Sahih Volume 5 in a chapter entitled "The Boundaries" Page 119. Even al-Dhahabi, with all his restrictions, considered him a reliable transmitter, together with the Imams of al-Jurh and al-Ta'deel (criteria applied to Hadiths to find out the reliable and unreliable transmitter), and of course the two Shaykhs (Muslim and al-Bukhari) used him as a reliable reference. So why all this intrigue, falsification and deception about a man who was considered to be a reliable transmitter by the authors of al-Sihah? Is it because he told the truth regarding the necessity to follow Ahl al-Bayt, and was therefore branded by Ibn Hajjar as feeble and weak?
It seems that Ibn Hajjar was unaware of the fact that his writings would become subject to the security of some highly dedicated scholars and that he would be accountable to them for all what he had written. These scholars were able to uncover his prejudice and ignorance because they were guided by the light of the Prophet and Ahl al-Bayt.
I realized later that some of our scholars try hard to cover the truth so that the affairs of the Companions and the caliphs, who were considered to be their leaders and mentors, remain unknown. We see them trying to interpret the correct tradition in their own ways and give them different meanings, or they deny the traditions that contradict their creed, even if they were mentioned in their own books and Sihahs.
At times they remove half or one-third of the prophetic tradition to replace it with something else! Or they may throw doubts about the reliable narrators (of the tradition) because they raise issues that are not to their liking, and on a few occasions they publish them in the first edition (of a book) but remove it from the subsequent editions without giving any indication to justify their action, in spite of the full knowledge of the intelligent readers as to why the saying has been removed!
I have become aware of all these things after conducting meticulous research and investigation, and I have convincing proof to support what I am saying. I wish they would stop giving me all these excuses to justify the actions of those Companions who turned back on their heels, because their views seem to contradict each other and contradict the historical fact. I wish they would follow the just path, even if it was a bitter one, then they would leave their minds and the minds of others in peace.
They claim that some of the early Companions were not reliable transmitters of the Prophet's tradition; therefore they removed what they did not like, especially if these traditions included some of the last instructions of the Messenger of Allah before his death.
Al-Bukhari and Muslim both write about the fact that the Messenger of Allah advised three things on his death-bed:
• Remove all the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula
• Reward the delegation in the same way as I have done and the narrator then said: "I forgot the third."17
It is possible that those Companions who were present at the death-bed and heard the three instructions forgot the third one, when we know that they used to learn by heart a whole epic after hearing it once? No. It is politics that forced them to forget it and not to mention it again. This is indeed another of those comedies organized by the Companions, because there is no doubt what the first instruction of the Messenger of Allah was to appoint ‘Ali as his successor, but the narrator did not recite it.
The person who is involved with the investigation about this issue will inevitably sense the undoubtable recommendation for the succession of ‘Ali despite all the attempts to cover it or to remove it. Al-Bukhari cited it in his Sahih in a chapter entitled "Al-Wasaya" (The Legacies or the Recommendations); Muslim also cited it in his Sahih and said that the Prophet recommended ‘Ali for the succession in the presence of Aisha.18 Look how Allah shows His light even if the oppressors try to cover it.
I repeat here what I said before; if those Companions were not reliable enough to transmit the recommendations of the Messenger of Allah, then we cannot blame the followers and those who came after them.
If Aisha, the mother of the faithful, could not bear mentioning the name of ‘Ali and could not wish him any good, as Ibn Sa'd writes in his Tabaqat,19 and al-Bukhari in his Sahih in a chapter entitled "The illness of the Prophet and his death", and if she prostrated herself to thank Allah when she heard the news of ‘Ali's death, then how can we expect her to mention the recommendation in favor of ‘Ali, when she was known, publicly and privately, for her animosity and hatred towards ‘Ali and his sons and towards all the Family of the Prophet. Behold! There is no might or power except in Allah the Most High, the Great.