1. HADHRAT ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) AND RASULULLAH’S (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) MIMBAR

Shiahs claim that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was unfit for the post of Khilaafat because one day when he had ascended the Mimbar, Hadhrat Hasan and Husein (radhiallahu anhuma) said:

“Oh Abu Bakr, descend from the Mimbar of our grandfather.”

This argument is ludicrous. No person of intelligence can infer that the Khalifah was unfit simply on account of a request by two little children. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiallahu anhu) was born in the third year Hijri and Hadhrat Husein (radhiallahu anhu) during the fourth year. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) died early in the 11th year Hijri. Thus, the ages of the two grandsons were seven and eight years during the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

Furthermore, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), on the instruction of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) acted in his stead as Imaam for five days—Thursday to Monday— during the last illness of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). During these five days was Jumu`ah as well. Thus he performed Jumu`ah and recited the Jumu`ah Khutbah as well. Now when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) considered Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) capable and fit for being his Khalifah (Representative), how can intelligent people accept that he was unfit simply on the basis of a statement made by two children even if we assume that they had said so?

2. HADHRAT ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) CONDONED MURDER ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY KHALID BIN WALID (radhiallahu anhu)

Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu) of having killed Maalik Bin Nuwairah for the sake of marrying his wife. They claimed that Malik Bin Nuwairah was a Muslim, but the Khalifah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) upheld Hadhrat Khalid’s act and refused to punish him. They further claim that Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu anhu) married the woman the same night of the murder and consummated the marriage which was not valid in view of the woman being in Iddat.

Shiahs further take support from Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiallahu anhu) displeasure with Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) decision on this issue. The Shiahs have distorted this episode as is their usual practice. Maalik Bin Nuwairah had become a Murtad. Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu anhu) was on his campaigns against the Murtad (renegade) tribes after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He was convinced of the Irtidaad of Maalik Bin Nuwairah whose women-folk had gleefully celebrated the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus, Maalik Bin Nuwairah was ordered to be executed on account of his Irtidaad.

Maalik Bin Nuwairah had divorced his wife, but in accordance with the custom of Jaahiliyyah held her in captivity. The Qur`aan expressly forbids this custom. Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu) therefore, did not marry the woman during her Iddat. The Shi`i claim is a pure fabrication.

Since Maalik Bin Nuwairah was a Muslim prior to Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) death, some Sahaabah were not convinced of his Irtidaad. Among them were Hadhrat Abu Qatadah Ansari and Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhuma), hence their displeasure with Hadhrat Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu).

During the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu), Mutammim Bin Nuwairah (Maalik’s brother) confirmed his brother’s Irtidaad. When he informed Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) of his brother’s Irtidaad, the latter regretted his earlier displeasure and proclaimed the correctness of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) decision. It is well-known that in the matter of Hudood and Qisaas (Shar`i punishments) Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was extremely severe. Despite this, he did not invoke the Shariah’s laws against Hadhrat Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu) during his Khilaafat. This is further proof that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had changed his earlier view.

There is no doubt that Maalik Bin Nuwairah had reneged from Islam after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The following appears in the Kitaab, ‘Al-Isti`aab’:

“Abu Bakr had appointed Khalid the commander of the army. Allah Ta `ala granted him victory over Yamaamah, etc.. The majority of the renegades were killed by his hands. Among them were Musailamah Kath-thaab and Maalik Bin Nuwairah...”

Let us for a moment assume that Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu anhu) had erred in ordering the execution of Maalik Bin Nuwairah and so had Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) by abstaining from punishing (i.e. effecting Qisaas) on Hadhrat Khalid (radhiallahu anhu).

On the basis of this assumption, the refutation of the Shi`i claims would be on the following grounds:

(a) Qisaas (life for a life) can be meted out only on demand by the close relatives of the murdered person. No such relative came forward to demand Qisaas against Khalid Bin Walid (radhiallahu anhu). According to the Shariah, a murderer cannot be executed if the kinsman do not demand Qisaas.

(b) While the Shiahs are vociferous in their criticism of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) on this issue, they are silent regarding Hadhrat Ali’s (radhiallahu anhu) abstention from the Qisaas of the murderers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) despite the demand for Qisaas by the kinsman of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). But, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama`ah does not criticise Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for his decision. His decision is upheld as valid by the Ahlus Sunnah.

This Shiah accusation and fabrication are motivated by spite and malice for the Sahaabah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

3. SHIAHS ACCUSE HADHRAT ABU BAKR OF DELAYING USAAMAH’S EXPEDITION

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself had dispatched the army under the command of Hadhrat Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu). Until the last, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) emphasised the importance of Hadhrat Usaamah’s (radhiallahu anhu) expedition and said:

“Prepare the army of Usaamah. Allah has cursed those who refrain from it.”

By distortion of the facts, the Shiahs have attempted to disseminate the idea that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was averse to Usaamah’s expedition which was organised by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The true facts of this episode will now be explained.

In fact, it was Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) who had made the material arrangements for the army of Usaamah whose mission was to avenge the killing of Zaid Bin Haarithah (radhiallahu anhu), his father, murdered by the Romans.

Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu) camped with his army at a place called Jurf. The chiefs of the Muhaajireen and Ansaar such as Abu Bakr Siddique, Umar Bin Khattaab, Uthmaan Bin Affaan, Sa`ad Bin Abi Waqqaas, Abu Ubaidah, Ibnul Jarraah, Sa`ad Bin Zaid, Qataadah Bin Nu’man and Salmah Bin Aslam had all made arrangements for the campaign. When they decided to resume the march from Jurf they received word of the severity of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) illness. This news created anxiety and uncertainty.

On that Thursday night Rasulullah (sallallahu a wasallam) appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) his Khalifah (representative) to lead the Salaat.

On Monday, 10th Rabiul Awwal, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) slightly recovered. The army was with Usaamah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made du`aa for Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu) and bid farewell to the army. When Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) condition deteriorated, Usaamah again ordered the march to halt. His mother, Umme Aiman (radhiallahu anha) arrived with the news that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in his death throes. On hearing this, Usaamah and the other Sahaabah returned.

After burial of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), the newly appointed Khalifah, ordered Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu) to resume the march as was ordered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu) complied. At this juncture news of the Irtidaad of some tribes reached Madinah. An attack on Madinah by these rebellious tribes was anticipated.

In view of this very grave danger, the Sahaabah advised Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to delay the contemplated expedition to ensure the safety of Madinah. This was purely a tactical move which cannot be viewed as abandonment of the actual campaign ordered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) flatly refused to heed the advice of the Sahaabah. He ordered the army to proceed. However, he requested Hadhrat Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu) to leave behind Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) to assist him in the affairs of the state and organise the defense of Madinah.

Thus, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) returned with the consent of Hadhrat Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu).

These facts have been reported in the authoritative records of both Sunnis in Shiahs. The accusation against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) is thus palpably false and is pure Shi`i propaganda to discredit the Sahaabah.

Since Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was appointed Khalifah, he was fully entitled to personally accompany Usaamah’s (radhiallahu anhu) army or to remain behind to attend to the affairs of the state. It is spiteful of the Shiahs to accuse him of failure for not having personally participated in the campaign. In view of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) demise, the situation had changed. There were new developments, including Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) appointment as the Khalifah. The army proceeded on his command and with his blessing. Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) command was thus fully complied with.

Furthermore, the sentence:

“Allah has cursed him who refrains from it (i.e. does not participate in Usaamah’s army)”, is a Shi`i fabrication. It is not part of the Hadith. On assumption of it being part of the Hadith, then too it is no indictment against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) or against any of the Sahaabah. The Sahaabah did not abandon the expedition nor were they averse to it. New and unexpected developments simply brought about the short delay in the dispatch of the army. And, as far as Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) is concerned no one displayed so much resolution and determination in fulfilling the command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When the Sahaabah (radhiallahu anhum) advised caution and to delay the campaign since they expected Madinah to be attacked by the Murtad tribes, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) declared with great vehemence:

“If in sending the army of Usaamah I know that I would become a morsel for the beasts in Madinah, then let it be so. Never do I consider it lawful to act in conflict with the command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).”

Regarding the abovementioned interpolation, Shahrastaani says in ‘Al-Milal Wan-Nahl’:

“Verily, this sentence is fabricated and forged.”

Sight should not be lost of the fact that after Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) demise, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was Khalifah, i.e. the representative of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He acted by virtue of his office and had to act as Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), who did not physically participate in Hadhrat Usaamah’s (radhiallahu anhu) campaign. Similarly, the Khalifah while organising the army and issuing instructions and commands, was not required for actual physical participation in the march of the army. Indeed, it is absurd, stupid and malicious to vilify the Khalifah for not participating in the actual march. No unbiased person of intelligence can see any crime committed by Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) for not having accompanied the army in person. He was, in fact, the one singly responsible for the immediate continuation of the campaign and the march of the army of Usaamah (radhiallahu anhu).

Also, after having ordered the march of the army, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) chose and retained Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to lead the five daily and Jumu`ah Salaat. This appointment was a clear indication that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was to remain behind and not personally proceed with the army.

While the Shiahs are swift in their baseless and malicious condemnation of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), they are conveniently silent regarding Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) who along with all the Sahaabah, was not in favour of the immediate dispatch of Usaamah’s army. Despite Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) vehemently refusing to delay the dispatch of the army, Shiahs exceed all bonds of decency in their condemnation.

From the foregoing discussion it will be seen that the Shi`i condemnation is utterly devoid of substance and is based on hatred for the Sahaabah.

4. THEIR CLAIM THAT RASULULLAH (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) HAD NEVER APPOINTED HADHRAT ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) TO HEAD ANY IMPORTANT AFFAIR OF THE DEEN.

Shiahs brazenly claim that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) at no stage entrusted any important Deeni affair, e.g. Jihaad, to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), hence his incapability for the Khilaafat is confirmed.

This preposterous claim is brazenly false. It is a pure lie, devoid of the slightest vestige of truth. Both Sunni and Shi`i historical records refute this brazen lie of the Shiahs.

After the defeat of the Kuffaar at Uhud, Abu Sufyaan had prepared to return and attack Madinah. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was appointed Commander of the army to confront Abu Sufyaan. In the fourth year Hijri, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) despatched the army under Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) in the battle of Bani Nadheer. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) remained at home on this occasion. In the sixth year Hijri, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) commander of a division and despatched him to Kuraaun Na-eem.

After the battle of Tabook Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that after victory the army should proceed from Madinah to Thamiyatul Widaa. The Commander was Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

During the battle of Khaibar precisely at the time of laying siege to the fort, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) developed a severe headache. He appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) in his stead to assault and conquer the fort. The ensuing battle fought by Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) on that day was intense and fierce.

In the seventh year, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was sent with the army against Bani Kilaab. Salmah Bin Akwah (radhiallahu anhu) together with his division was also ordered to join ranks with Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

In the battle against Banu Fazaarah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was the Commander of the army.

After the battle of Tabook, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) commander of the army and despatched him to Waadi-ar-Ramal against a certain tribe.

Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) left after Zuhr to make peace between the tribes, Bani Umar and Bani Auf. He instructed Hadhrat Bilaal (radhiallahu anhu) to ensure that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) led the Asr Salaat in the event of his return being delayed. Thus, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) led the Asr Salaat.

Hajj was decreed obligatory in the ninth year. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was appointed Ameer-e-Hajj and sent to Makkah with a large group of Sahaabah.

Finally, during his last illness, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) his Khalifah to lead the Salaat for five days until his demise, thus indicating who his successor (Khalifah) will be.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was appointed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to take charge of the three vital departments connected to the office of leadership, namely, Jihaad, Salaat and Hajj, as the aforegoing discussion shows. The Shi`i claim is therefore a brazen lie.

Furthermore, the very argument that a person who has not been appointed to lead in battles is unfit for the post of Khilaafat or leadership of the Ummah, is utterly baseless. If this claim held any substance even to Shiahs, it can be turned against their own Imaams.

Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) never appointed any of his two sons, Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Husein (radhiallahu anhuma) commanders of the army. He never sent them to lead battles nor appointed them to important posts of leadership. Now if the Shiah argument had any validity, it will follow that these two illustrious grandsons of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were unqualified for Imaamat and Khilaafat — Ma-aathallah! Yet the Shiahs accept them as their infallible Imaams and successors of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

The Shi`i argument is thus spiteful drivel churned up by the Shiahs to vent their malice against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) and to mislead ignorant and unwary people.

5. ABU BAKR’S APPOINTMENT OF UMAR (radhiallahu anhu)

Shiahs allege that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) in appointing Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) the Khalifah had acted in conflict of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They further claim that a year after having appointed Umar (radhiallahu anhu) as the collector of Sadaqaat, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) dismissed him. Thus, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), according to the Shiahs, is guilty of appointing a man dismissed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

This argument, besides being nonsensical is false. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not dismiss Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was assigned the duty of collecting Sadaqaat for one year. He successfully completed his term. Termination of a term is not dismissal.

When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sent the army on a Jihaad campaign he appointed a Commander. On the return of the army from the campaign the office of the Commander ended. When the army set out again on another Jihaad campaign, another Commander was appointed. This replacement of Commanders cannot be construed as the dismissal of the first Commander who had successfully discharged and terminated his duties.

If the Shi`i argument had to be accepted, it will follow that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) too was dismissed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) because he did not remain Commander of the army to the end or until Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) demise from the time of his appointment as Commander of a particular campaign. Thus, the Shi`i argument rebounds against their own Imaam.

6. HADHRAT ABU BAKR AND UMAR (radhiallahu anhum) HAD TO SERVE UNDER USAAMAH (radhiallahu anhu).

Shiahs claim that Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiallahu anhuma) were unqualified for the Khilaafat because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had appointed Usaaamah (radhiallahu anhu) commander in one battle, and Amr Bin Aas (radhiallahu anhu) in another, while Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhuma) had to serve in these two armies under these two commanders. If they had the ability of leadership, they would have been appointed commanders in the respective Jihaad campaigns.

This argument presupposes that the one appointed commander possesses the qualification and ability of Imaamat and Khilaafat. It therefore follows that Amr Bin Aas and Usaamah (radhiallahu anhuma) possessed this qualification and should have been the Khulafa, not Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) as is claimed by the Shiahs. Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) also had to fight under the Command of other Sahaabah in many battles. Thus, in terms of Shi`i logic, he was unfit for Khilaafat and Imaamat, and those who were appointed the commanders were qualified for Khilaafat. But the Shiahs far from accepting them as men qualified for Khilaafat, branded them Murtaddeen (renegades).

Just as Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not appoint Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiallahu anhuma) in these specific battles, so too did he not appoint Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). The Shiahs should, therefore, likewise direct their stupid argument against Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) whom they claim to be their first infallible Imaam, superior to even the Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam).

Furthermore, the Shiahs should concede the superiority, ability and qualification of Khilaafat for Hadhrat Amr Bin Aas (radhiallahu anhu) because he was appointed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But, on the contrary, Shiahs brand as Kaafir and Murtad this illustrious Sahaabi. They have fabricated an armoury of the vilest epithets of abuse for Hadhrat Amr Bin Aas (radhiallahu anhu).

The appointment of a junior to the post of leadership in a particular department or to the post of commander in a particular Jihaad campaign cannot be interpreted as a disqualification of seniors and of others possessing the requisite abilities and qualities for leadership. There may be particular reasons which make the appointment of a junior expedient. This was infact the case with Usaamah’s appointment. His father was slain by the Kuffaar against whom he was sent to avenge his father’s murder.

Another wisdom of placing Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiallahu anhuma) temporarily under the command of Usaamah and Amr Bin Aas (radhiallahu anhuma) was for gaining practical experience of the relationship between a leader and his subjects. These two senior Sahaabah were destined to lead the Ummah as Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Khulafa. It was, therefore, imperative that they acquire practical experience of the relationship with underlings and subjects. Without such experience, the ruler will not fully and correctly understand the feelings and attitudes of his subjects.

Thus, this was part of the programme to prepare them for the Khilaafat.

7. ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) OPPOSED RASULULLAH (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) BY EXPRESSLY APPOINTING A KHALIFAH

Shiahs claim that in the matter of appointing a successor, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) violated the example of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). While Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not nominate a Khalifah, Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) did so.

People of Baatil and malice behave irrationally and emotionally. Their irrationalism borders on mental derangement which produces self-contradiction in their talks. In their attempt to assail Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) on this issue, Shiahs brazenly claim that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not nominate or appoint a Khalifah, hence it was in conflict with Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Sunnah for Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to have appointed Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu).

However, in their claim that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) is the Imaam and Khalifah (i.e. first Khalifah) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), all Shiah sects unanimously and vociferously argue that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had appointed Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). The self-contradiction and absurdity of their argument is thus self-evident.

Even on the basis of the argument that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not appoint a Khalifah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) action of appointing a successor in no way conflicts with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) because he did not prohibit any appointment of a successor. Only if Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had issued such a prohibition would the Shi`i argument against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) be valid.

Furthermore, in terms of the Shi`i argument, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), their first “infallible” Imaam, too acted in “conflict” with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) because he had appointed his son, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiallahu anhu) to be his successor. The argument thus rebounds on the Shiahs.

8. ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) HAD A SHAITAAN WITH HIM

Shiahs claim that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was under the influence of a shaitaan. They attempt to substantiate this claim by citing the following statement allegedly made by Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu):

“ Verily,for me there is a shaitaan who is attached to me. If I walk straight, aid me and if I go crooked, then straighten me.”

A man who is accompanied by a shaitaan is unfit to be the Khalifah.

Firstly, the above narration is a pure Shi`i fabrication.

Secondly, it is reported in the authentic Hadith, that every person is accompanied by a shaitaan. A particular shaitaan whose function is to mislead, is assigned to every person by Allah Ta`ala. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, shaitaan sits firmly on the heart of the son of Adam (i.e. man). When he (man) remembers Allah, the shaitaan flees. When he (man) becomes forgetful, shaitaan whispers to him.”

In the Shi`i kitaab, ‘Kulaini’, Imaam Ja`far Saadiq (rahmatullah alayhi) is reported to have said:

“Every Mu`min as a shaitaan who (attempts to) mislead him.”

According to the authentic Hadith as narrated by the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama`ah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“There is none among you but a companion from among the Jinn (shayaateen) has been appointed with him.”

Thus, even if it is assumed that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had infact made the statement which Shiahs have falsely attributed to him, then too, he was only echoing the truth which he had acquired from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)— a truth which is acknowledged by both Sunni and Shiah authorities.

Shayaateen attempting to influence and mislead the pious servants of Allah Ta`ala is not something to wonder about nor does it detract from the lofty status and piety of Allah’s servants. The danger and deception of shaitaan are real and ever-present as long as there is life in the body. But, the true Muttaqeen are fortified by Allah’s guidance and protection. Instead of acting under the influence of shaitaani whisperings, they neutralise the devilish schemes with Allah’s aid. In this regard the Qur`aan Shareef says:

“Verily, those who fear (i.e. the Muttaqeen), when an idea from shaitaan assaults them, they remember (Allah), and they become alert.” (Surah A`raaf, Aayat 201)

Let the Shiahs reflect on the following statements of their Imaam Sajjaad:

“Verily, shaitaan has caught hold of my reigns in evil suspicion and weakness of faith. I complain ofthe evil of his companionship and of my obedience to him (i.e. to shaitaan).”

The statement is an admission of the actual control of shaitaan extending over the person whom the Shiahs believe to be an infallible Imaam. In contrast, the fabricated statement attributed to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) cannot be interpreted to mean that shaitaan actually gained control of the Khalifah.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) alleged statement is not an admission of him having fallen prey to shaitaan. Rather, it speaks of future acts.

The Shi`i claim on this score is pure drivel, for shaitaan appears to all men, even to Ambiyaa. The Qur`aan and Ahaadith explicitly confirm this. Even Shi`i sources maintain this. According to the Qur`aan even Aadam (alayhis salaam) and other Ambiyaa were at times deceived by shaitaan. But they quickly realised their error. Only a Kaafir would argue that a Nabi fell from his rank and office of Nubuwwat on account of an error which was committed by shaitaani or nafsaani influence.

Hadhrat Yusuf (alayhis salaam) said:

“I do not exonerate my nafs from evil. Verily, the nafs is a great commander of evil.”

The Qur`aan categorically says about the deception of shaitaan with regard to Hadhrat Adam (alayhis salaam):

“Thus, shaitaan made them (i.e. Adam and Hawwaa) slip from it.”

But, Adam (alayhis salaam) remained a Nabi. The argument against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) raised on the basis of the Shi`i fabricated narration is thus pure and absurd nonsense.

9. INFERRING HADHRAT ABU BAKR’S (radhiallahu anhu) INABILITY ON THE BASIS OF UMAR’S STATEMENT

Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) is reported to have said:

Beware! The Bay`t (appointment by way of allegiance) of Abu Bakr was done hastily. Allah has saved the Mu`mineen from its evil. (If) anyone repeats the likes of it, then kill him.”

On the basis of this statement the Shiahs claim the appointment of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was baseless and invalid. Before discussing Hadhrat Umar`s (radhiallahu anhu ) statement, the following facts should be understood;

(a) Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was infact the first one who had given his hand in allegiance (bay`t) to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

(b) If the meaning given to the statement by the Shiahs has to be accepted or if it was valid, it will follow that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) himself did not consider the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to be valid. But this is a fallacious supposition. All facts and numerous statements of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) uphold the validity of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) Khilaafat.

(c) In spite of the element of haste, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) proceeded with the nomination and bay`t of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

(d) Why would Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) so glaringly indict himself by condemning his own action of bay`t while upholding the validity of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) Khilaafat?

The Shiahs have committed two acts of deception to convey the misapprehension that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) believed that Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) appointment was evil and not valid:

·They have quoted the statement out of its context.

·They have deliberately deleted an important sentence in order to peddle their baseless notion.

Firstly, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) made the statement as a warning and in response to a man who had said during the Khilaafat of Umar:

“When he (i.e. Umar) dies, I shall appoint a certain man to be the Khalifah because initially only two persons hastily offered bay`t to Abu Bakr.....”

This person was contemplating to repeat the episode of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) appointment which he viewed in isolation of the then prevailing situation and all the other factors which fully justified the haste and the manner adopted by Hadhrat Umar and Ubaidah Bin Jarrah (radhiallahu anhuma), the first two who took the bay`t at the hands of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). The following factors justified the haste and the manner adopted by Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) on the occasion when the Ansaar had gathered at Saaidah Bani Thaqeefah:

(i)The decision of the Ansaar to appoint one among them to be the Khalifah was incorrect in view of the reasons which will be presented below.

(ii)The Ansaar’s proposition of having two Khalifahs — one from among the Ansaar and one from the Muhaajireen was inappropriate and a recipe for future strife.

(iii) Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) acts and statements conclusively preferred Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) appointment.

(iv) Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was the most senior, the highest-ranking Sahaabi and closest to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

(v) During his last illness, Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) his Khalifah to lead the Salaat for five days.

(vi) Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) appointed Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) the Ameer of Hajj when Hajj became Fardh. In so doing, he clearly conveyed that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was to be his Khalifah.

(vii) In one Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“ Allah did not accept from me other than putting Abu Bakr forward.”

Again, it appears in another Hadith:

“Allah and the Mu`mineen will not accept (anyone) but Abu Bakr.”

(viii) In the authentic books of Hadith there are many signs pointing towards the Khilaafat of Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

In view of the abundance of clear indications for the appointment of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was compelled to act swiftly to prevent the precipitation of a grave error. This swift and decisive action of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) forestalled the development of a dangerous move. After all, he had the ability and the authority to act in this manner, for he was Umar about whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“ If there had to be a Nabi after me, it would have been Umar.”

Thus, the person who had believed himself capable of acting like Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) and that too in relation to a person who was not of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) calibre erred grievously in believing himself capable of unilaterally appointing a Khalifah to succeed Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiallahu anhu) statement was thus a sharp and stern rebuke and warning for this person. It was not an isolated statement to indict himself or to criticise the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) on which Ijma (consensus) of the Sahaabah was enacted.

Secondly, the Shiahs have deleted the following statement which appears in this narration;

“ And who of you is like Abu Bakr?”

Since this statement points to the context in which Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) issued the rebuke, the Shiah considered it expedient to perpetrate their usual fraud of interpolation, distortion, fabrication and deletion, hence the excision of this crucial statement from the narration.

The statement clearly upholds the validity of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) appointment by confirming his excellence and superiority. In view of his superiority, the procedure of appointment adopted by Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was exclusively for Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) and was not to be repeated and could not be extended to anyone else. The copious authentic Ahaadith narrations attesting to the excellence and superiority of Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) over the entire Ummah, elevate him to a special and lofty pedestal of significance. It is in the light of these facts and this context that Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiallahu anhu) statement should be read and viewed.

To isolate it from its context, to delete part of it, to ignore the special factors surrounding the personality of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), to overlook the copious statements of praise for Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) made by Umar (radhiallahu anhu) and to ignore the delicate situation prevailing at the time of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) demise are Shi`i acts of fraud to twist, distort and misinterpret Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiallahu anhu) statement.

If the Shiahs are so keen to make deductions and conclusions from this statement of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu), they should likewise study and accept the numerous statements of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) explicitly emphasising the virtues of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) and the validity of his Khilaafat.

12. ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) CONCEDES THAT HE IS NOT BETTER THAN ALI (radhiallahu anhu)

Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) is reported to have said:

“I’m not better than Ali when he is amongst you.”

The Shi`i argument on the basis of the statement is: if Abu Bakr is true in this statement, it follows that he is unfit for the Khilaafat because it is not possible to appoint a man Khalifah if a better and superior person is available. If he is false in his statement, then too he is unfit for the Khilaafat because a man who lies is a Faasiq and it is not permissible to appoint such a person to be the Khalifah.

RESPONSE

Firstly this narration is no where to be found in the Kitaabs of the Ahlus Sunnah. It is not recorded as even a dhaeef (weak) narration. It is simply one of the innumerable Shi`i fabrications. Shiahs should first produce this narration from our Kitaabs and then seek the response of the Ahlus Sunnah. Citing from their books as proof against the Ahlus Sunnah is invalid and unacceptable.

If for a moment we should assume the narration is authentic, then we draw the attention of Shiahs to the following statement of their “infallible” Imaam Sajjaad:

“I am he whose life has been depleted by sins.”

This appears in Saheefah Kaamilah.

Now if Imaam Sajjaad is true in his statement, it follows that he is unfit for Imaamat because of his fisq. If he is false in having made this statement, then too he is unqualified for Imaamat because a liar is a faasiq. These conclusions are the products of Shi`i logic.

So, whatever answer Shiahs have to bail out Imaam Sajjaad and to uphold his Imaamat, they may apply it also to the fabricated statement they have ascribed to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

Some Shiahs have added the following words to their fabricated statement:

“Withdraw your allegiance from me! Withdraw your allegiance from me?”

For argument sake let us momentarily accept this fabrication added to the earlier fabrication. The statement confirms Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) humility, selflessness and aversion for worldly glory. In spite of his emphasis (as appearing in the fabrication), the people did not withdraw their allegiance from him. The entire group of Sahaabah regarded him to be the best after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), hence they refused to accept his alleged resignation.

Furthermore, if a ruler tenders his resignation, his inability cannot be inferred from his offer to resign. There is absolutely no substance in this argument of the Shiahs.

Furthermore, the statement attributed to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) attests to his lofty rank of Tawaadhu` (Humility). The Ambiyaa, Siddiqeen and Auliyaa in general are paragons of virtue and moral excellence. Tawaadhu` is a fundamental constituent of Islamic moral character.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (radhiallahu anhu) was the epitome of Akhlaaq-e-Hameedah (Noble Attributes), coming only next to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The meaning of Tawaadhu` is to believe with firm conviction in one’s own contemptibility. It is a requirement of Tawaadhu` to consider oneself to be the lowest and the most contemptible of all Allah’s creatures. In fact, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that he should not be praised over Hadhrat Yunus (alayhi salaam). Inspite of the absolute certitude regarding his rank being the highest of all Allah’s creation including the Malaaikah, his Tawaadhu` was of such a lofty degree that he disliked being praised in such a manner which diminished the rank of Hadhrat Yunus (alayhi salaam).

The Shi`i argument in this regard is pure drivel and absurd.

13. HADHRAT ABU BAKR (radhiallahu anhu) WAS DISMISSED FROM THE DUTY OF PROCLAIMING SURAH BARAA-AH

The Shi`i argument on this issue is:

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sent Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to deliver Surah Baraa-ah to Makkah.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) then sent Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) to inform Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) that the proclamation of the Surah had been entrusted to him, i.e. to Ali. In view of this dismissal, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was unfit for Khilaafat. A man who lacked the ability to proclaim a revealed law of the Qur`aan (i.e. recite the relevant revealed verses), lacks the ability for Khilaafat to a greater degree. This is the Shi`i argument.

There are three responses in refutation of the Shi`i argument:

(1) The majority of narrations confirms that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sent Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to Makkah as Ameer of Hajj, not to proclaim the revealed verses of Surah Baraa-ah. After the departure of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), Surah Baraa-ah was revealed. Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was then dispatched to make the proclamation. Thus, the question of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) dismissal does not arise.

In fact, the two were entrusted with different duties. Now when Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was not even assigned the duty of proclaiming the revelation of Surah Baraa-ah, the charge of dismissal is baseless. This version appears in Baidhaawi, Madaarik, Zaahidi, Tafseer Nizaam Nishaapuri, Jazbul Quloob and Mishkaat.

(2) According to Ma-aalim, Haseeni, Raudatul Ahbaab, Habibus Siyaar and Madaarij it appears that initially Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and instructed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to proclaim Surah Baraa-ah, but later Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was entrusted with this duty.

There are two possibilities here:

(a) The earlier instruction given to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was cancelled and only Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was assigned to execute this task.

(b) Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was appointed co-partner of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) in the execution of this duty.

Raudhatul Ahbaab, Bukhaari, Muslim and all the Muhadditheen assigned strength and preference to the second possibility because they unanimously narrate that on the 10th Zil-Hajj, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) ordered Hadhrat Abu Hurairah’s (radhiallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Ali’s (radhiallahu anhu) appointed group to proclaim:

“After this year no Mushrik shall perform Hajj and no naked person shall make tawaaf of Baitullah.”

These narrations explicitly confirm that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was not dismissed from rendering these services. If he had been dismissed, he would not have interfered in the duties imposed on others. He would not have appointed men to make the proclamation.

In terms of this explanation too, the Shiahs have no valid argument since the question of dismissal does not arise.

(3) On acceptance of the first possibility, i.e. the cancellation of the earlier instruction interpreted as dismissal by the Shiahs, it will be understood that the reason was not because of any inability of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). On the basis of Ijma’ (consensus) it is proven that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was appointed Ameer of Hajj and that he was NOT dismissed from that post of tremendous responsibility.

The responsibility of Hajj of thousands of people was thrust onto the shoulders of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). He had to teach them the rules and rites of Hajj. He had to deliver the Hajj Khutbahs; issue fatwas in all developing situations of the Hajj; attend to the many developments of the huge Hajj crowd, etc. etc. When he was able to discharge these numerous responsibilities and when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) deemed him capable and qualified to act as the Ameer of Hajj, then it is absurd to believe that he lacked the ability to proclaim the revelation of a few Qur`aanic verses. Any Qaari, Haafiz or Qur`aan reciter possesses this simple ability.

Further, all historical and Hadith records confirm that in this Hajj journey Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) followed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) and was subservient to him. He followed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) in Salaat and in the rites of Hajj.

It is evidenced by the authentic Ahaadith that when Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) arrived from Madinah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) asked him:

“Have you been appointedAmeer or are you Ma`moor (i.e. subservient)?”

In response, he said that he was Ma`moor.

It is therefore only logical that the cancellation of the earlier order was due to some reason other then inability as assumed by the Shi`i enemies of the Sahaabah. It is ridiculous to accept that he possessed the capabilities to shoulder the difficult office of Ameerul Hajj and lacked the ability to recite a few Qur`aanic verses. Such a conclusion is irrational. Let us now discuss the actual reason for the cancellation of the earlier instruction.

Surah Baraa-ah announces the abrogation of a treaty. It was in essence a declaration of war. According to the custom of the Arabs, ultimatums, declaration of war, treaties and abrogation of treaties were considered valid only if issued by the leader/chief of the nation/tribe or a person who is in his stead by virtue of lineage, e.g. son, brother, paternal cousin. The statement of another person carried no weight regardless of his integrity and status. The same custom was enforced by the Kuffaar of Makkah on the occasion of recording the document of the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah. When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) requested the Ansaar to write the document, Suhail Bin Amr, the representative of the Kuffaar objected and said:

“Oh Muhammad! Your paternal cousin, Ali should write this document.”