Sermon 003 – Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah

(1).          This sermon is known as the sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah, and is counted among the most famous sermons of Amír al-mu’minín. It was delivered at ar-Rahbah. Although some people have denied it to be Amír al-mu’minín’s utterance and by attributing it to as-Sayyid ar-Radí (or ash-Sharíf ar-Radí) 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 `Alí’s (p.b.u.h.) 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 Amír al-mu’minín 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 Amír al-mu’minín’s utterance, unless the true events are analysed and truth unveiled; otherwise just denying it to be Amír al-mu’minín’s utterance because it contains disparagement of certain individuals carries no weight, when similar criticism has been related by other historians as well. Thus (Abú `Uthmán) `Amr ibn Bahr al-Jáhiz has recorded the following words of a sermon of Amír al-mu’minín and they are not less weighty than the criticism in the “Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah.”

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.            

                Consequently, the idea that it is the production of as-Sayyid ar-Radí 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 evidence of those scholars and traditionists who have clearly held it to be Amír al-mu’minín’s production, so that its historical importance should become known. Among these scholars some are those before as-Sayyid ar-Radí’s period, some are his contemporaries and some are those who came after him but they all related it through their own chain of authority.

1) Ibn Abi’l-hadíd al-Mu`tazilí writes that his master Abu’l-Khayr Musaddiq ibn Shabíb al-Wásití (d. 605 A.H.) stated that he heard this sermon from ash-Shaykh Abú Muhammad `Abdulláh ibn Ahmad al-Baghdádí (d. 567 A.H.) known as Ibn al-Khashsháb and when he reached where Ibn `Abbás expressed sorrow for this sermon having remained incomplete Ibn al-Khashsháb said to him that if he had heard the expression of sorrow from Ibn `Abbás 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? Musaddiq says that Ibn al-Khashsháb 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 Alláh, I believe it to be Amír al-mu’minín’s word as I believe you to be Musaddiq ibn Shabíb.” I said that some people regard it to be as-Sayyid ar-Radí’s production when he replied: “How can ar-Radí have such guts or such style of writing. I have seen as-Sayyid ar-Radí’s writings and know his style 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-Radí, 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-Radí but even his father Abú Ahmad an-Naqíb has not been born.”

2) Thereafter Ibn Abi’l-hadíd writes that he saw this sermon in the ccompilations of his master Abu’l-Qásim (`Abdulláh ibn Ahmad) al-Balkhí (d. 317 A.H.). He was the Imám of the Mu’tazilites in the reign of al-Muqtadir Billáh while al-Muqtadir’s period was far earlier than the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Radí.

3) He further writes that he saw this sermon in Abú Ja`far (Muhammad ibn `Abd ar-Rahmán), Ibn Qibah’s book al-Insáf. He was the pupil of Abu’l-Qásim al-Balkhí and a theologian of Imámiyyah (Shi`ite) sect. (Sharh of Ibn Abi’l-hadíd, vol.1, pp.205-206)

4) Ibn Maytham al-Bahrání (d. 679 A.H.) writes in his commentary that he had seen one such copy of this sermon which bore writing of al-Muqtadir Billáh’s minister Abu’l-Hasan `Alí ibn Muhammad ibn al-Furát (d. 312 A.H.). (Sharh al-balághah, vol.1., pp. 252-253)

5) al-`Allámah Muhammad Báqír al-Majlisí has related the following chain of authority about this Sermon from ash-Shaykh Qutbu’d-Dín ar-Ráwandí’s compilation Minháj al-bará`ah fi Sharh Nahj al-balághah:

ash-Shaykh Abú Nasr al-hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ibráhím informed me from al-Hájib Abu’l-Wafá’ Muhammad ibn Badí`, al-husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Badí` and al-husayn ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd ar-Rahmán and they from al-Háfiz Abú Bakr (Ahmad ibn Músá) ibn Marduwayh al-Isbahání (d. 416 A.H.) and he from al-Háfiz Abu’l-Qásim Sulaymán ibn Ahmad at-Tabarání (d. 360 A.H.) and he from Ahmad ibn `Alí al-Abbár and he from Is’háq ibn Sa`íd Abú Salamah ad-Dimashqí and he from Khulayd ibn Da`laj and he from `Atá’ ibn Abí Rabáh and he from Ibn `Abbás. (Bihar al-anwár, 1st ed. vol.8, pp.160-161)

6) In the context al-`Allámah al-Majlisí has written that this sermon is also contained in the compilations of Abú `Alí (Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahháb) al-Jubbá ‘í (d. 303 A.H.) .

7) In connection with this very authenticity al-`Allámah al-Majlisí writes:

al-Qá_í `Abd al-Jabbár ibn Ahmad al-Asad’ábádí (d. 415A.H.) who was a strict Mu`tazilite explains some expressions of this sermon in his book al-Mughní and tries to prove that it does not strike against any preceding caliph but does not deny it to be Amír al-mu’minín’s composition. (ibid., p.161)

8) Abú Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Alí, Ibn Bábawayh (d. 381 A.H.) writes:

Muhammad ibn Ibráhím ibn Is’háq al-Tálaqání told us that `Abd al-`Azíz ibn Yahyá al-Jalúdí (d. 332 A.H.) told him that Abú `Abdilláh Ahmad ibn `Ammár ibn Khálid told him that Yahyá ibn `Abd al-Hamíd al- Himmání (d. 228 A.H.) told him that `Isá ibn Ráshid related this sermon from `Alí ibn Hudhayfah and he from `Ikrimah and he from Ibn `Abbás. (`Ilal ash-shará’i`,vol.1, chap. 122, p.144; Ma`áni al-akhbár, chap.22, pp.360-361)

9) Then Ibn Bábawayh records the following chain of authorities :-

Muhammad ibn `Alí Májilawayh related this sermon to us and he took it from his uncle Muhammad ibn Abi’l-Qásim and he from Ahmad ibn Abí `Abdilláh (Muhammad ibn Khálid) al-Barqí and he from his father and he from (Muhammad) Ibn Abí `Umayr and he from Abán ibn `Uthmán and he from Abán ibn Taghlib and he from `Ikrimah and he from Ibn `Abbás. (`Ilal ash-shará’i`, vol.1, chap.122, p.l46; Ma`áni al-akhbár, chap.22, p.361)

10) Abú Ahmad al-hasan ibn `Abdilláh ibn Sa`íd al-`Askarí (d.382 A.H.) who counts among great scholars of the Sunnis has written commentary and explanation of this sermon that has been recorded by Ibn Bábawayh in `Ilal ash-shará’i` and Ma`áni al-akhbár.

11) as-Sayyid Ni`matulláh al-Jazá’irí writes:

The author of Kitáb al-ghárát Abú Is’háq, Ibráhím ibn Muhammad ath-Thaqafí al-Kúfí (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 Shawwál 255 A.H. and in the same year, Murta_á al-Músawí was born. He was older in age than his brother as-Sayyid ar-Radí. (Anwár an-Nu`mániyyah, p.37)

12) as-Sayyid Ra_í ad-Dín Abu’l-Qásim `Alí ibn Músá, Ibn Táwús al-husayní al-hullí (d. 664 A.H.) has related this sermon from Kitáb al-ghárát with the following chain of authorities:-

This sermon was related to us by Muhammad ibn Yusuf who related it from al-hasan ibn `Alí ibn `Abd al-Karím az-Za`farání and he from Muhammad ibn Zakariyyah al-Ghallábí and he from Ya`qúb ibn Ja`far ibn Sulaymán and he from his father and he from his grand-father and he from Ibn `Abbás. (Translation of at-Tará’if, p.202)

13) Shaykh at-Tá’ifah, Muhammad ibn al- Hasan at-Túsí (d. 460 A.H.) writes:

(Abu’l-Fath Hilál ibn Muhammad ibn Ja`far) al-haffár related this sermon to us. He related it from Abu’l-Qásim (Ismá`íl ibn `Alí ibn `Alí) ad-Di`bilí and he from his father and he from his brother Di`bil (ibn `Alí al-Kuzá`í) and he from Muhammad ibn Salámah ash-Shámí and he from Zurárah ibn A`yan and he from Abú Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Alí and he from Ibn `Abbás. (al-Amálí, p.237)

14) ash-Shaykh al-Mufíd (Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn an-Nu`mán, d. 413 A.H.) who was the teacher of as-Sayyid ar-Radí writes about the chain of authorities of this sermon:

A number of relaters of traditions have related this sermon from Ibn `Abbás through numerous chains. (al-Irshád, p.135)

15) `Alam al-Hudá (emblem of guidance) as-Sayyid al-Murta_á who was the elder brother of as-Sayyid ar-Radí has recorded it on pp. 203,204 of his book ash-Sháfí.

16) Abú Mansúr at-Tabarsí writes:

A number of relaters have given an account of this sermon from Ibn `Abbás through various chains. Ibn `Abbás said that he was in the audience of Amír al-mu’minín at ar-Rahbah (a place in Kúfah) when conversation turned to Caliphate and those who had preceded him as Caliphs, when Amír al-mu’minín breathed a sigh and delivered this sermon. (al-Ihtijáj, p. 101)

17) Abu’l-Mu~affar Yúsuf ibn `Abdilláh and Sibt ibn al-Jawzí al-Hanafí (d. 654 A.H.) writes:

Our ash-Shaykh Abu’l-Qásim an-Nafís al-Anbárí related this sermon to us through his chain of authorities that ends with Ibn `Abbás, who said that after allegiance had been paid to Amír al-mu’minín as Caliph he was sitting on the pulpit when a man from the audience enquired why he had remained quiet till then whereupon Amír al-mu’minín delivered this sermon extempore. (Tadhkarat khawÁss al-ummah, p.73)

18) al-Qá_í Ahmad ibn Muhammad, ash-Shiháb al-Khafájí (d. 1069 A.H.) writes with regard to its authenticity:

It is stated in the utterances of Amír al-mu’minín `Alí (Alláh may be pleased with him) that “It is strange during life time he (Abú Bakr) wanted to give up the Caliphate but he strengthened its foundation for the other one after his death.” (Sharh durrat al-ghawwÁs, p.17)

19) ash-Shaykh `Alá ad-Dawlah as-Simnání writes:

Amír al-mu’minín Sayyid al-`Árifín `Alí (p.b.u.h.) has stated in one of his brilliant Sermons “this is the Shiqshiqah that burst forth.” (al-`Urwah lí ahl al-khalwah wa’l-jalwah, p3, manuscript in Nasiriah Library, Lucknow, India)

20) Abu’l-Fa_l Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Maydání (d. 518 A.H.) has written in connection with the word Shiqshiqah:

One sermon of Amír al-mu’minín `Alí is known as Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah (the sermon of the Camel’s Foam). (Majma` al-amthál, vol.1, p.369)

21) In fifteen places in an-Niháyah while explaining the words of this sermon Abu’s-Sa`ádát Mubárak ibn Muhammad, Ibn al-Athír al-Jazarí (d. 606 A.H.) has acknowledged it to be Amír al-mu’minín’s utterance.

22) Shaykh Muhammad Táhir Patní while explaining the same words in Majma` bihár al-anwár testifies this sermon to be Amír al-mu’minín’s by saying, “`Alí says so.”

23) Abu’l-Fa_l ibn Manzúr (d. 711 A.H.) has acknowledged it as Amír al-mu’minín’s utterance in Lisán al-`Arab, vol.12, p.54 by saying, “In the sayings of `Alí in his sermon ‘It is the camel’s foam that burst forth then subsided.’”

24) Majdu’d-Dín al-Firúz’ábádí (d. 816/817 A.H.) has recorded under the word “Shiqshiqah” in his lexicon (al-Qámús, vol.3, p.251):

Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah is by `Alí so named because when Ibn `Abbás asked him to resume it where he had left it, he said “O’ Ibn `Abbás! it was the foam of a camel that burst forth then subsided.”

25) The compiler of Muntahá al-adab writes:

Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah of `Alí is attributed to `Alí (Alláh may honour his face).

26) ash-Shaykh Muhammad `Abduh, Muftí of Egypt, recognising it as Amír al-mu’minín’s utterance, has written its explanations.

27) Muhammad Muhyi’d-Dín `Abd al-Hámid, Professor in the Faculty of Arabic Language, al-Azhar University has written annotations on Nahj al-balághah adding a foreword in the beginning wherein he recognises all such sermons which contain disparaging remarks to be the utterances of Amír al-mu’minín.

                In the face of these evidences and undeniable proofs is there any scope to hold that it is not Amír al-mu’minín’s production and that as-Sayyid ar-Radí prepared it himself?

(2).          Amír al-mu’minín has referred to Abú Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate metaphorically as having dressed himself with it. This was a common metaphor. Thus, when `Uthmán was called to give up the Caliphate he replied, “I shall not put off this shirt which Alláh has put on me.” No doubt Amír al-mu’minín has not attributed this dressing of Caliphate to Alláh but to Abú Bakr himself because according to unanimous opinion his Caliphate was not from Alláh but his own affair. That is why Amír al-mu’minín said that Abú Bakr dressed himself with the Caliphate. He knew that this dress had been stitched for his own body and his 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 organisation and order and guided it through all difficulties. Currents of learning flowed from my bosom and watered it on all sides. My position was high beyond imagination but lust of world seekers for government became a tumbling stone for me and I had to confine myself to seclusion. Blinding darkness prevailed all round and there was intense gloom everywhere. The young grew old and the old departed for the graves but this patience-breaking period would not end. I kept watching with my eyes the plundering of my own inheritance and saw the passing of Caliphate from one hand to the other but remained patient as I could not stop their high-handedness for lack of means.”

NEED FOR THE PROPHET’S CALIPH AND THE MODE OF HIS APPOINTMENT

                After the Prophet of Islam the presence of such a personality was inevitable who could stop the community from disintegration and guard the religious law against change, alteration and interference by those who wanted to twist it to suit their own desires. If this very need is denied then there is no sense in attaching so much importance to the succession of the Prophet that the assemblage in Saqífah of Banú Sá`idah should have been considered more important than the burial of the Prophet. If the need is recognised, the question is whether or not the Prophet too realised it. If it is held he could not attend to it and appreciate its need or absence of need it would be the biggest proof for regarding the Prophet’s mind to be blank for thinking of means to stop the evils of innovations and apostasy in spite of having given warnings about them. If it is said that he did realise it but had to live it unresolved on account of some advantage then instead of keeping it hidden the advantage should be clearly indicated otherwise silence without purpose would constitute delinquency in the discharge of the obligations of Prophethood. If there was some impediment, it should be disclosed otherwise we should agree that just as the Prophet did not leave any item of religion incomplete he did not leave this matter either and did propose such a course of action for it, that if it was acted upon religion would have remained safe against the interference of others.

                The question now is what was that course of action. If it is taken to be the consensus of opinion of the community then it cannot truly take place as in such consensus acquiescence of every individual is necessary; but taking into account the difference in human temperaments it seems impossible that they would agree on any single point. 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 Islam and the good of the Muslims. Therefore, the mind is not prepared to accept this criterion. Nor is tradition in harmony with it, as al-Qádí `Adud ad-Dínal-’Íjí has written in Sharh al-mawáqif:

You should know that Caliphate cannot depend upon unanimity of election because no logical or traditional argument can be advanced for it.

                In fact when the advocates of unanimous election 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 or correct and incorrect ways 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 hidden 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 election of correct person. Even if it is assumed that all voters have an 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 Islamic 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-Qádí `Adud ad-Dín al-’Íjí 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 Abú Bakr by `Umar and of `Uthmán by `Abd ar-Rahmán. (Sharh al-mawáqif, p.351 )

                This is the account of the “unanimous election” in the Hall of Baní Sá`idah and the activity of the consultative assembly: 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. Abú 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. That is why he ignored the requirements of unanimous election, majority vote or method of choosing through electoral assembly and appointed `Umar by nomination. `Á’ishah also considered that leaving the question of caliphate to the vote of a few particular individuals meant inviting mischief and trouble. She sent a word to `Umar on his death saying:

Do not leave the Islamic community without a chief. Nominate a Caliph for it and leave it not without an authority as otherwise I apprehend mischief and trouble.

                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 “Feast of the Relatives,” on the night of hijrah, at the battle of Tabúk, on the occasion of conveying the Qur’ánic chapter “al-Bará’ah” (at-Tawbah, chap.9) and at Ghadír (the spring of) Khumm. The strange thing is that when each of the first three caliphates is based on one individual’s choice how can this very right to choose be denied to the Prophet himself, particularly when this was the only way to end all the dissension, 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).          Hayyán ibn as-Samín al-Hanafí of Yamámah was the chief of the tribe Banú Hanifah and the master of fort and army. Jábir is the name of his younger brother while al-A`shá whose real name was Maymún ibn Qays ibn Jandal enjoyed the position of being his bosom friend and led a decent happy life through his bounty. In this verse he has compared his current life with the previous one that is the days when he roamed about in search of livelihood and those when he led a happy life in Hayyán’s company. Generally Amír al-mu’minín’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 life time and the authority and power enjoyed by them after him, that is, at one time in the days of the Prophet no heed was paid to them because of `Alí’s personality but now the time had so changed that the same people were masters of the affairs of the Muslim world.

(4).          When `Umar was wounded by Abú Lu’lu’ah and he saw that it was difficult for him to survive because of the deep wound, he formed a consultative committee and nominated for it `Alí ibn Abí Tálib, `Uthmán ibn `Affán, `Abd ar-Rahmán ibn `Awf, az-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwám, Sa`d ibn Abí Waqqás, and Talhah ibn `Ubaydilláh and bound them that after three days of his death they should select one of themselves as the Caliph while for those three days Suhayb should act as Caliph. On receipt of these instructions some members of the committee requested him to indicate what ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their light. `Umar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. He said that Sa`d was harsh-tempered and hot headed; `Abd ar-Rahmán was the Pharaoh of the community; az-Zubayr was, if pleased, a true believer but if displeased an unbeliever; Talhah 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 while `Uthmán did not see beyond his kinsmen. As regards `Alí he is enamoured of the Caliphate although I know that he alone can run it on right lines. Nevertheless, despite this admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative Committee 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 `Uthmán’s success were present therein. If we look at its members we see that one of them namely `Abd ar-Rahmán ibn `Awf is the husband of `Uthmán’s sister, next Sa`d ibn Abí Waqqás besides bearing malice towards `Alí is a relation and kinsman of `Abd ar-Rahmán. Neither of them can be taken to go against `Uthmán. The third Talhah ibn `Ubaydilláh about whom Prof. Muhammad `Abduh writes in his annotation on Nahj al-balághah:

Talhah was inclined towards `Uthmán and the reason for it was no less than that he was against `Alí, because he himself was at-Taymí and Abú Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate had created bad blood between Baní Taym and Banú Háshim.

                As regards az-Zubayr, even if he had voted for `Alí, what could his single vote achieve. According to at-Tabarí’s statement Talhah was not present in Medina at that time but his absence did not stand in the way of `Uthmán’s success. Rather even if he were present, as he did actually reach at the meeting (of the Committee), and he is taken to be `Alí’s supporter, still there could be no doubt in `Uthmán’s success because `Umar’s sagacious mind had set the working procedure that:

If two agree about one and the other two about another then `Abdulláh ibn `Umar should act as the arbitrator. The group whom he orders should choose the Caliph from among themselves. If they do not accept `Abdulláh ibn `Umar’s verdict, support should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Rahmán ibn `Awf, but if the others do not agree they should be beheaded for opposing this verdict. (at-Tabarí, vol.1, pp.2779-2780; Ibn al-Athír, vol.3, p.67).

                Here disagreement with the verdict of `Abdulláh ibn `Umar has no meaning since he was directed to support the group which included `Abd ar-Rahmán ibn `Awf. He had ordered his son `Abdulláh and Suhayb that:

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, you should side with the group including `Abd ar-Rahmán ibn `Awf. (at-Tabarí, vol.1, pp.2725,2780; Ibn al-Athír, vol.3, pp.51,67).

                In this instruction the agreement with the majority also means support of `Abd ar-Rahmán because the majority could not be on any other side since fifty blood-thirsty swords had been put on the heads of the opposition group with orders to fall on their heads on `Abd ar-Rahmán’s behest. Amír al-mu’minín’s eye had fore-read it at that very moment that the Caliphate was going to `Uthmán as appears from his following words which he spoke to al-`Abbás ibn `Abd al-Muttalib:

“The Caliphate has been turned away from us.” al-`Abbás asked how could he know it. Then he replied, “`Uthmán has also been coupled with 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 `Abd ar-Rahmán ibn `Awf. Now Sa`d will support his cousin `Abd ar-Rahmán who is of course the husband of `Uthmán’s sister.” (ibid )

                However, after `Umar’s death this meeting took place in the room of `Á’ishah and on its door stood Abú Talhah al-Ansárí with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Talhah started the proceedings and inviting all others to be witness said that he gave his right of vote to `Uthmán. This touched az-Zubayr’s sense of honour as his mother Safiyyah daughter of `Abd al-Muttalib was the sister of Prophet’s father. So he gave his right of vote to `Alí. Thereafter Sa`d ibn Abí Waqqás made his right of vote to `Abd ar-Rahmán. This left three members of the consultative committee out of whom `Abd ar-Rahmán said that he was willing to give up his own right of vote if `Alí (p.b.u.h.) and `Uthmán gave him the right to choose one of them or one of these two should acquire this right by withdrawing. This was a trap in which `Alí had been entangled from all sides namely that either he should abandon his own right or else allow `Abd ar-Rahmán to do as he wished. The first case was not possible for him; that is, to give up his own right and elect `Uthmán or `Abd ar-Rahmán. So, he clung to his right, while `Abd ar-Rahmán separating himself from it assumed this power and said to Amír al-mu’minín, “I pay you allegiance on your following the Book of Alláh, the sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of the two Shaykhs, (Abú Bakr and `Umar). `Alí replied, “Rather on following the Book of Alláh, the sunnah of the Prophet and my own findings.” When he got the same reply even after repeating the question thrice he turned to `Uthmán saying, “Do you accept these conditions.” He had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance was paid to him. When Amír al mu’minín saw his rights being thus trampled he said:

“This is not the first day when you behaved against us. I have only to keep good patience. Alláh is the Helper against whatever you say. By Alláh, you have not made `Uthmán Caliph but in the hope that he would give back the Caliphate to you.”

                After recording the events of ash-Shúrá (consultative committee), Ibn Abi’l-hadíd has written that when allegiance had been paid to `Uthmán, `Alí addressed `Uthmán and `Abd ar-Rahmán saying, “May Alláh sow the seed of dissension among you,” and so it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other and `Abd ar-Rahmán did not ever after speak to `Uthmán till death. Even on death bed he turned his face on seeing him.

                On seeing these events the question arises whether ash-Shúrá (consultative committee) means confining the matter to six persons, thereafter to three and finally to one only. Also whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs for Caliphate was put by `Umar or it was just a hurdle put by `Abd ar-Rahmán between `Alí (p.b.u.h.) and the Caliphate, although 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 this condition here?

                However, Amír al-mu’minín had agreed to participate in it in order to avoid mischief and to put an end to arguing so that others should be silenced and should not be able to claim that they would have voted in his favour and that he himself evaded the consultative committee and did not give them an opportunity of selecting him.

(5)           About the reign of the third Caliph, Amír al-mu’minín says that soon on `Uthmán’s coming to power Banú Umayyah got ground and began plundering the Bayt al-mál (public fund), and just as cattle on seeing green grass after drought trample it away, they recklessly fell upon Alláh’s money and devoured 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 surrounded by pennilessness while control over Bayt al-mál (public fund) was that of Banú Umayyah, government positions were occupied by their young and inexperienced persons, special Muslim properties were owned by them, meadows provided grazing but to their cattle, houses were built but by them, and orchards were but for them. If any compassionate person spoke about these excesses his ribs were broken, and if someone agitated this capitalism he was externed from the city. The uses to which zakát 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-Hakam ibn Abi’l-`Ás who had been exiled from Medina 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 paid three hundred thousand Dirhams from the public fund. (Ansáb al-ashráf, vol.5, pp.27, 28, 125)

2) al-Walíd ibn `Uqbah who has been named hypocrite in the Qur’án was paid one hundred thousand Dirhams from the Muslim’s public fund. (al-`Iqd al-faríd, vol.3, p.94)

3) The Caliph married his own daughter Umm Ában to Marwán ibn al-Hakam and paid him one hundred thousand Dirhams from the public fund. (Sharh of Ibn Abi’l-hadíd, vol.1, pp.198-199).

4) He married his daughter `Á’ishah to Hárith ibn al-Hakam and granted him one hundred thousand Dirhams from the public fund. (ibid.)

5) `Abdulláh ibn Khálid was paid four hundred thousand Dirhams. (al-Ma`árif of Ibn Qutaybah, p.84)

6) Allowed the khums (one fifth religious duty) from Africa (amounting to five hundred thousand Dinars) to Marwán ibn al-Hakam. (ibid)

7) Fadak which was withheld from the angelic daughter of the Prophet on the ground of being general charity was given as a royal favour to Marwán ibn al-Hakam. (ibid.)

8) Mahzúr a place in the commercial area of Medina which had been declared a public trust by the Prophet was gifted to Hárith ibn al-Hakam. (ibid.)

9) In the meadows around Medina no camel except those of Banú Umayyah were allowed to graze. (Sharh of Ibn Abi’l-hadíd, vol.l, p.l99)

10) After his death (`Uthmán’s) one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars (gold coins) and one million Dirhams (silver coins) were found in his house. There was no limit to tax free lands; and the total value of the landed estate he owned in Wádí al-Qurá and Hunayn was one hundred thousand Dinars. There were countless camels and horses. (Murúj adh-dhahab, vol.l, p.435)

11) The Caliph’s relations ruled all the principal cities. Thus, at Kúfah, al-Walíd ibn `Uqbah was the governor but when in the state of intoxication of wine he led the morning prayer in four instead of two rak`ah and people agitated he was removed, but the Caliph put in his place a hypocrite like Sa`id ibn al-`Ás. In Egypt `Abdulláh ibn Sa`d ibn Abí Sarh, in Syria Muáwiyah ibn Abí Sufyán, and in Basrah, `Abdulláh ibn `Ámir were the governors appointed by him (ibid.)