Historical facts clearly show that there was a deep-rooted conspiracy, the spark of which was lit by Abu Sufyan, Marwan, Amr bin al-Aas…etc., long before they became reluctant Muslims. The spark was fanned into a fire when a written pledge was made by some persons comprised of Banu Umayya along with some companions of the Prophet (S) at the Kaaba, to hasten the early departure of the Prophet (S) by waylaying and killing him during his return from the last Hajj, and thus usurp the Caliphate.
The forging of an alliance between the Banu Umayya and some companions who were their childhood friends was absolutely necessary as the Muslim Umma would not have tolerated the Banu Umayya, one time enemies of Islam, to rule over them. When they could not succeed in killing him, they conspired to oppose every wish of the ailing Prophet (S). They refused to assemble under the banner of Usama violating the Prophet’s specific and repeated orders. Later, they frustrated the Prophet’s desire to write down his last will and came out openly saying that the Qur’an was sufficient and that there was no further need for guidance or directions from a delirious and dying Prophet (S).
It is not as if they wanted to create a doubt about the wisdom or infallibility of the Prophet (S). They held the view that the Prophet (S) was as much an ordinary man as they were; subject to greed, avarice, prejudice, and a desire to aggrandize the self and family. To their credit, it must be said that they genuinely thought that the Prophet (S) was an ordinary human being. Therefore, they spied in his every speech and action a personal motive! At every stage, they asked, “Is this from you or from Allah?” They could never ever properly understand the Prophet (S).
Though every person who claimed to be a Muslim was commanded and obliged to unquestioningly submit to the command of the Prophet (S), in letter and in spirit, history is full of instances where the companions, who later became Caliphs, stood up to question the Prophet’s wisdom of word or deed.1 They often asked, “Is this from you or from Allah?”2 And every time the Prophet (S) had to reassure them that, as the Qur’an vouchsafes, he never did anything out of his own will, personal whim, or for pleasure.3 Later, whenever a tradition that was in favor of Ali (a.s.) or against their liking or interest was related, these very companions conveniently branded the tradition as the personal whim of Muhammad (S) the individual and not the act of Muhammad the Prophet (S). History is replete with instances where, for instance, Umar confessed about the peace treaty of Hudaibiya and said, “It was a day when I doubted the wisdom of Muhammad (S) as never before, and I was nigh recanting from the faith.”4
A perpetual, persistent, and commonly shared doubt in the Prophethood of Muhammad (S) and the anomaly of being counted upon as the companions of the very object of their suspicion, created inroads for a close nexus between the Banu Umayya and such of the tribe of Quraysh who held similar views. The ‘doubt’ was well conviction and they could not dispel it despite spending time in the company of the Prophet (S).
The history of the prophets is replete with instances where their flock accused them of being ordinary men like themselves. This arose on account of the fact that if the Prophet (S) claimed to be super human, the flock will rightly claim that the commandments could be followed by him–a super human- and not by ordinary mortals. Therefore, the Prophets had to appear human, subject to thirst, hunger, pain, joy and to walk about in the market place to buy and sell. At the same time, the prophets also performed miracles which set them apart from ordinary human beings. A right thinking man considered the prophets to be similar but superior to himself, whereas ignorant and misguided men considered the prophets (S) to be just like any ordinary man.5
Ultimately, a solution to the contradiction that arose between a perpetually lingering doubt while constantly being viewed as the Prophet’s companions took the shape of the old proposition that was all too convenient for their secret plans. Thus, even during the lifetime of the Prophet (S) itself, they started a subtle but sustained campaign that Muhammad (S) was, after all, as much an ordinary human being as any other, subject to greed, lust and all other human frailties and excesses; and that it was only on those occasions when he received Divine Messages that he acted as the Messenger of God. Thus, a cleavage was made in the personality of Prophet Muhammad (S) and a rift was created between religious and temporal leadership, for the conspirators were fully aware that while they could not go anywhere near religious leadership [imamate], they, as expert politicians, could stake their right to temporal leadership [caliphate]. They knew that if you held the calf, the cow would follow.
We may note here that whenever Divine Messengership combined with temporal authority as in the case of Adam, David, Solomon, and the Prophet Muhammad (S), no injustice was caused to anyone under such ‘Just’ rulers. On the other hand, when temporal authority was separated from Divine Messengership, people suffered under unjust and oppressive rulers.
In order to prevent any dissension or doubt, the Prophet (S) called for pen and parchment so that he might write down his will declaring his successor. Umar refused and prevented others from procuring pen and parchment, knowing that the Prophet (S) would make a will in favour of Ali (a.s.). Umar then declared that the Prophet (S) was hallucinating in a state of delirium, and was, therefore, incapable of understanding his own words and deeds. Umar put the last nail in the proverbial coffin. He proclaimed:“We have the Qur’an amongst us, which is sufficient to guide us.”6 Thus, Umar dispensed with the necessity of any guidance from the Prophet (S) ! Hearing this, the Prophet (S) became angry and told Umar:‘get out of my presence’.7 This incident is recorded by Al-Bukhari under the same heading, i.e. ‘Qumu Anni; get away from me’. The incident reveals that right in the presence the ailing Prophet (S) they dared to suggest that the Prophet (S) was only an ordinary human being and that he suffered from infirmity of the mind. Thus, it was insinuated, firstly that the Prophet’s words were of no consequence since they were merely the blabbering of a weak and wandering mind, and secondly, that no guidance from the Prophet (S) was needed any longer since they already had the Qur’an with them.
The Prophet (S) sent several ambassadors and delegations to the neighboring kingdoms. Al-Munthir accepted Islam. The Egyptians sent rich presents while the Hercules and Negus replied in courteous manner. Khosrow, the king of Persia, behaved arrogantly and swore that he would punish the Prophet (S). But Khosrow was murdered by his own son. The Roman king had insulted and killed Usama’s father Zaid, who was sent as an ambassador by the Prophet (S). The Roman king failed to apologize and he threatened to wipe out the Muslims. This gave cause for the Muslims to send an army, demand an apology from the Roman king, and to wage war if he would refuse to apologize.8
The Prophet (S), therefore, directed Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Abu Ubaida bin al-Jarrah and all the Muhajirin and the Ansar, except Imam Ali (a.s.), to go to the place called Mu’ta on an expedition under the command of Usama bin Zaid.9 Objections were raised saying that the senior companions were opposed to being placed under the command of Usama who was a young man. Many argued that on earlier occasions, the Prophet (S) had placed the very same companions under the charge of Ali (a.s.) who was the youngest among them. However, a foundation was laid for a demur and claim that the leader should only be an older member and not any youngster.
Unable to collect men around him, Usama twice met the Prophet (S) who became angry at his orders being disobeyed and he insisted that Usama should immediately collect all the men and proceed on the expedition without further delay. Books of history are full of reports as to how Usama tried to collect the men for the expedition and how they refused to assemble under his leadership and how the companions of the Prophet (S) disobeyed the ailing Prophet (S).
History also records the palace intrigues of Aa’isha and Hafsa, wives of the Prophet (S) and daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar respectively. The animosity of these two women towards Imam Ali (a.s.) is very well recorded in history. Each of these two women insisted that her father should not proceed on any expedition and should be present in Medina, since the Prophet (S) was about to die. Therefore, instead of going to Usama as directed by the Prophet (S), Abu Bakr went to Suq to his newly wedded wife, and Umar shuttled between his friends among the Banu Umayya and the Muhajirin. Whenever the Prophet (S) called for Ali (a.s.), each of these two women would suggest that her father might be called instead of Ali (a.s.), but the Prophet (S) insisted on Ali (a.s.), with whom he conferred for a long time.10 The Prophet (S) said, “God’s curse upon those who demurred in joining the army of Usama”11
During his last days, the Prophet (S) was able to lead the prayers only once a day. When his sickness became severe, he was unable to go out and lead the prayers. During his sickness, he asked Imam Ali (a.s.) to lead the prayers. But somehow, this fact had to be obliterated or at least rendered dubious in historical records. Therefore, years later under the two caliphs, gullible historians introduced Abu Bakr and Umar as persons who led the prayer in the place of the Prophet (S) during his illness. That history, which was manipulated, is obvious from the following contradictory versions:
According to the earliest version of Muhammad ibn Isshaq, it is reported by Abdullah ibn Zam ibn al-Aswad that he was present near the ailing Prophet (S), when Bilal called out the Azan and inquired as to who should lead the prayers. The Prophet (S) told ibn Zam to ask anyone he may find at hand to lead the prayers. Ibn Zam said that on hearing this he came out, found that Abu Bakr was not present but Umar was. Ibn Zam asked Umar to lead the prayers. When Umar stood up and said the Takbir, the Prophet (S) heard Umar’s booming voice, and said, “Where is Abu Bakr? God and the Muslims refuse that Umar should lead the prayers.” Abu Bakr was sent for, but before he came, Umar had completed the Prayer. Feeling hurt at the incident, Umar asked ibn Zam, “Why did you do this to me? When I led the prayers, I thought that I was complying with the Prophet’s wish.” Ibn Zam replied, “The order was not from the Prophet. When I could not find Abu Bakr, I thought that you are the next best person to lead the prayers and therefore it was I who had asked you to lead the prayer.”12
The above version is improved and amended by Husayn Dayar Bakhti by substituting the words that the Prophet (S) told ibn Zam that he might ask anyone he would find to lead the prayers, and in its place interpolating that the Prophet (S) asked Abdullah ibn Zam to ask Abu Bakr to lead the prayers but not finding Abu Bakr, he asked Umar to lead the prayers.13
But the great Sunni traditionist Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal gives a different version and narrates from Abdullah ibn Abbas who said:“During his sickness, the Prophet (S) sent for Ali (a.s.) to be brought in immediately. Hearing this, Aa’isha said, ‘Why not my father Abu Bakr?’ The Prophet (S) said, ‘Very well’. Then Hafsa challenged, ‘Why only Abu Bakr, and not my father Umar?’ The Prophet (S) said, ‘Very Well’. Then, Ummul Fadhl said, ‘Why not my husband Abbas?’ The Prophet (S) said, ‘Very Well’. When all the three, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abbas arrived, the Prophet (S) lifted his head and not finding Ali (a.s.) among them, kept quiet. Umar understood that the Prophet (S) was not in favour of any of them and he said, ‘Let us move out’. Then Bilal, who had called out for prayer [called out the Azan] came in. Aa’isha said, ‘Abu Bakr is emotional and mild natured. Let Umar lead the prayer’. However, Abu Bakr went out to lead the prayer. Then the Prophet (S) finding himself slightly better, had himself lifted, his feet dragging on the ground, went into the mosque with the help of two persons…The Prophet (S) led the prayer and Abu Bakr was following him.”14 Al-Bukhari and Muslim also report on lines similar to Ahmed bin Hanbal, with the addition that when Aa’isha and Hafsa were disputing as to whose father should lead the prayers, the Prophet (S) said, “You are [deceitful and cunning] like the women of Joseph.”15
At-Tabari has a different version according to which the Prophet (S) asked Abu Bakr to lead the Prayer. Aa’isha said, “Abu Bakr is a soft man.” The Prophet (S) said, “Then ask Umar to lead the prayers.” Umar replied, “I am not going to lead the prayer when Abu Bakr is present.” Therefore, Abu Bakr led the prayers.16
The incident was later manipulated in such a way as to suggest that, during the three days preceding the Prophet’s death, Abu Bakr led the prayers according to an indication (Ishara) given by the Prophet (S). This manipulation is later used to suggest that Abu Bakr was indicated to be the successor of the Prophet (S).17
Thus, historical facts were distorted and the precedence of Abu Bakr and Umar was sought to be established during the last days of the Prophet (S), as a prelude and a step in aide to challenge the wisdom of the Prophet’s words and deeds.18
After finishing the prayer, the Prophet (S) returned to his chamber and demanded that pen and parchment to be procured to write down his will and testament, so that the Muslim community might be rightly guided and not to fall into gross eternal error.19 We have recounted this incident in detail in the preceding pages.
Umar apprehended that if the news of the death of the Prophet (S) reached the Ansar, they would rush and swear allegiance to Imam Ali (S) where they knew well that he had been nominated by the Prophet (S). He was also aware that the Ansar were in favour of Ali (a.s.) to succeed the Prophet (S). He realized that once Ali (a.s.) completed the funeral rites, the entire Muslim community would swear their allegiance and make Ali (a.s.) the caliph as wanted by the Prophet (S). He had to somehow gain time and defer the question of succession till he could present a fait accompli. It is for this reason that we find Umar standing near the Prophet’s body with his sword unsheathed, imputing a sort of immortality to the Prophet (S), and threatening that anyone who said that the Prophet (S) had died, would be immediately beheaded.20 Having created the desired confusion, Umar left the dead body of the Prophet (S) to be buried by Ali (a.s.) and he hastened to the Saqifa. Abu Bakr, who came after some time on his return from Suk, joined Umar at Saqifa, where he was immediately declared as the Caliph.21 On their return from Saqifa, Abu Bakr recited verses from the Qur’an to show that after all Umar was wrong and the Prophet (S), like any ordinary human being, had died.22 The confusion created by Umar’s assertion gave enough breathing time to put into effect their plan of usurping the Caliphate.
The initial assertion of immortality and later contradicting it by Qur’anic verses was cleverly used to prove that the Prophet (S) was as much a mortal as any other. The crux of the matter was to remove any possible doubt as to the Prophet (S) to be anything other than a mere mortal, and thus attempting to establish that, if on occasions, the Prophet’s actions appeared to be favorable to Ali (a.s.), all such actions should be discounted and dismissed as the fancies of the wandering mind of an ordinary man, who was naturally interested in seeing his son-in-law and cousin becoming the leader of the Muslims.
Thus, all those innumerable occasions when the Prophet (S) declared Imam Ali (a.s.) as his successor, they argued, should be presumed to be the impulsive acts of Muhammad (S), the mortal man, who was impelled by the desire to perpetuate a family rule. All such sayings of the Prophet (S) regarding Ali (a.s.), they argued, should therefore be discarded as the whims and fancies of an ordinary human mind. What was so long whispered as a theory was now to be put into practical use.
The Ansar were witnesses to the nomination of Imam Ali (a.s.) by the Prophet (S) on several occasions. They acknowledged Ali’s superiority in all respects over the entire Muslim community. They all knew that as a matter of fact Ali (a.s.) would have to become the successor of the Prophet (S) and hence they were eager and ready to accept him as the Caliph.23 They had none among them who could even remotely compete against Ali (a.s.).
But, the open opposition shown to the ailing Prophet (S), in his last days, was noted by the Ansar. Now, the Ansar realized that already plans were afoot to forestall Ali’s succession and that some other unknown person was likely to pre-empt Ali (a.s.) as well as the Ansar in order to usurp the Caliphate. The Ansar argued that if it was going to be any person other than Ali (a.s.), they had an equal, if not a better claim to the Caliphate, as the people who gave a place and protection first to the Muslims and later to the Prophet (S) himself. They hurried to the Saqifa of the Bani Sa’ida which was their old hideout where all urgent and important matters were discussed and decided. Sa’d bin Ubada was a well-known, powerful, and ambitious man among the Ansar. The Ansar decided that if any person other than Ali (a.s.) attempted to become the Caliph, Sa’d Bin Ibada should stake the claim for the Caliphate.24
The Ansar themselves were a divided lot on account of long-standing enmity between the two major tribes of al-Aws and al-Khazraj.25 Both of the tribes had traitors who passed on the information to the Muhajirin. Umar had, as his close friends and informers, Uwaim, Mu’in ibn Adiy, and his brother Aasim from among the Ansar. These men were jealous of and opposed to Sa’d bin Ibada and his tribe. When they saw that Sa’d bin Ibada was likely to be put up as a candidate of the Ansar to the Caliphate, Aasim hurried in search of Umar. He found him at the Prophet’s house and from behind a wall, called out to him. Aasim and Mu’in bin Adiy informed Umar that the Ansar had gathered at Saqifa and were about to choose Sa’d bin Ibada as the Caliph.26 Aasim urged Umar to hurry to Saqifa. Umar could not locate Abu Bakr, who was then a short distance away at Suk with his newly wedded wife. Instead, he found Abu Ubaida ibn al-Jarrah and offered the caliphate to him. Abu Ubaida refused, saying that he dared not do so as long as seniors like Abu Bakr and Umar were present. On the way, Abu Bakr met them and all three of them hurried towards Saqifa, leaving behind the body of the Prophet (S) to be buried by his family members and close companions.27
Even during the lifetime of the Prophet (S), Abu Bakr and Umar kept their link with Abu Sufyan, Marwan, Mu’awiya, and other Umayyads. In the heat of the Battle of Uhud, assuming that the Prophet (S) was killed, Umar, Talha, and a few Muhajirin and Ansar fled to the mountains.28 When Anas ibn an-Nadhr, came upon them and inquired as to why they deserted the Prophet (S) at such a crucial moment, Umar lamented that since he was told that the Prophet (S) was killed, he wished that someone could go to the hypocrite Abdullah ibn Ubay and request him to intercede and get an amnesty from Abu Sufyan who was the commander of the infidel army.29 Umar and Abu Bakr, when they assumed the Caliphate, doubly renewed their friendship with the Banu Umayya, the clan to which Uthman belonged.
At the Saqifa, after much disputation, initially a sort of compromise formula was proposed that in recognition of the undeniable protection and services rendered by the Ansar to Muslims, one man from the Ansar and one man from the Muhajirin should become Caliphs. Umar vehemently objected saying that two swords could not be sheathed in one scabbard. It is to be noted that at the Saqifa, there were only three persons; Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaida and nobody else from the Muhajirin.30 S.M. Suhufi gives a total number of fourteen persons who had gathered at Saqifa.31
At the Saqifa, there was no any discussion between the Muhajirin and the Ansar regarding the merits of their respective candidates. The only contention of Abu Bakr and Umar was that they belonged to the tribe of Quraysh, who accepted Islam long before the Ansar and that they were relatives of the Prophet (S). On this ground, the people of Quraysh contended that they had a better and superior right over the Ansar. The details of what transpired at the Saqifa does not concern us here. The entire incident and the manner in which Abu Bakr became the first Caliphate is recorded in detail by all the historians as well as reporters of traditions. The arguments between the two contestants are set out in detail supported by authoritative references by Agha M.S. Mirza in his book ‘The Caliphate’.32 Suffice it to say that there were wordy duels followed by exchange of blows and bloodshed. At-Tabari records that it was “truly a scene from the period of Jahiliya (the pre-Islamic era).33
A vast number of the Hashemites, Muhajirin, such as Salman, al-Miqdad, Ammar, Huthaifa, Abu Dharr, and the Ansar such as Abu Ayyub al Ansari, Jabir ibn Abdullah…etc., refused to acknowledge Abu Bakr as their Caliph. The Banu Umayya headed by Abu Sufyan also initially refused to acknowledge Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.34
As to how, by offering wealth, property, and lucrative posts, and where these did not work, by threats of annihilation and actual use of force, the dissidents, except the Banu Hashim, were subdued by the Caliph, is recorded in detail by Ahmed ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat, Ibn Qutaiba in his Kitabul Imamah wes-Siyasah, al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, Abu Dawud in his Musnad, Shah Abdul Haq in his al-Ashi’atul Lami’a, al-Balatheri in his Futuhul Buldan, in addition to the books of Abul Fida, at-Tabari, al-Mas’udi, ibn Abil Hadid al-Mo’tazili…etc.35
Abu Sufyan ostensibly became a Muslim, but remained a pagan at heart, for he was highly pleased when Umar and other Muslims deserted the Prophet (S) and ran away in the battle of Hunain.36 He gloated:“This day we have seen the last of the witchcraft of Muhammad. This headlong flight of the Muslims will be stopped only by the sea.”37
The Umma was greatly agitated by the fact that Ali (a.s.) was cunningly sidestepped. There were unending discussions about the acumen of the first caliph. The conspirators were aware that if an element of Divine will was introduced, it would silence the common man. For this, the next step was to introduce a sense of fatalism of the maxim ‘Man proposes, God disposes’. Thus, it is that Umar introduced ‘Divine Providence’ when he told Abdullah ibn Abbas:“It is true that the Prophet (S) intended and wished that Ali should attain the Caliphate. But the wish of the Prophet can carry no weight, as God did not will it so. The Prophet wished that Ali should attain the Caliphate, but God wished it otherwise. The will of God prevailed, thus the Prophet’s desire could not be fulfilled. …The Prophet wished to write a will giving the Caliphate to Ali, but I prevented him from doing so in the interest of Islam. The Prophet also came to know what was in my heart, and refrained from writing the will. The will of God prevailed.”38
The uncanny introduction of fatalism brought out a mix that was easily consumable for the Umma that was ever ready to resign to its ‘fate’. To this day, Muslims are under the impression that what had happened at Saqifa in the matter of Caliphate might have been due to the Decree of God and we the Umma, including the Prophet and his progeny are powerless on-lookers. In this view, are concealed and condoned all the contrivances employed by the Banu Umayya and some greedy men of Quraysh, to usurp the Caliphate and keep it successfully beyond the reach of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).
In one swipe all those traditions regarding Imam Ali’s nomination to the Caliphate, were done away with. But there remained those traditions that spoke of the excellence and supremacy of Imam Ali (a.s.) over all other Muslims in matters of faith, and his indispensability to Islam. However, not much could be done as long as the Prophet (S) lived, for he would have reiterated whenever they made any attempt to falsify a tradition, thereby enhancing the number of narrators of traditions. Yet, during the Prophet’s lifetime itself false sayings were attributed to him so much so the Prophet (S) said, “Whoever attributes false traditions in my name shall surely be cast into hell.”39 The appropriate time for action, therefore, was immediately after the death of the Prophet (S). However, political expediency demanded that the foundation be laid when the Prophet (S) was in the last moments of his life. Consummate politician that he was, Umar superbly carried out this part of the conspiracy.
- 1. Al-Bukhari, Chapter on Jihad, vol.2, p.14, ibnul Athir’s Tarikh al-Kamil, vol.2, p.84, Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2, p.22, 32, Madarijun Nubuwwa, vol.2 p.286-287, al-Waqidi’s Kitabul Maghazi, vol. 2 p.607, Ali Naqi’s History of Islam, Pp.357-362.
- 2. As-Seera al-Halabiyya, vol. 3, p.308-309.
- 3. Qur’an, 53:3-4.
- 4. Ibnul Athir’s Tarikh al-Kamil, vol.2, p.84, Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2, p.22, 32, Madarijun Nubuwwa, vol.2, p.286-287, al-Waqidi’s Kitabul Maghazi, vol. 2, p.607, Ali Naqi’s History of Islam, p.357-362.
- 5. Qur’an, Hud 11:31, al-Mu’minoon 23:33 – 35, 123 – 126, ash-Shura 26:153 – 154, 176-191, Yasin 36:13 – 29, al-Baqara 2:246 – 251.
- 6. Al-Bukhari, Kitabul Ilm, Kitabul Jihad, Kitabul Khums, Bab Maradh an-Nabi, Qumu Anni, Bab Karahiyat…, Sahih of Muslim,vol.5, p.75-76, Ahmed bin Hanbal’s Musnad,vol.1,p.355- 356, ash-Shahristani’s Kitab al-Milal wen-Nihal, ibn Hazm’s Kitab al-Fasl, vol. 1 p.23, Kanzul Ummal, vol. 3 p.138, vol. 4 p.23, The Caliphate, p. 208-209.
- 7. Al-Bukhari, Bab ‘Qumu anni’.
- 8. Abul Fida’s Qasasul Ambiya, p. 408 – 409.
- 9. At-Tabari, vol.3, p.188-189, Habibus Sayyar, vol. 1, Part 3, p.77, Madarijun Nubuwwa, vol. 2, p.530, Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2 p.171, Ibnul Athir, vol. 2,p.120, ibn Abil Hadid, vol. 1 p.53, vol.2 p.20.
- 10. At-Tabari, vol.3, p.188-189, Habibus Sayyar, vol. 1, Part 3, p.77, Madarijun Nubuwwa, vol. 2, p.530, Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2, p.171, Ibnul Athir, vol. 2 p.120, ibn Abil Hadid, vol.1, p.53, vol.2, p.20.
- 11. Stories From the Qur’an by S.M. Suhufi, p. 316, Arabic Text No. 119 at p. 351. [La’ana Allahu man takhallafa an jaishi Usama].
- 12. Seeratun Nabi, Vol. 4, p.330.
- 13. Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2 p.181.
- 14. Ahmed bin Hanbal's Musnad, vol. 1, p.356.
- 15. Al-Bukhari, Kitabul Azan and Kitabul I’tisaam, Sahih of Muslim, vol. 1, part 3, p.79.
- 16. Tabari, vol. 3, p.195
- 17. Habib al-Sayyar, vol. 4, p. 356. Khilafah in Theory & Practice, p.48-49.
- 18. The Caliphate, p. 196-207.
- 19. The Caliphate, p. 212 and footnote 264.
- 20. Ibn Khaldun, vol.2, p.63, Shibli’s al Faruq, Part 1, p.65, The Caliphate, p.230, 232.
- 21. Al-Bukhari, Bab Fada’il As~haab an-Nabi, vol.2, p.193, ibn Khaldun, vol.2, Supp. P. 63, Tabaqat of ibn Sa’d, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 55.
- 22. The Caliphate by M.S. Mirza, p.220-221, ibn Hisham, vol. 4, p.334-335, Musnad of Ahmed bin Hanbal, vol. 1, p.334, Al-Bukhari, Bab Fada’il As~haab an Nabi, vol.2, p.193, ibn Khaldun, vol.2, Supp. P. 63, Tabaqat of ibn Sa’d, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 55; ibn Hajar al-Makki’s As-Sawa’iq, p.5.
- 23. At-Tabari, vol.3, p.198, al-Kamil of ibnul Athir, vol. 2,p.124, Ibn Abil Hadid al-Mo’tazili , vol. 2, p. 7-8, 411.
- 24. Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 2, p. 10.
- 25. Ibn Qutaiba, Kitabul Imamah, p.9; The Caliphate, p.227, Khilafa, p.48.
- 26. Ibn Abil Hadid, vol. 2,p. 3.
- 27. Al-Bukhari, Bab Fada’il As~hab an-Nabi, vol.2, p.193, at-Tabari, vol. 3, p.208, Muhibbuddin at-Tabari’s ar-Riydun Nadira, Part 1, Ch.2, Section 13, p. 15, 165.
- 28. As-Suyuti’s ad-Durrul Manthur, vol.2, supp. P. 88.
- 29. At-Tabari’s Tarikh, vol.3, p.19-20; Kitabul Maghazi, vol. 3, p. 45.
- 30. Al-Bukhari, Bab Fada’il As~hab an Nabi, vol. 2, p.193, at-Tabari, Vol. 3, p.208.
- 31. Stories From the Qur’an by Suhufi, Eng. Tr. By Muhammad Fazal Haq, P. 312 Islamic Seminary Publications .
- 32. The Caliphate, Its Conception and Consequences, p. 222 – 242.
- 33. At-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 208-210, ibn Khaldun, vol. 2,supp. P. 63.
- 34. Habib al-Sayyar, vol. 1, Part 4, p. 2, Abul Fida, vol. 1,p. 156, at-Tabari, vol. 3, p.202, al-Mas’udi, vol. 2,p.194, ibn Abil Hadid, vol. 1, p. 134.
- 35. Ibn Sa’d’s at-Tabaqatul Kubra, Part 1, Vol. 3, p.129, ibn Qutaiba’s Kitabul Imama wes-Siyasah, vol.1, p.15, ibn Abil Hadid, vol. 1, p.133, vol. 2, p.3.
- 36. Al-Bukhari, Kitabul Maghazi, vol. 3, p.45.
- 37. At-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 128, Ibnul Athir, vol. 2,p.100, Abul Fida, vol. 1, 146, ibn Kathir’s Tarikh, vol. 4,p.327, Margoliouth’s ‘Muhammad’, p. 394-402.
- 38. The Caliphate, p. 46-47, 329-330, quoting Ibn Abil Hadeed’s Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.114.
- 39. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 209.