Salam Alpha
Tell u what, no one in the world has escaped being libeled, somehow, by wicked people. Heretics called Mu’tazila vilified even prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-taslîmât’ and angels. Across the vilifications, however, people of wisdom and reason diagnose the vilified people’s purity and nobility. A clear evidence proving the superiorities of the Shaikhayn is the fact that their obstinately jealous and prejudiced adversaries have been reiterating the same stereotyped sophisms for centuries.
One of their vilifications is based on Hadrat Abû Bakr’s refusal to give Hadrat Fâtima an inheritance from her father ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’.
Hadrat Abû Bakr’s refusal to give her an inheritance was merely intended to obey the injunction implied in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “We prophets do not leave an inheritance behind us. No one inherits property from us.” It is stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm that prophets such as Dâwûd (David), Suleymân (Solomon), Yahyâ (John) and Zakariyyâ (Zachariah) ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ used the word ‘inheritance’ in their statements. Naturally, our Prophet was the person who understood the meanings of the Qur’ân al-kerîm best. Realizing that the word ‘inheritance’ used in the âyat-i-kerîmas meant ‘inheritance of knowledge and caliphate’, and not ‘inheritance of property’, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ uttered the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted above. The hadîth-i-sherîf is a clarification of the Qur’ân al-kerîm (in this matter). As Abû Dâwûd narrates, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had date orchards at Benî Nadîr, at Hayber, and at Fadak. He would dispense the income from the first one to civil servants, and the income from Fadak to the poor. He would divide the income from the one at Hayber into three, giving two-thirds to Muslims, and the remaining one-third to his Ahl-i-Bayt, i.e. his family. In case any amount remained, he would dispense it to the poor ones of the Muhâjirs. When Hadrat Abû Bakr became Khalîfa, he did not change this policy of the Messenger of Allah. When Hadrat ’Umar became Khalîfa, he sent for Hadrat Alî and Hadrat Abbâs, and asked them, when they arrived, if they had heard the hadîth-i-sherîf which we have quoted above, swearing them to telling the truth. They replied that they had. Hadrat Fâtima only wanted to be blessed[79] by taking possession of property which was impeccably halâl (canonically lawful) because it was given by Islam; she was somewhat upset when she was not given property of inheritance although she had heard the hadîth-i-sherîf; it was only human after all. Nor did Hadrat Alî change the policy perpetuated by the Shaikhayn; and he did not give the orchards to his children when he assumed caliphate. ’Umar bin ’Abdul’azîz also followed their example.
Siddîq (Hadrat Abû Bakr) ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had a thief’s left hand cut off. They criticize him for that chastisement which they alledge to be incompatible with Islam. The event is related at length in the book Muwatta. The thief’s right hand and foot had already been mutilated. It was for his left hand’s turn to be cut off. Hadrat Abû Bakr’s example is followed in the Madhhabs of Mâlikî and Shâfi’î. The Madhhabs of Hanafî and Hanbalî, on the other hand, follow a report coming through Hadrat Alî; accordingly, if a person’s one hand and one foot have already been mutilated, he is imprisoned instead of another one of his limbs being cut off.
Another reason for which they blame Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was his not having implemented qisâs (retaliation) for Mâlik bin Nuwayra.
Khâlid bin Walîd inferred from Mâlik’s choice of words that he had become a renegade (from Islam). So he had him killed. Because Hadrat Abû Bakr’s ijtihâd indicated that Hadrat Khâlid was telling the truth, he did not implement qisâs on Hadrat Khâlid. We wonder what justification those people will suggest for Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ not having implemented qisâs on Hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers, since they see no justification in Hadrat Abû Bakr’s attitude?
They claim that “It had been neither openly commanded nor implied beforehand that Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ should be (the first) Khalîfa. If it had been so, he would not have been elected Khalîfa (later) by way of ijtihâd, for ijtihâd would have been unnecessary.” Seven overlapping preambles would be illuminative in answering their argument:
1) There were several manners in which the Wahy came to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Some of the âyats (warning about the vehemence and imminence) of torment (in Hell) came with sounds like those of bells. Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-sallâm’ would appear in human guise and say the âyats to the blessed Prophet. Occasionally, wahy would happen during (the Prophet’s) dreams. Firâsat (insight) also was sometimes a manner of wahy. Most of those kinds of wahy does not exist in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. It is not permissible to question its reasons. We should not ask, for instance, why most of the instructions pertaining to namâz do not explicitly take place in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, whereas everything about fasting is described clearly. Likewise, it cannot be questioned why a certain commandment was revealed in a dream instead of simply being declared in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Likewise, we are not supposed to interrogate why Hadrat Abû Bakr’s caliphate was not foretold in the Qur’ân al-kerîm instead of being implied in a prophetic dream.
2) Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ announced some of the commandments and prohibitions clearly. On the other hand, he implied some of them by saying, for instance, “May Allah’s compassion be on anyone who performs that act,” or by imprecating, “May he who commits that act be accursed in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” This policy also is something unquestionable. For instance, it cannot be asked why the Shaikhayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ caliphates were implied in a manner of dream-telling and not as a direct commandment, saying, for instance, “Make Abû Bakr and ’Umar Khalîfas after me.”
3) Some commandments were implied in narrations of future events. Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ coming back and the Dajjâl’s appearing were foretold, and the Dajjâl’s iniquities were stated. These narrations imply certain commandments, e.g. “Obey Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ when he comes back,” and proscriptions, such as, “Do not follow the Dajjâl when he appears!” Another method of commanding or prohibiting certain acts was to say, for instance, “I have seen those people who do this and that in Paradise,” or, “I have seen people who do so in Hell.” Commandments and prohibitions are sometimes stated clearly in âyats, and sometimes by way of presuppositions imported in âyats. For instance, the statement, “So and so has manumitted Ahmad,” imports the presupposition (iqtidâ) that Ahmad was his slave. To say, “I have designated this person as your commander,” means that you should obey that person’s orders, which is a presupposition imported in the statement. By the same token, Allâhu ta’âlâ declared openly that He would appoint (some people as) Khalîfas over this Ummat (Muslims). And He revelad in (the blessed Prophet’s) dreams that the Shaikhayn would be (the earliest) Khalîfas. Likewise, by giving Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ the Glad Tidings that He would send unto humanity a prophet whose dispensation would be the finality of Divine Messengership, Allâhu ta’âlâ implied that all people should obey His final Prophet. “Adhere to my path and, after me, to the path in which the Khulafâ-ar-râshîdîn (the earliest four Khalîfas; namely, Hadrat Abû Bakr, Hadrat ’Umar, Hadrat ’Uthmân, and Hadrat Alî) will be guiding you,” is a hadîth-i-sherîf which commands to obey the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. That they would assume caliphate was a presupposition imported in this hadîth-i-sherîf.
4) That it was implied that the Shaikhayn would assume caliphate is symptomatic of the fact that they were rightly-guided and true Khalîfas. It is identical with Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ happy prophecy about the advent of the final Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam.’
5) Two unclear pieces of information provided in the nass are united to indicate a clear fact. For instance, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar,” does not clearly foretell the Shaikhayn’s caliphates although it contains their very names. However, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me, adhere to the path in which the Khulafâ-ar-râshidîn will be guiding you,” complements it into a clear indication of their future caliphates. When the two hadîth-i-sherîfs are combined, it becomes an established fact that the Shaikhayn were (rightly-guided) Khalîfas. Why the fact was divided into two complementary utterances is a prophetic mystery the ultimate divine benefits of which are known only to the owner of the utterances.
6) (The documentary sources of Islam called) the Edilla-i-shar’iyya are four. The third of these four sources is Ijmâ’, (which means consensus of the Sahâba on a religious matter). Realization of ijmâ’ requires existence of a delîl, i.e. a document, based on the Book, (i.e. the Qur’ân al-kerîm,) or the Sunnat, (i.e. hadîth-i-sherîfs). The Ashâb-i-kirâm reached (a consensus called) ijmâ’ by reminding the delîls to one another. They designated Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ as Khalîfa as a result of that ijmâ’. Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ statement, “We know that he is the most eligible for the office,” attests this fact.
7) The terms istikhlâf, (i.e. leaving someone as one’s successor,) and sarîh nass, which are used by Imâm Nawâwî and other scholars, have various meanings. If the head of the (Islamic) state convenes the prominent statesmen, towards his death, and tells them to pay homage to a certain person (after his death), he has done istikhlâf by way of sarîh nass. Otherwise, it is (only) istikhlâf to say that that person is eligible for being Khalîfa. This way of (indirect) designation does not stipulate conditions such as closeness of (the present Khalîfa’s) death and (his) convening the prominent state authorities. It is a way of informing, rather than a commandment. If a certain person has been recommended by way of istikhlâf, this implicit priority he has gained does not place any restrictions on someone else’s assuming office as (the new) Khalîfa. Istikhlâf is sometimes quite unclear. It can be clarified only by way of the presupposition imported in the (previous Khalîfa’s) statement. Or, it becomes clear when two different (implicit) statements are collocated. Different scholars of Fiqh may derive different meanings from the presupposition imported in a certain statement.
We can now rest our conclusive answer on the informational background supplied by the above seven introductory paragraphs: According to Imâm Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, who was the chief of the Madhhab with which Imâm Nawawî was affiliated, –in fact, Imâm Shâfi’î was the chief of all the scholars of Hadîth, as well as those of Fiqh–, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “If I am not here when you come back, ask (your questions to) Abû Bakr,” was a clear indication of the fact that Abû Bakr was to be (the first) Khalîfa. Imâm Shâfi’î was a scholar with profound knowledge, a keen perception, and an utterly solid reasoning. He was one of the documentary signs which Allâhu ta’âlâ specially created. He states that that hadîth-i-sherîf, an apparent order given to a certain woman as it was, was in actual fact an implication which must inevitably be construed as an information foretelling that Hadrat Abû Bakr was to be Khalîfa. As Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ uttered that hadîth-i-sherîf, he did not show any signs of regret or displeasure. This state shows that the event foretold was to be justified and canonically lawful. Other hadîth-i-sherîfs uttered at various places indicate Hadrat Abû Bakr’s caliphate more directly. Collectively, they make up a (certain religious fact which is termed) tawâtur. Imâm Nawawî’s argument, “If there were a nass, (i.e. a clear narration,) they would quote it and act accordingly. They did not quote a nass,” is quite out of place. On the contrary, they did quote various nasses, i.e. clear narrations. For instance, they said that when a person is designated as an imâm (to conduct the public prayers of namâz for Rasûlullah’s place), he is to be Khalîfa (after the Messenger of Allah). Because it was an established fact known by all the Ashâb-i-kirâm, they considered it unnecessary to search for and quote other nasses. Besides, bereaved of the Messenger of Allah, they were totally overwhelmed with grief and despair; worse still, intelligence had arrived that the Arabs had turned renegade and were marching towards Medîna. The caliphate election had to be done as soon as possible. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ summarizes the event as follows: “When Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ became ill, he ordered us to tell Abû Bakr to conduct the salâts. Afterwards, we (remembered this event and) thought the matter over upon Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ passing away. We elected Abû Bakr as Khalîfa, since he was a person whom the Messenger of Allah had made our leader in salât (namâz), which was Islam’s flag and the archstone of all acts of piety.”
Zein