وَمِنۡ خُطۡبَةٍ لَهُ عَلَيۡهِ السَّلَامُ
From one of his sermons
وَهِيَ الۡمَعۡرُوفَةُ بِالشِّقۡشِقِيَّةِ [فِي بَعۡضِ النُّسَخِ: الۡمَعۡرُوفَةُ بِالشِّقۡشِقِيَّةِ]
Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqīyah [1]
وَتَشۡتَمِلُ عَلَى الشَّكۡوَى مِنۡ أَمۡرِ الۡخِلَافَةِ ثُمَّ تَرۡجِيحِ صَبۡرِهِ عَنۡهَا ثُمَّ مُبَايَعَةِ النَّاسِ لَهُ
It includes a complaint about the matter of the caliphate, then an expression of his preference for patience regarding it, and finally, the people’s pledge of allegiance to him
أَمَا وَاللّٰهِ لَقَدۡ تَقَمَّصَهَا ابۡنُ أَبِي قُحَافَةَ [في بعض النسخ: فُلَانٌ]، وَإِنَّهُ لَيَعۡلَمُ أَنَّ مَحَلِّي مِنۡهَا مَحَلُّ الۡقُطۡبِ مِنَ الرَّحَى [في بعض النسخ: الرَّحَا]، يَنۡحَدِرُ عَنِّي السَّيۡلُ، وَلَا يَرۡقَى إِلَيَّ الطَّيۡرُ، فَسَدَلۡتُ دُونَهَا ثَوۡباً، وَطَوَيۡتُ عَنۡهَا كَشۡحاً، وَطَفِقۡتُ أَرۡتَئِي بَيۡنَ أَنۡ أَصُولَ بِيَدٍ جَذَّاءَ، أَوۡ أَصۡبِرَ عَلَى طَخۡيَةٍ عَمۡيَاءَ، يَهۡرَمُ فِيهَا الۡكَبِيرُ، وَيَشِيبُ فِيهَا الصَّغِيرُ، وَيَكۡدَحُ فِيهَا مُؤۡمِنٌ حَتَّى يَلۡقَى رَبَّهُ.
Beware! By Allāh the son of Abū Quḥāfah (Abū Bakr) [2] dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it. Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allāh (on his death).
[ترجيح الصبر:] فَرَأَيۡتُ أَنَّ الصَّبۡرَ عَلَى هَاتَا أَحۡجَى، فَصَبَرۡتُ وَفِي الۡعَيۡنِ قَذًى، وَفِي الۡحَلۡقِ شَجًا، أَرَى تُرَاثِي نَهۡباً، حَتَّى مَضَى الۡأَوَّلُ لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَأَدۡلَى بِهَا إِلَى ابۡنِ الۡخَطَّابِ [في بعض النسخ: فُلَانٌ] بَعۡدَهُ.
[Preference for patience:] I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throats. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb after himself.
ثُمَّ تَمَثَّلَ بِقَوۡلِ الۡأَعۡشَى: شَتَّانَ مَا يَوۡمِي عَلَى كُورِهَا *** وَيَوۡمُ حَيَّانَ أَخِي جَابِرِ
(Then he quoted al-Aʿshā’s verse:) My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jābir’s brother Ḥayyān. [3]
فَيَا عَجَباً! بَيۡنَا هُوَ يَسۡتَقِيلُهَا فِي حَيَاتِهِ إِذۡ عَقَدَهَا لِآخَرَ بَعۡدَ وَفَاتِهِ، لَشَدَّ مَا تَشَطَّرَا ضَرۡعَيۡهَا! فَصَيَّرَهَا فِي حَوۡزَةٍ خَشۡنَاءَ، يَغۡلُظُ كَلۡمُهَا، وَيَخۡشُنُ مَسُّهَا، وَيَكۡثُرُ الۡعِثَارُ فِيهَا وَالۡاِعۡتَذَارُ مِنۡهَا، فَصَاحِبُهَا كَرَاكِبِ الصَّعۡبَةِ، إِنۡ أَشۡنَقَ لَهَا خَرَمَ، وَإِنۡ أَسۡلَسَ لَهَا تَقَحَّمَ.
It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown.
فَمُنِيَ النَّاسُ ـ لَعَمۡرُ اللّٰهِ! ـ بِخَبۡطٍ وَشِمَاسٍ، وَتَلَوُّنٍ وَاعۡتِرَاضٍ. فَصَبَرۡتُ عَلَى طُولِ الۡمُدَّةِ، وَشِدَّةِ الۡمِحۡنَةِ، حَتَّى إِذَا مَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ جَعَلَهَا فِي جَمَاعَةٍ زَعَمَ أَنِّي أَحَدُهُمۡ.
Consequently, by Allāh people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation. Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group [4] and regarded me to be one of them.
فَيَا لَلّٰهِ وَلِلشُّورَى! مَتَى اعۡتَرَضَ الرَّيۡبُ فِيَّ مَعَ الۡأَوَّلِ مِنۡهُمۡ، حَتَّى صِرۡتُ أُقۡرَنُ إِلَى هَذِهِ النَّظَائِرِ لَكِنِّي أَسۡفَفۡتُ إِذۡ أَسَفُّوا، وَطِرۡتُ إِذۡ طَارُوا، فَصَغَا رَجُلٌ مِنۡهُمۡ لِضِغۡنِهِ، وَمَالَ الۡآخَرُ لِصِهۡرِهِ، مَعَ هَنٍ وَهَنٍ.
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 thing.
إِلَى أَنۡ قَامَ ثَالِثُ الۡقَوۡمِ، نَافِجاً حِضۡنَيۡهِ بَيۡنَ نَثِيلِهِ وَمُعۡتَلَفِهِ، وَقَامَ مَعَهُ بَنُو أَبِيهِ يَخۡضَمُونَ مَالَ اللّٰهِ خِضۡمَةَ [في بعض النسخ: خَضۡمَ] الۡإِبِلِ نِبۡتَةَ الرَّبِيعِ، إِلَى أَنِ انۡتَكَثَ [فِي بَعۡضِ النُّسَخِ: انۡتَكَثَ عَلَيۡهِ] فَتۡلُهُ، وَأَجۡهَزَ عَلَيۡهِ عَمَلُهُ، وَكَبَتۡ بِهِ بِطۡنَتُهُ.
Till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grandfather (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allāh’s wealth [5] like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.
[مبايعة علي عليه السلام:] فَمَا رَاعَنِي إِلَّا وَالنَّاسُ كَعُرۡفِ الضَّبُعِ إِلَيَّ، يَنۡثَالُونَ عَلَيَّ مِنۡ كُلِّ جَانِبٍ، حَتَّى لَقَدۡ وُطِئَ الۡحَسَنَانِ، وَشُقَّ عِطۡفَايَ، مُجۡتَمِعِينَ حَوۡلِي كَرَبِيضَةِ الۡغَنَمِ.
[Allegiance paid to ʿAlī (a.s.):] At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Ḥasan and Ḥusayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats.
فَلَمَّا نَهَضۡتُ بِالۡأَمۡرِ نَكَثَتۡ طَائِفَةٌ، وَمَرَقَتۡ أُخۡرَى، وَقَسَطَ آخَرُونَ كَأَنَّهُمۡ لَمۡ یَسۡمَعُوۡا كَلَامَ اللهِ حَیۡثُ [فِي بَعۡضِ النُّسَخِ: يَسۡمَعُوا اللّٰهَ سُبۡحَانَهُ] يَقُولُ : ﴿تِلۡكَ ٱلدَّارُ ٱلۡأَخِرَةُ نَجۡعَلُهَا لِلَّذِينَ لَا يُرِيدُونَ عُلُوًّا فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَلَا فَسَادًا ۚ وَٱلۡعَٰقِبَةُ لِلۡمُتَّقِينَ﴾
When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allāh saying: “That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones.” (Qurʾān, 28:83)
بَلَى! وَاللّٰهِ لَقَدۡ سَمِعُوهَا وَوَعَوۡهَا، وَلَكِنَّهُمۡ حَلِيَتِ الدُّنۡيَا فِي أَعۡيُنِهِمۡ، وَرَاقَهُمۡ زِبۡرِجُهَا.
Yes, by Allāh, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them.
أَمَا وَالَّذِي فَلَقَ الۡحَبَّةَ، وَبَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ، لَوۡ لَا حُضُورُ الۡحَاضِرِ، وَقِيَامُ الۡحُجَّةِ بِوُجُودِ النَّاصِرِ، وَمَا أَخَذَ اللّٰهُ عَلَى الۡعُلَمَاءِ أَلَّا يُقَارُّوا عَلَى كِظَّةِ ظَالِمٍ وَلَا سَغَبِ مَظۡلُومٍ، لَأَلۡقَيۡتُ حَبۡلَهَا عَلَى غَارِبِهَا، وَلَسَقَيۡتُ آخِرَهَا بِكَأۡسِ أَوَّلِهَا، وَلَأَلۡفَيۡتُمۡ دُنۡيَاكُمۡ هَذِهِ أَزۡهَدَ عِنۡدِي مِنۡ عَفۡطَةِ عَنۡزٍ.
Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allāh with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.
قَالُوا: وَقَامَ إِلَيۡهِ رَجُلٌ مِنۡ أَهۡلِ السَّوَادِ عِنۡدَ بُلُوغِهِ إِلَى هَذَا الۡمَوۡضِعِ مِنۡ خُطۡبَتِهِ، فَنَاوَلَهُ كِتَاباً، [في بعض النسخ: ... قِيلَ إِنَّ فِيهِ مَسَائِلَ كَانَ يُرِيدُ الۡإِجَابَةَ عَنۡهَا ...]، فَأَقۡبَلَ يَنۡظُرُ فِيهِ، [في بعض النسخ: ... فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ مِنۡ قِرَاءَتِهِ] قَالَ لَهُ ابۡنُ عَبَّاسٍ [في بعض النسخ: ... رضي اللّٰه عنهما:] يَا أَمِيرَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ! لَوِ اطَّرَدَتۡ خُطۡبَتُكَ مِنۡ حَيۡثُ أَفۡضَيۡتَ.
It is said that when Amīr al-Muʾminīn reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amīr al-Muʾminīn began looking at it, when Ibn ʿAbbās said, “O Amīr al-Muʾminīn, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it.”
فَقَالَ (عليه السلام): هَيۡهَاتَ يَا ابۡنَ عَبَّاسٍ! تِلۡكَ شِقۡشِقَةٌ هَدَرَتۡ ثُمَّ قَرَّتۡ.
Thereupon He (a.s.) replied, “O Ibn ʿAbbās it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided.”
قَالَ ابۡنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فَوَاللّٰهِ مَا أَسَفۡتُ عَلَى كَلَامٍ قَطُّ كَأَسَفِي عَلَى هَذَا الۡكَلَامِ أَنۡ لَا [فِي بَعۡضِ النُّسَخِ: أَلَّا] يَكُونَ أَمِيرُ الۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ (عليه السلام) بَلَغَ مِنۡهُ حَيۡثُ أَرَادَ.
Ibn ʿAbbās says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amīr al-Muʾminīn could not finish it as he wished to.
[قال الشريف الرضي:] قَولُهُ (عَلَيۡهِ السَّلَامُ) [في بعض النسخ: ... فِي هَذِهِ الخُطبَةِ]: «كَرَاكِبِ الصَّعۡبَةِ إِنۡ أَشۡنَقَ لَهَا خَرَمَ، وَإِنۡ أَسۡلَسَ لَهَا تَقَحَّمَ» يُريدُ: أَنَّهُ إِذَا شَدَّدَ عَلَيۡهَا فِي جَذۡبِ الزِّمامِ وَهِيَ تُنَازِعُهُ رَأۡسَهَا خَرَمَ أَنۡفَهَا، وَإِنۡ أرۡخَى لَهَا شَيۡئاً مَعَ صُعُوبَتِهَا تَقَحَّمَتۡ بِهِ فَلَمۡ يَمۡلِكۡهَا، يُقَالُ: أشۡنَقَ النَّاقَةَ: إِذَا جَذَبَ رأۡسَهَا بِالزِّمَامِ فَرَفَعَهُ، وَشَنَقَهَا أيۡضاً، ذَكَرَ ذلِكَ ابۡنُ السِّكِّيۡتِ فِي «إِصۡلَاحِ الۡمَنۡطِقِ». وإِنَّمَا قَالَ (عَلَيۡهِ السَّلَامُ): «أَشۡنَقَ لَهَا» وَلَمۡ يَقُلۡ: «أَشۡنَقَهَا»، لِأَنَّهُ جَعَلَه فِي مُقَابَلَةِ قَوۡلِهُ: «أَسۡلَسَ لَهَا»، فكَأَنَّهُ (عَلَيۡهِ السَّلَامُ) قاَلَ: إِنۡ رَفَعَ لَهَا رأۡسَهَا بِمَعۡنَى أَمۡسَكَهُ عَلَيۡهَا بِالزِّمَامِ [في بعض النسخ: إِنۡ رَفَعَ لَهَا رأۡسَها بالزِّمامِ يَعۡنِي أَمۡسَكَهُ عَلَيۡهَا].
ash-Sharīf ar-Raḍī says: The words in this sermon — “like the rider of a camel” — mean to convey that when a camel rider is stiff in drawing up the rein then in this scuffle the nostril gets bruised; but if he lets it loose in spite of camel’s unruliness, it would throw him somewhere and would get out of control. “Ashnaqa an-nāqah” is used when the rider holds up the rein and raises the camel’s head upwards. In the same sense the word “Shanaqahā” is used. Ibn as-Sikkīt has mentioned this in Iṣlāḥ al-manṭiq. Amīr al-Muʾminīn has said “ashnaqa lahā” instead of “ashnaqahā,” this is because he has used this word in harmony with “aslasa lahā”; and harmony could be retained only by using both in the same form. Thus, Amīr al-Muʾminīn has used “ashnaqa lahā” as though in place of “in rafa‘a lahā raʾsahā,” that is, “if he stops it by holding up the reins.”
[في بعض النسخ:] وَفِي الۡحَدِيثِ: أَنَّ رَسُولَ الله (صَلّٰى اللّٰهُ عَلَيۡهِ وَآلِهِ) خَطَبَ النَّاسَ وَهُوَ عَلَى نَاقَةٍ قَدۡ شَنَقَ لَهَا وَهِيَ تَقۡصَعُ بِجِرَّتِهَا [في بعض النسخ: خَطَبَ عَلَى نَاقَتِهِ وَقَدَ شَنَقَ لَهَا فَهِيَ تَقۡصَعُ بِجَرَّتِهَا]. وَمِنَ الشَّاهِدِ عَلَى أَنَّ أَشۡنَقَ بِمَعۡنَى شَنَقَ قَوۡلُ عَدِيِّ بۡنِ زَيۡدٍ الۡعِبَادِيِّ:
سَاءَهَا مَا [في بعض النسخ: مَا لَهَا] تَبَيَّنَ فِي الۡأَيۡدِي *** وَإِشۡنَاقُهَا إِلَى الۡأَعۡنَاقِ
Notes:
[1] This sermon is known as the sermon of ash-Shiqshiqīyah, and is counted among the most famous sermons of Amīr al-Muʾminīn. It was delivered at ar-Raḥbah.
Although some people have denied it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance and by attributing it to as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī (or ash-Sharīf ar-Raḍī) have laid blame on his acknowledged integrity, yet truth-loving scholars have denied its veracity. Nor can there be any ground for this denial because ʿAlī’s (a.s.) difference of view in the matter of Caliphate is not a secret matter, so that such hints should be regarded as something alien. And the events which have been alluded to in this sermon are preserved in the annals of history which testifies them word by word and sentence by sentence. If the same events which are related by history are recounted by Amīr al-Muʾminīn then what is the ground for denying them? If the memory of discouraging circumstances faced by him soon after the death of the Prophet appeared unpalatable to him it should not be surprising. No doubt this sermon hits at the prestige of certain personalities and gives a set back to the faith and belief in them but this cannot be sustained by denying the sermon to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance, unless the true events are analysed and truth unveiled; otherwise just denying it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance because it contains disparagement of certain individuals carries no weight, when similar criticism has been related by other historians as well. Thus (Abū ʿUthmān) ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ has recorded the following words of a sermon of Amīr al-Muʾminīn and they are not less weighty than the criticism in the “Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqīyah”:
Those two passed away and the third one rose like the crow whose courage is confined to the belly. It would have been better if both his wings had been cut and his head severed. (Kitāb al-Bayān wa al-Tabyīn, vol. 1, p. 170, ʿIlmiyyah Press, Egypt.)
Consequently, the idea that it is the production of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī is far from truth and a result of partisanship and partiality. Or else if it is the result of some research it should be brought out. Otherwise, remaining in such wishful illusion does not alter the truth, nor can the force of decisive arguments be curbed down by mere disagreement and displeasure.
Now we set forth the testimonies of those scholars and traditionists who have explicitly affirmed that this is the speech of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, so that its historical significance may become known. Among these scholars are some who lived before as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī’s period, some who were his contemporaries, and some who came after him, but all of them related it through their own chain of authority.
(1) Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd al-Muʿtazilī writes that his master Abū al-Khayr Muṣaddiq ibn Shabīb al-Wāsiṭī (d. 605 A.H.) stated that he heard this sermon from ash-Shaykh Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad al-Baghdādī, who is known as Ibn al-Khashshāb (d. 567 A. H.), and when he reached where Ibn ʿAbbās expressed sorrow for this sermon having remained incomplete, Ibn al-Khashshāb said to him that if he had heard the expression of sorrow from Ibn ʿAbbās he would have certainly asked him if there had remained with his cousin any further unsatisfied desire because excepting the Prophet he had already spared neither the predecessors nor followers and had uttered all that he wished to utter. Why should therefore be any sorrow that he could not say what he wished? Muṣaddiq says that Ibn al-Khashshāb was a man of jolly heart and decent taste. I inquired from him whether he also regarded the sermon to be a fabrication when he replied “By Allāh, I believe it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s word as I believe you to be Muṣaddiq ibn Shabīb.” I said that some people regard it to be as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī’s production when he replied: “How can ar-Raḍī—or anyone else—have such guts or such style of writing? I have seen as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī’s writings and know his literary style and methods of composition. Nowhere does his writing match with this one and I have already seen it in books written two hundred years before the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī, and I have seen it in familiar writings about which I know by which scholars or men of letters they were compiled. At that time not only ar-Raḍī but even his father Abū Aḥmad an-Naqīb has not been born.”
(2) Thereafter, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd writes that he saw this sermon in the writings of his master Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad al-Balkhī (d. 317 A.H.). He was the Imām of the Muʿtazilites of Baghdād during the reign of al-Muqtadir Billāh, while al-Muqtadir’s rule (295–320 AH) was well before the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī.
(3) He further writes that he saw this sermon in the book al-Insāf of Abū Jaʿfar (Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān) ibn Qibah. He was a student of Abū al-Qāsim al-Balkhī and a theologian of Imāmiyyah (Shīʿite) sect. (Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 206)
(4) Ibn Maytham al-Baḥrānī (d. 679 A.H.) writes in his commentary that he had seen a copy of this sermon which bore writing of al-Muqtadir Billāh’s minister Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Furāt (d. 312 A.H.). (Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah Ibn Maytham, vol. 1, pp. 252–253)
(5) al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī (r.a.) has quoted the following chain of transmission for this Sermon from ash-Shaykh Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāwandī’s compilation Minhāj al-Barāʿah fī Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah: ash-Shaykh Abū Naṣr al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm informed me from al-Ḥājib Abū al-Wafā Muḥammad ibn Badīʿ, al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn Badīʿ and al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, and they from al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Bakr (Aḥmad ibn Mūsā) ibn Mardawayh al-Iṣfahānī (d. 416 A.H.) and he from al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Qāsim Sulaymān ibn Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 A.H.) and he from Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Abbār, and he from Isḥāq ibn Saʿīd Abū Salamah ad-Dimashqī, and he from Khulayḍ ibn Daʿlaj, and he from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 29, pp. 505–506)
(6) In the context al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī has written that this sermon is also contained in the compilations of Abū ʿAlī (Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb) al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303 A.H.). (ibid., p. 506)
(7) In connection with this very authenticity al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī writes: al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār ibn Aḥmad al-Asadābādī (d. 415 A.H.), who was a strict Muʿtazilite, explains some expressions of this sermon in his book al-Mughnī and tries to prove that it does not strike against any preceding caliph, but does not deny it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s composition. (ibid., p. 508)
(8) Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī, Ibn Bābawayh (d. 381 A.H.) writes: Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Isḥāq aṭ-Ṭālaqānī told us that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Jalūdī (d. 332 A.H.) told him that Abū ʿAbd Allāh Aḥmad ibn ʿAmmār ibn Khālid told him that Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥimmānī (d. 228 A.H.) told him that ʿĪsā ibn Rāshid related this sermon from ʿAlī ibn Ḥudhayfah, and he from ʿIkrimah and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ, vol. l, chap. 122, p. 153; Maʿānī al-Akhbār, Bāb Maʿānī Khuṭbat li-Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿalayhi al-salām)
(9) Then Ibn Bābawayh records the following chain of authorities: Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī Mājilawayh related this sermon to us and he took it from his uncle Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Qāsim and he from Aḥmad ibn Abī ʿAbd Allāh (Muḥammad ibn Khālid) al-Barqī and he from his father and he from (Muḥammad) ibn Abī ‘Umayr and he from Abān ibn ʿUthmān and he from Abān ibn Taghlib and he from ʿIkrimah and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ, vol. l, chap. 122, p. 150; Maʿānī al-Akhbār, Bāb Maʿānī Khuṭbat li-Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿalayhi al-salām)
(10) Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Saʿīd al-ʿAskarī (d. 382 A.H.), who counts among great scholars of the Sunnis, has written a commentary and explanation of this sermon that has been recorded by Ibn Bābawayh in ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ and Maʿānī al-Akhbār.
(11) as-Sayyid Niʿmatullāh al-Jazāʾirī (r.a.) writes: The author of Kitāb al-Ghārāt Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ath-Thaqafī al-Kūfī (d. 283 A.H.) has related this sermon through his own chain of authorities. The date of completion of writing this book is Tuesday the 13th of Shawwāl 355 A.H., and it is the same year in which al-Murtaḍā al-Mūsawī. He was older in age than his brother as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī. (Anwār an-Nuʿmāniyyah, vol. 1, p. 88)
(12) as-Sayyid Raḍī ad-Dīn Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī ibn Mūsā ibn Ṭāwūs al-Ḥusaynī al-Ḥillī (d. 664 A.H.) has related this sermon from Kitāb al-Ghārāt with the following chain of authorities: This sermon was related to us by Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf who related it from al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī (ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm) az-Zaʿfarānī and he from Muḥammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Qallābī and he from Yaʿqūb ibn Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān, and he from his father, and he from his grandfather, and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (Translation of at-Ṭarāʾif, p. 420).
(13) Shaykh at-Ṭāʾifah, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan at-Ṭūsī (d. 460 A.H.) writes: (Abū al-Fatḥ Hilāl ibn Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar) al-Ḥaffār related this sermon to us. He related it from Abū al-Qāsim (Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAlī) ad-Diʿbilī, and he from his father, and he from his brother Diʿbil (ibn ʿAlī al-Kuzāʿī), and he from Muḥammad ibn Salāmah ash-Shāmī, and he from Zurārah ibn Aʿyan, and he from Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī (a.s.), and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (al-Amālī, p. 372)
(14) ash-Shaykh al-Mufīd (Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn an-Nuʿmān, d. 413 A.H.) who was the teacher of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī writes about the chain of authorities of this sermon: A number of relaters of traditions have related this sermon from Ibn ʿAbbās through numerous chains. (al-Irshād, vol. 1, p. 287)
[1] This sermon is known as the sermon of ash-Shiqshiqīyah, and is counted among the most famous sermons of Amīr al-Muʾminīn. It was delivered at ar-Raḥbah.
Although some people have denied it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance and by attributing it to as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī (or ash-Sharīf ar-Raḍī) have laid blame on his acknowledged integrity, yet truth-loving scholars have denied its veracity. Nor can there be any ground for this denial because ʿAlī’s (a.s.) difference of view in the matter of Caliphate is not a secret matter, so that such hints should be regarded as something alien. And the events which have been alluded to in this sermon are preserved in the annals of history which testifies them word by word and sentence by sentence. If the same events which are related by history are recounted by Amīr al-Muʾminīn then what is the ground for denying them? If the memory of discouraging circumstances faced by him soon after the death of the Prophet appeared unpalatable to him it should not be surprising. No doubt this sermon hits at the prestige of certain personalities and gives a set back to the faith and belief in them but this cannot be sustained by denying the sermon to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance, unless the true events are analysed and truth unveiled; otherwise just denying it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance because it contains disparagement of certain individuals carries no weight, when similar criticism has been related by other historians as well. Thus (Abū ʿUthmān) ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ has recorded the following words of a sermon of Amīr al-Muʾminīn and they are not less weighty than the criticism in the “Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqīyah”:
Those two passed away and the third one rose like the crow whose courage is confined to the belly. It would have been better if both his wings had been cut and his head severed. (Kitāb al-Bayān wa al-Tabyīn, vol. 1, p. 170, ʿIlmiyyah Press, Egypt.)
Consequently, the idea that it is the production of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī is far from truth and a result of partisanship and partiality. Or else if it is the result of some research it should be brought out. Otherwise, remaining in such wishful illusion does not alter the truth, nor can the force of decisive arguments be curbed down by mere disagreement and displeasure.
Now we set forth the testimonies of those scholars and traditionists who have explicitly affirmed that this is the speech of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, so that its historical significance may become known. Among these scholars are some who lived before as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī’s period, some who were his contemporaries, and some who came after him, but all of them related it through their own chain of authority.
(1) Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd al-Muʿtazilī writes that his master Abū al-Khayr Muṣaddiq ibn Shabīb al-Wāsiṭī (d. 605 A.H.) stated that he heard this sermon from ash-Shaykh Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad al-Baghdādī, who is known as Ibn al-Khashshāb (d. 567 A. H.), and when he reached where Ibn ʿAbbās expressed sorrow for this sermon having remained incomplete, Ibn al-Khashshāb said to him that if he had heard the expression of sorrow from Ibn ʿAbbās he would have certainly asked him if there had remained with his cousin any further unsatisfied desire because excepting the Prophet he had already spared neither the predecessors nor followers and had uttered all that he wished to utter. Why should therefore be any sorrow that he could not say what he wished? Muṣaddiq says that Ibn al-Khashshāb was a man of jolly heart and decent taste. I inquired from him whether he also regarded the sermon to be a fabrication when he replied “By Allāh, I believe it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s word as I believe you to be Muṣaddiq ibn Shabīb.” I said that some people regard it to be as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī’s production when he replied: “How can ar-Raḍī—or anyone else—have such guts or such style of writing? I have seen as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī’s writings and know his literary style and methods of composition. Nowhere does his writing match with this one and I have already seen it in books written two hundred years before the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī, and I have seen it in familiar writings about which I know by which scholars or men of letters they were compiled. At that time not only ar-Raḍī but even his father Abū Aḥmad an-Naqīb has not been born.”
(2) Thereafter, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd writes that he saw this sermon in the writings of his master Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad al-Balkhī (d. 317 A.H.). He was the Imām of the Muʿtazilites of Baghdād during the reign of al-Muqtadir Billāh, while al-Muqtadir’s rule (295–320 AH) was well before the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī.
(3) He further writes that he saw this sermon in the book al-Insāf of Abū Jaʿfar (Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān) ibn Qibah. He was a student of Abū al-Qāsim al-Balkhī and a theologian of Imāmiyyah (Shīʿite) sect. (Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 206)
(4) Ibn Maytham al-Baḥrānī (d. 679 A.H.) writes in his commentary that he had seen a copy of this sermon which bore writing of al-Muqtadir Billāh’s minister Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Furāt (d. 312 A.H.). (Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah Ibn Maytham, vol. 1, pp. 252–253)
(5) al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī (r.a.) has quoted the following chain of transmission for this Sermon from ash-Shaykh Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāwandī’s compilation Minhāj al-Barāʿah fī Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah: ash-Shaykh Abū Naṣr al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm informed me from al-Ḥājib Abū al-Wafā Muḥammad ibn Badīʿ, al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn Badīʿ and al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, and they from al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Bakr (Aḥmad ibn Mūsā) ibn Mardawayh al-Iṣfahānī (d. 416 A.H.) and he from al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Qāsim Sulaymān ibn Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 A.H.) and he from Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Abbār, and he from Isḥāq ibn Saʿīd Abū Salamah ad-Dimashqī, and he from Khulayḍ ibn Daʿlaj, and he from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 29, pp. 505–506)
(6) In the context al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī has written that this sermon is also contained in the compilations of Abū ʿAlī (Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb) al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303 A.H.). (ibid., p. 506)
(7) In connection with this very authenticity al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī writes: al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār ibn Aḥmad al-Asadābādī (d. 415 A.H.), who was a strict Muʿtazilite, explains some expressions of this sermon in his book al-Mughnī and tries to prove that it does not strike against any preceding caliph, but does not deny it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s composition. (ibid., p. 508)
(8) Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī, Ibn Bābawayh (d. 381 A.H.) writes: Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Isḥāq aṭ-Ṭālaqānī told us that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Jalūdī (d. 332 A.H.) told him that Abū ʿAbd Allāh Aḥmad ibn ʿAmmār ibn Khālid told him that Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥimmānī (d. 228 A.H.) told him that ʿĪsā ibn Rāshid related this sermon from ʿAlī ibn Ḥudhayfah, and he from ʿIkrimah and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ, vol. l, chap. 122, p. 153; Maʿānī al-Akhbār, Bāb Maʿānī Khuṭbat li-Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿalayhi al-salām)
(9) Then Ibn Bābawayh records the following chain of authorities: Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī Mājilawayh related this sermon to us and he took it from his uncle Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Qāsim and he from Aḥmad ibn Abī ʿAbd Allāh (Muḥammad ibn Khālid) al-Barqī and he from his father and he from (Muḥammad) ibn Abī ‘Umayr and he from Abān ibn ʿUthmān and he from Abān ibn Taghlib and he from ʿIkrimah and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ, vol. l, chap. 122, p. 150; Maʿānī al-Akhbār, Bāb Maʿānī Khuṭbat li-Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿalayhi al-salām)
(10) Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Saʿīd al-ʿAskarī (d. 382 A.H.), who counts among great scholars of the Sunnis, has written a commentary and explanation of this sermon that has been recorded by Ibn Bābawayh in ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ and Maʿānī al-Akhbār.
(11) as-Sayyid Niʿmatullāh al-Jazāʾirī (r.a.) writes: The author of Kitāb al-Ghārāt Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ath-Thaqafī al-Kūfī (d. 283 A.H.) has related this sermon through his own chain of authorities. The date of completion of writing this book is Tuesday the 13th of Shawwāl 355 A.H., and it is the same year in which al-Murtaḍā al-Mūsawī. He was older in age than his brother as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī. (Anwār an-Nuʿmāniyyah, vol. 1, p. 88)
(12) as-Sayyid Raḍī ad-Dīn Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī ibn Mūsā ibn Ṭāwūs al-Ḥusaynī al-Ḥillī (d. 664 A.H.) has related this sermon from Kitāb al-Ghārāt with the following chain of authorities: This sermon was related to us by Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf who related it from al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī (ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm) az-Zaʿfarānī and he from Muḥammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Qallābī and he from Yaʿqūb ibn Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān, and he from his father, and he from his grandfather, and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (Translation of at-Ṭarāʾif, p. 420).
(13) Shaykh at-Ṭāʾifah, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan at-Ṭūsī (d. 460 A.H.) writes: (Abū al-Fatḥ Hilāl ibn Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar) al-Ḥaffār related this sermon to us. He related it from Abū al-Qāsim (Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAlī) ad-Diʿbilī, and he from his father, and he from his brother Diʿbil (ibn ʿAlī al-Kuzāʿī), and he from Muḥammad ibn Salāmah ash-Shāmī, and he from Zurārah ibn Aʿyan, and he from Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī (a.s.), and he from Ibn ʿAbbās. (al-Amālī, p. 372)
(14) ash-Shaykh al-Mufīd (Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn an-Nuʿmān, d. 413 A.H.) who was the teacher of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī writes about the chain of authorities of this sermon: A number of relaters of traditions have related this sermon from Ibn ʿAbbās through numerous chains. (al-Irshād, vol. 1, p. 287)
(15) ʿAlam al-Hudā (the ensign of guidance) as-Sayyid al-Murtaḍā who was the elder brother of as-Sayyid ar-Raḍī has recorded it on p. 392 of his book ash-Shāfī.
(16) Abū Manṣūr at-Ṭabrisī writes: A number of relaters have given an account of this sermon from Ibn ʿAbbās through various chains. Ibn ʿAbbās said that he was in the audience of Amīr al-Muʾminīn at ar-Raḥbah (a place in Kūfah) when conversation turned to Caliphate and those who had preceded him as Caliphs; so Amīr al-Muʾminīn breathed a sigh and delivered this sermon. (al-Iḥtijāj, vol. 1, p. 281)
(17) Sibṭ ibn al-Jawzī (d. 654 A.H.) writes: Our ash-Shaykh Abū al-Qāsim ibn an-Nafīs al-Anbārī related this sermon to us through his chain of authorities that ends with Ibn ʿAbbās, who said that after allegiance had been paid to Amīr al-Muʾminīn as Caliph, he was sitting on the pulpit when a man from the audience enquired why he had remained quiet till then whereupon Amīr al-Muʾminīn delivered this sermon extempore. (Tadhkirat Khawāṣṣ al-Ummah, p. 73)
(18) al-Qāḍī Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad, ash-Shihāb al-Khafājī (d. 1069 A.H.) writes with regard to its authenticity: It is stated in the utterances of Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī (May Allāh be pleased with him) that: “It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death.” (Sharḥ Durrat al-Ghawwāṣ, p. 17)
Amīr al-Muʾminīn, Sayyid al-ʿĀrifīn, ʿAlī (a.s.), has stated in one of his brilliant Sermons “this is the Shiqshiqīyah that burst forth.” (al-ʿUrwah li-Ahl al-Khalwah wa al-Jalwah, p. 4, manuscript in Nāṣiriyyah Library, Lucknow, India)
(20) Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Maydānī (d. 518 A.H.) has written in connection with the word Shiqshiqīyah: Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī has a sermon known as al-Khuṭbah ash-Shiqshiqīyah. (Majmaʿ al-Amthāl, vol. l, p. 363)
(21) In fifteen places in an-Nihāyah while explaining the words of this sermon Majd ad-Dīn ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī has acknowledged it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance.
(22) Shaykh Muḥammad Ṭāhir Paṭnī, while explaining the same words in Majmaʿ al-Biḥār al-Anwār, affirms the sermon to be that of Amīr al-Muʾminīn by saying, “From it is the ḥadīth of ʿAlī.”
(23) Abū al-Faḍl ibn Manẓūr (d. 711 A.H.) has acknowledged it as Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance in Lisān al-ʿArab, vol. 12, p. 53, by saying, “In the sayings of ʿAlī in his sermon ‘It was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided’.”
(24) Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī (d. 816/817 A.H.) has recorded under the word “Shiqshiqīyah” in his lexicon (Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ, vol. 3, p. 251): Khuṭbah ash-Shiqshiqīyah is attributed to ʿAlī, and was so named because when Ibn ʿAbbās requested him to resume it where he had stopped, he replied: “O Ibn ʿAbbās! it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided.”
(25) The compiler of Muntahā al-ʿArab writes: Khuṭbah ash-Shiqshiqīyah is an ‘Alawī sermon attributed to ʿAlī — may Allāh honour his face. (Second quarter of the book, p. 477)
(26) ash-Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAbduh, the Muftī of Egypt, recognising it as the utterance of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, has written a commentary on it.
(27) Muḥammad Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, a Professor in the Faculty of Arabic Language at al-Azhar University, has written annotations on Nahj al-Balāghah and prefaced it with an introduction in which he acknowledges all such sermons containing disparaging remarks to be the utterances of Amīr al-Muʾminīn.
In the face of these well-documented testimonies and irrefutable evidences, is there any room to claim that it is not the utterance of Amīr al-Mu’minīn and that al-Sayyid al-Raḍī composed it himself?
[2] Amīr al-Muʾminīn has referred to Abū Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate metaphorically as having dressed himself with it. This was a common metaphor. Thus, when ʿUthmān was called to give up the Caliphate he replied, “I shall not put off this shirt which Allāh has put on me.” No doubt Amīr al-Muʾminīn has not attributed this dressing of Caliphate to Allāh but to Abū Bakr himself, because according to unanimous opinion his Caliphate was not from Allāh but his own affair. That is why Amīr al-Muʾminīn said that Abū Bakr dressed himself with the Caliphate. He knew that this dress had been stitched for my own body, and my position with relation to the Caliphate was that of the axis in the hand-mill, which cannot retain its central position without it, nor be of any use. Similarly, he held “I was the central pivot of the Caliphate, were I not there, its entire system would have gone astray from the pivot. It was I who acted as a guard for its organization and order and guided it through all difficulties. Currents of learning flowed from my bosom and watered it on all sides. My position was so high that even the bird of thought could not reach it. But the lust of world-seekers for governance became a stumbling stone in my path, and I had to confine myself to seclusion. Dense darkness spread on all sides and dreadful gloom prevailed everywhere. The young grew old and the old departed for the graves, yet this patience-breaking period would not end. I kept watching with my eyes the plundering of my own inheritance and saw the passing of the cup of Caliphate from one hand to the other, but I kept swallowing the bitter draughts of patience, being unable—due to lack of means—to restrain their high-handedness.”
THE NEED FOR THE PROPHET’S CALIPH AND THE MODE OF HIS APPOINTMENT
After the Prophet of Islām (ṣ), the presence of such a personality was inevitable who could prevent the Ummah from disintegration and safeguard the Sharīʿah against change, distortion, and interference by those who wanted to twist it in accordance with their own desires. If this very need is denied, then there remains no sense in attaching so much importance to the question of the Prophet’s (ṣ) succession that the assemblage at the Saqīfah of Banū Sāʿidah should have been considered more important than the burial of the Prophet.
If, however, this need is acknowledged, then the question arises whether the Prophet (ṣ) himself was conscious of its necessity or not. If it is said that he could not turn his attention to it, and thus did not realise its necessity or lack thereof, then—despite having warned about the mischief of apostasy and the spread of innovations—to regard the Prophet’s (ṣ) mind as devoid of concern and planning for their prevention would be the clearest proof of a lack of reason and insight.
And if it is said that he was conscious of it, but was compelled to leave it undecided due to some expediency, then that expediency should be openly stated instead of remaining concealed; otherwise, such unwarranted silence would amount to negligence in the duties of Prophethood. And if there existed any hindrance, it should be presented; otherwise, one must accept that just as the Prophet (ṣ) did not leave any aspect of religion incomplete, he did not leave this matter unfinished either, and that he did lay down such a course of action that, if acted upon, the religion would have remained protected from the interference and domination of others.
The question now is what was that course of action.
If it is proposed that the criterion be the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the community, then there is no scope for its actual occurrence, because consensus requires the agreement of every single individual; but taking into account the difference in human temperaments, it is impossible that they should all unite upon a single point of view. Nor is there any example where on such matters, there has been no single voice of dissent. How then can such a fundamental need be made dependent on the occurrence of such an impossible event — need on which converges the future of Islām and the good of the Muslims. Therefore, neither reason is prepared to accept this criterion, nor is tradition in harmony with it, as al-Qāḍī ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī has written in al-Mawāqif:
You should know that the establishment of the Caliphate does not depend upon ijmāʿ (consensus), because no rational or traditional (naqlī) proof can be advanced for it. (al-Mawāqif, vol. 3, p. 590, Dār al-Jīl, Beirut, 1997)
(16) Abū Manṣūr at-Ṭabrisī writes: A number of relaters have given an account of this sermon from Ibn ʿAbbās through various chains. Ibn ʿAbbās said that he was in the audience of Amīr al-Muʾminīn at ar-Raḥbah (a place in Kūfah) when conversation turned to Caliphate and those who had preceded him as Caliphs; so Amīr al-Muʾminīn breathed a sigh and delivered this sermon. (al-Iḥtijāj, vol. 1, p. 281)
(17) Sibṭ ibn al-Jawzī (d. 654 A.H.) writes: Our ash-Shaykh Abū al-Qāsim ibn an-Nafīs al-Anbārī related this sermon to us through his chain of authorities that ends with Ibn ʿAbbās, who said that after allegiance had been paid to Amīr al-Muʾminīn as Caliph, he was sitting on the pulpit when a man from the audience enquired why he had remained quiet till then whereupon Amīr al-Muʾminīn delivered this sermon extempore. (Tadhkirat Khawāṣṣ al-Ummah, p. 73)
(18) al-Qāḍī Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad, ash-Shihāb al-Khafājī (d. 1069 A.H.) writes with regard to its authenticity: It is stated in the utterances of Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī (May Allāh be pleased with him) that: “It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death.” (Sharḥ Durrat al-Ghawwāṣ, p. 17)
Amīr al-Muʾminīn, Sayyid al-ʿĀrifīn, ʿAlī (a.s.), has stated in one of his brilliant Sermons “this is the Shiqshiqīyah that burst forth.” (al-ʿUrwah li-Ahl al-Khalwah wa al-Jalwah, p. 4, manuscript in Nāṣiriyyah Library, Lucknow, India)
(20) Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Maydānī (d. 518 A.H.) has written in connection with the word Shiqshiqīyah: Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī has a sermon known as al-Khuṭbah ash-Shiqshiqīyah. (Majmaʿ al-Amthāl, vol. l, p. 363)
(21) In fifteen places in an-Nihāyah while explaining the words of this sermon Majd ad-Dīn ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī has acknowledged it to be Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance.
(22) Shaykh Muḥammad Ṭāhir Paṭnī, while explaining the same words in Majmaʿ al-Biḥār al-Anwār, affirms the sermon to be that of Amīr al-Muʾminīn by saying, “From it is the ḥadīth of ʿAlī.”
(23) Abū al-Faḍl ibn Manẓūr (d. 711 A.H.) has acknowledged it as Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s utterance in Lisān al-ʿArab, vol. 12, p. 53, by saying, “In the sayings of ʿAlī in his sermon ‘It was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided’.”
(24) Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī (d. 816/817 A.H.) has recorded under the word “Shiqshiqīyah” in his lexicon (Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ, vol. 3, p. 251): Khuṭbah ash-Shiqshiqīyah is attributed to ʿAlī, and was so named because when Ibn ʿAbbās requested him to resume it where he had stopped, he replied: “O Ibn ʿAbbās! it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided.”
(25) The compiler of Muntahā al-ʿArab writes: Khuṭbah ash-Shiqshiqīyah is an ‘Alawī sermon attributed to ʿAlī — may Allāh honour his face. (Second quarter of the book, p. 477)
(26) ash-Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAbduh, the Muftī of Egypt, recognising it as the utterance of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, has written a commentary on it.
(27) Muḥammad Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, a Professor in the Faculty of Arabic Language at al-Azhar University, has written annotations on Nahj al-Balāghah and prefaced it with an introduction in which he acknowledges all such sermons containing disparaging remarks to be the utterances of Amīr al-Muʾminīn.
In the face of these well-documented testimonies and irrefutable evidences, is there any room to claim that it is not the utterance of Amīr al-Mu’minīn and that al-Sayyid al-Raḍī composed it himself?
[2] Amīr al-Muʾminīn has referred to Abū Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate metaphorically as having dressed himself with it. This was a common metaphor. Thus, when ʿUthmān was called to give up the Caliphate he replied, “I shall not put off this shirt which Allāh has put on me.” No doubt Amīr al-Muʾminīn has not attributed this dressing of Caliphate to Allāh but to Abū Bakr himself, because according to unanimous opinion his Caliphate was not from Allāh but his own affair. That is why Amīr al-Muʾminīn said that Abū Bakr dressed himself with the Caliphate. He knew that this dress had been stitched for my own body, and my position with relation to the Caliphate was that of the axis in the hand-mill, which cannot retain its central position without it, nor be of any use. Similarly, he held “I was the central pivot of the Caliphate, were I not there, its entire system would have gone astray from the pivot. It was I who acted as a guard for its organization and order and guided it through all difficulties. Currents of learning flowed from my bosom and watered it on all sides. My position was so high that even the bird of thought could not reach it. But the lust of world-seekers for governance became a stumbling stone in my path, and I had to confine myself to seclusion. Dense darkness spread on all sides and dreadful gloom prevailed everywhere. The young grew old and the old departed for the graves, yet this patience-breaking period would not end. I kept watching with my eyes the plundering of my own inheritance and saw the passing of the cup of Caliphate from one hand to the other, but I kept swallowing the bitter draughts of patience, being unable—due to lack of means—to restrain their high-handedness.”
THE NEED FOR THE PROPHET’S CALIPH AND THE MODE OF HIS APPOINTMENT
After the Prophet of Islām (ṣ), the presence of such a personality was inevitable who could prevent the Ummah from disintegration and safeguard the Sharīʿah against change, distortion, and interference by those who wanted to twist it in accordance with their own desires. If this very need is denied, then there remains no sense in attaching so much importance to the question of the Prophet’s (ṣ) succession that the assemblage at the Saqīfah of Banū Sāʿidah should have been considered more important than the burial of the Prophet.
If, however, this need is acknowledged, then the question arises whether the Prophet (ṣ) himself was conscious of its necessity or not. If it is said that he could not turn his attention to it, and thus did not realise its necessity or lack thereof, then—despite having warned about the mischief of apostasy and the spread of innovations—to regard the Prophet’s (ṣ) mind as devoid of concern and planning for their prevention would be the clearest proof of a lack of reason and insight.
And if it is said that he was conscious of it, but was compelled to leave it undecided due to some expediency, then that expediency should be openly stated instead of remaining concealed; otherwise, such unwarranted silence would amount to negligence in the duties of Prophethood. And if there existed any hindrance, it should be presented; otherwise, one must accept that just as the Prophet (ṣ) did not leave any aspect of religion incomplete, he did not leave this matter unfinished either, and that he did lay down such a course of action that, if acted upon, the religion would have remained protected from the interference and domination of others.
The question now is what was that course of action.
If it is proposed that the criterion be the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the community, then there is no scope for its actual occurrence, because consensus requires the agreement of every single individual; but taking into account the difference in human temperaments, it is impossible that they should all unite upon a single point of view. Nor is there any example where on such matters, there has been no single voice of dissent. How then can such a fundamental need be made dependent on the occurrence of such an impossible event — need on which converges the future of Islām and the good of the Muslims. Therefore, neither reason is prepared to accept this criterion, nor is tradition in harmony with it, as al-Qāḍī ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī has written in al-Mawāqif:
You should know that the establishment of the Caliphate does not depend upon ijmāʿ (consensus), because no rational or traditional (naqlī) proof can be advanced for it. (al-Mawāqif, vol. 3, p. 590, Dār al-Jīl, Beirut, 1997)
In fact when those who advocated unanimity found that unanimity of all votes is difficult they adopted the agreement of the majority as a substitute for unanimity, ignoring the difference of the minority. In such a case also it often happens that the force of fair and foul, legitimate and illegitimate means, turns the flow of the majority opinion in the direction where there is neither individual distinction nor personal merit as a result of which competent persons remain suppressed while incompetent individuals stand forward. When capabilities remain so curbed and personal ends stand in the way as hurdles, how can there be expectation for the selection of a right personality? Even if it is assumed that all voters have independent unbiased view, that none of them has his own objective and that none has any other consideration, it is not necessary that every verdict of the majority should be correct, and that it cannot go astray. Experience shows that after experiment the majority has held its own verdict to be wrong. If every verdict of the majority is correct then its first verdict should be wrong because the verdict which holds it wrong is also that of the majority. In this circumstances if the election of the Caliph goes wrong who would be responsible for the mistake, and who should face the blame for the ruination of the Islāmic polity. Similarly on whom would be the liability for the bloodshed and slaughter following the turmoil and activity of the elections. When it has been seen that even those who sat in the audience of the Holy Prophet could not be free of mutual quarrel and strife how can others avoid it.
If with a view to avoid mischief it is left to the people of authority to choose anyone they like then here too the same friction and conflict would prevail because here again convergence of human temperaments on one point is not necessary nor can they be assumed to rise above personal ends. In fact here the chances of conflict and collision would be stronger because if not all at least most of them would themselves be candidates for that position and would not spare any effort to defeat their opponent, creating impediments in his way as best as possible. Its inevitable consequence would be mutual struggle and mischief-mongering. Thus, it would not be possible to ward off the mischief for which this device was adopted, and instead of finding a proper individual the community would just become an instrument for the achievement of personal benefits of the others. Again, what would be the criterion for these people in authority? The same as has usually been, namely whoever collects a few supporters and is able to create commotion in any meeting by use of forceful words would count among the people of authority. Or would capabilities also be judged? If the mode of judging the capabilities is again this very common vote then the same complications and conflicts would arise here too, to avoid which this way was adopted. If there is some other standard, then instead of judging the capabilities of the voters by it why not judge the person who is considered suitable for the position in view. Further, how many persons in authority would be enough to give a verdict? Apparently a verdict once accepted would be precedent for good and the number that would give this verdict would become the criterion for future. al-Qāḍī ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī writes:
Rather the nomination of one or two individuals by the people in authority is enough because we know that the companions who were strict in religion deemed it enough as the nomination of Abū Bakr by ʿUmar and of ʿUthmān by ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. (al-Mawāqif, Vol. 3, p. 590-591)
This is the reality of the “unanimous election” in the Saqīfah of Banī Sāʿidah and the activity of the consultative assembly (Shūrā): that is, one man’s action has been given the name of unanimous election and one individual’s deed given the name of consultative assembly. Abū Bakr had well understood this reality that election means the vote of a person or two only which is to be attributed to common simple people. Therefore, without even attempting to give it the colour of ijmāʿ or shūrā, he openly nominated ʿUmar, thereby disregarding the requirements of unanimous election, majority vote or method of choosing through electrol assembly. ʿĀʾishah also considered that leaving the question of caliphate to the vote of a few particular individuals means inviting mischief and trouble. Thus she sent the following message to ʿUmar on his deathbed:
Do not leave the Islāmic community without a leader. Nominate a caliph for them and do not leave them after you without authority, as otherwise I apprehend mischief and trouble for them. [al-Imāmah wa al-Siyāsah, Ibn Qutaybah al-Dīnawarī, p. 42, Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, Beirut, 1991]
When the election by those in authority proved futile it was given up and only “might is right” became the criteria — namely whoever subdues others and binds them under his sway and control is accepted as the Caliph of the Prophet and his true successor.
These are those self-adopted principles in the face of which all the Prophet’s sayings uttered in the Daʿwat Dhū al-ʿAshīrah (Feast of the Relatives), on the night of Hijrah, the expedition of Tabūk, on the occasion of conveying the Qurʾānic chapter al-Barāʾah (Chap. 9), and at Ghadīr Khumm were completely disregarded. The strange thing is that when each of the first three caliphates is based on one individual’s opinion, and that individual’s decision was readily accepted, how can this very right to choose be denied to the Prophet himself? Particularly when this was the only way to end all the dissentions, namely that the Prophet should have himself settled it and saved the community from future disturbances and spared it from leaving this decision in the hands of people who were themselves involved in personal aims and objects. This is the correct procedure which stands to reason and which has also the support of the Prophet’s definite sayings.
[3] Ḥayyān ibn Samīn al-Ḥanafī of Yamāmah was the chief of the tribe of Banū Ḥanīfah and the master of fort and army. Jābir is the name of his younger brother while al-Aʿshā, whose real name was Maymūn ibn Qays ibn Jandal, enjoyed the position of being his bosom friend and led a life of comfort and ease through his patronage and generosity. In this verse he has compared his current life with the previous one: where were those days when he roamed about in search of livelihood, and where are these days which pass peacefully in Hayyan’s company. Generally Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s quoting of this verse has been taken to compare this troubled period with the peaceful days passed under the care and protection of the Prophet when he was free from all sorts of troubles and enjoyed mental peace. But taking into account the occasion for making this comparison and the subject matter of the verse it would not be far fetched if it is taken to indicate the difference between the unimportant position of those in power during the Prophet’s lifetime and the authority and power enjoyed by them in the present state of affairs. In other words, at one time in the days of the Prophet no heed was paid to them because of ʿAlī’s personality but now the time had so changed that the same people were masters of the affairs of the Muslim world.
[4] When ʿUmar was wounded by Abū Luʾluʾah and he saw that it was difficult for him to survive because of the deep wound, he formed a consultative council for the selection of the caliph and nominated for it ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, az-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām, Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, and Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbayd Allāh. He instructed them that within three days after his death they should select one of themselves as the Caliph, and that for those three days Ṣuhayb should act as Caliph. On receipt of these instructions, some members of the council requested him to indicate what ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their light. ʿUmar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. Concerning Saʿd, he said that he was harsh-tempered and hot headed; ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān was the Pharaoh of the community; az-Zubayr, when pleased, was a believer, and when angry, an unbeliever; Ṭalḥah was the embodiment of pride and haughtiness, if he was made caliph he would put the ring of the caliphate on his wife’s finger; and ʿUthmān could see no one beyond his own clan and family. As regards ʿAlī, he said that he was deeply desirous of the Caliphate, although he knew that he alone can run it on right lines.
Nevertheless, despite this admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative council and in selecting its members and laying down the working procedure he made sure that the Caliphate would take the direction in which he wished to turn it. Thus, a man of ordinary prudence can draw the conclusion that all the factors for ʿUthmān’s success were present therein. If one examines the members of the council, one finds among them ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, the brother-in-law of ʿUthmān [ʿUthmān’s mother Arwā bint Kurayz had previously been married to ʿUqbah ibn Abī Muʿayṭ, from whom a daughter, Umm Kulthūm, was born; she was married to ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān], and also Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ who, besides bearing malice and hostility towards ʿAlī, was also a close relative and fellow clansman of ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. Neither of them can be expected to go against ʿUthmān. The third Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbayd Allāh, about whom ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ʿAbduh writes in his annotation on Nahj al-Balāghah:
If with a view to avoid mischief it is left to the people of authority to choose anyone they like then here too the same friction and conflict would prevail because here again convergence of human temperaments on one point is not necessary nor can they be assumed to rise above personal ends. In fact here the chances of conflict and collision would be stronger because if not all at least most of them would themselves be candidates for that position and would not spare any effort to defeat their opponent, creating impediments in his way as best as possible. Its inevitable consequence would be mutual struggle and mischief-mongering. Thus, it would not be possible to ward off the mischief for which this device was adopted, and instead of finding a proper individual the community would just become an instrument for the achievement of personal benefits of the others. Again, what would be the criterion for these people in authority? The same as has usually been, namely whoever collects a few supporters and is able to create commotion in any meeting by use of forceful words would count among the people of authority. Or would capabilities also be judged? If the mode of judging the capabilities is again this very common vote then the same complications and conflicts would arise here too, to avoid which this way was adopted. If there is some other standard, then instead of judging the capabilities of the voters by it why not judge the person who is considered suitable for the position in view. Further, how many persons in authority would be enough to give a verdict? Apparently a verdict once accepted would be precedent for good and the number that would give this verdict would become the criterion for future. al-Qāḍī ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī writes:
Rather the nomination of one or two individuals by the people in authority is enough because we know that the companions who were strict in religion deemed it enough as the nomination of Abū Bakr by ʿUmar and of ʿUthmān by ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. (al-Mawāqif, Vol. 3, p. 590-591)
This is the reality of the “unanimous election” in the Saqīfah of Banī Sāʿidah and the activity of the consultative assembly (Shūrā): that is, one man’s action has been given the name of unanimous election and one individual’s deed given the name of consultative assembly. Abū Bakr had well understood this reality that election means the vote of a person or two only which is to be attributed to common simple people. Therefore, without even attempting to give it the colour of ijmāʿ or shūrā, he openly nominated ʿUmar, thereby disregarding the requirements of unanimous election, majority vote or method of choosing through electrol assembly. ʿĀʾishah also considered that leaving the question of caliphate to the vote of a few particular individuals means inviting mischief and trouble. Thus she sent the following message to ʿUmar on his deathbed:
Do not leave the Islāmic community without a leader. Nominate a caliph for them and do not leave them after you without authority, as otherwise I apprehend mischief and trouble for them. [al-Imāmah wa al-Siyāsah, Ibn Qutaybah al-Dīnawarī, p. 42, Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, Beirut, 1991]
When the election by those in authority proved futile it was given up and only “might is right” became the criteria — namely whoever subdues others and binds them under his sway and control is accepted as the Caliph of the Prophet and his true successor.
These are those self-adopted principles in the face of which all the Prophet’s sayings uttered in the Daʿwat Dhū al-ʿAshīrah (Feast of the Relatives), on the night of Hijrah, the expedition of Tabūk, on the occasion of conveying the Qurʾānic chapter al-Barāʾah (Chap. 9), and at Ghadīr Khumm were completely disregarded. The strange thing is that when each of the first three caliphates is based on one individual’s opinion, and that individual’s decision was readily accepted, how can this very right to choose be denied to the Prophet himself? Particularly when this was the only way to end all the dissentions, namely that the Prophet should have himself settled it and saved the community from future disturbances and spared it from leaving this decision in the hands of people who were themselves involved in personal aims and objects. This is the correct procedure which stands to reason and which has also the support of the Prophet’s definite sayings.
[3] Ḥayyān ibn Samīn al-Ḥanafī of Yamāmah was the chief of the tribe of Banū Ḥanīfah and the master of fort and army. Jābir is the name of his younger brother while al-Aʿshā, whose real name was Maymūn ibn Qays ibn Jandal, enjoyed the position of being his bosom friend and led a life of comfort and ease through his patronage and generosity. In this verse he has compared his current life with the previous one: where were those days when he roamed about in search of livelihood, and where are these days which pass peacefully in Hayyan’s company. Generally Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s quoting of this verse has been taken to compare this troubled period with the peaceful days passed under the care and protection of the Prophet when he was free from all sorts of troubles and enjoyed mental peace. But taking into account the occasion for making this comparison and the subject matter of the verse it would not be far fetched if it is taken to indicate the difference between the unimportant position of those in power during the Prophet’s lifetime and the authority and power enjoyed by them in the present state of affairs. In other words, at one time in the days of the Prophet no heed was paid to them because of ʿAlī’s personality but now the time had so changed that the same people were masters of the affairs of the Muslim world.
[4] When ʿUmar was wounded by Abū Luʾluʾah and he saw that it was difficult for him to survive because of the deep wound, he formed a consultative council for the selection of the caliph and nominated for it ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, az-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām, Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, and Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbayd Allāh. He instructed them that within three days after his death they should select one of themselves as the Caliph, and that for those three days Ṣuhayb should act as Caliph. On receipt of these instructions, some members of the council requested him to indicate what ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their light. ʿUmar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. Concerning Saʿd, he said that he was harsh-tempered and hot headed; ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān was the Pharaoh of the community; az-Zubayr, when pleased, was a believer, and when angry, an unbeliever; Ṭalḥah was the embodiment of pride and haughtiness, if he was made caliph he would put the ring of the caliphate on his wife’s finger; and ʿUthmān could see no one beyond his own clan and family. As regards ʿAlī, he said that he was deeply desirous of the Caliphate, although he knew that he alone can run it on right lines.
Nevertheless, despite this admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative council and in selecting its members and laying down the working procedure he made sure that the Caliphate would take the direction in which he wished to turn it. Thus, a man of ordinary prudence can draw the conclusion that all the factors for ʿUthmān’s success were present therein. If one examines the members of the council, one finds among them ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, the brother-in-law of ʿUthmān [ʿUthmān’s mother Arwā bint Kurayz had previously been married to ʿUqbah ibn Abī Muʿayṭ, from whom a daughter, Umm Kulthūm, was born; she was married to ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān], and also Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ who, besides bearing malice and hostility towards ʿAlī, was also a close relative and fellow clansman of ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. Neither of them can be expected to go against ʿUthmān. The third Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbayd Allāh, about whom ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ʿAbduh writes in his annotation on Nahj al-Balāghah:
Ṭalḥah was inclined towards ʿUthmān, and is that reason not in itself sufficient, namely that he was against ʿAlī, since he belonged to Banū Taym and Abū Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate had created bad blood between Banū Taym and Banū Hāshim. [Nahj al-Balāghah, annotation by Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAbduh, p. 34, Dār al-Maʿrifah, Beirut]
As for az-Zubayr, even if he had supported ʿAlī, what could his single vote achieve? According to narrations of aṭ-Ṭabarī and others, Ṭalḥah was not present in Madīnah at that time, but his absence did not stand in the way of ʿUthmān’s success. Rather, even if he were present, as he eventually did arrive at the meeting of the Shūrā, and even if he were assumed to be ʿAlī’s supporter, still there could be no doubt about ʿUthmān’s success because ʿUmar’s sagacious mind had set the working procedure that:
If three agree about one person and the other three about another, then ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar should act as the arbitrator. The group in whose favour he gives his decision should choose the Caliph from among themselves. If they do not accept ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar’s decision, support should be given to the group which includes ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf; but if the others do not agree they should be beheaded for opposing this verdict. (aṭ-Ṭabarī, vol. 3, pp. 294; Ibn al-Athīr, vol. 3, p. 67).
Here, disagreement with the verdict of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar has no meaning, since he had already been directed to support the group which included ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. Thus, he instructed ʿAbd Allāh that: O ʿAbd Allāh! If the people differ, you should side with the majority; but if three of them are on one side and the other three on the other, then you should side with the group which includes ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. (aṭ-Ṭabarī, vol. 3, p. 265; Ibn al-Athīr, vol. 3, pp. 51, 67).
In this admonition, siding with the majority also meant supporting ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, because how could the majority possibly be on the other side, when fifty blood-thirsty swords, under the leadership of Abū Ṭalḥah al-Anṣārī, had been poised on the heads of the opposition group with orders to fall on their heads on ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān’s behest. Thus, Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s discerning eye had foreseen it at that very moment that the caliphate was going to ʿUthmān, as is evident from his following words which he spoke to Ibn ʿAbbās: “The Caliphate has been turned away from us.” Ibn ʿAbbās asked, “How do you know?” He replied, “ʿUthmān has also been placed alongside me, and it has been laid down that the majority should be supported; but if two agree on one and two on the other, then support should be given to the group which includes ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. Now Saʿd will support his paternal cousin ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, who is, of course, the husband of ʿUthmān’s sister.” (ibid.)
However, after ʿUmar’s death, this meeting took place in the chamber of ʿĀʾishah, and on its door stood Abū Ṭalḥah al-Anṣārī with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Ṭalḥah initiated the proceedings, and inviting all others to be witness, declared that he gave his right of vote to ʿUthmān. This stirred az-Zubayr’s sense of honour, as his mother Ṣafiyyah bint ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib was the paternal aunt of the Prophet, so he gave his right of vote to ʿAlī. Thereafter, Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ transferred his right of vote to ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. This left only three members of the consultative council, out of whom ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān said that he was willing to relinquish his own right of vote if ʿAlī (a.s.) and ʿUthmān gave him the authority to choose one of them, or that one of them relinquish his claim and grant him that right. This was a trap in which ʿAlī had been entangled from all sides: either he should abandon his own right, or else allow ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān to do as he wished. The first option was not possible for him: that he should abandon his own right and elect ʿUthmān or ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. Therefore, he stood firm on his right, while ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān separating himself from it and assumed this authority and said to Amīr al-Muʾminīn: I pledge allegiance to you on the condition that you follow the Book of Allāh, the Sunnah of the Prophet, and the conduct of the two Shaykhs, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.
ʿAlī replied: Rather, I will follow the Book of Allāh, the Sunnah of the Prophet, and my own judgment. [al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, ʿAllāmah Abū al-Ḥasan al-Māwardī, Vol. 16, p. 314, maṭbūʿah Dār al-Fikr, Beirut; Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, Vol. 1, p. 188.]
When he got the same reply even after repeating the question thrice, he turned to ʿUthmān saying, “Do you accept these conditions?” He had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance was sworn to him. When Amīr al-Muʾminīn saw his rights being thus trampled, he said: This is not the first day that you have wronged us. I have only to keep good patience. Allāh is the Helper against whatever you say. By Allāh, you have not made ʿUthmān caliph but in the hope that he would later hand the caliphate back to you. (aṭ-Ṭabarī, vol. 3, p. 237)
After recording the events of ash-Shūrā (consultative council), Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd has written that when allegiance had been paid to ʿUthmān, ʿAlī addressed ʿUthmān and ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān saying: May Allāh sow the seed of dissension among you.
And so it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other, and ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān did not, after that, speak to ʿUthmān until his death. Even on deathbed, he turned his face on seeing him.
On seeing these events, the question arises whether ash-Shūrā (consultative council) means confining the matter to six persons, thereafter to three, and finally to a single individual. It also raises the question whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs for caliphate was put by ʿUmar, or it was just a hurdle put by ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān between ʿAlī (a.s.) and the Caliphate; whereas the first Caliph did not put forth this condition at the time of nominating the second Caliph, namely that he should follow the former’s footsteps. What then was the occasion for introducing such a condition here?
As for az-Zubayr, even if he had supported ʿAlī, what could his single vote achieve? According to narrations of aṭ-Ṭabarī and others, Ṭalḥah was not present in Madīnah at that time, but his absence did not stand in the way of ʿUthmān’s success. Rather, even if he were present, as he eventually did arrive at the meeting of the Shūrā, and even if he were assumed to be ʿAlī’s supporter, still there could be no doubt about ʿUthmān’s success because ʿUmar’s sagacious mind had set the working procedure that:
If three agree about one person and the other three about another, then ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar should act as the arbitrator. The group in whose favour he gives his decision should choose the Caliph from among themselves. If they do not accept ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar’s decision, support should be given to the group which includes ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf; but if the others do not agree they should be beheaded for opposing this verdict. (aṭ-Ṭabarī, vol. 3, pp. 294; Ibn al-Athīr, vol. 3, p. 67).
Here, disagreement with the verdict of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar has no meaning, since he had already been directed to support the group which included ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. Thus, he instructed ʿAbd Allāh that: O ʿAbd Allāh! If the people differ, you should side with the majority; but if three of them are on one side and the other three on the other, then you should side with the group which includes ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. (aṭ-Ṭabarī, vol. 3, p. 265; Ibn al-Athīr, vol. 3, pp. 51, 67).
In this admonition, siding with the majority also meant supporting ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, because how could the majority possibly be on the other side, when fifty blood-thirsty swords, under the leadership of Abū Ṭalḥah al-Anṣārī, had been poised on the heads of the opposition group with orders to fall on their heads on ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān’s behest. Thus, Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s discerning eye had foreseen it at that very moment that the caliphate was going to ʿUthmān, as is evident from his following words which he spoke to Ibn ʿAbbās: “The Caliphate has been turned away from us.” Ibn ʿAbbās asked, “How do you know?” He replied, “ʿUthmān has also been placed alongside me, and it has been laid down that the majority should be supported; but if two agree on one and two on the other, then support should be given to the group which includes ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. Now Saʿd will support his paternal cousin ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, who is, of course, the husband of ʿUthmān’s sister.” (ibid.)
However, after ʿUmar’s death, this meeting took place in the chamber of ʿĀʾishah, and on its door stood Abū Ṭalḥah al-Anṣārī with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Ṭalḥah initiated the proceedings, and inviting all others to be witness, declared that he gave his right of vote to ʿUthmān. This stirred az-Zubayr’s sense of honour, as his mother Ṣafiyyah bint ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib was the paternal aunt of the Prophet, so he gave his right of vote to ʿAlī. Thereafter, Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ transferred his right of vote to ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. This left only three members of the consultative council, out of whom ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān said that he was willing to relinquish his own right of vote if ʿAlī (a.s.) and ʿUthmān gave him the authority to choose one of them, or that one of them relinquish his claim and grant him that right. This was a trap in which ʿAlī had been entangled from all sides: either he should abandon his own right, or else allow ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān to do as he wished. The first option was not possible for him: that he should abandon his own right and elect ʿUthmān or ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. Therefore, he stood firm on his right, while ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān separating himself from it and assumed this authority and said to Amīr al-Muʾminīn: I pledge allegiance to you on the condition that you follow the Book of Allāh, the Sunnah of the Prophet, and the conduct of the two Shaykhs, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.
ʿAlī replied: Rather, I will follow the Book of Allāh, the Sunnah of the Prophet, and my own judgment. [al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, ʿAllāmah Abū al-Ḥasan al-Māwardī, Vol. 16, p. 314, maṭbūʿah Dār al-Fikr, Beirut; Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, Vol. 1, p. 188.]
When he got the same reply even after repeating the question thrice, he turned to ʿUthmān saying, “Do you accept these conditions?” He had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance was sworn to him. When Amīr al-Muʾminīn saw his rights being thus trampled, he said: This is not the first day that you have wronged us. I have only to keep good patience. Allāh is the Helper against whatever you say. By Allāh, you have not made ʿUthmān caliph but in the hope that he would later hand the caliphate back to you. (aṭ-Ṭabarī, vol. 3, p. 237)
After recording the events of ash-Shūrā (consultative council), Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd has written that when allegiance had been paid to ʿUthmān, ʿAlī addressed ʿUthmān and ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān saying: May Allāh sow the seed of dissension among you.
And so it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other, and ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān did not, after that, speak to ʿUthmān until his death. Even on deathbed, he turned his face on seeing him.
On seeing these events, the question arises whether ash-Shūrā (consultative council) means confining the matter to six persons, thereafter to three, and finally to a single individual. It also raises the question whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs for caliphate was put by ʿUmar, or it was just a hurdle put by ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān between ʿAlī (a.s.) and the Caliphate; whereas the first Caliph did not put forth this condition at the time of nominating the second Caliph, namely that he should follow the former’s footsteps. What then was the occasion for introducing such a condition here?
However, Amīr al-Muʾminīn had agreed to participate in it in order to prevent mischief and disorder and to complete the proof (ḥujjah), so that their minds should be sealed and they should not be able to claim that they would have voted in his favour, but that he himself had withdrawn from the consultative council and did not give them an opportunity of selecting him.
[5] About the reign of the third caliph, Amīr al-Muʾminīn says that soon on ʿUthmān’s coming to power, Banū Umayyah gained strength and began plundering the Bayt al-māl (public fund), and just as cattle on seeing green grass after drought trample it away, they likewise fell upon the wealth of Allāh without restraint and destroyed it. At last this self-indulgence and nepotism brought him to the stage when people besieged his house, put him to sword, and made him vomit all that he had swallowed.
The maladministration that took place in this period was such that no Muslim can remain unmoved to see that Companions of high position were lying uncared for, they were stricken with poverty, and destitution had surrounded them, while control over Bayt al-māl (public fund) lay in the hands of Banū Umayyah; government positions were occupied by their young and inexperienced persons; special Muslim properties were appropriated by them; meadows provided grazing but to their cattle; houses were built for them; and orchards were established for them. If any compassionate person spoke about these excesses, his ribs were broken, and if someone agitated this capitalism he was expelled from the city. The uses to which zakāt and charities, which were meant for the poor and the wretched, and the public fund which was the common property of the Muslims, were put may be observed from the following few illustrations:
(1) al-Ḥakam ibn Abī al-ʿĀṣ, who had been exiled from Madīnah by the Prophet, was allowed back in the city not only against the Prophet’s Sunnah but also against the conduct of the first two Caliphs, and he was granted three hundred thousand dirhams from the public fund. (al-Maʿārif, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 94)
(2) al-Walīd ibn ʿUqbah, who has been named hypocrite in the Qurʾān, was given one hundred thousand dirhams from the Muslim’s public fund. (al-ʿIqd al-Farīd, vol. 3, p. 94)
(3) The Caliph married his own daughter Umm Abān to Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam and paid him one hundred thousand dirhams from the public treasury. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, pp. 198–199)
(4) He married his daughter ʿĀʾishah to al-Ḥārith ibn al-Ḥakam and granted him one hundred thousand dirhams from the public treasury. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 39)
(5) Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb was granted two hundred thousand dirhams. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 39)
(6) ʿAbd Allāh ibn Khālid was granted four hundred thousand dirhams. (al-Maʿārif, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 84)
(7) The khums (one-fifth religious levy) from Africa, amounting to five hundred thousand dīnārs, was given to Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam. (al-Maʿārif, p. 84)
(8) Fadak, which was withheld from the angelic daughter of the Prophet on the ground of being general charity, was given as a royal gift to Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam. (al-Maʿārif, p. 84)
(9) Bazūr, a place in the commercial area of Madīnah which had been declared a public trust by the Prophet, was gifted to al-Ḥārith ibn al-Ḥakam. (al-Maʿārif, p. 84)
(10) In the meadows around Madīnah, no camels except those of Banū Umayyah were allowed to graze. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 199)
(11) After his (ʿUthmān’s) death, one hundred and fifty thousand dīnārs (gold coins) and one million dirhams (silver coins) were found in his house. There was no limit to tax free lands; the estimated value of only a few of those estates amounted to one hundred thousand dīnārs. There were countless camels and horses. (Murūj al-Dhahab, vol. 1, p. 435)
(12) The Caliph’s relations ruled all the principal cities. Thus, al-Walīd ibn ʿUqbah was governor over Kūfah, but when, being intoxicated with wine, he led the morning prayer in four rakʿāhs instead of two, he was removed on account of the public outcry; but the Caliph put in his place a transgressor like Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ. In Egypt ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Sarḥ, in Syria Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, and in Baṣrah, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir were the governors appointed by him (Murūj al-Dhahab, vol. 1, p. 435)
[5] About the reign of the third caliph, Amīr al-Muʾminīn says that soon on ʿUthmān’s coming to power, Banū Umayyah gained strength and began plundering the Bayt al-māl (public fund), and just as cattle on seeing green grass after drought trample it away, they likewise fell upon the wealth of Allāh without restraint and destroyed it. At last this self-indulgence and nepotism brought him to the stage when people besieged his house, put him to sword, and made him vomit all that he had swallowed.
The maladministration that took place in this period was such that no Muslim can remain unmoved to see that Companions of high position were lying uncared for, they were stricken with poverty, and destitution had surrounded them, while control over Bayt al-māl (public fund) lay in the hands of Banū Umayyah; government positions were occupied by their young and inexperienced persons; special Muslim properties were appropriated by them; meadows provided grazing but to their cattle; houses were built for them; and orchards were established for them. If any compassionate person spoke about these excesses, his ribs were broken, and if someone agitated this capitalism he was expelled from the city. The uses to which zakāt and charities, which were meant for the poor and the wretched, and the public fund which was the common property of the Muslims, were put may be observed from the following few illustrations:
(1) al-Ḥakam ibn Abī al-ʿĀṣ, who had been exiled from Madīnah by the Prophet, was allowed back in the city not only against the Prophet’s Sunnah but also against the conduct of the first two Caliphs, and he was granted three hundred thousand dirhams from the public fund. (al-Maʿārif, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 94)
(2) al-Walīd ibn ʿUqbah, who has been named hypocrite in the Qurʾān, was given one hundred thousand dirhams from the Muslim’s public fund. (al-ʿIqd al-Farīd, vol. 3, p. 94)
(3) The Caliph married his own daughter Umm Abān to Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam and paid him one hundred thousand dirhams from the public treasury. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, pp. 198–199)
(4) He married his daughter ʿĀʾishah to al-Ḥārith ibn al-Ḥakam and granted him one hundred thousand dirhams from the public treasury. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 39)
(5) Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb was granted two hundred thousand dirhams. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 39)
(6) ʿAbd Allāh ibn Khālid was granted four hundred thousand dirhams. (al-Maʿārif, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 84)
(7) The khums (one-fifth religious levy) from Africa, amounting to five hundred thousand dīnārs, was given to Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam. (al-Maʿārif, p. 84)
(8) Fadak, which was withheld from the angelic daughter of the Prophet on the ground of being general charity, was given as a royal gift to Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam. (al-Maʿārif, p. 84)
(9) Bazūr, a place in the commercial area of Madīnah which had been declared a public trust by the Prophet, was gifted to al-Ḥārith ibn al-Ḥakam. (al-Maʿārif, p. 84)
(10) In the meadows around Madīnah, no camels except those of Banū Umayyah were allowed to graze. (Sharḥ Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 1, p. 199)
(11) After his (ʿUthmān’s) death, one hundred and fifty thousand dīnārs (gold coins) and one million dirhams (silver coins) were found in his house. There was no limit to tax free lands; the estimated value of only a few of those estates amounted to one hundred thousand dīnārs. There were countless camels and horses. (Murūj al-Dhahab, vol. 1, p. 435)
(12) The Caliph’s relations ruled all the principal cities. Thus, al-Walīd ibn ʿUqbah was governor over Kūfah, but when, being intoxicated with wine, he led the morning prayer in four rakʿāhs instead of two, he was removed on account of the public outcry; but the Caliph put in his place a transgressor like Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ. In Egypt ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Sarḥ, in Syria Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, and in Baṣrah, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir were the governors appointed by him (Murūj al-Dhahab, vol. 1, p. 435)
