Response to Chapter 4 of Answering-Ansar’s Article on Saqifah

Here, Answering-Ansar make very absurd arguments whereby they somehow differentiate the Muhajirs from Ali ibn Abi Talib (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . Answering-Ansar has compared the Muhajirs to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Banu Hashim. This is an invalid comparison because Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and the Banu Hashim were in fact Muhajirs themselves! It is like comparing an orange with a fruit, and claiming that the orange is better than a fruit. Well, an orange is a fruit. Answering-Ansar repeatedly says that the arguments Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) made about the Muhajirs apply to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) as well; to this, we can only reply: “thank you very much, Captain Obvious.” Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) himself was a Muhajir so of course the arguments made by Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) would also apply to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) !

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œThe issues raised at the Saqifa

Both sides advanced arguments based on their tribal links to the Prophet (saaws),

โ€

Not at all. The bulk of the arguments made by the Ansars and the Muhajirs were based upon their respective good deeds, merits, and service for Islam.

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œthe three Muhajireen won the day advancing the following arguments as proof of khilafat:

1. The Muhajireen being a tribe of the Quraysh were the Prophet (saaws)’s close family

2. The Muhajireen were the first to worship Allah (swt)

3. No one had experienced greater trials and tribulations that the Muhajireen

4. Failure to follow the Muhajireen is tantamount to going astray

โ€

There were more than these four arguments made. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the strongest argument made by Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) –and the one that the Ansar finally assented to–was when Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) reminded the Ansars of the Prophet’s own words that the leadership should remain with the Quraish (i.e. Muhajirs). And the argument “which won the day” for Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was that put forth by Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , namely that it was Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who was chosen to lead the prayers in the Prophet’s sickness. This fact was actually the basis for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) .

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œThe Muhajireen being a tribe of the Quraysh were his close family

The argument was that relationship to the Prophet (saaws) meant that khilafat was their right. In terms of closeness there was no tribe more closely related to the Prophet (saaws) than Bani Muttalib. They were the blood descendants of the Prophet (saaws), when the verse “And warn your tribe of near kindred…” (The Qur’an 26: 214) inviting the Prophet (saaws)’s close relatives to embrace Islam. Banu Muttalib were invited not the tribes of Hadhrath Abu Bakr, Hadhrath Umar or Abu Ubaydah.

Hadhrath Abu Bakr seemed to suggest that the Quraysh had a right to succession, they were related to the Holy Prophet (saaws) and had hence inherited that right. Islamic Law does not stipulate inheritance for the distant relatives, it refers to the close / blood relatives. If the Quraysh were entitled to inherit on grounds of their distant relationship to the Holy Prophet (saaws) did Hadhrath Ali (as) not have a greater right?

โ€

Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) did not at all seem to suggest that the close relatives “inherit” the leadership. Do the Shia forget that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the one who said that the Prophets do not leave behind inheritance? Therefore, Answering-Ansar is merely putting words into the mouth of Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . He never put forward the claim that they “inherited” the leadership. Rather, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) said:

“…they (Muhajirs) were the first who worshipped Allah on the earth and…they are his friends and kinsmen…”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.5)

Answering-Ansar seems to have forgotten the fact that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had argued that the Muhajirs were family and friends of the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…), meaning that they were in a position of closeness to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) before the Ansars were. Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was arguing that the Muhajirs were close to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) before the Ansars were. If we look at it on this basis, then Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) would be superior in this aspect as compared to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . Abu Bakr’s friendship preceded Ali’s by many years due to the fact that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was born much afterwards. No man was closer in love to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) than Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . We read in the following Hadith narrated by Amr ibn al-Aas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) :

So I came to him (the Prophet) and said, โ€œWhich of the people is dearest to you?โ€ He said, โ€œAisha.โ€ I said: โ€œWho among the men?โ€ He (the Prophet) said: โ€œHer father.โ€

(Sahih Bukhari, 3662; Sahih Muslim, 2384)

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œFurthermore in terms of closeness no one was closer to the Prophet (saaws) than Imam Ali (as) as he was his first cousin, the Prophet (saaws) had declared him to be his brother, the husband of his daughter and the father of his grand children.

โ€

This is not correct at all. In fact, the closest living relative of the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) at that time had to be Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , not Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the Prophet’s uncle, a closer relationship than being a cousin. Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the Prophet’s father’s brother, whereas Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the Prophet’s father’s brother’s son. In other words, Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was closer to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) by one link. The Shia argument is that the leadership of the Muslims should stay within the descendants of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) due to the fact that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the closest in blood relationship to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…). But in fact, Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was closer to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) by blood, and therefore–by the Shia logic–the leadership of the Muslims should stay within the descendants of Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . And yet, we see that our Shia brothers despise the Abbasid Empire which was Sunni! Being the rabble-rousers they are, the Shia supported the Abbasid revolution against the Umayyads, but as soon as the Abassids actually came to power, then the Shia rebelled against them. In 786, the Shia organized a revolt against the Abbasids; such is the hatred the Shia have for the lineage of Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . Why should the Shia necessitate us to follow the lineage of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) when they themselves reject and repudiate the lineage of Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ?

In other words, if the Shia are to use the claim that the leadership should have gone to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) for his closeness to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…), then the Sunnis have a greater claim for the leadership based on the even closer relationship of Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…). If the Shia claim that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was closer because the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) referred to him as his “brother”, then the Sunnis have a greater claim because the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) referred to Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) as his “father”. The Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) said in one Hadith:

“Abbas is the uncle of the Prophet of Allah and an uncle is equal in status to the father.”

Fatherhood is a closer position than brotherhood. On this same basis, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was father-in-law of the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…). If Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was to be granted the right of Caliphate based on him being the son-in-law, then shouldn’t Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) have a greater right based on being the Prophet’s father-in-law? And what about Uthman bin Affan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , who was given two of the Prophet’s daughters; based on the Shia logic, should not Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) be twice as entitled to the Caliphate as Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ? Abu Lahab was actually closer in blood relationship to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) than Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was, so should we also argue then that Abu Lahab had a right to the Caliphate? The Shia point to the fact that it was Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) referred to as his brother, but the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) likewise referred to Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) as his brother. The Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) said to Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) :

‘You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book…”

(Sahih Bukhari, Vol.7, Book 62, No.18)

For the record, it is unethical to claim that the leadership should stay within the Prophet’s family. This was not at all what Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was claiming in his argument; rather, what he was saying was that the Muhajirs were the family and friends of the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) before anyone else was as they were the first to believe in him. It seems that the Shia propagandists are purposefully twisting and taking out of context Abu Bakr’s arguments. In other words, the Muhajirs were close in love and affiliation to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…).

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œThe Muhajireen were the first to worship Allah (swt)

Again this is an incorrect argument. The Muhajireen are advancing that they were the first to embrace Islam at the hands of the Prophet (saaws) and hence worship Allah (swt). If worshipping Allah (swt) is the criterion of succession then again Ali (as) wins on this count. If there is any doubt on this point then listen to the words of Ali (as) as contained in Tabari:

“I am the servant of God and the brother of his Messenger, and I am the most righteous one (al siddiq al-akbar). No one other than I can say this but a liar and an inventor of falsehoods, I performed prayer with the Messenger of God seven years before other men”.

The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 p 81 - Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W. Montgommery & M.V McDonald

โ€

Salah became mandatory on the Muslim masses after the ascension of Meraj, around seven years after the Prophet declared his apostleship. Therefore, what was meant by Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was simply that he prayed before “other men”–not all other men. In other words, this does not mean that no single other Muslim prayed during that seven year period, but only that Salah had not yet become mandatory on the masses. Answering-Ansar is trying imply that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was not only the first male to convert to Islam but that nobody else did that for another seven years. Surely, this is a bizarre implication that not even the staunchest Shia can accept; would they, for example, have us believe that Ammar ibn Yasir (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) did not pray for seven years after he accepted Islam?

Although Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the first youth to convert to Islam, the most reliable opinion is that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the first male convert to Islam; in other words, Abu Bakr’s conversion to Islam preceded that of Ali’s. In fact, we read in the following narration by Zaid ibn Arqam (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) :

The first to accept Islam with the Messenger of Allah was Ali ibn Abi Talib. I mentioned this to al-Nakha’i and he denied it, saying: “Abu Bakr was the first to accept Islam.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.81)

Ibn Abbas (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , the Prophet’s cousin, stated that the first to accept Islam was Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . This has been narrated by multiple Isnads in al-Tabari. And there were many others who said the same. We read:

Abu Bakr was the first to accept Islam.

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.85)

In “The History of al-Tabari”, we find that Ibn Ishaq relied on a narration by Ibn Humayd; but this narration is invalid because Ibn Humayd was not reliable. Ibn Humayd has been labelled by the Muhadditheen as an outright liar and shameless forger. Imam Dhahabi and Shaikh al-Islam have declared him to be weak. We read:

โ€œI have never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulayman ash-Shadhakuni and Muhammad ibn Humayd.โ€

(Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol.25, p.105)

The strongest opinion is that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the first male convert to Islam. Therefore, the Shia argument is invalid; if we were to claim that the Caliphate must go to the one who converted first to Islam, then definitely Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the most deserving. It is agreed by all that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the first man of sound and mature mind to accept Islam after the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…). At the time of his conversion, Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was a child whereas Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was an adult. Additionally, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) is credited with being the only one who did not hesitate before converting.

Having stated that, the Shia propagandists have adopted a very simplistic approach to things. Leadership is not simply doled out to those who converted first. If that is the case, even if we accept the less strong view that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the second or third male convert to Islam, then should we argue that after Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , the person with the most right to the Caliphate was Zaid bin Haritha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) as opposed to Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Hussain (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ?

The Shia claim that after Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) it was Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Hussain (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who had the most right to the Caliphate; yet, there were many other Sahabah alive then who came into the folds of Islam far before Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Hussain (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) were even born. Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the fourth or fifth male convert to Islam. Should he not then–based on the Shia logic–have had a right to the Caliphate over and above that of Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ? And yet, the Shia scorn Abdur-Rahman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) referring to him as a Nasibi! And what about Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , who was born much before Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ? Why then do the Shia claim that Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) usurped the right of Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) when in fact Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) came into the folds of Islam far before Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was even born?

In any case, the bottom line point is that if the Shia are trying to imply that the leadership must go to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) because he was the first male convert to Islam, then the Shia abandon their claims that Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) must be the second Caliph due to the fact that there were many Sahabah who preceded Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) in their conversion to Islam. In other words, this sort of logic would nullify the Shia claim that the succession of the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) follows the line of their twelve Imams.

Once again, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was making a general comment about the Muhajirs as a whole. That is why he put forward Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Abu Ubaidah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) as candidates for the Caliphate as opposed to himself. If Abu Bakr’s words meant what the Shia imply, then surely it would have been non-sensical for Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to put forward Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who had converted to Islam much after many of the Muslims. Based on this fact, we can see that Abu Bakr’s words are being twisted by the Shia propagandists who do not care to reflect on what Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) truly meant, which was simply that the Muhajirs–including Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) –were a group that preceded the Ansars in their service to Islam.

It was not simply that they converted to Islam first, but rather that their earlier conversion allowed them to accrue more good deeds in the service of Islam; in other words, the Muhajirs were superior to the Ansars because they (the Muhajirs) had done more for Islam over a longer period of time. Therefore, even if we assume that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) converted to Islam a few days before Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , this does not mean that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had accrued more good deeds in the service of Islam than Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , and we come to this conclusion based upon the insignificance of one or two days. Had Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) preceded Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) in Islam by years and years, then this would make more sense to say that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had accrued more good deeds in the service of Islam, but how can we say this when it could only be a few more days at most? In any case, the strongest position is that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) preceded Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) in the faith, and this is therefore a non-issue even by Shia logic.

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œThe Muhajireen had to suffer persecution and alienation before anyone else

This is also an incorrect assertion. No one suffered greater trials and tribulations than the Banu Hashim. In terms of trials none is a greater test than jihad on the battlefield and Hadhrath Ali (as)’s unremitting bravery in all battles cannot be surpassed.

โ€

How in the world is it an incorrect assertion? It is here that it becomes painfully obvious that Answering-Ansar has no idea of the very basics of Islam. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was himself a Muhajir! Therefore, how can Answering-Ansar claim that it is an incorrect assumption that the Muhajirs suffered the most trials and tribulations, and in the very same breath say that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the one who did? This is complete nonsense: Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was a Muhajir, and he–like the rest of the Muhajirs–suffered a great deal for the Cause of Allah.

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œHadhrath Ali (as)’s unremitting bravery in all battles cannot be surpassed.

โ€

Not according to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) himself! We read:

Ali replied and said again: “Tell me the name of the most valiant person.”

“We don’t know,” all of them replied.

“Abu Bakr is the most valiant,” Ali replied, and added: “On the day of Badr, we had erected a hut for the Messenger of Allah. We then asked each other as to who will accompany the Prophet to save him from the onslaught of the Mushrikeen. By Allah, none of us had the courage to offer his services. But Abu Bakr stood alone drawing his sword and (he) allowed no one to draw near the Prophet; and whoever attempted an attack on the Prophet, (he) came under the charge of Abu Bakr.”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.268)

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œWe acknowledge that the Muhajireen experienced trials with the Prophet (saaws) but none suffered as much persecution than the tribe of Banu Hashim, it was this tribe, which had experienced greater trials and tribulations

โ€

Once again, we remind Answering-Ansar that Banu Hashim such as Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) were Muhajirs! In any case, Banu Hashim was not at all the group that suffered the most during the Meccan period, namely because they were protected by the patronage of Abu Talib. We shall discuss this below.

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œAt the beginning of the Holy Prophet (saaws)’s mission the Quraysh conspired to place pressure on his family, this is what we find in Tabari:

“the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Ka’bah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, The Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but Abu Lahab ‘Abd al Uzza b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib left the Banu Hashim and went to the Quraysh supporting them against Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them”.

The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 p 106 - Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W. Montgommery & M.V McDonald

Is there a greater trial than a complete ostracization that left the Prophet (saaws) and his family to the mercy of the Quraysh, where they had to experience famine? None of the Muhajireen suffered like this. Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar had embraced Islam but they were not punished in any way; the boycott did not effect them, they could go about their daily business, the untold sufferings lay squarely on the Prophet (saaws)’s relatives the tribes of Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib.

โ€

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is well-known that the Prophet’s relatives (namely Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib) were largely insulated from the brunt of the persecution, due to the patronage of Abu Talib. We read:

When the Apostle saw the affliction of his Sahabah and that though he escaped it because of his standing with Allah and his uncle Abu Talib, [and] he (the Prophet) could not protect them, he (the Prophet) said to them: “If you were to go to Abyssinia (it would be better for you)…” This was the first Hijra in Islam. The first of the Muslims to go were (among) Banu Umayyah: Uthman bin Affan with his wife Ruqayyah, the daughter of the Apostle…

(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.146)

Elsewhere, we read:

His (the Prophet’s) uncle (Abu Talib)–and the rest of Banu Hashim–gathered round him and protected him from the attacks of the Quraish…

(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.161)

As even a novice Islamic historian knows, the brunt of the persecution was against those lower class Muslims who had no tribal protection. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was from the higher class and was fortunate enough to have the protection of his father, Abu Talib, who was one of the leaders of the Quraish. Because of this patronage, the Quraish infidels were not able to persecute Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) in the same vicious manner that they did to those Muslims of the lower class who had no tribal protection. On the other hand, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was left with no such patronage. Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was one of the unfortunates who was persecuted so much that he had to flee to Abyssinia; on the way there, however, Ibn al-Dughunna–the leader of the Ahabish–offered to protect Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . In other words, Ibn al-Dughunna became Abu Bakr’s patron just as Abu Talib was Ali’s patron. However, some of the Quraish complained to Ibn al-Dughunna about how Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was preaching the faith to the young, the weak, and the slaves. Ibn al-Dughunna told Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) that if he wanted to be protected, he would have to refrain from preaching the faith. Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) refused and Ibn al-Dughunna withdrew his patronage of Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . Ibn al-Dughunna’s abandonment left Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) without a patron, and open to the persecution of the Quraish. We read:

When the situation in Mecca became serious and the Apostle and his Sahabah suffered ill-treatment from the Quraish, Abu Bakr asked the Apostle’s permission to emigrate (to Abyssinia), and he (the Prophet) agreed. So Abu Bakr set forth and when he had gone a day or two’s journey from Mecca, he fell in with Ibn al-Dughunna…who was at the time the head of the Ahabish. Replying to Ibn al-Dughunna’s inquiries, Abu Bakr told him that his people had driven him out and ill-treated him. “But why?” he (Ibn al-Dughunna) exclaimed, “when you are an ornament of the tribe, a standby in misfortune, always ready in supplying the wants of others? Come back with me under my protection.” So he (Abu Bakr) went back with him and Ibn al-Dughunna publically proclaimed that he had taken him (Abu Bakr) under his protection and none must treat him other than well.

…Some men of the Quraish went to Ibn al-Dughunna saying: “Have you given this fellow protection so that he can injure us? Lo, he prays and reads what Muhammad has produced…we fear he may seduce our youths and women and weak ones. Go to him and tell him to go to his own house and do what he likes there (i.e. to stop preaching to others).” So Ibn al-Dughunna went to him (Abu Bakr) and said: “I did not give you protection so that you might injure your people. They dislike the place you have chosen (to pray and read Quran), and they suffer therefrom, so go into your house and do what you like there.” Abu Bakr asked him if he wanted him to renounce his protection and when he (Ibn al-Dughunna) said that he did, he (Abu Bakr) gave him back his gaurantee (i.e. absolved Ibn al-Dughunna of all responsibility). Ibn al-Dughunna got up and told the Quraish that Abu Bakr was no longer under his protection and that they could do what they liked with him…as Abu Bakr was going to the Ka’abah, one of the loutish fellows of the Quraish met him (Abu Bakr) and threw dust on his head.

(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.171)

Because of this, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) suffered more directly than did Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who was fortunate enough to have the protection and patronage of Abu Talib. Furthermore, if we read Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah–or any Seerah, for that matter–we find that the worst to be persecuted were the slaves who converted to Islam, including Bilal (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . And it was Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who suffered along with these early slave converts, and it was he who spent from his own wealth to buy them their freedom. We read:

The Mushrikeen persecuted the Muslims of the lower class…(the Mushrikeen) attacked them, imprisoning them, and beating them, allowing them no food or drink, and exposing them to the burning heat of Mecca…Bilal, who was afterwards freed by Abu Bakr but at that time belonged to one of B. Jumah, being slave born, was a faithful Muslim…Bilal being the seventh (emancipated by Abu Bakr)…

(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, pp.143-144)

And after the slaves, there were others who were free but had no tribal protection or were weak that suffered the most. These were the Muslims who were eventually forced to flee to Abyssinia. Answering-Ansar has quoted a narration in al-Tabari, but only half of it! If we read the first half of that very same narration, we can clearly see why Answering-Ansar deceitfully avoided reproducing that. We read:

When those who had emigrated to Abyssinia had settled down in the land of the Negus and were living in security, Quraysh conferred together about taking some action against those Muslims who had taken refuge there…

Umar b. al-Khattab, who was a staunch, sturdy, and mighty warrior, had accepted Islam, as had Hamzah b. `Abd. al-Muttalib before him, and the Messenger of God’s Companions began to feel stronger. Islam had begun to spread among the clans, and the Negus had given protection to those Muslims who had taken refuge in his country. When all of these things happened, the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them.

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.105)

There are therefore two key points here: firstly, those Muslims who were suffering the most were forced to flee to Abyssinia; included in this group that made Hijra to Abyssinia were Uthman bin Affan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and his wife. If the Shia claim that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had a right to the Caliphate based upon the trials and tribulations he faced, then why should the Shia take issue with Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) being the third Caliph before Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) when it is well-known that Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) suffered more during those times? Truly, the Shia logic is faulty and full of holes.

There were members of Banu Umayyah–the same Banu Umayyah hated by the Shia–who were forced to emigrate to Abyssinia for fear of their lives as their families had turned them out, unlike those of Banu Hashim who were protected by their family, namely Abu Talib. The Shia propagandists oftentimes denounce the Umayyads based on the fact that there were people from amongst the Umayyads who fought Islam in the early days even up until the fall of Mecca. And yet, this is a hasty conclusion: we see that there were many Umayyads, like Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , who converted to Islam in the early days and who were turned out by their families and clan just like the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) would be turned out from his tribe, the Quraish. To condemn Banu Umayyah based on the Shia logic would be equivalent to condemning all of the Quraish; it should be remembered that despite the fact that the Quraish leaders were the staunchest enemies of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) himself was Quraishi!

The second key point is that in the same narration quoted by Answering-Ansar, we read that “Umar ibn al-Khattab, who was a staunch, sturdy, and mighty warrior, had accepted Islam” which resulted in “(the) Companions began to feel stronger” and “Islam had begun to spread among the clans.” And it was because of this that the Quraish leaders decided to boycott the Prophet’s family. Such was Umar’s great service for Islam that the Quraish were left in a state of great panic. We read:

Social Boycott

Umar’s coming to the fold of Islam plunged the Meccan disbelievers into profound grief. The believers began to perform their prayers openly at the Ka’abah, while a substantial number of the converts had been in peace in Abyssinia. The Quraish were rendered helpless and they had no way within their power to ward off the lurking menace. Now they went into fresh consultations and discussed ways and means to combat the challenge.

They came up with a plan to see Abu Talib and ask him to hand over his nephew to them. In case of his refusal, they decided to impose a complete social and material boycott on Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul-Muttalib…

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.120)

How cleverly has Answering-Ansar failed to mention that the boycott was a direct result of Umar’s strength that he bestowed upon the fledgling Muslim Ummah. Furthermore, the boycott of Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul-Muttalib was enacted for the very reason that the Quraish could not use the same intensity of persecution against these two clans due to the protection of Abu Talib. To give a modern day analogy, America has placed economic sanctions on North Korea for having WMDs, but meanwhile they directly attacked Iraq for the same thing; would anyone in his right mind argue that the boycott of North Korea is worse than the American rape of Iraq? The Americans placed the boycott on North Korea because they cannot militarily deal with North Korea, or rather, are too fearful to do that. Likewise, the boycott on Banu Hashim was due to the fact that the Quraish were too fearful of Abu Talib’s standing to directly harm Banu Hashim.

In any case, the boycott failed and lasted only three years, after which it was anulled. Therefore, the boycott cannot at all be compared to the direct methods of torture against the weaker Muslims, who were forced to flee to Abyssinia. Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was amongst those who head out towards Abyssinia which is proof that he was from amongst those who suffered the most. And due to the incident with Ibn Dughunna, he neither found refuge in Abyssinia nor a patron in Mecca. In this manner, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) suffered even more than those who found refuge in Abyssinia!

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œFailure to follow the Muhajireen is tantamount to going astray and apostasy

We can find no argument either from the Qur’an or the Sunnah that failure to follow the Muhajireen leads to a person going astray.

โ€

No argument from the Quran or the Sunnah? How about multiple Hadith? The Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) said:

“Our political authority shall remain with the Quraish. In this matter, whoever opposes them as long as they follow Islam, Allah shall cast him face down in Hell.”

(Bukhari: Kitabuโ€™l-Ahkam)

The Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) had told the Ansar:

“In this matter (i.e. of leadership), bring forward the Quraish and do not try to supersede them.”

(Talkhisuโ€™l-Hubayr, vol.2, p. 26)

The Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) said:

“After me, the political authority (imamah) shall be transferred to the Quraish.”

(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 3, p. 183)

And it was this very fact that was the basis of Abu Bakr’s argument. Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had told Saad (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) of the Ansar:

“O Saad! You know very well that the Prophet had said in your presence that the Quraish shall be given the Caliphate because the noble among the Arabs follow their nobles and their ignobles follow their ignobles.”

(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 1, p.5)

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œThe reality is even the Muhajireen could go astray if they failed to follow two sources which the Prophet (saaws) made clear at Arafat, if the companions followed them (whether they be Ansar or Muhajireen) they would never go astray, the two sources were the Qur’an and the Ahlul’bayt.

โ€

Answering-Ansar almost had it right until they said that the two sources are the Quran and Ahlel Bayt. The two sources are Quran and the Sunnah. And definitely, we agree that the Muhajirs were to be followed only so long as they followed these two. To this effect, the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) had said in the Hadith we reproduced above that the Muhajirs were to be followed “as long as they follow Islam.” And the Muhajirs definitely followed Islam, so that is the end of the matter.

Answering-Ansar says

โ€œIf readers remain skeptical on this matter then we will quote the words of Imam Ali (as) himself who through his eloquent writing dismisses all four grounds. The extract of this letter is taken from the Sunni work Iqd al Fareed. Imam Ali (as) wrote this letter during his period of reign. It was written as a detailed refutation to of the comments made by Mu’awiya in a letter to him.

โ€

Once again, Answering-Ansar attempts to pass off an insignificant and useless source as being an “authentic Sunni text.” Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow Answering-Ansar will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldon’s thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. The author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations.

Ibn Abu Rabuh’s book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts. To give an example, Nahjul Balagha means “the Peak of Eloquence”; to the Sunni historian, the book is a piece of garbage due to its flagrant inaccuracies and Shia exaggerations. However, to the literary lover (be he Sunni or otherwise), the Nahjul Balagha is actually very eloquent in its original Arabic, and it can be appreciated for that aspect. One can, for example, appreciate the eloquence of the Bible or even the Bhagavad Gita; the Bible might contain an eloquent quote from Jesus (ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู…) but this does not at all mean that it is accurate, no matter how beautifully worded! The Shia spent excessive ammounts of time writing poetry about Kerbala and in fact there are beautiful poems written by the Shia on this incident; however, they lack in historical accuracy and are rather things of legends and myths. Likewise, the Shia spent much time crafting poetry in the name of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and forging his responses to Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ; so no matter how beautifully worded these texts are, they cannot at all be considered authentic.

Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was known for his Shia inclinations; he was a big fan of the eloquent nature of Shia texts. Today, there are many so-called liberal and progressive “Sunnis” who preach unity with Shia and even with homosexuals. Irshad Menji the lesbian could be considered a Sunni; if she wrote a literary novel, could this be used as an authentic Sunni text? Could we take her views on homosexuality as indicative of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? Not every word written by a “Sunni” can be construed as being “authoratative” or indicative of the Sunni position on matters.

The entire letter quoted by Answering-Ansar is a fabrication. Absolutely no Isnad is given, and it can therefore not even be accepted by the Shia. As for the content of the fabricated letter, we have already addressed every single point. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) did in fact suffer at the hands of the Quraish, but not as much as Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was in fact one of the first to convert to Islam, but Abu Bakr’s conversion came before that. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was very close to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…), but the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) said in both of the Sahihayn that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the most loved by him after Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง). Even by the defunct logic of the Shia, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was superior to Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) . This is not at all meant as a denigration of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , because we also say that Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was superior to Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) , yet nobody would claim that the Ahlus Sunnah hates Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ! In fact, we love all the Sahabah, and Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) were of the ten promised Paradise. However, if we were to rank those amongst the ten promised Paradise, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) would be first. After the Prophets and Messengers, Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the most superior of people.

Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

Next: Response to Chapter 5 Entitled โ€œAssessing Sunni justifications of Saqifaโ€

Return to Table of Contents