The important element to complement the research, that is worth mentioning and investigation, may be the sole objection that most often be raised when the obstinates being dumbfounded by irrefutable arguments, whereat they resort to wondering and denying that a hundred thousand Companions attended the event of nominating al-’Imām ‘Ali (as a caliph). They all conspired to oppose and turn away from him, though some of them were the best of Companions, and most honourable of the Ummah! I was encountered with such an event in particular when launching my research, as I couldn’t believe, nor does anyone, that the issue being laid in this way. But when studying the issue with all its dimensions, no wonder will remain in the minds, as the issue is not the way we imagine or as presented by Ahl al-Sunnah, as it is far from one hundred thousand Companions to contradict the Messenger’s commandment, so how did the event befall?
First: Not all those who attended the oath of allegiance at al-Ghadir, were living in al-Madinah, but only, as was supposed, three or four thousand of them. And when knowing that a large number among them were bondmen, slaves and the oppressed (mustad‘fun) who came to the Messenger of Allah (S) from numerous regions, having no tribe or clan in al-Madinah, like Ahl al-Siffah, only half of them, i.e. only two thousand are left, who themselves were committed to the chieftains and system of the clan to which they belonged. The Messenger of Allah took their recognizance on this, that whenever visited by any delegation he would entrust their head and master with their leadership. Thus a new term in Islam was found when they were called Ahl al-Åall wa al-‘Aqd (men of resolution and decision).
Considering the meeting of al-Saqifah which was held immediately after the demise of the Messenger, we will come to know that those attending it who took the decision of electing Abu Bakr as a caliph, were, at the most, less than one hundred in total. That was because none of the Ansār, people of al-Madinah, attended there except their masters and leaders. And this was true also in regard of the Muhājirun, the Meccans: who migrated with the Messenger (S), of whom only three or four persons attended, as representatives for Quraysh. Sufficient be for us as a proof, is to imagine the size of al-Saqifah, as all of us are aware of the truth about al-Saqifah, that was present in every and each house, as it was not a hall for (holding) parties or a palace for convening conferences. We exaggerate when telling about the presence of a hundred persons at the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah, in order that the researcher may apprehend that the hundred thousand were neither present nor having knowledge of what happened in the Saqifah, but only after quite long time, since there were neither telecommunications, nor wireless sets, nor satellites.
Thus these chiefs concurred on nominating Abu Bakr, despite the objection of the Master of Ansār Sa’d ibn ‘Ubādah, the head of Tribe of Khazraj, and his son Qays. But the overwhelming majority (as said nowadays) made. covenant and agreed on acknwoeldging him, though most of the Muslims were absent of the Saqifah, with some of them being engaged in making preparations for the burial of the Messenger (S), or distracted at the news of his death, beside being threatened by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb against announcing about his death.
Added to this, the Messenger of Allah has mobilized most of the Companions within the army of Usāmah, those who stationed at Jurf, neither attending the burial ceremonies of the Prophet (S) nor the gathering of al-Saqifah.
After all those events, is it reasonable that clan members dare to object their chieftain, especially that to him belongs the virtue and great honour in regard of the covenant he made, for which every tribe was striving and longing. Who knows, it is probable that they, one day, be honoured with the post of mastership over all Muslims, all over the world, since its legitimate owner was excluded of it, with the issue turning to be a shurā, of which they were making use frequently. So why wouldn’t they be delighted at that or supporting it?
Second: When the men of resolution and decision, the Madinah dwellers, would confirm any matter, it would be infeasible for the distant far away people living on the outskirts of the Peninsula to declare any objection, while being unaware of what was going on during their absence, since the means of transportation in that era were primitive. Besides, they would imagine that since the Madinah-dwellers living during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, so they should be better aware of the new rulings and precepts that may be revealed at any hour and day. Then the chieftain who was far away of the capital had nothing to do with the caliphate, as for him it made no difference who the caliph, would be whether Abu Bakr or ‘Ali or anyone else, since the people of Makkah are better aware of its mountain passes. And that which mattered him more was preserving his post as the chieftain of his clan with no rival.
It is uncertain, whether someone of them has questioned about the matter looking up to the information but was silenced by the ruling devices, either through temptation or intimidation. The episode of Mālik ibn Nuwayrah, who refused to pay the zakāt (alms-due). to Abu Bakr, can be the best evidence proving this.
Anyone pursuing those events that took place in fighting the deniers of zakāt, during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, will verily see many contradictions, never being convinced with what is reported by the historians, for the sake of safeguarding the dignity of the Sahābah, particularly the rulers among them.
Third: The element of surprise in the issue played a great role in admitting what is called today the “matter of act” or “status quo”. We noticed how the meeting of al-Saqifah was held all of a sudden, away of the attention of the Companions who were busy arranging for the burial of the Messenger (S), among whom being al-’Imām ‘Ali, al-’Abbas with the rest of Banu Hāshim, al-Miqdād, Salmān, Abu Dharr, Ammār and al-Zubayr, beside many others. When those who attended the Saqifah went out accompanying Abu Bakr to the mosque, calling for public oath of allegiance to him, and people were coming forward in groups and flocks voluntarily and forcibly, al-’Imām ‘Ali and his followers had not yet finished their Holy duty as prescribed by their sublime morals. It was improper for them to leave the Messenger of Allah without washing, shrouding and burial, hastening to the Saqifah to struggle about the caliphate.
As soon as they completed their obligation, the allegiance was already acknowledged for Abu Bakr, with whoever lingering behind being counted among those seditious renegading against the Muslims, that should be opposed or even killed by Muslims if necessary. Consequently, it is reported that ‘Umar threatened to kill anyone refusing to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, declaring: Kill him, he is seditious. Then he threatened those who lingered in ‘Ali’s house to burn the house with whoever was inside it. Further, when we know the opinion of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb regarding the oath of allegiance (bay‘ah), we will come to recognize the solutions of many bewildering enigmas.
He holds that the validity of allegiance could be established only when any of the Muslims manages to attain to it, whereat all the others should follow and obey him, and anyone lingering behind was considered out of the pale of Islam, that should be slain.
“There was much clamour, and confused sounds were raised to the extent that it was impossible to distinguish them, when I said: O Abu Bakr, open your hand... and so did he. Thereat I swore allegiance to him, and so did the Muhajirun and Ansār, and we allied Sa’d ibn ‘Ubādah, when someone of them said: You have killed Sa’d ibn ‘Ubādah. I said: May Allah kill Sa’d ibn ‘Ubādah. Thereat we (‘Umar says): couldn’t see any matter stronger than swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr. That which made us worried was that people may depart us with no allegiance being sworn, so as to swear allegiance to a man from among them after that, whereat there could be only two alternatives before us: either to acknowledge unwillingly the one they acknowledged (as a caliph), or to contradict them and cause corruption to prevail. Since anyone swearing allegiance to any man without consulting the Muslims, neither he nor the one who swore allegiance to him will be followed, lest that they both should be slain.”
Thus, the issue according to ‘Umar’s view is not election or nomination or consultation (shurā), but it suffices that one from among the Muslims hastens towards allegiance so as to be a proof for the others. So he said to Abu Bakr. Open your hand O Abu Bakr. Then he (Abu Bakr) extended his hand and ‘Umar swore allegiance to him without any consultation or meditation, for fear of that another one might hasten towards it. ‘Umar has expressed this opinion by saying: That which made us worried was that people may depart us with no allegiance being sworn, so as to swear allegiance to a man from among them after that (‘Umar feared that the Ansār [Helpers] might outstrip him and acknowledge someone from among them). This fact becomes even more explicit when he says: Thereat only two alternatives were left before us: either to acknowledge unwillingly the one they acknowledged (as a caliph), or to contradict them and cause corruption to prevail.
To be equitable in our judgement and precise in investigation, we have to admit that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb has changed his viewpoint concerning the oath of allegiance (bay‘ah) in the last days of his life. That was when a man entered upon him, during his last hajj pilgrimage, with the presence of ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf, and said: O Amir al-Muminin, have you heard so and so say: Had ‘Umar died, I would have sworn allegiance to so and so. By Allah the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr was but a slip that was done. This aroused ‘Umar’s anger who stood and addressed people, after returning to Madinah, saying in particular:
“I was informed that so and so among you says: By Allah had ‘Umar died I would have acknowledged so and so. No one should be self-conceited to say that the acknowledgement to Abu Bakr was but a slip that was done, as even it was truly so but Allah safeguarded (us) against its evil... Then he says: Whoever swears allegiance to anyone without consultation with other Muslims, neither be nor the one to whom he sworn allegiance will be acknowledged lest they should be killed...”
Would that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb was of this opinion on the Saqifah Day, never overruling the Muslims by his swear of allegiance to Abu Bakr, that was a slip against whose evil Allah has protected us, as he himself testified. But far it be for ‘Umar to have such a new opinion, since he issued a death sentence against himself and his comrade, when disclosing in his novel nviewpoint: "Anyone swearing allegiance to some man without consulting the Muslims, neither he nor the one to whom he swore allegiance shall be acknowledged, lest they should be killed both."
That which we should know more, being the reason why had ‘Umar, in the last days of his life, changed his opinion though he was aware, more than others, that his new opinion had blasted the acknowledgement to Abu Bakr outright. Since it is him who hastened to swear allegiance to him with no consultation with Muslims so as to be a slip, and he himself overturned his own acknowledgement, as he attained to caliphate through determination by Abu Bakr on his deathbed, without consulting other Muslims. This act made some Companions enter upon Abu Bakr disapproving his decision in appointing a stern and rude man as a ruler over them. And when ‘Umar went out to read for the people the letter of Abu Bakr, a man questioned him: O Abu Hafs, what does the letter contain? He replied: I know not, but I shall be the first to listen and obey. The man said: But, by Allah, I know what it does contain: You have made him a ruler in the first year, and he appointed you a ruler this year.
This exactly resembles al-Imam ‘Ali’s saying to ‘Umar (when observing him compel people by duress to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr):
Of significance is to know the reason why ‘Umar changed his opinion regarding allegiance! I think that he came to know that some of the Sahābah intending to swear allegiance to ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib after the death of ‘Umar, the fact that was never to be accepted by ‘Umar, who contradicted the express texts, opposing the Messenger’s writing them that book. As he came to know its content, till be accused him (S) of hallucination, threatening people against disclosing his death  lest that people should rush to swear allegiance to ‘Ali. Then he arranged for acknowledging allegiance to Abu Bakr, forcing people to it by duress, threatening to kill whoever renouncing this allegiance, all this for the only reason being excluding ‘Ali from caliphate. So how would be accept someone to say that he would acknowledge so and so after the death
of ‘Umar, especially that this one (whose name was kept secret, and he might be among the great companions) might argue with what ‘Umar did in swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr, when saying: By Allah, the swear of Allegiance to Abu Bakr was but a slip and was done with. That is, despite its occurrence all of a sudden, without awareness of the Muslims or consulting them, but it was done and came true. That is why ‘Umar allowed himself to do it with Abu Bakr, so how wouldn’t it be permissible for him to do it in the same way with so and so. It is noticed here that Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf and ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb abstain from disclosing the name of that utterer with the name of the one he intended to swear allegiance to. And since these two were of great importance for the Muslims, so we observed how ‘Umar got angry for this saying, embarking on the next Friday to address the people, by pointing out the issue of caliphate, surprising them with his new opinion, to close the door before that who wanted to repeat the same slip as this would be for the good of his foe. But out of this discussion, we understood that this statement being not only the opinion of so and so, but also of so many Companions. That is why al-Bukhāri is reported to have said: So ‘Umar got angry and said: God-willing, I shall address people tonight, to warn those intending to usurp them their affairs...
Then, ‘Umar’s changing his opinion concerning the oath of allegiance, was only a sign of objection against those intending to seize the people’s affairs and swear allegiance to ‘Ali, the fact that could never be accepted by ‘Umar, since he was of the opinion that caliphate being one of people’s affairs, and not a right for ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib. Had this belief been correct, why would he have allowed himself to usurp people of their affairs after the demise of the Prophet (S), rushing to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr without consulting the Muslims?
The stand of Abu Hafs toward Abu al-Åasan is widely known, being excluding him away from power. We have reached this conclusion not only through his previous sermon, but anyone following up the course of history can realize that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb was the actual ‘ruler even during Abu Bakr’s caliphate. So we noticed how Abu Bakr sought permission of Usāmah ibn Zayd to let ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb stay with him to help him undertake the caliphate affair.127 Nevertheless, ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib was kept away from any responsibility, as they have neither charged him with any post, or governorship, nor given him commandment of any army, nor entrusted him any treasure, throughout the caliphate of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, and all of us know who ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib was stranger than this, we are told by history books that ‘Umar, on his death bed, regretted the death of Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrāh or Sālim the master of Abu Hudhayfah, and their non-being present so as to nominate them to succeed him. But, undoubtedly, on remembering that he changed his opinion regarding this bay‘ah (oath of allegiance), considering it a slip and an usurpation of the Muslims’ affairs, he would have no choice but to invent a new method for swearing allegiance, to be an intermediate compromise. So that no one would take the initiative and swear allegiance to whomever he considers competent for it, compelling people to follow his guide. That is, exactly as was done by him for Abu Bakr, and by Abu Bakr for him, or as intended to be done by so and so who was expecting ‘Umar’s death to swear allegiance to his favorite, but all this being impossible after it (bay‘ah) was considered by ‘Umar as a slip and usurpation. Also, it is infeasible for him to leave the affair to be determined through shurā among the Muslims, while he attended the meeting of al-Saqifah after the demise of the Prophet (S), witnessing by his own eyes the dispute which could result in taking away of lives and shedding of blood.
At last he contrived the idea of Ashab al-Shurā or the six men, who were entitled alone to elect the caliph, with no room for anyone to share them in this right. ‘Umar was well aware that dispute would surely erupt among these six men, the fact prompting him to recommend them to be, in case of difference, on the side of ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf even if this could lead to slaying of those three
opposing ‘Abd al-Rahmān. This be in case of occurrence of split and the six being divided into two parts, which could never happen, since ‘Umar knew well that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqās being the cousin of ‘Abd al-Rahmān, and both belong to Banu Zuhrah, and that Sa’d would never love ‘Ali, harbouring grudge against him as ‘Ali killed his uncles from ‘Abd Shams. Further, ‘Umar was quite aware that ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf, being the brother-in-law of ‘Uthmān, as his wife Umm Kulthum was ‘Uthmān’s sister, and that Talhah having inclination toward ‘Uthmān due to relations between them as reported by some narrators. The evidence proving his inclination toward ‘Uthmān can be sought in his turning away from ‘Ali, due to his belonging to the Tribe of Taym, and it was known that many disputes were there between Banu Hāshim and Banu Taym, due to Abu Bakr’s ambition to attain caliphate. ‘Umar was aware of all this, the reason for which he chose these people in particular.
All these six people who were selected by ‘Umar, were from Quraysh, and from among Muhājirun (Emigrants) with no one from the Ansār (Helpers), and each one of them represents and heads a tribe of great importance and influence. They are:
1. ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib, chief of Banu Hāshim.
2. ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, chief of Banu Umayyah.
3. ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf, chief of Banu Zuhrah.
4. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqās, from Banu Zuhrah and his uncles belong to Banu Ummayyah.
5. Talhah ibn ‘Ubayd Allāh, the master of Banu Taym
6. Al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām, the son of Safiyyah— the Messenger’s aunt — and he was the husband of Asmā’ the daughter of Abu Bakr.
These were the men of resolution and determination with their judgement being obligatory upon all Muslims, whether being inhabitants of the metropolis (centre of caliphate) or others from all over the Islamic world. Then all Muslims have no choice but to adhere and obey, without any disputation, and death will be the fate of anyone refusing or contradicting the commandment. This, exactly, the point we wanted the reader to be aware of, beforehand, in regard of concealing the news about the text of al-Ghadir.
Knowing the mentalities, emotions and ambitions of these six men, ‘Umar has in fact nominated ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān for caliphate, or he was aware that the majority of them were averse to acknowledging ‘Ali. Otherwise, why and according to which right he preferred ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf to ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib, while the Muslims have ever since been disputing about the superiority of ‘Ali and Abu Bakr, with no one daring to make contrast between ‘Ali and ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf.
At this point I should make a halt, to question Ahl a-Sunnah who believe in the Shurā principle, and all free-thinking men thus: How do you reconcile betwen the shurā (consultation) in its Islamic sense and this notion that indicates nothing but stubborness since it was him who chose those people not the Muslims? And if his attaining to caliphate be a slip, how would he permit himself to impose those six men upon Muslims?
It seems that ‘Umar believes the caliphate to be a right for the Muhājirun (Emigrants) alone, without being disputed by others regarding this right. Moreover, ‘Umar holds, like Abu Bakr, that caliphate being a right owned by Quraysh alone, as among the Muhājirun some are found who don’t belong to Quraysh, or rather who are non-Arabs. So neither Salmān al-Fārsi, nor ‘Ammār ibn Yāsir, nor Bilal al-Habashi, nor Suhayb al-Rumi, nor Abu Dharr al-Ghifāri, nor thousands of the Sahābah not belonging to Quraysh, were entitled to attain the post of caliphate.
This not being just a claim! never and far from that, but it is their belief as recorded in history books and reported by narrators from them directly. Let’s refer to the very sermon reported by al-Bukhāri and Muslim in their Sahihs:
‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb is reported to have said: I intended to speak, when forging an article I wanted to lay before Abu Bakr, with showing some cajolery. As I intended to begin my speech, Abu Bakr said: Take it easy, so I didn’t like to arouse his anger, and kept silent. Then Abu Bakr spoke, showing more clemency and solemnity than me. By Allah, he never spared any word I liked in my falsification but mentioning the like of or better than it through his intuition, till he paused for a while and then said: You truly deserve all the good traits I did mention to be owned by you (addressing the Ansār), and this matter is never realized but to belong to this locale of Quraysh.
Thus, it becomes explicit that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were never believing in the principle of shurā and election. Some historians are reported to have said that Abu Bakr argued with the Ansār (Helpers) by the Messenger’s hadith: "Verily caliphate is in Quraysh", which being a sahih (correct) tradition whereof there is no doubt, whose real text (as reported by al-Bukhāri and Muslim and all Sihāh of the Sunnah, with the Shi‘ah) being thus:
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “The successors after me are twelve ones, all being from Quraysh.” More explicit than this hadith, is the following saying uttered by the Messenger (S):
If all Muslims totally believe in these traditions, how would anyone dare to claim that he (S) has left the issue to be determined through consultation (shurā) among Muslims, to choose whoever they will?
There is no way to get rid of this contradiction but through adherence to the sayings of Ahl al-Bayt Imams and their followers (Shi‘ah), with some of Ahl al-Sunnah ‘ulamā’ who affirm that the Messenger of Allah (S) has determined the caliphs, defining them by number and names. Henceforth we can also conceive the position of ‘Umar and his endeavour to confine caliphate within Quraysh, as ‘Umar was known of exerting his opinion (ijtihād) against the texts, even during the lifetime of the Prophet (S). The best evidences that prove our claim can be sought in the Peace Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, performing prayer (salāt al-mayyit) on hypocrites, the Thursday misfortune, and his forbidding to announce the good tidings of Paradise. So no wonder to see him exert his opinion, after the demise of the Prophet (S), regarding the hadith text of the caliphate, seeing no obligation in accepting the determination of ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib who was the youngest of Quraysh, and restricting the right to successorship in Quraysh alone. This fact prompted ‘Umar to choose, before his death, six men from among the magnates of Quraysh to reconcile between the Prophet’s traditions and his viewpoint regarding the right of Quraysh alone to caliphate. Inserting ‘Ali among the other men, with pre-knowledge that they would never elect him, was a plan contrived by ‘Umar to force ‘Ali to share, them the political trickery, as called nowadays, and so that no argument (hujjah) would be left for his (‘Ali’s) followers and supporters believing in his superiority and priority.
But all this was elucidated by al-’Imām ‘Ali (‘a) through a sermon before the public, saying in this regard:
“...Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went away (of death) he put matter (of caliphate) in a group and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! What had I to do with this consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that things...”136
Fourth: A-’Imam ‘Ali (peace be upon him) has argued and reasoned with them by everything, but all was in vain. Should ‘Ali beg allegiance from the people who turned their faces away from him, and whose hearts inclined toward other than him. Either out of envy for the favour Allah has bestowed upon him, or out of grudge against him because he killed their valiants, shattered their heroes, coercing them to kneel down, subduing them and destroying their pride through his sword and bravery till making them surrender and embrace Islam. Nevertheless he remained lofty, defending his cousin, fearing no censure, on Allah’s way, from those who censure, never being frustrated by any of the vanities of the world. The Messenger of Allah (S) was fully aware of all this, extolling, throughout opportune times, the virtues of his brother and cousin, so as to make them love him, saying in this respect:
But all these traditions have, unfortunately, increased them in jealously and rancour, the fact prompting the Messenger of Allah (S) to summon him, before his death, embracing him and weeping, with saying: “O ‘Ali, I know that there are vindictive feelings harboured inside the bosoms of people which they will divulge for you after me. If they swear allegiance to you, accept it, otherwise you should forbear till you meet me while being wronged.” So Abu al-Hasan’s keeping patient, after acknowledging Abu Bakr (as a caliph), was only in response and submission to the Messenger’s testament to him, the fact implying unconcealed wisdom.
Fifth: Added to all this, any Muslim, when reading the Holy Qur’ān, contemplating in its verses, will verily recognize, out of its stories dealing with the earlier nations and peoples, that they were inflicted with more calamites than us. He can witness how Qābil killed Hābil out of injustice and maltreat; with Noah, the grandfather of prophets, could never find from among his folk but a very few, after a total of a thousand years of struggle and strival, with his wife and son being among the disbelievers. Besides, in the village of Lot only one family of believers could be found, and the folk of Pharaoh who were haughty in the land and enslaved mankind, when one believer among them is found, he would conceal his faith, and the brothers of Joseph, the sons of Jacob, though being many, conspire to kill their younger brother not due to any sin he perpetrated but out of jealousy since he was dearer to their father than them. Moreover, another example is in the children of Israel, whom Allah has delivered through Moses, cleaving for them the sea and causing their enemies — Pharaoh and his hosts — to drown, without charging them the pains of fighting. As soon as going out of the sea and before their feet being dried, they came toward some people devoted unto idols, worshipping them, saying to them: O Moses! Make for us a god even as they have gods. He said: Lo ! You are a folk who know not.
On his going to the appointed tryst of his Lord, making his brother as a successor over them, they contrived a plot against him intending to slay him, declaring disbelief in Allah and worshipping the calf, killing after that Allah’s prophets, whereat Allah the Exalted said:
"What! (and yet) whenever (thereafter) an apostle came unto you with that which yourselves desired not, swelled ye with pride, some (of the apostles) ye belied (as imposters) and some ye slew." (2:87)
Also we witness our master Yahyā ibn Zakariyyā, despite his being a prophet (of Allah) and a chaste from among the virtuous ones, being slain and his head being gifted to one of the strumpets of Banu Israel.
And again, the Jews and Christians conspire to slaughter and crucify our master Jesus, and the Ummah of Muhammad (S) mobilize an army of thirty thousand to kill al-Husayn, the basil (rayhānah) of the Messenger of Allah and master of the youth of Heavens, who was accompanied with only seventy of his companions. Then they slew them all, including even his suckling children.
So what causes wonder after all this? Is there any wonder after the Prophet’s saying to his Companions:.“You shall verily follow the sunan (conducts ) of those who were before you span-by-span and cubit-by-cubit, and even if they enter the lizard hole you will certainly go inside it. They asked: Do you mean the Jews and Christians? He replied: But who would be then (other than them)??”
Where from to come the wonder while we read what is reported by al-Bukhāri and Muslim from the Messenger of Allah (S):
“On the Doomsday my Companions will be brought unto the left, whereat I would inquire: Whereto (are they brought)? The reply will come: To the Hellfire, and I will say: O my lord, these are my Companions, then it will be said to me. You are unaware of what they have done after you. Thereat I will say: Remote be whoever changed after me, and I can’t see anyone delivered from among them except as few as the forsaken cattle.”
And the Most High, the Lord of Glory, and Exaltness, Who knows what is kept in bosoms, disclosed the truth when saying: “And most believe (it) not, though thou desire it.” (12:103)
“Nay! he hath brought unto them the Truth, but most of them hate the Truth.” (23:70)
“Indeed have We brought unto you with the truth but most of you unto the truth were hateful.” (43:78)
“Be it known verily God’s is what is in the heavens and the earth; Be it (also) known, verily, God’s promise is true, but most of them know not.” (10:55)
“...They allure you with (the sweet words of) their mouths while their hearts are averse (from you), and most of them are transgressors.” (9:8)
“...Verily, God is the Lord of grace for mankind, but most of them thank not.” (10:60)
“They recognize the bounties of God, and yet they deny them, and most of them are infidels.” (16:83)
“And indeed We distribute it (water) to them that may be (thankfully) mindful, but content not the great number of the people but to be thankless.” (25:50)
“And believe not most of them, in God, except as polytheists.” (12:106)
“...Nay! most of them know not the truth, so they turn aside.” (21:24)
“What Wonder ye then at this statement? And laugh ye and not weep? And yet sport ye (negligently)?” (53:59-61)
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. IV, p. 1. 95.
 Ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 26; Ta’rikh al-Tabari; Ta’rikh al-khulafā’ of Ibn Qutaybah.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VIII, p. 28, “bāb rajm al-hublā min al-zinā idhā uhsinat.
It is reported by all the historians that only four of the Muhājirun (immigrants) attended the Saqifah. So his saying: ‘I and then the Muhājirun swore allegiance to him” is contradicted by his words: “‘Ali al-Zubayr and their companions remained behind (disagreeed with us),” which he uttered in the same seremon. See Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VIII, p. 26.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VIII, p. 26.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VIII, p. 26.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VIII, p. 26.
 Ta’rikh al-Tabari, the chapter on successorship of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb; Ibn Abi al-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahj, Vol. I.
 Ibn Qutaybah in al-’Imāmah wa al-sisāyah, Vol. I, p. 25, “bāb marad Abi Bakr wa istikhlāfihi ‘Umar”.
 Ibn Qutaybah, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 18.
 Sahih Muslim, Vol. V, p. 75, kitāb al-wasiyyah; Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VII, p. 9.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. IV, p. 195.
 Ibid., V ol. VIII, p. 28; Ta’rikh al-khulafā’, Vol. I, p. 19.
 Ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 25.
 As it is confirmed by Ibn Sa‘d in his Tabaqāt, and most of the historians who referred to the contingent (sariyyah) of Usamah ibn Zayd.
 Muhammad `Abduh, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 88.
 Sahih Muslim, “bāb al-wasiyyah”.
 Ibid., Vol. VI, pp. 2, 3; Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VIII, p. 27.
Ibid., Vol. VI, pp. 2, 3; Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. VIII, p. 27.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. II, p. 76.
 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 37.
 Ibid., Vol. I, “bāb man laqiya Allāh bi al-’imām wa huwa ghayr shākk fih dakhala al-jannah, p. 45.
 Nahj al-balāghah, Sharh of Muhammad ‘Abduh, Khutbah No.3
 Sahih Muslim, Vol. I, p. 61.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. III, p. 168.
 Musnad Ahmad, Vol. V, p. 35; Mustadrak al-Hākim, Vol. III, p124
 Mustadrak al-Hākim, Vol. III, p. 126.
 Muntakhab Kanz al-‘ummāl, Vol. V, p. 34.
 Al-Tabari, al-Riyād al-nādirah fi manāqib al-‘ashrah, “bāb fadā’il ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib”.
 Sahih al-Bukhāri, Vol. IV, p. 144, and Vol. VIII, p 151.
 Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 209; Sahih Muslim, “bāb al-hawd”.
 Sunan Ibn Mājah, “kitāb al-fitan”, Vol. II, hadith No. 3993; Musnad Ahmad, Vol. III, p. 120; Sunan al-Tirmidhi, “kitāb al-’imān”.