This letter, written to Khwâja Abdul-Hasan Bahâdir Badahshî, explains how our Prophet ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ asked for paper towards his death:
Hamd be to Allâhu ta’âlâ. Salâm to the slaves whom He has chosen! Our Prophet ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ asked for paper on his deathbed. “Fetch me paper! I will write a book for you lest you go wrong after me,” he ordered. Hadrat ’Umar, together with a few other Sahabîs, said, “The book of Allâhu ta’âlâ will suffice for us! Let us ask him if he is talking in his sleep.” However, Resûlullah’s ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ each word was wahy. As a matter of fact, the third âyat of Wannajmi Sûra purports, “He does not talk nonsense. He always states the wahy.” It causes disbelief to refuse the wahy. As a matter of fact, forty-fourth âyat of Mâida Sûra
purports, “Those who disobey what Allâhu ta’âlâ has sent are disbelievers.” Furthermore, to think that the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ may talk in his sleep or such nonsense undermines the belief in him and the trust in his Sharî’at, a case which is also disbelief, being zindîq. How should we reconcile these important facts?
May Allâhu ta’âlâ increase your understanding. May He bless you with the lot of walking on the right way! If those who strive to denigrate the three Khalîfas and the other Sahabîs by bringing forward such doubts become reasonable and realize the honour and value of the sohbat of the Best of Mankind and if they know that the Sahâba ‘alaihimurridwân’ had gotten rid of the desires of their nafs completely and had been purified from such bad habits as grudge and enmity by benefiting from this sohbat; that they were all great men of the dîn and Islam’s eye-apples; that they strove with their utmost to strenghten the dîn and to help the Best of Mankind, that they sacrificed all their property to exalt Islam; that they left and sacrificed their clans and tribes, their children
and wives, their homes and homelands, their waterways, fields, trees and rivers, for their excessive love of Rasûlullah ‘alaihissalâm’, that they loved Rasûlullah ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ more than their own lives; that they were honoured with seeing the wahy, the angel; that they saw miracles and wonders; that they realized by seeing what should be believed without seeing; that what is knowledge for others was experience for them; and that they are praised and lauded by Allâhu ta’âlâ in the Qur’ân, they will realize that these doubts are sheer fibs, and they will pay no heed to them. They will not even consider it necessary to find out the unsound places in these fibs or to eliminate the wrong points in them. All the Sahâba have this superiority. How could we ever
describe the superiority of the Khulafâ-i râshidîn, the four Khalîfas, who are the most superior among them? Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiyallâhu anh’ is such an ’Umar that Allâhu ta’âlâ declared to His Messenger about him: “O my Prophet! Allah and those Believers who follow you will suffice for you!” in the sixty-fourth âyat of Anfâl Sûra. Hadrat Abdullah Ibni Abbâs informs that the âyat was revealed upon Hadrat ’Umar’s conversion to Islam. Such slanders fabricated about the Sahâba are based on no truth. They are contrary to the obvious, known facts. They are refuted by the Qur’ân and by hadîths. However, lest the question should go unanswered and in order to expound the unsound places in the doubtful words, I
have deemed it suitable to write a few prefaces with the help of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Read carefully! A few prefaces are necessary to remove the doubt entirely. Each of the prefaces can serve as an answer.
First Preface: Not every thought or every word of our Prophet’s conveyed wahy. The âyat, “He does not talk nonsense,” in Wannajmi Sûra is about the Qur’ân. The books of tafsîr write so, too. If his each word had conveyed the wahy, Allâhu ta’âlâ would not have informed that some of his words were wrong. Nor would He have communicated that He had forgiven them. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares to His beloved Prophet in the forty-third âyat of Tawba Sûra, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has forgiven you for your fault of giving permission to them.”
Second Preface: In words through ijtihâd and in decisions made by mind, it was permissible to object to Sarwar ‘alaihi wa alâ alaihissalawat wattaslîmât’ and to disagree with him. The second âyat of Hashr Sûra purports, “O you owners of wisdom, take warning from others!” [It is written in the tafsîr of Baydâwî that it is inferred from this âyat that qiyâs is permissible and
necessary.] It is commanded in the hundred and fifty-ninth âyat of Âl-i ’Imrân Sûra, “In your work consult your Sahâba!” While taking warning and while consulting, opinions and words can be refused and changed. As a matter of fact, in the holy war of Badr there were two different opinions: to kill the slaves captured or to set them free in return for money. Hadrat ’Umar was of the opinion that they should be killed. The Prophet suggested to set them free. The wahy that was revealed concurred with Hadrat ’Umar’s proposition. It was declared that it was a guilt to take money. Our Prophet declared: “If torment had come upon us, none of us would have been saved, except ’Umar and
Sa’d bin Mu’âz.” For, Sa’d ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ also had been of the opinion that the slaves should be killed.
[The holy war of Badr took place in the month of Ramadân in the second year of the Hegira. The Muslim fighters left the city of Medîna on the twelfth day of the month of Ramadân. They stayed in Badr for three nights. They returned to Medîna in nineteen days. In this ghazâ (holy war) the enemy army was about a thousand strong. They all wore armours of iron. There were a hundred horsemen and seven hundred camel-riders among them. Mus’ab bin Umayr was carrying the white banner of the muhâjirs. Abû Azîz, Mus’ab’s brother, Abdurrahmân bin Abû Bakr Siddîq, Hadrat Abû Huzayfa’s father, Utba, his brother, Walid, his uncle, Shayba, Hadrat Ali’s brother, Uqayl, his uncle, Abbâs, his uncle Hâris’s sons, Abû Sufyân and Nawfal, and Rasûlullah’s son-in-law, Abul Âs bin Rabî, were in the enemy army. Seventy
of the unbelievers were killed. And seventy were captured. The Muslim army consisted of three hundred and thirteen soldiers, eight of whom were on duty somewhere else. Three hundred and five people took part in the war. Sixty-four of them were from the Muhâjirs. There were three horsemen and seventy camel-riders. Fourteen people, six of whom from the Muhâjirs, became martyrs. The names of the three hundred and thirteen people are written in the book Jâliyat-ul-Akdâr, by Hadrat Khâlid-i Baghdâdi.]
Third Preface: It is possible, and an experienced fact, too, that prophets err and forget. As it is related in the hadîth of Zulyadayn, once Rasûlullah ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ made the last salâm after the second rak’at of a prayer of namâz that was fard and which consisted of four rak’ats. Zulyadayn said: “O Rasûlallah! You performed the namaz in two rak’ats. I wonder if you forgot (that it was of four rak’ats)?” It being realized that
Zulyadayn was right, Rasûlullah got up and performed two more rak’ats and then performed the sajda-i sahw. While it is possible for him to forget when he is not sick and he does not have any trouble whatsoever but only as a requirement of being human, it must certainly be possible for him to talk without thinking, unwillingly during his illness of death, when he is suffering severe pains, which is a requirement of being human. Why should it not be possible, and why shouldn’t the Sharî’at be trusted any more only because of this? For, Allâhu ta’âlâ informed His Prophet through wahy that he had erred and forgotten and distinguished what was right from what was wrong. For, it is not possible for a prophet to remain in error. He is immediately informed that he is wrong. If it
were not so the Sharî’at would not be trusted at all. This means to say that what would cause the Sharî’at not to be trusted any more is not erring or forgetting, but its remaining without being informed or corrected after erring or forgetting. And this second case is not possible. That is, he will immediately be informed.
Fourth Preface: Hadrat ’Umar - and the other three Khalîfas ‘radiyallâhu ta’âlâ anhum’, too - had been given the glad tidings that they would go to Paradise. The Qur’ân and hadîths inform that they will go to Paradise. That they will go to Paradise has been said so often that it has become a tawâtur. To disbelieve it is either vulgar ignorance or pig-headedness. Our imâms of hadîth wrote these pieces of information in their books, taking them from the Sahâba and from the Tâbi’în, who were their teachers. Even if all the hadîth communicators of the seventy-two sects gathered together they would not equal one-hundredth of the savants of hadîth of the Ahl as-sunnat Madhhab. That it does not exist in their books does not show that it does not exist at all. What will they say about the glad
tidings in the Qur’ân? For example, the hundred and third âyat of Tawba Sûra purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ loves those who were first to become Believers, those who surpassed others in all kinds of virtue, also both the Muhâjirs who came from Mekka and the Ansâr who met them in Medina and helped them, also those who led in the front and those who followed them in goodness. He loves them all. And they love Allahu ta’âlâ, too. Allâhu ta’âlâ has prepared Paradise for them. They will stay in Paradise eternally.” The tenth âyat of Hadîd Sûra purports, “Those who warred against the unbelievers and spent their property in the
way of Allah before Mekka was conquered and those who did these after the conquest of Mekka
are not equal, they are not the same. The former group are surely higher. Allâhu ta’âlâ has promised them all the Husnâ, that is, Paradise.” Since those who warred and sacrificed their possessions before and after the blessed city of Mekka was conquered were blessed with the glad tidings of Paradise, what should be said about the greatest ones of the Sahâba, who surpassed all others in sacrificing their possessions, in jihâd-i fî sabîlillâh and in being muhâjirs? Who on earth could assess the degree of their greatness? It is written in books of tafsîr that the expression, ‘they are not the same,’ in this âyat, was intended for Hadrat Abû Bakr Siddîq ‘radiyallâhu anh’. For, he is ahead of all those who are ahead in sacrificing possessions, in performing jihâd. While explaining the glad tidings, “Certainly, Allâhu ta’âlâ loves those Believers who have promised you under the tree,”
in the eighteenth âyat of Fat’h Sûra in his book of tafsîr titled Ma’âlimut-Tanzîl, Muhyissunna Imâm-i Baghâwî says: Jâbir bin Abdullah ‘radiyallâhu anh’, said that Rasûlullah ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had stated, “None of those who promised me under the tree will go to Hell!” This unanimous promise is called Bi’at-urridwân. For, Allâhu ta’âlâ loves them. [They were fourteen hundred people.] To say ‘disbeliever’ about a person who is blessed with the glad tidings of Paradise by the Qur’ân and by hadîths causes disbelief and is the most detestable thing.
Fifth Preface: Hadrat ’Umar’s preventing the others from bringing paper was not disobedience. May Allah protect us against such a situation! Our Prophet’s viziers, assistants each had the best moral character. Would any of them ever do such irreverence? Even the lowest Sahabî who was honoured with attending his sohbat once or twice or even any person who had been honoured with îmân and become one of his Ummat cannot be imagined to have disobeyed him. Can such a thing ever be thought about those great people who were among the greatest of the Muhâjir and the Ansâr and who were the dearest to him? May Allâhu ta’âlâ make them reasonable enough not to think ill of those great men of the dîn and not to speak without due reflection, without understanding or observing the matter.
Hadrat ’Umar’s purpose was to ask, to understand. As a matter of fact, he said, “Ask him.” That is, he meant to say, “Bring the paper if he really wants it. If he does not want it, let us not bother him at this critical time.” For, if he had wanted it through wahy or command, he would have asked for it again and with importance; he would have written what he had been
commanded to. A prophet ‘alaihissalâm’ has to announce the wahy. If his asking for the paper was not through wahy, through command, but if he was to write so out of ijtihâd or because he wished so, that critical time might not be convenient to do it. His Ummat would do ijtihâd after his death. Through ijtihâd they would deduce commandments from the Qur’ân, which is the basis of the dîn. While he was alive and the wahy was being revealed, his Ummat were doing ijtihâd. The wahy being stopped after his death, it would certainly be acceptable for men of knowledge to do ijtihâd. Our Prophet did not repeat or emphasize his demand for paper. On the contrary, he gave it up. Thus, it was realized that it was not wahy. It would never be wrong to hesitate for a while in order to see
if it was a comment made in sleep. Angels wondered why Hadrat Adam became the Khalîfa and in order to know they asked, as is purported in the thirtieth âyat of Baqara Sûra: “O our Allah! Are you going to create slaves who will instigate faction and shed blood on the earth? We are saying our tasbîh and hamd to Thee. We are paying our taqdîs to Thee.” Likewise, when Hadrat Zakariyyâ (a prophet) was given the good news that he would be given a son named Yahyâ, he said, as quoted in the eighth âyat of Maryam sûra, “Is it ever possible for me to have a son? My wife is barren. And I have gotten old.” And Hadrat Maryam
‘radiyallâhu anhâ’, as quoted in the twentieth âyat of Maryam Sûra, “Is it ever possible for me to have a child? I have never come together with a man. Nor have I ever sinned.” While it is not considered as a sin for prophets, angels and the great to ask such questions, why should it be a fault that Hadrat ’Umar asked about the bringing of paper? Why should it put him into a doubtful position?
Sixth Preface: We have to have a good opinion about the Sahâba of our Prophet ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’. We have to know that the best of times is his ‘alaihi wa alâ âlihissalâtu wassalâm’ time and that the Sahâba are the best, the highest people after prophets. Thus, it will be realized that after our Prophet’s ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ death the Sahâba, who are the best of all people, except for prophets, would not agree on something wrong and corrupt or put sinners and disbelievers in our Prophet’s place. Why shouldn’t all the Sahâba be superior to all other people, since the Qur’ân declares that this Ummat is superior to all the past ummats? And they are the highest among this Ummat. No Walî can reach the grade of a Sahabî. Then, we should be reasonable and think well? If
Hadrat ’Umar’s
preventing the paper from being brought had been disbelief, would Abû Bakr Sıddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who, as it is declared in the Qur’ân, was the best Allah-fearing Muslim, have chosen him the Khalîfa for his place? Would the Muhâjirs and the Ansâr have unamiously elected him the Khalîfa? Allâhu ta’âlâ praises the Muhâjirs and the Ansâr in the Qur’ân. He informs that He likes all and promises Paradise to them all. Would they have elected him for the Prophet’s place? If a person has a good opinion about the Sahâba of our Master, the Prophet, he will get rid of such loathsome suppositions and doubts. Loving requires a good opinion. If our Prophet’s sohbat and those who attended the sohbat are not considered with a good opinion and if - may Allah protect us - they are slandered,
this slandering blemishes the owner of the sohbat and the Sahâba. It even blemishes the Owner of the owner, [that is, Allâhu ta’âlâ]. We should consider well how abominable such a case would be. It has been said that a person who slights the Sahâba has not believed in Allah’s Prophet. For describing the greatness of the Sahâba, our Prophet ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “He who loves them loves them because he loves me. He who bears hostility against them does so because he is my enemy.” Then, to love the Sahâba means to love him.
When these six prefaces are comprehended there will no longer be any place for doubt. In fact, one will be equipped with various responses. These prefaces save one from doubt without any need to think. Besides, it is obvious that such doubts are out of place. The prefaces are intended not to explain the corruptness of such doubts, but to remind us of the fact which is so obvious. According to this faqîr (Imâm-i Rabbânî means himself), such doubts can be exemplified as follows: If a clever person approaches a group of idiots and proves through various lies that a piece of gold happening to be in front of them at the moment is a piece of stone, the poor idiots, being unable to make out the unsound aspects of his lies because they do not understand that he is lying, will begin doubting. They will even begin thinking of the gold as stones. They will forget, or even disbelieve, what they have seen. But a clever person will believe what he sees clearly and will realize that the words disagreeing with it are wrong. Likewise, the Qur’ân and hadîths have announced the greatness and the highness of the three Khalîfas and even of all the Sahâba as obviously as the sun and shown it to everybody. Trying to traduce these great people through mendacious and falsely-
adorned words is like misrepresenting the gold before the eyes as stone. O our Allah! After guiding us to the right way, do not let our hearts slip out of this way. Have mercy upon us! Only Thine mercy is so plentiful!
I wonder why they slander and speak ill of the great men of the dîn, who are Islam’s eye-apples? It is not a worship, a virtue, a means to save one from Hell to speak ill of even one of those people who the Sharî’at calls disbelievers or sinners. What good is it, then, to slander those who helped the dîn, those who defended Islam? It is not commanded by the Sharî’at to curse even Abû Jahl or Abû Lahab, who were Rasûlullah’s mortal enemies. Perhaps it is more proper not to waste time mentioning their names.
Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the last âyat of Fat’h Sûra, “They always do much good to one another.” Then, to think that these great people were hostile against one another, to suppose that they bore grudges against one another, means to disbelieve the Qur’ân. To say that they were hostile against one another and that they bore grudges against one another means to slander both sides and to cause them to fall out of favour and trust. It means to make the best people after the Prophets ‘alaihimussalawâtu wattaslîmât’ the worst of people, to make the best of times the worst of times, if the people of that time are represented as having borne hostility and grudges against one another. Does anyone
with îmân ever say so or think so? In order to praise Hadrat Alî ‘radiyallâhu anh’, to say that the three other Khalîfas were hostile against him and that he bore grudges against them, too, means to slander both sides. Why should they not love one another? None of them had any ardent desire for the caliphate; why should they be hostile against one another, then? Abû Bakr Siddîq’s word is well-known: ‘Excuse me from the caliphate.” And Hadrat ’Umar said, “If there were anyone to buy it, I would sell this caliphate for one gold coin.”
[Imâm-i Rabbânî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ says in his book titled Radd-i Rawâfid: Hadrat Alî admitted Abû Bakr Siddîq’s caliphate willingly. The Shi’îs, who, too, knew this fact, had to say, “He admitted it unwillingly,” and they said no more. However, after Rasûlullah died, the Sahâba embarked on the job of appointing the Khalîfa before the interment. They knew it was wâjib, necessary. For, the Prophet had commanded that the guilty should be punished as it was prescribed by the Sharî’at, that they should be ready for war, in addition to other things which the
government would do. It was wâjib to elect the representative who would execute these wâjibs. Therefore, Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiyallâhu anh’ stood up and said, “If you worship Hadrat Muhammad, know that he has passed away. If you worship Allâhu ta’âlâ know that He never dies, His life is endless. You have to choose someone to carry out His commandments. Think, find, and choose!” Everybody said he was right. Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiyallâhu anh’ immediately stood up and said, “We want you, o Abâ Bakr!” All of those who were present there said, “We have elected you.” Then Hadrat Abû Bakr mounted the minbar and looked around. “I cannot see Zubayr. Call him,” he said, When Zubayr came Hadrat Abû Bakr said to him, “The Muslims have elected me as the Khalîfa. Will you disagree with their
unanimity?” “O you, the Messenger’s Khalîfa! I do not disagree with the unanimity,” replied Zubayr. He held out his hand in admittance. Then Hadrat Abû Bakr mounted the minbar and looked around. He could not see Hadrat Alî. He told others to call him. When Hadrat Alî came, he repeated his question to him, who, also, said, “I do not disagree,” and held out his hand and did musâfaha (shook hands in a manner prescribed by Islam) with him in admittance. Hadrat Alî and Zubayr apologized to the Khalîfa for being late for the election, and said, “We didn’t come because we had not been notified in advance. We are sorry about it. We see that who is worthy of the caliphate among us is Abû Bakr. For, he was Rasûlullah’s companion in the cave. He is the most honoured, the best of us. Rasûlullah chose him as the imâm from among
us. He performed namâz behind him.” If Hadrat Abû Bakr had not been worthy of the caliphate, Hadrat Alî would not have admitted him and would have said, “It is my right.” As a matter of fact, he refused Hadrat Muâwiyya’s being the Khalîfa. He strove hard so that he himself would be the Khalîfa although Hadrat Muâwiyya’s army was very strong. Thus, he caused many people to die. Since he asked for his right at such a difficult situation, it would have been much easier to ask for it from Hadrat Abû Bakr if he had considered it his right. He would have asked to be chosen, and that would have been done immediately. After choosing Hadrat Abû Bakr the Khalîfa and paying homage to him, Hadrat Alî sat in front of the minbar. In their next conversation he gave effective answers to the Khalîfa’s questions and supported him.
Ghaws-i a’zam, Sayyid Abdulqâdir-i Geilânî, one of the greatest guides of the Sôfiyya-i âliyya, begins to write as follows
on the eighty-fourth page of the Egypt-1322 edition, which coincides with the hundred and fourteenth page of the Istanbul-1303 edition of its Turkish translation, of his book titled Ghunyat-ut-tâlibîn, which he wrote in order to teach the Islamic dîn to his disciples and to all other young people and to correct their beliefs:
“According to the Ahl as-sunnat, Hadrat Muhammad’s Ummat is higher than the ummats of other prophets. And the highest ones of this Ummat are the Sahâba, who had îmân in him, who were honoured with seeing his blessed face, and all of whom obeyed him and sacrificed their possessions and lives for his sake. It was their first duty to do his commands, and they were his assistants in everything he did. And the highest ones of the Sahâba were those heroes who paid their homage to Rasûlullah and promised him that they were ready to die for his sake in Hudaybiyya. They were fourteen hundred people. The highest ones among them are those who were in the holy war of Badr, who were, like the soldiers of Tâlût, three hundred and thirteen people. [Also, there are three hundred and thirteen letters in the
first volume of Hadrat Imâm-i Rabbânî’s Maktûbât.] The highest among them are the forty people who became Muslim first and the fortieth one is Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiyallâhu anh’. Thirty-four of them are men and six are women. The highest among them are the Ashara-i mubashshara, that is, the people who were given the glad tidings that they would go to Paradise. These are Abû Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, ’Alî, Talha, Zubayr bin Awwâm, Abdurrahmân bin Awf, Sa’d ibni Abî Waqqâs, Sa’îd bin Zayd, Abu Ubayda bin Jarrâh. Their highest ones are the Khulafâ-i râshidîn, that is, the four Khalîfas, and the highest among them is Abû Bakr, then ’Umar, then Uthmân, and then Alî ‘radiyallâhu anhum ajma’în’. Of these four, Hadrat Abû Bakr served as Rasûlullah’s Khalîfa for two years and four months. Hadrat
’Umar served as the Khalîfa for ten years, Hadrat Uthmân for twelve years, and Hadrat Alî for six years. After him, Hadrat Muâwiyya served as the Khalîfa for nineteen years plus several months. Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiyallâhu anh’ had formerly appointed him governor of Damascus. He had served as the governor for twenty years. The caliphates of the four were through the wish and unanimity of the Sahâba and because each was the highest of his time. They were not obtained by force, by using power, or by either one’s cheating another one of his rights, who was higher than he. Abû Bakr Siddîq became the Khalîfa with the unanimity of the Muhâjirs and of the Ansâr, as follows: when Rasûlullah ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ passed away, the Ansâr-i kirâm said, “Let one amîr be from you and one amîr be from us.” Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiyallâhu anh’ stood up and said, “O you, Ansâr! Have you forgotten how Rasûlullah called Abû Bakr, ‘the imâm of my Sahâba’?” They said, “We know, O ’Umar.” Hadrat ’Umar went on, “Is anyone among you higher than Abû Bakr?” “We trust ourselves to Allah’s protection from considering ourselves higher than Abû Bakr,” was the answer from all the Ansâr. Then, when Hadrat ’Umar asked, “Who among you would tolerate to remove Abû Bakr from the ranking office where Rasûlullah appointed him?” The Ansâr said, “None of us will tolerate it. We trust ourselves to Allah’s protection from removing Abû Bakr.” Cooperating with the Muhâjirs,
they appointed Hadrat Abû Bakr the Khalîfa. Hadrat Alî and Zubayr came there later. Both admitted the Khalîfa. Hadrat Abû Bakr Siddîq stood up three times and said each time, “Is there anyone among you who has given up choosing me the Khalîfa?” Hadrat Alî who was sitting in the front stood up and said, “None of us gives up. Nor shall we ever think of giving up. Rasûlullah has put you ahead of us all. Who on earth can remove you back?” Thus, we have understood through strong and sound witnesses that who wanted Hadrat Abû Bakr Siddîq to become the Khalîfa and uttered the most influential words was Hadrat Alî. For example, after the Camel Event, Abdullah bin Kawâ’ came to Hadrat Alî and said, “Did Rasûlullah tell you anything about the caliphate?” Hadrat Alî replied, “First we mind our duty concerning the dîn. The archstone
of the dîn is namâz. And we like and choose for the world what Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger have chosen from among us. We have therefore made Abû Bakr the Kahlîfa.” As Rasûlullah was sick during the final days of his life, he appointed Hadrat Abû Bakr the imâm for his own place so that he would conduct the prayers of namâz being performed. Each time Hadrat Bilâl-i Habashî called the adhân, he (Rasûlullah) used to say, “Tell Abû Bakr to be the imâm for the people.” Rasûlullah said many words signifying that after him Hadrat Abû Bakr would be the most suitable for the caliphate, and that each of ’Umar, ’Uthmân and Alî was the most suitable for the caliphate among the people of his time.”
Abdulqâdir-i Geilânî, after giving detailed information about the superiorities and the caliphates of Abû Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, Alî and Hasan in his book says: “When Hadrat Alî became a martyr, Imâm-i Hasan wanted to give up the caliphate lest Muslims’ blood would be shed and so that they would live
peacefully. He ceded it to Hadrat Mu’âwiyya. He began to act in obedience to his commands. From that day on the caliphate of Mu’âwiyya ‘radiyallâhu anh’ was right and sahîh. Thus, the meaning of Rasûlullah’s hadîth, ‘This son of mine is a sayyid. That is, he is great. Through him Allâhu ta’âlâ will reconcile two great groups with each other,’ came about. As it is seen, Hadrat Mu’âwiyya became the Khalîfa compatibly with the Sharî’at, since Imâm-i Hasan obeyed him. Thus, the disagreement between the two groups of Muslims came to an end completely. The Tâbi’în, the Taba-i tâbi’în and all Muslims over the world recognized Hadrat Mu’âwiyya as the Khalîfa. As Sarwar-i âlam (Rasûlullah) said to Hadrat Mu’âwiyya, ‘When
you become the Khalîfa, act mildly and administer them well!’ so another hadîth declares, ‘The Islamic mill will go on for thirty-five years or thirty-seven years.’ By saying ‘mill,’ our Master, the Prophet, wanted to signify the strength and soundness of the dîn. Thirty years of this duration of time being completed with the four Khalîfas plus Hadrat Hasan, the remaining five or seven years was the time of Hadrat Mu’âwiyya’s caliphate.” Discoursing upon the predictions which Rasûlullah made about future events, the second volume of Mawâhib-i ladunniyya states: “Ibni Asâkir reports that Rasûlullah stated to Hadrat Mu’âwiyya, ‘After me, you will preside over my Ummat. Then do favours to the good and forgive
the wrong-doers?’ Again, Ibni Asâkir informs that Rasûlullah stated, ‘Mu’âwiyya will never be overcome.’ In the combat of Siffîn, Hadrat Alî said, ‘If this hadîth had occurred to me, I would not have fought Mu’âwiyya.’ [There is detailed information about Hadrat Mu’âwiyya in the Arabic book Annâhiyatu an ta’n-i amîr-ul-mu’minîn Mu’âwiyyata, by Allâma Abdul’ Azîz Farhârî Hindî.]
Rasûlullah pointed to Hadrat Hasan and said: ‘Know that this son of mine is sayyid. In the near future Allâhu ta’âlâ will reconcile two great groups of Muslim soldiers through this son of mine.’ When Hadrat Alî was martyred more than forty thousand people elected Hadrat Hasan Khalîfa. He remained as the Khalîfa for seven months in Iraq and Khorasan. Then, with a great army he marched against Hadrat Mu’âwiyya. When the two armies met, Hadrat Hasan, realising that neither side would win unless many people died on the opposite side, wrote a letter to Hadrat Mu’âwiyya lest the Muslims’ blood would be shed. He ceded the caliphate to him on some conditions.
Imâm-i Bayhakî says that Hadrat Alî said that he had heard Rasûlullah say, ‘Of my Ummat, some people will appear who will
be called Râfidî. They will dissent from Islam.’ “
Hadrat Alî’s fighting against Hadrat Mu’âwiyya [contrary to what the historians suppose] was not for the caliphate. It was because it was fard to fight against bâghîs (the disobedient). It was intended to quell a riot. The ninth âyat of Hujurât Sûra commands, “Fighting the rebels, make them obey!” However, because there were religious reasons for their rebellion, and because each of them was a savant in the grade of ijtihâd, none of them can be slandered though they had a wrong ijtihâd. They cannot be said to be disbelievers or sinners. Hadrat Alî said about the rebels, “Our brothers have revolted against us. They are not disbelievers or sinners. For, they have done what they inferred from the Qur’ân.” [There is detailed
information about ijtihâd in the two Arabic books titled Minhat-ul-wahhâbiyya and Ulamâ’ul-muslimîn wal-wahhâbiyyûn, which are reproduced by photocopy in Istanbul.]
Hadrat Imâm-i Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ said, “As Allâhu ta’âlâ has protected our hands from being imbrued with their blood, so let us keep quiet and not imbrue our tongues!” So had ’Umar bin Abdul’aziz said.
O our Allah! Forgive us and our Muslim brothers preceding us! May prayers and salâm be upon our Prophet Hadrat Muhammad, who is the dearest of creatures, and upon his close relatives and upon all his Sahâba ‘ridwânullâhi alaihim ajma’în’ until Doomsday! Âmîn.
[Note: the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat wrote very many books giving answers and advice to the Shi’îs. The names of thirty-two of these books and their authors are appended to the 29th chapter of the second fascicle of Endless Bliss.]