Response to Chapter 6 Entitled “Some Crucial Observations”


Response to Chapter 6 Entitled “Some crucial observations

Answering-Ansar says
The hereditary system of Khilfath began at Saqifa

The true proponents of a hereditary system of succession are the Ahl’ul Sunnah themselves.

Nonsense. The Ahlus Sunnah does not advocate a hereditary system at all, but rather we believe that anybody–regardless of lineage–can be the Caliph. This constrasts dramatically with the position of the Shia who say that the leader must be descended from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنه) . The Ahlus Sunnah looks at the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs as being the ideal model for Islamic governance, and none of the first four Caliphs advocated a hereditary system. In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) expressely stated to the people:

“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314)

Some people asked Umar (رضّى الله عنه) to appoint his son as his successor but Umar (رضّى الله عنه) refused to do that as he wanted no part in a hereditary system. In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) expressely forbade his son, Abdullah bin Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , from being a candidate for the Caliphate. We read:

Someone said (to Umar): “I can point to someone (to be Caliph): Abdullah ibn Umar.” But Umar replied: “…I have not found (the Caliphate) so praiseworthy that I should covet it for my own family…it is enough for the family of Umar that (only) one of them should be called to account and held responsible for what happened to Muhammad’s community. I have striven and have kept my own family out.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144)

And Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter (i.e. of being Caliph)”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.146-147)

And this is the model of the Ahlus Sunnah. Admittedly, the Muslims deviated after that, but it is unfair to say that this is what the Ahlus Sunnah advocates.

Answering-Ansar says
The issue advanced by Hadhrath Abu Bakr has resulted in the leading scholars of Ahl’ul Sunnah embracing this as part of their faith, i.e. the Khalifa can only be someone of Quraysh descent. In his discussion that the khilafath is reserved for the Quraysh, Ibn Khaldun points to the discussion at Saqifa to support his hypothesis:

“The condition of Qurashite origin is based upon the general consensus on this point that obtained in the men around Muhammad on the day of the Saqifah. On that day the Ansar intended to render the oath of allegiance to Sa’d b. Ubadah. They said “One amir from among us, and another from among you”. But the Qurashites argued against them with Muhammad’s statement, “The imams are from the Quraish”.

The Muqaddimah, by Ibn Khaldun, translated by Franz Rosenthal, Volume 1 page 597 (Princeton University Press)

This was the position of Ibn Khaldun that the leadership must remain within the Quraishites forever. However, this is an incorrect position. In the same treatise, Ibn Khaldun states the opinion of Shaikh al-Sunnah:

Among those who deny that Qurashite descent is a condition (of the imamate) is Judge Abu Bakr al-Baqillani.

(Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, Ch.3)

We should now discuss who Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (i.e. Shaikh al-Sunnah) was. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah referred to Imam al-Baqillani as “the best of the Ashari Mutakallimoon, un-rivalled by any predecessor or successor.” Ibn Ammar al-Mayurqi said Imam al-Baqillani “was a righteous and scrupulous Maliki, one of those for whom absolutely no error is recorded and no defect was ascribed. He was called ‘the Shaikh of the Sunnah and the Tongue of the Community’…He was one of the fortresses of the Muslims and the people of innovations never experienced greater joy than their joy at his death.” Abu Imran al-Fasi said about Imam al-Baqillani: “He was the master of the people of the Sunnah in his time and the Imam of the mutakallimun of the people of truth in his time.” Abu Bakr al-Khatib said about Imam al-Baqillani: “He was the person with the most knowledge of Kalam and the best of them in thought in it.”

In other words, there is no comparison between al-Baqillani and Ibn Khaldun. The opinion of al-Baqillani over-rules. Imam al-Baqillani said that the Caliph need not be Quraishite; instead, the leader must simply be from the majority group. This view finds support in the opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad Riya-Ad-Deen who also said that the leader must be from the majority.

At the time of Abu Bakr’s nomination, the Quraishites were in the majority, and therefore, they had the right to the leadership. However, if at another time a different group becomes the majority, then that group deserves the leadership. The majority group deserves the leadership, so long as it does not stray from the Quran and Sunnah. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism).

Answering-Ansar says
No mention of the Qur’an, Sunnah, ijma or qiyas at the Saqifa

In the eyes of the Wahabies “The sources for the creed (’aqeedah) are: The Book of Allah, the authentic Sunnah of his Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the consensus (ijma) of the Pious Predecessors”

Nonsense. The primary argument that won the day was Abu Bakr’s reminder of a Prophetic Hadith. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“O Saad (ibn Ubaadah)! You know very well that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had said in your presence that the Quraish shall be given the Caliphate because the noble among the Arab (masses) follow their (Quraish) nobles and their ignobles follow their (Quraish) ignobles.”

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

Furthermore, the Ansars and Muhajirs were making use of Shura which is mentioned in the Quran as the way the believers manage their affairs.

Answering-Ansar says
No reference to the virtues of the Shaykhain mentioned at the Saqifa

Both Parties put forward how they had aided the Prophet (saaws). The Muhajireen consisted of these three prominent Sahaba. We find in books of hadith that all three have many hadith in their praise. What better way to convince the other side would there have been than to advance the Prophet (saaws)’s own praises of them. This would have been the final word on the matter. There would have been no doubting the words of the Prophet (saaws) a hadith of superiority would have brought the dispute to a close.

Neither Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) nor Umar (رضّى الله عنه) went to Saqifah in order to obtain the Caliphate. In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”

(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)

And Umar (رضّى الله عنه) then repudiated the Caliphate, saying he was unworthy of it in front of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . Then he very much did mention the qualities of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:

Umar said: “No! Abu Bakr is the most excellent amongst the Muhajirs. He has been the Companion of the Prophet in the cave [as mentioned in the Quran]; the Prophet asked him to be the Imam to lead the prayers, and prayer is the most superior of all other articles of faith. Therefore, none (not I nor Abu Ubaidah) is entitled to assume the duties of the Caliphate in the presence of Abu Bakr.”

Saying this, Umar stretched his hand first of all to take Baya’ah (oath of allegiance) at the hand of Abu Bakr Siddiq followed by Abu Ubaidah and Bashir ibn Saad Ansari. After that, the people of all sides of Abu Bakr came to take Baya’ah. As the news spread, all the believers rushed to pledge their allegiance to the Caliph.

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.275)

There was no need to mention any more of the qualities of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as the people already rushed to pledge allegiance upon what Umar (رضّى الله عنه) mentioned; the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was nominated as Imam of the prayers during the Prophet’s sickness was actually the strongest proof for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , and this was therefore mentioned by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Had the people still not been convinced, then perhaps Umar (رضّى الله عنه) might have mentioned more of Abu Bakr’s many qualities and honors. Yet, this is a non-issue because the others were won over with the simple argument that it was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who was nominated by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to be the substitute Imam of the prayers.

Answering-Ansar says
Reference to Hadhrath Ali (as) at the Saqifa

At two points the name Ali was mentioned by the Ansar.

We have already discussed this before, in our Response to Chapter 2. In the first narration cited by Answering-Ansar, the name of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) does not appear but rather the words “Ali” were added in brackets by the Shia translator, Mr. Ismail Poonawalla. As for the second narration, it is inauthentic and narrated by a liar and shameless forger, namely Ibn Humayd.

Answering-Ansar says
A man from the Ansar amidst the debate acknowledges that if Ali (as) was to enter the debate all pledge their allegiance to him. Why would he say such a thing, unless the khilafat was Ali (as)’s exclusive right?

Actually, the more appropriate question is: if these Ansars actually held the opinion that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by Allah and His Messenger, then why would these Ansars have been the ones to rush to appoint Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) ? If the Ansars had felt that it was Ali’s exclusive right, then they would not have accepted Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph nor would they have accepted Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) ! Therefore, we conclude that it could not have been the majority of Ansars who felt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was fit for Caliphate, but rather at most it could only be a handful of them who felt that way.

Answering-Ansar says
If Hadhrath Ali (as) was tending to the funeral rites and the Ansar were of the opinion that Hadhrath Ali (as) had a right in this matter, then why did Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar offer to invite him to the meeting?

Again, the more important and pertinent question is: why didn’t the Ansars invite Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to Saqifah themselves? Why had they rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) ? What prevented them from seeking Ali (رضّى الله عنه) out? Even Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) approached Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and offered to help him in the matter of Caliphate, but the Ansars did no such thing. In fact, the Ansars wanted to nominate their own man to be Caliph as opposed to any of the Muhajirs such as Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . The conclusion, therefore, is that the matter is not at all as Answering-Ansar is implying: it was not the majority of Ansars who felt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was fit for Caliphate, but rather it was only a small minority of them.

Answering-Ansar says
This (Ali) was clearly a name the Ansar were happy with, he was mentioned so why not offer to suspend the proceedings and make him as the Khalifa, this would have been okay to the Ansar. Why the insistence to continue debating the matter when there existed a man from the Muhajireen who the Ansar had no opposition to?

Again, it was not a name that all or even most of the Ansars were happy with. At most, it was a name that only a handful of them were satisfied with. On the other hand, the great majority of them wanted Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. Furthermore, more of them were happy with the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) than that of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . As proof of this, we remind the Shia of what happened after Uthman’s death when the people nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. In fact, many of the prominent Ansars refused to give Baya’ah to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ! Such illustrious Ansars such as Ka’b bin Malik, Hasan bin Thabit, Maslamah bin Mukhallad, Abu Saeed al-Khudri, Muhammad bin Maslamah, al-Numan bin Bashir, Zaid bin Thabit, Rafi bin Khadij, Fadalah bin Ubaid, Ka’b bin Ujrah, and others. We read:

He (Ali) was not accepted as Caliph by all the citizens and especially (not) by all the (Ansarite) companions in Medina. Several Ansarite Companions, like Hassan bin Thabit, Kab bin Malik, Zayd bin Thabit, and Nu’man bin Bashir, did not pay homage to him. Similarly, several Quraishites also did not take the oath of allegiance at his hands. They were, to mention a few, Abdullah bin Amar, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, and others. The Umayyad clan, of course, paid no homage at all…the non-acceptance of so many Companions and citizens was itself a proof that there was no unanimity as there had been in the three elections before.

(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.329)

Answering-Ansar claims that if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) had given the name of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) then this would have ended the matter and the Ansars would happily have accepted this name thereby ending the debate. What a preposterous argument that runs so contrary to the facts on the ground. Many prominent Ansars did not want Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph and many of them would refrain from giving their oath of allegiance to him after Uthman’s death. It is absolutely absurd to claim that this is a name that would have ended the debate, when in fact it was Ali’s nomination to Caliph after Uthman’s death which only augmented a debate into an all-out civil war.

Let us keep in mind that the three Muhajirs head off to Saqifah in order to prevent disunity in the ranks of the Muslim Ummah. By nominating Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) –a man whom 33,000 Sahabah agreed upon–Umar (رضّى الله عنه) managed to save the unity of the Muslim Ummah and prevent Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) –whom the vast majority of the Muslims (other than the Ansars) would not accept–from being elected. The fear was that if a less popular candidate was elected, this would create break away movements; to prevent this, a candidate needed to be chosen who had mass appeal, and this was only Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . The people were eventually reconciled with the nomination of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) based on the fact that he was the one chosen to lead the prayers.

We have already acknowledged that there was a minority group who supported Ali’s Caliphate, including Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) and Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) ; therefore, it is quite possible that a small minority of the Ansars were part of this group. However, the vast majority of the Ansars supported Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) and it is strange that Answering-Ansar would attempt to imply otherwise. Was it not the Ansars themselves who rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) to be the Caliph?

A group of people supported the Caliphate of Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) , a group supported Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and it is likely that other groups favored other people. Do the Shia know of any modern day election in which one candidate wins 100% of the vote? Surely this is not possible. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was, however, a more popular candidate than the others and it is for this reason that he became Caliph. Thirty-three thousand Sahabah took Baya’ah at the hands of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , whereas only a handful supported Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . The Shia author, S.H.M. Jafri, has a difficult time naming even twelve Sahabah who supported Ali’s Caliphate.

We can see quite clearly that the supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were few and far in between. Two of Ali’s supporters, for example, were Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) and Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) , but the Shia think of them as apostates anyways. Would it then be justice for the Caliphate to go to the party in the minority as opposed to the will of the great majority? Surely not, and even Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself did not think so, because he eventually respected the Ijma of the community by taking Baya’ah at the hand of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as confirmed in Shia books (Al-Ihtejaj, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Nassikhut-Tawareekh, etc). Please see our main article on Saqifah for discussion of this.

Answering-Ansar says
Their aim was to replace the Khalifa of Allah with the Khalifa of Man

In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) explicitly referred to himself not as the Caliph of Allah but rather as the Caliph of a man, namely the Messenger of Allah. Such was the modesty of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , who–even though he had just become the ruler of an emerging super-power–used such a modest title. This contrasts with those Shia leaders who use such flamboyent titles as Ayatollah (i.e. the Sign of God Himself). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“Call me not the Caliph of the Lord. I am but the Caliph of the Prophet of the Lord.”

(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.225)

We read:

Origin of the titles of “Khalifa”…When Abu Bakr was elected as the chief (of the Muslim Ummah), he gave orders that he should be known by the title of “Khalifa’t-ur-Rasul-Allah” i.e. the “substitute” or “successor” of the Prophet of God. This was a modest title, for it did not imply divine sovereignity…but it meant that he was merely to administer the affairs of the Muslim community after the departure of the Prophet. Later, when Umar succeeded Abu Bakr, he too assumed (the) equally modest title of “Khalifa’t Khalifa’t-ur-Rasul-Allah” i.e. the Caliph of the Caliph of the Prophet of God. Though an expressive term, it was clumsy and unwieldly…(it was) shortened…simply to “Khalifa”, or caliph, its anglicized form.

(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.364)

Answering-Ansar says
He (Umar) made this confession during his own Khilafath. This is what we find in Tabari, Ibne Abbas narrates:

Confession? What confession? What Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) narrated in Tabari cannot at all be considered a confession. Surely, the Shia have a strange interpretation of things.

Answering-Ansar says
al Bukhari also records Hadhrath Umar’s sermon in similar wording, and this addition:

“I have been informed that a speaker among you says, By Allah if ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such and such person’. One should not deceive oneself by saying that the Pledge of allegiance given to ‘Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of ‘Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the Pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the Pledge of allegiance was given are to be supported, lest they both should be killed”.

Sahih al Bukhari, Arabic-English Volume 8 hadith number 817, page 540

When Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was on his deathbed, there were many people who considered nominating their own Caliph, as the Ansars had once rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) . It was the Ansars who had forced the three Muhajirs to rush to Saqifah, and it was because of their over-aggressiveness on the matter that the oath of allegiance was hurriedly rendered lest the Ansars change their mind. Both Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had wished that the situation had been more ideal and that the rest of the Muhajirs be included in the Shura.

In order to rectify this problem, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ensured that all of the prominent figures be included in the Shura this time around. In this speech, he was simply saying that the Ansars were the ones who had erred by forcing the meeting at Saqifah and that Abu Bakr’s nomination was a spontaneous un-premeditated affair, or faltah. In other words, what Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was saying here was that the Shaikhayn had not gone out to obtain the Caliphate intentionally and therefore they could not be blamed for not rounding up the rest of the Muhajirs. Had this been their intention (i.e. to steal the Caliphate), then of course this would have been wrong to exclude the Muhajirs. This is what Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was warning against in this speech, asking the people not to rush to elect their own man without consulting the rest of the Muslims. He explained that people might think that this is what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did, but he says that in reality Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not go to Saqifah with this intention and that his election was a spontaneous and un-premeditated affair (i.e. faltah).

Answering-Ansar says
This speech itself nullifies any argument advanced by the majority school, i.e. that the coming to power of Abu Bakr was legitimate…Hadhrath Umar made it clear that it was ‘evil’ should the process be repeated again, the individuals concerned should be put to death.

Nothing in Umar’s speech indicates that Abu Bakr’s Caliphate was illegitimate. It was the Ansars who had rushed the matter, and Allah had saved the Muslim Ummah from any evil consequences of the hastiness shown by the Ansars. Through Allah’s Mercy and Grace, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) saved the Ummah from civil war and destruction. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) mentions here that if anyone rushes to elect their own man as the Ansars had done, then this time around they would be severely punished for that. Again, this was a criticism of the Ansars and not the three Muhajirs.

Answering-Ansar says
There was no (shura) consultation, ijma the cornerstone of Sunni theology did not take place

It is at times like this that we wonder at the Shia diatribes which are devoid of facts and based solely upon lies. Who said there was no Shura or Ijma with the nomination of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) ? The Shura most definitely took place, between the vast majority of the Ansars and the three Muhajirs. The Majlis-e-Shura need not consist of more than a handful of representatives, and therefore the requirement for Shura was fulfilled. It is not only un-necessary that every single person is present at the Shura, but rather it is discouraged for the fact that such a Majlis would become unwieldly and difficult to manage: after all, how could over thirty thousand Sahabah hold deliberations? The Shura was conducted with those present at Saqifah but it was binding on those not present. For proof of this, we turn to the Shia’s own Nahjul Balagha in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) allegedly said:

“Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.”

(Nahjul Balagha, Letter 6,,

As for Ijma (consensus), that definitely took place as well. The very next day after Saqifah, thirty-three thousand Sahabah took their Baya’ah at the hand of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) .

Answering-Ansar says
he was also negating his own khilafath for he was appointed by Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr - without consulting the companions.

Has the author of Answering-Ansar’s article never opened up a history book in his life? Every credible sources proves that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) consulted the prominent Sahabah before finalizing his nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman bin Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:

At the beginning of Jumada al-Ukhra (13 AH), Abu Bakr caught a fever and its intensity continued unabated for a fortnight. When he grew sure of his last hours drawing near, he sent for Abdur Rahman bin Awf and held consultation (Shura) with him regarding the Caliphate…following this, he called Uthman bin Affan and put the same question to him. He (Uthman) said in reply: “Umar’s internal self is better than his external one; he is superior to us all.” When Ali was consulted, he made almost the same answer. Then came Talhah…

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.312-313)

In another narration, we read:

When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Abdur Rahman replied: “You are asking me about something of which you know better…By Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him.” Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: “Tell me about Umar Ibn Khattab.” Uthman replied: “You know him better than us.” Abu Bakr said: “Still, O Abu Abdullah!” Uthman answered: “Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him.”

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)

Ibn Saad mentions that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then consulted all the prominent leaders of the Ansars and Muhajirs. We read:

And he (Abu Bakr), besides these two, consulted Abu al-Awar (Saeed ibn Zayd) and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayr–as well as other big leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajirun–so Usayd said: “Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best. He is happy on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate.”

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)

During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) who raised any objections to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , but then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) both agreed with Abu Bakr’s rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , they both favored Umar (رضّى الله عنه) .

Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ; the prominent representatives–including all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs–selected Umar (رضّى الله عنه) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) secured the “consent of the governed”. We read:

…[Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience:

“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?”

Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.”

Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314)

We read:

Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosure while Asba b. Umays was steadying him with tattoed hands. He said (to the people): “Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you…?” They responded: “We hear and obey.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147)

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would even ask the people’s permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read:

(Uthman said): “Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter?

The people said: “Yes.” …All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200)

So we can see that the matter is not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not at all install Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as a tyrant over the people. Rather, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) gave his suggestion as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , and he first passed it through the people, asking them if they accepted him as their Caliph. From this behavior, we can clearly see how truly important it is for the Ahlus Sunnah that the “consent of the governed” is attained; even the most powerful man from amongst the Muslims had to obtain the permission of the masses in order to appoint his successor. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) –the Caliph of an emerging super-power–had the modesty and decency to have his own will “proof-read” by the people. The principles of popular sovereignity and self-determination were therefore upheld.

Answering-Ansar says
In these early days both Ammar bin Yasir and Zubayr were Shi’i.

Actually, neither Ammar (رضّى الله عنه) nor Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) were ever Shia in the sense of Imamiyyah Shi’ism. They were mainstream Muslims and not followers of heterodoxy. Neither Ammar (رضّى الله عنه) nor Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) held the opinion that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by Allah and His Messenger to be the first Infallible Imam. If that were the case, then why would the same Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) reject the Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) twenty-five years later in the Battle of the Camel? Based on this, we see that the supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) after Saqifah did not at all believe that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed to be Caliph or Imam, but rather they simply felt that he was more fitted for that position based on worldly reasons. The idea that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by Allah was actually propagated much afterwards during the Caliphate of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) by the likes of Abdullah ibn Saba and the Ghullat originators of modern day Shi’ism.

Answering-Ansar says
The reason for making this speech is what needs to be gleaned. Hadhrath Umar had heard that upon his death people would pledge allegiance to “so and so”. Who was this “so and so” that Hadhrath Umar was referring to, that was the cause of this speech.

Poonawalla in his translation of this edition of Tabari writes in footnote 1308 relating to Hadhrath Umar’s speech as follows:

“According to Baladhuri, Ansab I, 581, this was Zubayr, and the person whom he wanted to hail as caliph was ‘Ali. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, on the other hand reports that the person who said it, according to al-Jahiz, was Ammar b. Yasir or, according to ahl al hadith, Talha; but the person they wanted to hail as caliph was ‘Ali. It was thus Ali’s name that made ‘Umar disturbed and caused him to deliver a fiery speech”.

The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p189, footnote 1308

So, the motive for the speech was to quash the rumors that the intention was to make Imam Ali the next Khalifa. This was merely a continuation of the policy that was implemented in the venets surrounding the Saqifa meeting. This was part of an unrelenting / systematic campaign to keep the khilafath out of the reach of the designated and rightful successor to the Holy Prophet

It may well have been Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who a group of people were intent on electing without consulting the rest of the Muslims. Likewise had Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) approached Ali (رضّى الله عنه) after the Prophet’s death, urging Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to seize the Caliphate without consulting the other Muslims. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was therefore discouraging anyone, not only Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but all other possible candidates as well, to refrain from rushing to nominate their own man without consulting the rest of the Muslims first.

Actually, by this time, a great competition had begun between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah. Both clans were wishing to keep the rulership for themselves and they were aggressively vying for power. In this matter, both groups were equally to blame. Both the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah consisted of good and bad people. Perhaps the Shia would demand that the Banu Hashim is automatically superior based on the fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was from this clan, but let us remind them that Abu Lahab was also from the Banu Hashim. The Shia may point to some evil person being from the Banu Umayyah, but we remind them that the Prophet’s wives were from Banu Umayyah. We read:

From the very beginning, the Prophet was being harassed and oppressed by his own people, and his mission was being continually interrupted by violent, and even armed, opposition. A tendentious impression, contrary to the facts, has been assiduously created by most of the (Shia) writers that Banu Ummayah were the worst enemies of the Prophet and his mission…(but) the Umayyad’s opposition (is) exaggerated.

As a matter of fact, more Ummayads than Hashimites figured among those who migrated to Medinah with the Prophet and also among those who had previously migrated to Ethiopia. Similarly, among those who participated in the Battle of Badr, more Umayyads than Hashimites fought for the Cause of Islam. Barring four or five, all Hashimite notables, including the Prophet’s own cousins, fought on the side of the Meccans.

No doubt, the Umayyads at that time masterminded the Meccan opposition (but this was only) since Abu Sufyan happened to be the acknowledged leader of the Meccans. But it should not forgotten that–the Prophet’s own first cousins, Talib and Aqeel (sons of Abu Talib), Utbah and Utaibah (sons of his uncle Abu Lahab), Naufal bin al-Harith bin Abdil Muttalib (of Banu Hashim), Abu Sufyan al-Hashimi (of Banu Hashim), and Abdullah bin Umayyah (son of the Prophet’s aunt Aatikah)–were all on the side of Meccans in the Battle of Badr. Talib, the eldest brother of Ali, was actually killed fighting devotedly for the Meccans. Late in 8 A.H. or early in 9 A.H., when Abu Sufyan al-Hashimi and Abdullah bin Umayyah (the two cousins of the Prophet mentioned above) first met the Prophet, he (the Prophet) turned his face in disgust and did not even like to look at them…his cousin, Aqeel bin Abi Talib (Ali’s brother), had hastened to occupy (i.e. usurp) the Prophet’s house as an “evacuee” property when the Prophet migrated to Medinah, and later he (Aqeel) sold it to a brother of Hajjaj bin Yousuf. The Prophet actually complained of his behavior when he was asked on the fall of Mecca…(sources: “Asah-hus-Siwar” by Maulana Danapuri, “Seerat-un-Nabi by Allamah Shibli and “Jila-ul-Uyoon” by the famous Shia esteemed traditionist Mullah Baqir Majlisi).

Few Hashimites were appointed by the Prophet to any high office of responsibility while several Umayyads, including Abu Sufyan and his son, Yezid, were appointed governors. The Prophet married his eldest daughter, Zaynab, to an Umayyad, Abul Aas bin ar-Rahee. They proved a happily married couple and the Prophet openly paid a tribute to his Umayyad son-in-law (sources: Sahih Bukhari and “Bab Dhikr Ashaar-in-Nabi”). The second and the third daughters, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthoom, were formally engaged to his Hashimite first cousins, Utbah and Utaibah (sons of Abu Lahab), but they broke the engagement to spite the Prophet. Thereupon, the PRophet married these daughters, one after another, to Uthman bin Affan, another Umayyad notable, who gave him no cause for regret…

In the end, in connection with the baseless charge of the Umayyad’s (supposed) inveterate prejudice against Islam, suffice it to say that, on the contrary, it is a Hashimite’s (Abu Lahab) unenviable distinction that he (Abu Lahab) and his family have been eternally condemned by name in the Quran for their enmity towards the Prophet and his mission. Apart from being the usual form of the customary curse, the expression “the two hands of Abi Lahab” may metaphorically refer to his two sons, Utbah and Utaibah…

(The Last Messenger with a Lasting Message, by Ziauddin Kirmani, pp.186-191)

In any case, this rivalry was a natural result of human nature, namely of supporting one’s own family over and above others.

Some from amongst the Banu Hashim held the errant opinion that they should be favored over others simply because they were a clan blessed with Prophethood. Likewise, some from amongst the Banu Umayyah held the errant opinion that they should be favored because they had always been the leaders of Mecca. This power struggle was getting very intense and thankfully neither Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) nor Umar (رضّى الله عنه) came from either clan. However, after Umar’s death, the two most capable candidates left were Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) from the Banu Umayyah and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) from the Banu Hashim. Each clan was putting pressure on these two candidates, urging them to lay claim to the Caliphate.

Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was stabbed by Abu Lula, the beloved of the Shia–whom they call “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” On his deathbed, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) sought to unify the ranks of the Muslims, and therefore he ordered the assembly of an Electoral Council with representatives from both Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim. By thus doing so, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ensured that the two clans come to a mutual agreement and remain united. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) nominated Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be in this Electoral Council. Therefore, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was not at all shutting the doors of the Caliphate of either of these men, but rather he was simply making sure that neither of their clans would declare their own Caliph without consulting the rivaling clan. And this is why Umar (رضّى الله عنه) made this “fiery speech” warning the people not to nominate a Caliph without consulting all sides.

In fact, this is a fact not known by many Shia, but Umar’s top choice was actually Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . Umar (رضّى الله عنه) wanted to place Ali (رضّى الله عنه) over his own son, Abdullah ibn Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:

So (those who had asked him to nominate Abdullah ibn Umar) left and returned in the evening, suggesting to the Commander of the Faithful (Umar) that he draw up a sucession agreement. He (Umar) replied: “I had decided after talking to you that I would look into the matter and appoint someone over you, the most suitable of you to bear you along the true path.” And he indicated Ali. He (Umar) continued: “But…I do not want to take on the burden (of the Caliphate), dead as well as alive. You should approach that group of men who the Messenger of Allah said ‘are among the People of Paradise.’”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144)

Does this at all sound like a man who despises Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and who wants to prevent him from becoming Caliph? Why would Umar (رضّى الله عنه) tell all the people that he thinks that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is most suited for the task? How long can the Shia operate under such strange conspiracy theories whereby they pit Umar (رضّى الله عنه) against Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , even though we know that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) gave his own daughter in marriage to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ! And yet, the Shia are fooled by the lies of the likes of Abdullah bin Saba who create such unlikely conspiracy theories that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) despised each other. If Umar (رضّى الله عنه) truly sought to deny the Caliphate to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , then why did Umar (رضّى الله عنه) choose Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be one of the six on the Electoral Council? Why would Umar (رضّى الله عنه) thus make Ali (رضّى الله عنه) eligible for the Caliphate? It is strange how the Shia can say such strange things that defy common sense. In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) even commented on the Electoral Council, saying:

“I think one of these two, Ali or Uthman, will become the leader. If it is Uthman, he is a gentle person; if it is Ali, he has a (good) sense of humor, how suitable is he to carry them along the true road!”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.146)

Does this sound like a person who is conspiring to prevent Ali (رضّى الله عنه) from the Caliphate? Not only did Umar (رضّى الله عنه) place Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on the Electoral Council but he also included Ali’s known supporter, Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) . Why didn’t Umar (رضّى الله عنه) simply nominate Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph? Would that not have been a much more easier and simpler method of marginalizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) placed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his supporter, Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) , on the Electoral Council; is this what the Shia consider an “unrelenting/systematic campaign to keep the khilafath out of the reach” of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) disqualified his own son, and yet he publically endorsed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) above even Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . A truly strange “systematic campaign”; perhaps the only “unrelenting/systematic campaign” is that of the Shia lies and slander against the Sahabah.

Answering-Ansar says
Hadhrath Umar sought to justify the position that the people disliked the Prophethood and caliphate to run through the same family. This is an attitude that has been noted before.

Actually, this “attitude” was held by Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) who said something very similar. Before he died, Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“I know it full well that the Prophethood and the Caliphate cannot co-exist together in our family.”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.26)

Therefore, no blame can be put on Umar (رضّى الله عنه) for what he said. For the record, however, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was merely stating the well-known opinion of the masses, not his own opinion on the matter. Had the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) used his position of power to place all his relatives into positions of power, then this would have greatly upset the masses, making them feel as if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was claiming Prophethood for the worldly reason of putting his family above others. We read:

This was the idea that led the Prophet to make a Hashimi neither a permanent ruler of a province nor a free and independantly responsible commander of a large army. Though in the expedition of Mauta, the Prophet deputed Jafar bin Abi Talib as a commander, he made his freed slave Zaid bin Harith his senior. Although, he assigned Ali bin Abi Talib the work of collecting the Islamic tax in Yemen–and that for only a short time–he gave the post of administrator to Muadh bin Jabl and Abu Musa al-Ashari.

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.25)

It would have taken away from the greatness and innocent sincerity of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) if he meant to use his position of power to create a dynasty of rulers from his loins. It should be noted that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) themselves forbade their own family members from succeeding them, no doubt following the Sunnah of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) who did not exploit his leadership position in order to place his own relatives in power.

Answering-Ansar says
Al Tabari records a further, more heated discussion between the two individuals; again the narrator is Abdullah ibne Abbas:

In fact, this is a narration about the same event but it is a weak and inauthentic version narrated by Ibn Humayd, who we have already discussed before in our rebuttal; Ibn Humayd was known as a liar and shameless forger. The discrepancies between the first version quoted by Answering-Ansar and this version by Ibn Humayd show clearly that the latter contains many anomalies in it, in particular the odd and out-of-place dialogue.

Having said that, Answering-Ansar did not even quote the entire passage, and quite cleverly cut out the very next line, in which Umar (رضّى الله عنه) softens. Even though the passage is inauthentic, let us at least read the entire narration. Right before what Answering-Ansar quoted, we read:

As Umar b. al-Khattab and some of his friends were reciting poetry together, one said that so and so was the best poet. Another said that, rather, so and so was the best poet…I (Ibn Abbas) arrived and Umar remarked: “The most knowledgeable on the subject has just arrived.” And he asked: Who is the best poet, Ibn Abbas?” I replied it was Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma.

[Ibn Abbas then narrates poetry from Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma]

“Bravo!” exclaimed Umar. “I do not know of anyone more worthy of such poetry than this branch of Banu Hashim because of the excellence of the Messenger of Allah and their close relationship to him.”

I said: “May you be granted lasting success, Commander of the Faithful.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.136-137)

Notice the praise Umar (رضّى الله عنه) gives Banu Hashim by calling them worthy and close to the Messenger of Allah. And Ibn Abbas says to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) : “May you be granted lasting success.” So we see that the two were actually very close and loved each other. Answering-Ansar has quite cleverly only quoted the middle part of the passage in which the two Sahabah get into a small squabble, a tactic quite common amongst trouble-makers who wish to take things out of context. Even after the small disagreement, the two Sahabah immediately reconcile. We read, at the end of the very same passage:

I (Ibn Abbas) replied: “Take it easy, Commander of the Faithful; do not describe the hearts of a people from whom Allah has removed uncleanness, and to whom He has purified completely, as being envious and malicious. The heart of the Messenger of Allah is one of the hearts of Banu Hashim.”

Umar retorted: “Leave me, Ibn Abbas.”

I said I would comply, but, when I went to get up, he (Umar) became embarassed at what he had said to me and said: “Stay where you are, Ibn Abbas. I shall tend to your right and approve of what gives you pleasure.”

I replied: “Commander of the Faithful, I have a right that is incumbent upon you and every Muslim. Anyone who preserves it will achieve good fortune; anyone who does not will lose good fortune.” Then he got up and went away.

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.138)

It should also be noted that Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was the cause of the disagreement, not Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Umar (رضّى الله عنه) addressed the Banu Hashim with love and respect, saying that it was worthy, excellent, etc. After having said all that, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) wanted to explain why the people chose not to elect a leader from Banu Hashim in spite of all that, namely that they did not want the Banu Hashim to become full of pride and arrogance for having been blessed with Prophethood and Caliphate. (And this was a legitimate concern considering the arrogant attitude of some from amongst Banu Hashim who denigrated Banu Umayyah.) To this, Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) likened these people to a people Allah described in the Quran who happened to be disbelievers. Naturally, this was a grave accusation, and so Umar (رضّى الله عنه) replied: “Far from it indeed, Ibn Abbas. I used to hear things about you of which I was reluctant to inquire, lest they bring about your removal from your position with me.” Indeed, it would be a wrong thing to liken Muslims to disbelievers.

Umar (رضّى الله عنه) then said: “I have you saying they have turned (the Caliphate) away from you out of envy and injustice.” Once again, Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was accusing the other people of grave things, such as being envious and unjust. And Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) even likened these people to Iblis. It was this inflammatory comparison that prompted Umar (رضّى الله عنه) to say: “Far from it! You hearts Bani Hashim, have refused [to show anything] other than unchanging envy and increasing spite and malice.” Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) had declared that the people were envious, but Umar (رضّى الله عنه) replied that saying such a thing is itself indicative of being spiteful towards the people.

Answering-Ansar says
Both accounts indicate that the Quraysh resented the Banu Hashim and their approach to put in place and appoint Hadhrath Abu Bakr was the correct one.

It was only Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) who said this, but Umar (رضّى الله عنه) rejected his opinion on this matter. The people did not resent the Banu Hashim, but rather it was the fact that many from amongst the Banu Hashim had adopted an attitude of superiority due to the fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was from amongst their clan. It was for this reason, not out of resentment, that the people wished that Banu Hashim refrain from being placed as lords over the rest of the community simply because they were related to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).

Answering-Ansar says
One however manages to get a better understanding of Hadhrath Umar’s thinking, his attitude that leadership should not continue in one family

Yes, this was the attitude of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , who rightfully was against dynastic rule of one bloodline. Such a thing would be unjust and would defy the egalatarian principles of Islam. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was most strict and severe in this matter with regards to his own family! It was for this very reason–that the leadership should not continue or be hoarded up in one family–that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) categorically forbade his son, Abdullah ibn Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , from being a candidate for the Caliphate. We read:

Someone said (to Umar): “I can point to someone (to be Caliph): Abdullah ibn Umar.” But Umar replied: “…I have not found (the Caliphate) so praiseworthy that I should covet it for my own family…it is enough for the family of Umar that (only) one of them should be called to account and held responsible for what happened to Muhammad’s community. I have striven and have kept my own family out.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144)

Answering-Ansar says
it was an indication that the aim was to ensure that Imam Ali did not attain the leadership over the Ummah, not that day not ever.

Yet Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was the one who nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be one of the six candidates for the Caliphate, and it was Umar (رضّى الله عنه) who chose Ali (رضّى الله عنه) over and above all the other candidates. Was it not Umar (رضّى الله عنه) who publically declared that he thought Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the most fit to lead the Muslims after his death?

Answering-Ansar says
Interesting three ancient historical works record a letter by none other than Mu’awiya that points to the fact that Imam Ali’s rights were indeed snatched. The letter was a response to one sent to him by Hadhrath Muhammad bin ‘Abu Bakr who criticized Mu’awiya’s policy of opposition towards Imam ‘Ali stating it was unjust to oppose a man so superior. He justified his position by referring to the acts of his predecessors:

“We and your father used during the lifetime of the Prophet used to consider the right of Ibn Abi Talib binding upon us, and his excellence was well above ours. Despite this when Allah chose for the Prophet what he had in store for him He took him to Himself. Then your father and his Faruq were the first to snatch it and oppose him, they both worked together on this If it was injustice, then your father founded it and we are his partners. We followed his guidance and imitated his action”.

Waq’at Siffin by Minqari p118-120 (Cairo edition 1962);
Ansab al Ashraf by Baladhuri Volume 2 page 393-397 (Beirut edition 1974);
Masudi Muruj ud Dhuhab Vol 3 page 197 - 201 (Beirut 1969 edition)

A completely inauthentic letter, no doubt written by the Shia themselves! The three “sources” that Answering-Ansar gives are all useless. The first one, namely “Waq’at Siffin”, was written by a Shia Rafidhi. As for the second source, namely “Ansab al Ashraf”, the editor was a Shia, namely Muhammad Baqir al-Mahmudi. Furthermore, it is a dictionary on geneology, not a historical book. Absolutely no chain is given and it is therefore completely useless as a source. As for the third source given, namely Muruj ud Dhuhab, it was written by a Shia Mutazzalite.

Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, | Email : ahlelbayt[a] | English Version