non egalitarian imamate

8/9/2019 Non Egalitarian Imamate

1/62

The non-egalitarian nature of Imamate

Work file: file_name.pdfProject: Answering-Ansar.org Articles

Revisions:

No. Date Author Description Review Info

1.0.0 04.05.2008 Answering-Ansar.org Created

Copyright 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. All Rights Reserved


2/62

Page 2 of 62

Contents

Table of Contents

1.CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................3

2.CHAPTER TWO WAS SHURA THE ACTUAL METHOD VIA WHICH THE PAST

KHALIFAS WERE APPOINTED?...........................................................................................5

3.CHAPTER THREE IS THE ACT OF BAYYA THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR BEING

THE LAWFUL SUNNI KHALIFA?........................................................................................23

4.CHAPTER FOUR THE PURE MONOTHEISTIC LINEAGE OF PROPHETS AND

IMAMS [AS]............................................................................................................................... 31

5.CHAPTER FIVE - DOES HEREDITARY LEADERSHIP CONTRAVENE ISLAMIC

PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY?...............................................................................................40

6.CHAPTER SIX IMAMATE AND TAQWA.....................................................................54

7.CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION....................................................................................60

8.COPYRIGHT.......................................................................................................................... 62



3/62

Page 3 of 62

1. Chapter One: Introduction

Whilst we have Alhamdolillah addressed the main objections raised against the Shia doctrine ofImamah by the Cyber Takfeeriite in our article:

Imamate; Divine giude in IslamThe article Imamah the Antithesis of Egalitarianismwritten by Ibn al-Hashimi of the

Ahlelbayt.com website forms part of a more subtle attempt to appeal to a rational Sunni mind,this subtle implication being that the Shia doctrine is unfair contravening the framework ofequality upon which the Deen is based. At the same time the author has sought to presentwhat he deems the alternative approach to Imamate as a Sunni doctrine that allegedlyespouses freedom for all, wherein all have a say in the process and can attain the rank asImam over the Muslims. It almost sounds like an American speech on the aim for Muslims ofdemocracy in Iraq. By presenting both sides of the coin he is hoping to unhinge the Shiareadership so they get sleepless nights thinking about how unfair the Imamate doctrine is, thatwill ultimately lead to them embracing Sunnism, and to alienate Sunnis from Shiaism. As part ofhis efforts, Ibn al-Hashimi has suppressed the actual Sunni stance that would evidence thatImamate is anything but egalitarian in nature, and completely glossed over the variousmechanisms whereby a Sunni Muslim can attain the rank of Imamate. A fatal flaw that hasexposed the authors ignorance of polemical discussion is easily identifiable upon analysis of thisarticle. Before one has the skills to take on the opposition, it is essential that one has acomplete understanding of his own belief system, after all it is only then that you can offer the

correct alternative to those that you deem misguided. How pathetic it is then that it is thebeliefs of his own Sunni house that leave him vulnerable and ultimately humiliated. In thisarticle Ibn al Hashimi has portrayed Sunni Islam as a land flowing with milk and honey. This is agross delusion and a lie, yes, we have no qualms in saying he has lied. The absurd Sunniarguments on Imamate, which in fact divide Shia from Sunni, are presented herein. Much of hismaterial is indeed plagiarized from old Nasibi websites that we had already refuted the usualhalf-baked Sunni notions. We are not lying, read on if you wish to see Sunni Islam stripped

bare and naked and to see what it really says on Imamate, not what Ibn al-Hashimispropaganda wishes it to say.

Whilst we shall InshaAllah address the issues raised in this article, we would urge our readersto consult our article Imamate, Divine Guide in Islam first, so that one can betterappreciate the Shia stance, which Ibn al-Hashimi has misrepresented.

Before we begin, it is important that we quickly highlight the key points related to the Shiadoctrine of divine Imamah and why it is not permissible in Shia Islam for any immoral andunjust egomaniac to become the Imam. We believe:

1. The Khalifa that succeeds the Prophet [s] can only be that person that after the deathof Muhammad [s] protects the Deen, he must be aloof from wrong doings and creatingFitnah, and in its entirety this can only be attained by that person who is infallible.

2. Imamate is reserved for the most pious in the Ummah, those who excel in all areas ofthe Deen and act without hypocrisy or lethargy upon it.

3. He is infallible and perfect amongst the Muslims, he will not be like ordinary men. Allah[swt] alone decides on Imamate, and the rightful Imam is only that he whom theCreator [swt] appoints.

4. Allah [swt] knows that which no one else does. He is best suited to rule who is best toguide the Ummah through good and bad times, hence it is through the texts of theProphet [s], and this continues through the Imams, as even the bigoted Wahabi scholaral Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz (who ironically dedicated his life to refuting Shiasironically) had to concede:

Thus, it is the greatness of the Prophet [s] which is the fountainhead ofdifferent kinds of Wilayah, which continuously flow through Ahl-ul-Bayt [as]and Imamate means that each one of them appointed the other as his

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imamate/en/index.phphttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imamate/en/index.phphttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imamate/en/index.phphttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imamate/en/index.php


4/62

Page 4 of 62

successor.

Tafseer Azizi, Surah al Haaqa, page 125-126 (Published by H. M Saeed Co.Karachi)

Tuhfa Athna Ashari, page 338 (Noor Muhammad Kutub Khana, Karachi)

Yes this is what we believe as Shias, why is the great scholar Abdul Aziz agreeing with us whileIbn al-Hashimi is not? It is because the former had more knowledge of even Sunni Islam. Fromthese criteria Allah [swt] provided the best Guides for the Ummah from the Ahlul bayt as] ofMuhammad [s].

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tafsir_Azizi_p125_126.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tafsir_Azizi_p125_126.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tafsir_Azizi_p125_126.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tuhfa_p338.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tuhfa_p338.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tuhfa_p338.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tafsir_Azizi_p125_126.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tafsir_Azizi_p125_126.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tafsir_Azizi_p125_126.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tuhfa_p338.jpg


5/62

Page 5 of 62

2. Chapter Two Was Shura the actual method via whichthe past Khalifas were appointed?

We shall now set out to address the efforts of the Ahlelbayt.com (the websites name is a

misnomer) to negate the divine right of the Ahlul bayt [as] to rule the Ummah, by presenting itis as against the framework of equality upon which the Deen is based.

Ibn al Hashimi states:All four of the rightly guided Caliphs wereselected by a system of Shurah (mutualconsultation); furthermore, the general publicgave their Bayat (pledge of allegiance) to showtheir acceptance of each of these nominations. Asis apparent, this system of nomination wasegalatarian in spirit and consistent with fairness.

1. Reply One There is no Shura on matters ruled upon in the Quran andSunnah, the concept of shura is bida an innovation.

It is interesting to note that the author seeks to sell legitimacy of shura because this waspracticed by some of the Sahaba, yet he fails to provide any evidence of the legitimacy of thismethod from the Quran or Sunnah of Muhammad [s]. This is because no such evidence exists.Shura is a post-Prophet (saws) innovation by the companions. This is not surprising since SunniIslam is a product of history, and not the Quran and Sunnah. If shura was the correct methodvia which to appoint an Imam, did Rasulullah [s] direct the Sahaba over this method? No.Should he not have guided the Sahaba and established some Shura committee as a mechanismfor identifying and appointing the right candidate? If this was indeed the right method as Ibnal-Hashimi is suggesting then why did Rasulullah [s] himself not lead by example andimplement this method of appointment? The failure of Rasulullah [s] to endorse this method,rather not to even give any basic directions pertaining to Shura to appoint a successor serves asthe greatest proof that it has no basis under the Shariah. Shura to appoint an Imam is, bydefinition an innovation (bida). Further, as far as shura goes, the issue is a double contradictionin this matter. Not only is it innovation, but we also know that there is no shura in matters ofIslamic law. There is no shura about whether or not salat is obligatory, for example. As such,how can there be any shura to determine whether or not it is obligatory to follow this individual,or that individual? Allah [swt] says in his Glorious Book:

It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreeda matter that they should have an option in their decision. And whoever disobeysAllah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. [33:36]

Sadly this is precisely what many of the Sahaba did after they turned their back on the explicitand numerous injunctions by God and His Prophet [s] that Muhammad (saws)s successor was

Ali [as], culminating in the declaration of Ghadhir Khumm, as evidenced by innumerable Sunnisources and for which Sunnis scramble wildly to dilute the significance of. The above Surahclearly states that the affairs that should be decided by Shura can only be those in which Allah[swt] or the Messenger [s] has shown no position. This clearly excludes the idea of election /selection of Imams, Khalifas of a Prophet, as this requires the leader being appointed by Allah[swt], as we have previously demonstrated in the Imamate article. Imam Radhi in TafseerKabeer Volume 4 page 445 stated:

:



6/62

Page 6 of 62

The third principle: There is an agreement that every thing that has been revealedfrom Allah to the Messenger, it is not allowed for him to consult the Ummah becauseif there is a Nass, then the opinion and conjecture (Qiyas) becomes void.

When there is clear nass relating to the divine appointment of Maula Ali [as] then the Shura

that Ibn al-Hashimi is seeking to sell as legitimate has no validity whatsoever, it becomes anerror, one upon which was tragically built the Sunni version of Islam he is so keen to defend.Imamate entails certain sharia obligations. If somebody is appointed by God, then he must beobeyed, and that is a fiqh ruling. How can there be shura, then, to say that it is obligatory on usto follow Abu Bakr, Umar, or whoever? There is no shura on such issues. The duty to follow aleader is a matter for Allah [swt] to decide, and He [swt] did just that, after the Prophet [s] itwas obligatory for us to follow Imam Ali [as] and the eleven Imams from his progeny [as].

Even if in their narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy on the issue of Hadith, the doctrine ofappointment of a successor by the Prophet (saw) is rejected by Sunni readers, the inescapablefact remains - Shura is bida and this is an inescapable conclusion. It has no basis in the Quranand Sunna, it came later in the post-prophet era and was a fabrication of the kings (caliphs)

who forged Sunni Islam as detailed later. In distinction, to Shias belief in Imamate is vouchedfor by the Quran and Sunna whether the traditions are accepted as such or not by the Sunnis,our system remains a superior system in the eyes of the Shias having the endorsement of Godand His Prophet (saws). Let us discuss these issues in more detail.

2. Reply Two The egalitarian doctrine of Imamate through Shura cannotbe proven from the Quran

Ibn al Hashimi prides himself on trying to disprove quite pathetically the Shia doctrine ofImamate from the Quran. To him the correct method for appointing an Imam was through

Shura. One would therefore presume that the correctness of this position can be evidencedfrom the Quran. It tells us so much when we see Ibn al Hashimi arguing that appointing theImam through Shura is egalitarian and correct, because this was done historically in the case ofthe rightly guided Khalifas. Let us see if this legitimate method can be proven from the Quran.

Tell us Ibn al-Hashmi, is everything based upon consultation? Does Allah (swt) seek theconsultation of the people in His works? Is the creation of man and woman on the basis of ourconsultation? Is rain, sunset, winds etc through the consultation process between the peopleand their Creator (swt)? Do we decide whether a couple will or will not bear children? In thesame way that all these works of Allah (swt) are His (swt) alone, and man has no say in theprocess, exactly the same is the case with when He sends Prophets and the Imams to guide theUmmah after him (s). As we read in Holy Quran:

Allah chooses for Himself whom He wills, and guides unto Himself who turns to Himin repentance and in obedience. (42:13)

This verse isnt giving just a simple message for the common people, but He (swt) in fact setsout His principle that it is not the public who chooses someone and then deems him to be theone chosen by Allah [swt] rather its only Allah [swt] who chooses.

We read further in 28:68:

And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses, no choice have they (in anymatter). Glorified be Allah, and exalted above all that they associate as partners

(with Him).Translated by Dr. MT Al-Hilali & Dr. MM Khan. V7.9



7/62

Page 7 of 62

This verse makes it clear that certain ranks are only through the power and decision of theBlessed Creator (swt). The station of Prophethood and Imamate are not in the hands of thepeople since they are both connected with implementing the works of Allah (swt), and hence

Allah (swt) knows who is best suited for this job.

Now consider this verse:

And indeed We gave Musa the Book and We did appoint with him Harun as anApostle and his Vizier (25:35).

We see from this verse that Musa (as) was appointed a Prophet by Allah (swt). Why did He(swt) not leave the appointment of a Vizier in the hands of the Ummah, who could appoint onthe basis of consultation? Would that not have been egalitarian in spirit? It is interesting thatSunnis say that Rasulullah (s) left no successor; rather the Ummah was free to do so, and(according to Ibn al Hasihmi) they did so accordingly via the democratic principles of Shura! Yetwe see from the Quran that the Vizier of Prophet Musa (as) was appointed by Allah (swt), howcan the Prophet (s) who is the best of the creation and the most exalted among all humans

including Musa [as] leave the issue of appointment to the public and not Allah [swt]?

[Shakir 21:73] And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command.

This makes it clear that the appointments of the Imams are the right of Allah (swt), Shura doesnot even come into the equation and He chooses whoever He (swt) wants. That whom He (swt)chooses is the legitimate Imam.

Then consider this verse:

And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, whichhe fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And

also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within thereach of evil-doers." [Yusufali 2:124]

Prophet Ibrahim (as) was already a Prophet but had (following the successful completion ofthese tasks) attained the rank of Imamate. The verse makes it clear that Allah (swt) appointsthe Imam, not the people, He (swt) appoints whoever he likes as the Prophet or Imam.

If Ibn al Hasihmi objects saying that this refers to Prophethood then why did Allah (swt) not say"I will make thee a Prophet to the Nations"?If Ibn al Hashimi attests that Imamate as a divine rank refers only to the appointment ofProphets then allow us to present the divine appointment of a non Prophet. We read in SurahBaqarah 246 - 247

YUSUF ALI: Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israelafter (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appointfor us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah." He said: "Is it not possible, ifye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could werefuse to fight in the cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homesand our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back,except a small band among them. But Allah Has full knowledge of those who dowrong.

Their Prophet said to them: "(Allah) hath appointed Talut as king over you." Theysaid: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he toexercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said:

"(Allah) hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly withknowledge and bodily prowess: Allah Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth.



8/62

Page 8 of 62

Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things."

When the Israelites expressed a desire to have an Imam to lead them into Jihad, they wentdirectly to the Prophet, requesting that such a leader be appointed. If the duty to appoint theImam was the self determination of the people they would have never turned to the Prophetwith such a request, rather they would have themselves appointed an Imam, that is proof that

the Imam is a divine appointment, Shura does not even come into the equation. The Bani Israilwere fully aware of this, it was the established, known Sunnah that Allah (swt) appoints thatindividual that excels in knowledge and bravery amongst the Ummah.

The next portion of the verse Their Prophet said to them: "(Allah) hath appointed Talutas king over you" is clear evidence of Divine appointment, as it demonstrates that theappointment of the Imam, is not subject to the personal discretion of the Prophet (as), it is theright of Allah (swt) alone, the Prophet is responsible for conveying the divine appointment tothe people.

When the Prophet (s) is challenged over the appointment, he makes clear that the Divineappointment was based on knowledge and bravery that again proves the doctrine of divine

appointment on Imamate on the basis of superiority in the Ummah. There is nothing in thisverse that would support the Ibn al-Hashimi theory that Imamate of non Prophets is valid whenit is exercised through a Shura process, where the Ummah have a say in the process!

3. Reply Three - The egalitarian doctrine of Imamate through Shura wasnever the Sunnah for appointing those that Allah (swt) referred to asKhalifas Quranic evidences

A. The first ayat of appointment which negates shura

We read in Surah Nur verse 55 of the general doctrine of appointment of a khalifa:

God had promised you those of you who believe and do good deeds that He willcertainly appoint them Khalifas (thukhalifa) as He appointed successors (thukhalifa)those before him (Surah Nur 55)

Who wrote the Quran? God did, not shura. So tell us Ibn al Hashimi were those that Allah (swt)termed Khalifas appointed through the egalitarian method of Shura or not for such a notioncontradicts the sense of this ayat of the Quran itself? Ibn Hashimi is dangerously close toapostasy. God appoints the khalifa - he says so himself in the above ayat and many times morein the Book, as we shall show below. Yet only Shia Islam believes through Imamate that Godappoints the Khalifa, Sunni Islam follows the innovations of the companion-kings who appointedthemselves rulers (even shura when taken was taken at the point of a sword give bayat ordie).

B. The second ayat of appointment which negates shura

We read that Adam (as) was appointed khalifa by Allah (swt) not by man when we read thefamous verses concerning the Creation of Adam (as) in the Quran:

[Shakir 2:30] And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the

earth a khalif, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in itand shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said: Surely



9/62

Page 9 of 62

I know what you do not know.

It may be argued by those without firm faith in the Book and who seek to twist the words ofGod as they stand opposed to their ancestors beliefs that the word Khalifa refers to theprophethood of Adam [as] as he was not the Khalifa (successor) of someone else, he was thefirst human being on earth. Then we need to understand the meaning of the word Khalifa.

According to the Hans-Wehr English-Arabic dictionary page 257, it does not only meansuccessor, it means Vicar, deputy; successor. In this context it means succeed, occupyingposition, such as appoint someone to occupy a position. Thus Khaleefa does not equate withinheriting succession, it can also mean the first in a line of succession. Besides, God does notsay prophet, He says Khaleefa, so let us move on from this ridiculous argument if I use thename Peter I mean Peter not John, and if God says Khaleefa He means Khaleefa not Prophet,and God does not make mistakes.

We have seen in Nur verse 55 before that God appoints the Khaleefa, a fact that flies directly inthe face of any concept of shura and which in fact undermines the authority of any caliph-kingnot appointed by God and hence Sunni Islam itself. One pathetic defence hinted at by the SunniImam Jalal-ud-Din Suyuti may be that when God says He appoints the khalifa, in some vague

way this translated into the shura that led to the appointment of Abu Bakr by the Muslims whenthey gave him bayat (assuming this was even shura, which it was not since it was extracted atthe point of a sword, but the principle is the same). But this ayat, 2:30, negates the fact thatthe divine doctrine of appointment can be translated into the establishment of a khalifa byanyone other than God himself it is direct and clear-cut God means God, not anyone elseand not the shura process. Think very carefully and with all your attentiveness on this ayat. Itsactually quite straightforward and piercing what is being said here. Here in 2:30 God reiteratesthat He appoints the khalifa. He is talking about Adam (of course) here. Now, since there wasno nation or Ummah when Adam was created as he was the first man, then how can it beinterpreted that Gods command that HE appoints the khalifa translates into the shura by thenation? It cannot as there was no nation in the time of Adam (as), there was no other physicalhuman other than Adam (as). In fact, when Iblees (Satan) opposed the command to appoint

Adam (as) as Khaleefa (note the devil was thrown out not because he was jealous of Adam, butbecause he was jealous of the fact Adam was made khalifa whom He had to bow his headbelow), He was thrown out of Gods presence for refusing to accept Gods khalifa, and said hewould tempt humans on this matter above all till Judgment Day now look at the history ofman every prophet Khaleefa of Banu Israel had enemies inspired by Iblees, and Gods choiceof Khaleefa through Muhammad (saws)s verdict on Ali (as) was also attacked and the Muslimsdivided into factions on this only the Shia followed the Divinely appointed Khalifa andsuccessor Ali (as), the rest followed their own egos, and egos are the greatest temptation ofIblees! And nor did God listen to the angels who also questioned His decision to appoint Adam(as) khalifa. The attitudes and opinions of these other creations beyond the human nature wasirrelevant, only Gods will counted. God dismissed the majority of creations and threw theegalitarian views of the angels and their and Ibliss attempt at shura and consultation to appointa Khaleefa in the rubbish-bin of Creation. Allah (swt) admonished the angels attempts at shuraand consultation on this matter saying he hated it and gave his reason as: Surely I knowwhat you do not knowand they obeyed, and He cursed for eternity Iblees who continuedto uphold the belief that shura and consultation decide the khilafat and God vows to throwIblees and those like him in the fire for this failure and its consequences, and this would be themajority of men. This negates the view that the appointment of a khalifa by the Ummah orcompanions through shura or consultation (and indeed any non-divine means) can beconstrued as being in any way divine and shatters the legitimacy of shura or consultation in thisprocess as a challenge to Gods words Himself. It is contradictory to the divine commandmentwhich echoes through the aeons of man since God condemned shura and consultation in favorof His decision in appointing the khalifa. This is a shocking unveiling of the true level ofdisobedience of the early companions to God even though the religion they created was that ofthe majority of Muslims. The only person for whom divine appointment to the khilafat by God

and His Prophet is advanced is Ali (as) and the other 12 Imams of the Shias who are the caliphsto the Seal of Prophets.



10/62

Page 10 of 62

C. A third non-egalitarian ayat which negates shura

In the same way we read the appointment of Dawud (as):

O Dawud verily We have you a khalifa in the earth (The Quran 38:26)

Again if this referred to his appointment of Prophet why did Allah (swt) not use the termProphet? Why did he use the term Khalifa? Why does God in the Holy Book keep coming againand again to the word KHALIFA and the fact HE appoints the khalifa? This was because of thesame reasons we highlighted above because of the trend through human history, here with thepeople of Dawud (David) (as), in which Iblees is tempting people by trying to get them tooppose Gods chosen leader. And it is in the Quran as Allah (swt) obviously both KNEW it wason this issue the Muslims would divide and so He would note it even more in the Quran toguide them to the saved sect the Twelver Shia who believe as in the Quranic injunction thatGod appoints the khalifa (Imam), and the Sunni who deviated and followed the self-styled post-prophet companion-kings who founded their own institution based upon a variety of modes ofappointment, not one of them divine. Hadhrath Dawud (as) was the Khalifa of his father, heinherited the mantle of leadership after him (as). If Shura to appoint a successor is the correctmethod, then why did Allah (swt) appoint Dawud (as) without shura - this prevented theUmmah from the opportunity to decide on the matter themselves. Was the appointmentegalitarian in nature? Clearly not, yet Allah (swt) brought it on Himself (swt) to appoint theKhalifa.

We hence discern quite clearly from the Quran that the appointment of a khalifa is non-egalitarian. It may not sound politically correct in todays world, but that is the truth khilafat isnon-egalitarian, not open to all and sundry, and nor is Ibn Hashmis shura at the point of asword open to all candidates, as he would like people to believe and as we shall later show.Indeed, while in Shia Islam God appoints the khalifa, all of whom were pure and pious menwhether from Banu Israel or Banu Hashim, in Sunni Islam what is called shura is not only

innovation but a ruse for political corruption as we shall come to (regrets if anyone feelings arehurt, that is not the purpose, but fact is factthe early Islamic caliphate was a politically corrupthouse even if it in lived Abu Bakr followed by Omar, after all it was a submission to thetemptation of Iblees who rebelled against the caliphs appointed by Allah (sawt)).

D. A fourth non-egalitarian ayat negating shura

Further evidence of the non-egalitarian doctrine of appointment can be gauged from theappointment of the third Khalifa mentioned in the Quran, Hadhrath Harun (as). When Musa(as) went to Mount Tur, he appointed Harun as Khalifa directly.

...And Musa said unto his brother Haroon: Take my place (as khalifa) among thepeople. (The Quran 7:142)

In English the one Arabic word ukhulfnichosen by Allah in 7:142 has been translated, asabove, as Take my place.... ukhulfniis the root origin of the Arabic word Khalifa(Caliph). The indirect transliteration is simply from a Sunni translator trying to hide the wordkhalifa. Musa (as) is acting on Gods instructions as His prophet.

Prophet Musa (as) didnt apply any egalitarian principle, he did not tell the people to adoptShura to appoint a Khalifa whilst he was absent. Rather than adopt a principle that Ibn alHashimi dictates as fair and correct, he appointed Haroon directly, without any consultation

from his people. The Ummah were given no say in the process. Even for this short period ofabsence of forty days, Musa (as) ensured that he has a Khalifa to lead the people in hisabsence. In Tafsir Maarif ul Quran, under his commentary of this verse, Mufti Muhammad Shafi



11/62

Page 11 of 62

Deobandi stresses the importance of appointing a deputy. Under the heading Making onesdeputy when neededhe writes as follows:

The Prophet Musa (as) made it a point to appoint Sayyidna Harun (as) as hisdeputy when he intended to leave for the mount of Sinai and said that he shouldtake responsibility of his people in his absence. This makes it imperative for those

who hold some responsible office that they appoint someone to look after the workin their absence.

If it is imperative for those in office to appoint a deputy in their absence is it not of greaterimportance when the person in office is permanently departing from this world? Was theProphet (saws) not fearful that because of his disputes, problems that would occur after him?

The Sunni doctrine of non-appointment will be mentioned though it is dealt with thoroughly inanother work of ours. The cornerstone of contemporary Sunni Islam for hundreds of years isthe doctrine of non-appointment. It is the absurdist of absurdities. It is that the Holy Prophet(saws) made no arrangements for his succession despite knowing his departure from thisworld approached and despite it being mandatory to make a will in Islam, neither did the Holy

Prophet (saws):1. appoint a successor2. arrange a system of succession e.g. council, voting, verbal direction

Yet EVERY leader has done one or both of the above as his departure from the worldapproaches as without a leader or system by which one be appointed society is left in a state ofanarchy leaderless and that is the lowest and most desperate state of any society, so lowthat it ceases to be a true society. And while even the most incompetent leaders in humanhistory have made arrangements for a succession, Sunni Islam would have us believe our greatand enlightened Prophet Mohammad (saws) left none despite him being even more in aposition of responsibility to people - Mohammad (saws) was the Seal of Prophets, he was

contending with civil war in central Arabia with apostates marching on Madina, foreign armiesinvading from Byzantium necessitating him dispatching the army of Usama, pus the day to day,hour to hour, minute to minute problems of governing a nation as its supreme leader in allaffairs. The Sunni world however believes Mohammad (saws) did neither despite this greatmantle of responsibility neither did he appoint a successor or leave a system of succession he did nothing, issuing no guidance though he was in fact more qualified to guide than anyman. Instead the companions took over, and did what they had to. Shia Islam believesMohammad (saws) on behalf of God as His Seal of Prophets (saws) was a most responsibleleader who in accordance with these ayats we are discussing with regard to Gods direction ingeneral and specific direction to His prophets:

1. appointed a successor to the Seal of Prophets, mentioning Ali (as) as the Imam tosucceed him in this role abundant times culminating in the formal declaration at

Ghadhir Khumm2. arranged a system of succession non-egalitarian appointment in the manner of theImams of Banu Israel mentioned in the Quran Imamate of 12 Imams from Ali (a) toMohammad Mahdi (as).

The astonishing Sunni doctrine of non-appointment suggests a missing link in Islam and as it isso fundamental it is not surprising that the rest of the Sunni outlook is also prone to absencesfrom reality and rationality entering the level of the absurd frequently. On the other hand theShia doctrine is fully vouched for by the Quran.

Musa (as) foresaw of such a risk, even though he was leaving temporarily for Mount Tur, andyet Muhammad (s) it is suggested never envisaged such a risk despite the world fragmenting

around him in his own lifetime with apostates rising in central Arabic against him and Byzantiuminvading. Amazingly the Sahaba are praised for their foresightedness by not attending the



12/62

Page 12 of 62

funeral of the Prophet (s) and giving the succession of Muhammad (s) a greater priority, a signto many of their base insincerity and hunger for power over and above all else (in short AbuBakr walked out on the funeral of the Holy Prophet (saws) to lead a coup detat and returnedwith a crown on his head as King of the Arabs, and we are expected to applaud this in SunniIslam). Interestingly Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehalvi states in Izalatul Khifa, page 52:

The way Prophethood is not achieved by a man on endeavoring on his own,similarly the special Khilafat of prophet is also not achieved by someone becomingKhalifa by himself or people appointing him as Khalifa, nor can it take placeautomatically, rather it is in the hands of Allah that whoever He wishes, only he canbe the rightful Khalifa

This certainly was not the case with the appointment of Abu Bakr. Ponder over the conceptcarefully. The Khalifa is one that takes the position of another, one that implements the workon behalf of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). When God appoints a Prophet as Khalifa, he isimplementing the Khilafat of God, and when a Khalifa is appointed following the Prophet (s), heis implementing the work of that Prophet (s). In both circumstances the appointment of both isthe right of Allah (swt) exclusively and the term Khalifa is common, and it refers to one that

represents Allah (swt) or his Prophet, and the appointment of both are by Allah (swt) alone. Nogroup whether they be people of power of influence, through ijmaa or Shura, have a say in theprocess, they were never allowed to appoint a Prophet and likewise they have no right toappoint the successor to the Seal of Prophets (saws), this right remains exclusive to Allah (swt)alone. Allah [swt] in the verse cited below chose the word Khalifa which is general and didntuse the words prophet and this was to show that whether it is the Khilafat of Allah [swt] or theKhilafat of any prophet, its is Allah alone who reserves the right to make one . Allah has clearlystated:

033.036[YUSUFALI]:It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided byAllah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys

Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

4. Reply Four The egalitarian doctrine of Imamate through Shura wasnot the Sunnah of past Prophets historical evidences show theprophets practiced non-egalitarian appointment

For this reply it is apt to also address a challenge thrown down to us by the same Ibn alHashimi in his article Why Prophet Muhammad Did Not Have a Wasi:

Ibn al Hashimi states:It should also be noted that the concept that

every Messenger had a Wasi is simply false; theShia have simply named two Messengers whowere alive at the time of two other Messengers.Let them back up their claim: there are twenty-five Messengers mentioned in the Quran; howmany of them had any such Wasi and if so whatwere their names? Simply naming twoMessengers who were coincidentally alive at thesame time as two others, does not at all provethe Shias doctrine. Where in the Quran is theword Wasi mentioned? In fact, the entireconcept of Wasi is alien to Islam and it was

brought into Islam by the likes of Ibn Saba whosepurpose was to destroy the Finality of



13/62

Page 13 of 62

Prophethood. There was no concept of Wasi inIslam, and it was Ibn Saba who brought thisblameworthy innovation into the faith of Islam.

If anything this proves the shocking lack of knowledge that this self proclaimed defender of theman made khalifa system is. All this Nasibi could have done was pick up any book of Islamichistory to see that the doctrine of appointing a Wasi, rather than being alien to Islam, was theSunnah of past Prophets!

If we look at the annals of Islamic history, we will find that the Khalifas of Prophets, and theirexecutors were not appointed through any form of consultation process. They were divinelyappointed. We will consider accepting the principle of Shura for the Khalifas of Sunni Islam asvalid if it can be proved that previous Khalifas were appointed via the same process. If we canhowever prove that the Khalifas and Wasis (inheritors) of the Prophets were appointed by themdirectly, then the very substance of the Sunni argument falls apart, unless Sunni Muslims wishto deny intellectual reasoning. We proved this however from the Quran in the precedingsections, even pointing out how Sunni translators have sought to subdue the use of the wordkhalifa by God through mistranslating the original Arabic text so that a non-Arabic reader is

misled. Here we show the proofs that Imamate comes from God as a divine covenant in Sunnihistory and which is reminiscent of the covenant between prophets and God in other sacredtexts (Bible and Torat) i.e. is not a new theme.

We have already shown from the Quran that Allah (swt) appointed Adam as Khalifa. Whatfollowed was the doctrine of direct appointment. We read in the History of Tabari Volume 1page 324:

When Adam was about to die, he called his son Seth and appointed him as hisheirHe wrote his last will addressed to him. Seth reportedly was the legatee of hisfather Adam, so after Adams death, political leadership fell to him.

History of Tabari Volume 1 page 324

Seth likewise appointed his successor:

When Seth fell ill, he reportedly appointed his son Enosh as his legatee.History of Tabari, Volume 1 page 335

After the passing of his father Seth, Enosh took over the political administration ofthe realm and the guidance of the subjects under his control in place his fatherSeth

History of Tabari, Volume 1 page 336

Enosh then appointed a successor:

Enosh begot Kenan and numerous other children. Kenan was his legatee. He begotMahalalel and other children in addition. Mahalalel was his legatee. He begot Jared(Yarid) and other children in addition. Jared was his legatee. He begot Enoch thatis, Prophet Idris and other children in addition. Enoch begot Methuselah and otherchildren in addition. Methuselah was his legatee. He begot Lamech and otherchildren in addition. Lamech was his legatee.


About Jared (Yarid) mentioned in between in the last reference, Tabari expands on him:

He was the legatee and successor of his father, according to what his fatherMahalalel had set down in his last will addressed to him when he made him his

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p324.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p324.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p335.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p335.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p335.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p324.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p324.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p335.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p336.jpg


14/62

Page 14 of 62

successor after his death.


Similarly, Tabari expands about Enoch or Idris [as] in these words:

He was the legatee of his father Jared and was exhorted to act in accordance withwhat his forefathers had stated in their last wills addressed to him, and to eachother.History of Tabari, Volume 1 page 343

These last two explanations about Jared and his son Enoch are clearly pointing out thephenomenon of Nass that we discussed earlier in the article.

In the list of messengers we cited earlier from Tabari, the last one was Lamech who was thefather of Prophet Noah [as]. Now if we move on to the appointment of Noahs successor, Ibn

Athir has recorded:

::

.

When time of death approached Hadrath Noah, people asked to him: How did youfind the word?. He replied: Like a house which have two doors, I entered from oneof those while I exit from the other and appointed my son Saam as my legateeTareekh Kamil, Volume 1 page 29

Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H) stated in his book Subul al-Hudawa al-Reshad Volume 1 page 314:

: .: .

Al-Nawawi (may Allahs mercy be upon him) said: When death came to Noah, heappointed his son Saam as his legatee, he (Saam) was born before the flood by 98years. It has been said that Saam is his elder son. Ibn Hisham said: He was theWasi of his father and he is the Wali of the people of earth.

Subul al-Huda wa al-Reshad, Volume 1 page 314

Ibrahim [as] too appointed his Wasi as recorded by Mohammad bin Khawand Shah (d. 903 H)in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 52:

When the angel of death came to Ibrahim in order to seize his soul, Ibrahimdemanded some time and specified a time for seizing his soul. Then he got busy insome religious and worldly matters. He deemed the completion of those matters as

most important, and He appointed his son Isaac as his Wali and Khalifa in Syria.

According to Mohammad bin Khawand Shah (d. 903 H) in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 pages 62-63Isaac appointed his son Yaqub as his Wasi. Then:

Yaqub appointed his son Yusuf [as] as his legateeTarikh Tabari, Volume 1 page 203

Then:

He (Yusuf) appointed his son Yahoza as his legateeTarikh Tabari, Volume 1 page 203

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p342.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p342.jpghttp://islamport.com/d/1/ser/1/19/214.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/ser/1/19/214.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/ser/1/19/214.htmlhttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p342.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v1_p342.jpghttp://islamport.com/d/1/ser/1/19/214.html


15/62

Page 15 of 62

Prophet Ayub [as] too appointed his Wasi. As we read in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 100:

Close to his death, he appointed Homal as his Wasi and Wali, who was the mostpious among his sons

Tabari likewise recorded:

When Ayub reached to the age of 93, he appointed his son Homel as his legateebefore death, and God sent after him his son Bashr- son of Ayub as a prophet andcalled him Zu-lkifl and ordered him to propagate the oneness of God, he lived inSyria for the whole of his life till he died, he died when he was 75 years old, andBeshr appointed his son Ebsan as his legateeTarikh Tabari, Volume 1 page 195

Prophet Musa [as] likewise appointed his successor:

"Then Moses set out, making Aaron his vice-regent over the Children of Israel.

History of Tabari, English translation Volume 3 page 72

But Harun [as] died during the lifetime of Musa [as] thus Musa [as] once again appointed hisWasi as recorded in Rauzatus Safa, Volume 1 page 128:

On the 7th of the month of Azaar, Musa gathered his people and conducted a hugegathering, He [as] then appointed Yusha as his Khalifa and Wasi, after giving BaniIsrail into the protection of Allah, He [as] handed them over to Yusha and instructedhim to look after their affairs. After declaring the obedience and Hujjah of Yusha onthem, Musa [as] said to them: Among the people of God, I have appointed a man asKhalifa over you who is distinguished from you in terms of sincerity and have alsotaken Allah and his angels as witness. You people should not be careless about mywill

Then:

Allah appointed Kalb bin Yuftana (Caleb b. Jephunneh) as Khalifa over Bani IsrailTarikh Kamil, Volume 1 page

Mohammad bin Khawand Shah records about it in these words:Yusha bin Nun called Kalb bin Yaftana and gave him caliphate and died aftermaking him his Wasi and vicegerentRauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 134

Tabari records about it in these words:

Caleb b. Jephunneh was the one in charge of the affairs of the Israelites afterJoshua b. Nun, then Ezekiel b. Buzi after himHistory of Tabari, English translation Volume 3 page 118

Then we read:

When the signs of death appeared to Kalb bin Yaftana, he handed over the

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v31_p72.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v31_p72.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v31_p72.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v31_p72.jpg


16/62

Page 16 of 62

caliphate to his son Yusa TausRauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 135

Iliyas [a]s too appointed his Wasi, as we read in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 138:

One day Allah [swt] revealed to Iliyas [as] that he was to hand over the caliphateto Yasie

Then we read:

When Yase realized that it (death) was imminent, he called Zul Kifl and handedover the caliphate to him and then gave his soul to God

We read in History of Tabari, English translation Volume 3 page 121:

When God took Caleb b. Jephunneh after Joshuas death, He appointed as asuccessor among the Israelites Ezekiel b. Buzi.

The successor of Hadrath Sheya was also not appointed by general public rather Allah [swt]appointed him, as we read in Tarikh Tabari, Volume 1 page 320:

After Sheya, Allah [swt] appointed a man from Bani Israil namely Yashebah binAmus

Prophet Isa [as] too appointed his successor on the orders of Allah [swt] rather than his nationinterfering into the matter:

Amongst the wills left by Isa [as] a will was: Allah has instructed me to appointShmaun (Simon) as caliph over you. The people accepted his caliphate

Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 154

We see that Jesus companions had NO say in the matter God told Jesus to appoint SimonPeter his successor as Imam and Jesus complied, just as Mohammad (saws) would do the samewith Ali (as).

We see from these examples from Prophet Adam [as] until Isa [as] each appointed theirsuccessor directly, as instructed by Allah [swt]. There is no evidence that previous Prophets andtheir Successors (whether prophets or khalifas) were appointed by the Ummah via consultation(Shura). A doctrine of appointment that Ibn al Hashimi deems non egalitarian was the Sunnahof past Prophets. Why did this, without reason change when Prophet Muhammad (s) passedaway? Of course it did not. Each past Prophet (s) openly declared who their successor would

be, there is no evidence for abrogation of this practice with Muhammad (s)? This is all the moreunbelievable when one considers this verse:

[YUSUFALI: 033.062](Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: Nochange wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.

Sural al Fath verse 12:

Such has been) the practice of Allah already in the past: no change wilt thou find inthe practice of Allah.

Does Allah (swt) not say that no change will you see in the Sunnah so why did this onechange according to the Ahlul Sunnah? Certainly it didnt. The fact that all previous Prophetsappointed their successors directly as instructed by Allah [swt] and there is no change in the



17/62

Page 17 of 62

practice of Allah [swt]. We now present the following verse:

These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance (6:90)

The verse asks Prophet Muhammad [s] to follow what previous prophets did. Mufti MuhammadShaafi Deobandi in Tafsir Maarif ul Quran, Volume 3 page 411 says as follows in his

commentary of this verse:

What then, would be the meaning of asking the Holy Prophet (s) to follow the wayof the past Prophets and act in accordance with it? Keeping in view other Quranicverses and narrations of Hadith, the answer here is that the command here does notapply to the following of the way of past prophets in all partial and subsidiaryaspects of injunctions. In fact, the purpose is to adhere to the basic principles ofreligion which include Tauhid (Oneness of Allah) Risalah (Prophethood) and Akhirah(Hereafter) as has been their way. They never changed in the law of any Prophet.From Sayidina Adam (as) to the Last of all Prophets (s), all Prophets have beenadhering to one belief and one way

If the Prophet (s) was being told to adhere to the Sunnah of the previous Prophets thatremained the same throughout i.e. the generic theme that all followed, then exactly the samegoes for the practice of appointing a successor. We have proven from the books of Tareekhthat appointing a successor was through one sole method, that of direct appointment. We willonce again quote the last sentence of Mufti Muhammad Shaafi From Sayidina Adam (as) tothe Last of all Prophets (s), all Prophets have been adhering to one belief and oneway.Hence, Prophet Muhammad [s] indeed didnt abandon the guidance of previous prophetsand when He [s] was instructed "And warn your tribe of near kindred..." (26: 214), He [s]summoned his close relatives and delivered this speech, the first call to Islam:

Al-Fadl bin Sahl- Afan bin Muslim- Abu Awana- Uthman bin al-Mughira- Abi Sadeq-Rabeea bin Najed narrated that a man came to Ali and said: Oh commander of

believers, why only you inherited your cousin without your uncle? He (Ali) replied:The messenger of Allah invited the children of Abdulmutalib and he cooked for themfood, they ate till they get fulfilled and the food remained as if no one had touchedit, then he (the prophet) brought water and all of them drank from it, but the waterremained as if no one had touched it or drank from it.Then he (the prophet) said: Oh children of Abdulmutalib, I have been sent to youspecially and to the people in general, and you saw the sign of that, therefore whoamong you give baya to be my brother, my companion, my inheritor and myminister.No one responded for that, hence I responded and I was the youngest among them,he (the prophet) said: Sit down for three times. I responded and He say Sit down,till the third time he clapped by his hand on my thigh and said: You are my brother,companion, inheritor and minister. Hence I inherited my cousin without my uncle.Khasais by Imam Nesai, page 85

al-Fadal bin Sahl:Ibn Hajar said: Seduq(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p11).Afan bin Muslim:Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah Thabt(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p679).Abu Awana:Ibn Hajar said:Thiqah Thabt(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p282). Uthman bin al-Mughira:Ibn Hajar said:Thiqah(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p665).Abu Sadeq al-Azdi:Ibn Hajar said: Seduq(Taqribal-tahdib, v2, p417). Rabeea bin Najed:Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1,p298).

If Ibn al Hashimi tries to argue that the doctrine of Khilafat does not come under this thenSurah Nur destroys such a notion since Allah (swt) takes personal responsibility to appointKhalifas as he had done in the past. Let us look at that verse again:

God had promised you those of you who believe and do good deeds that he will



18/62

Page 18 of 62

certainly appoint them Khalifas (thukhalifa) as he appointed successors (thukhalifa)those before him (Surah Nur 55)

So was Adam appointed through some Shura process involving discussions between the Creatorand his Angels? Was Dawood (as) appointed through some secret meeting inside a smallmeeting room? Was Harun (as) appointed through a Shura committee before Musa (as) set out

to collect the Ten Commandments? The answer is no, all were appointed divinely.

No previous Prophet (s) allowed his successor to be appointed via Shura, he appointed hissuccessor publicly during his lifetime. Rasulullah (s) would never have left an issue as importantas Khilafat to the choice of the people through Shura. He just like the Sunnah of past Prophetsdeclared his Khalifa before he left this earth. We believe that he appointed Imam Ali (as).

5. Reply Five - According to Sunni sources Rasulullah (s) said that Allah(swt) designates leadership

The early books that deal with Seerah and Tarikh record the invitation of Rasulullah to theMakkan tribes to embrace Islam, and support him. Some placed a conditional acceptance of theoffer provided they be given the station of Khilafat after the death of the Prophet (s). Rasulullah(s) stated explicitly that he could not agree to any such condition, rather this was a matter that

Allah (swt) alone rules on. In this regards we read in the History of Tabari Volume 6 page121:

He went to the Banu Amir b. Sasaaah called them to God and offered himself tothem. One of them called Bayharah Bin Firas addressed at him, By God if I couldtake this young man from Quraysh I could conquer all the Arabs with him. Then hesaid, Do you think that if we follow you and God gives you victory over youropponents we shall have the command after you?. He replied Command belongsto God, who places it where He wills.

This narration informs us that the Arab mentality at the time, they requested a share of thecommand Amr namely a right to leadership after him (s). The reply of Rasulullah (s) to theKuffar leaves us with no doubt that the decision to appoint the Imam to succeed Rasulullah (s)is based upon the appointment by Allah (swt) alone. If Imamate that succeeds the Prophet (s)was a right to the people, then why didnt the Prophet (s) say This matter will be left in thehands of the people, who will be given free to devise a process for appointing whoever theyliked?The reply given by Rasulullah (s) renders the doctrine of man made appointed throughmethods such as self appointment, ijmaa, shura null and void.

6. Reply Six The founding fathers of Sunni Imamate were not appointedthrough Shura

Turning to the assertion itself the advocacy skills of these Nawasib is so poor that they advancedefenses for the hero clients that their posthumous clients never themselves even claimed, partof the cult of grossly exaggerated and unjustifiable reverence for the institution of thecompanions. Dont take our word for it, allow us to produce the testimony of the chief architectof Saqifa, Umar ibn al Khattab whose comments negate any suggestion of the legitimacy ofthe Shura system, for Umar himself notes that it was a system of might is right. Shura wouldsuggest that people enter into some system of consultation to appoint a Khalifa, legitimacy isbased on some group exercise whereby they collectively arrive at decision over the best man.This certainly did not occur in the case of Abu Bakr. The debate that took place in Saqifa wasbetween the Ansar and three Muhajirin present in the thatched house of Saqifa (a former

gambling den, brothel and liquor house on the outskirts of Madina where it was alleged suchevil things still took place hidden away from the authorities we are not saying the Sahaba



19/62

Page 19 of 62

were drinking there at the time of the meeting, but this is the nature of the venue for themeeting it was a sordid venue far away from where pious Muslims might chance uponmatters). Umar recommended Abu Bakr be given the bayya and others followed suit. There wasno consultation with any other Sahabi, esteemed figures like Ali [as], Ibn Abbas (ra), Talha,Zubayr and others were never party to any form of consultation process. They didnt even seektheir opinions before setting out to the Saqifa. Umar sought to curb any efforts to replicate his

method of appointment because it was devoid of consultation, saying:

I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if 'Umar shoulddie, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should notdeceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was givensuddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (thepeople) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of AbuBakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among youwithout consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whomthe pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should bekilled.Sahih Bukhari, Arabic-English Volume 8 hadith number 817, page 540

Umar was making it clear that Abu Bakars election was a sudden thing, devoid of invitationand consultation, and any efforts to repeat it would result in death. Curiously this penaltywasnt devised till Umar became Khalifa, again in the absence of Shura. We have his owntestimony when he responded to pressure to appoint a Khalifa:

If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (Hemeant Abu Bakr.)Sahih Muslim Kitab al Amara Book 020, Number 4485

Notice that there is no shura in this statement, Umar is making it clear that his rise to powerwas through the direct appointment of Abu Bakr. The Sunni world is proud to say that as Abu

Bakr lay dying on his deathbed, he said Umar would succeed him and that is how Umar becamethe second khalifa. The word of one man is not shura or a democratic process. So any attemptby Sunni Islam to pretend the appointment of their Khulafa-e-rashideen does not amount toshura, it is a conception of their imagination, with the exception somewhat ironically of Imam

Ali [as] and Imam Hasan [as] appointed by general elections.

Ibn al-Hashimi has therefore lied to the Sunnis Muslims reading his article that the khulafa-e-rashideen were appointed by shura how can Abu Bakr appointing Umar be shura (it was oneking proclaiming his best friend the next king no one else voted, it was Abu Bakrs commandthat Umar succeed him, and that was that no election, no committee, no constitutional ortribal process, nothing else).

Truly, Ibn al-Hashimi s gift is in the ability to make old wives stories superficially believable.When it came to the appointment of the third Khalifa, this was again formulated by Umar (thegodfather of Sunni Islam), and it was at this point that for the first time a primitive but corruptand rigged version of the shura system was invented to appoint the Imam. Prior to this therewas no concept of the Shura Ibn Hashimi wants us to believe in its simply Sunni fairytales.This process was the mastermind of the ijtihad of Umar, it never existed previously. Those whouphold the doctrine of appointing a Khalifa without justification from the Quran and Sunnahadvance this Umars method as the correct one, even though neither Rasulullah [s] nor AbuBakr implemented this method. This was not a concept that Umar was completely happy with,rather he viewed a lesser alternative to appointment by text. We have his frank admission:

If my term overtakes me, and Abu Ubaydah al Jarrah is still alive, then I wouldappoint him as Khalifa. If my Lord asked me, I would say, I heard the Prophet, may

Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying Every Prophet has a trustworthy(companion), and my trustworthy companion is Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah. If my



20/62

Page 20 of 62

time overtakes me and Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah has died, I would appoint Muadhibn Jabal as Khalifas. If my Lord asked me Why did you appoint him as a Khalifah, Iwould say, I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sayingHe will be raised up on the Day of Resurrection a distance in front of the men ofknowledge. They had both died during his Khalifah.

Tarikh'ul Khulafa, page 135

According to Umar had these people been alive, the notion of Shura would not have even comeinto the equation, he would have appointed them all directly. He was openly advocatingappointing people through nass, so where does that leave the doctrine of shura? This admissionproves that the shura process that Ibn al-Hashimi worships was not even fully supported byUmar!

Coming to the process the Umar engineered there is little evidence to suggest that amechanism that condemned dissenting voices to death could ever be deemed egalitarian innature! When he was dying we read his directions:

To Suhayb he said Lead the people in prayer for three days. Let into [the

deliberations] Ali, Uthman, al-Zubayr Sad, Abd al Rahman b. Awf and Talah, if hearrives. Have Abdullah b. Umar present, but he shall have nothing to do with thematter [of the actual appointment]. Sat with them and if five agree to approve ofone man, but one refuses, smash in his head, or strike it off with a sword. If fouragree to approve of one man, but two refuse, cut off the [latters heads. If threeapprove of one of them, and three approve of another, get Abdullah b. Umar tomake a decision. Let whichever party in favor of which he makes his judgmentselect one of themselves. If they do not accept Abdullah b. Umars judgment, be onthe same side as Abd al Rahman b. Awf. Kill the rest if they do not go along with thegeneral consensus.History of Tabari, Volume 14 pages 146-147

We appeal to justice. How is it just to have a process wherein the appointment of a Khalifa overthe Muslims is restricted to six men from Madina, all of whom happy to be the Quraysh? Canthis be deemed egalitarian in nature? Moreover a Shura wherein participant are under thethreat of death of they do not support the majority can never fall within the definition ofegalitarianism wherein all have a free choice in their choice of successor. If Ibn al-Hashimiquestions why Imam Ali (as) participated in this unjust process, then we will say it was merelyto expose how rigged the process was. We can evidence this, by citing his own statement:

Al Abbas came to him, and [Ali] said, (The caliphate) has slipped from us! (Al-Abbas) asked him how he knew. He continued, Umar paired me with Uthman andtold us [all] to fall in with the majority. If two approve of one, and two another [hesaid], we should be on the same side as Abd al Rahman b. Awf. Sad will not goagainst his cousin, Abd al Rahman who is related by marriage to Uthman. They willall (three) agree in their opinion. Abd al Rahman will appoint Uthman to thecaliphate or Uthman will appoint Abd al Rahman.History of Tabari, Volume 14 pages 147

When just as Imam Ali (as) predicted Abd al Rahman b. Awf gave bayya to Uthman, he said:

You have always been partial in his favor! This is not the first time you have bandedagainst us

How can a rigged wherein appointment based on the familial ties of six men, be egalitarian?

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_Khulfa_p135.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_Khulfa_p135.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_Khulfa_p135.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_Khulfa_p135.jpg


21/62

Page 21 of 62

7. Reply Seven The Sahaba Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) attested to the factthat the Sahaba ignored the doctrine of divine appointment

We shall now present to our readers a debate that can best be described as one of the earliest

documented debates on the doctrine of Imamah, between Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra), and thechief architect of the doctrine of man made Imamah, Khalifa Umar ibn al Khattab. In it, IbnAbbas affirmed that Alllah (swt) had appointed a Leader, but the Quraysh ignored thisappointment. Al Tabari the discussion as follows:

"(Umar) said, "Do you know, Ibn Abbas, what kept your people from [being put]over (Quraysh) after Muhammad's death". I did not want to answer, so I said, "If Ido not know then the Commander of the Faithful will tell me". Umar said, "Theywere unwilling for you to combine the Prophethood and the caliphate, lest youmagnify yourselves among your own people and be proud. Quraysh made the choicefor themselves; they were right and have been granted success". I said, Commanderof the Faithful, if you permit me and not get angry with me, I shall speak". Heallowed me to do so, so I said "As for you saying, Commander of the Faithful, thatQuraysh have made their choice for themselves and that they were right and havebeen granted success, if Quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as Goddid for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied. As for yoursaying that (Quraysh) were averse to the Prophethood and caliphate being ours,God has described one people as being averse and said, "This is because they wereaverse to what God revealed, so He made their works fruitless'". 'Umar said, "Farfrom it indeed, Ibn Abbas. I used to hear things about you of which I was reluctantto inquire, lest they bring about your removal from your position with me". I said, .

The History of Tabari, Volume 14, English translation, by G. Rex Smith, p137-138

We can see from the tradition clearly that in the words of Umar, the Quraysh were unwillingfor you to combine the Prophethood and the caliphate, lest you magnify yourselvesamong your own people and be proudThen the stance of Umar Quraysh made thechoice for themselves; they were right and have been granted success

The rebuttal of Ibn Abbas is particularly relevant to our discussion. He states: if Quraysh hadmade the same choice for themselves as God did for them, then right would betheirs, unrejected and unenvied. These words prove that the Quraysh had adopted anapproach that did not concur with the choice that Allah (swt) had made. Ibn al Hashimi you canbark and scream all you like, and assert that the supposed Shura of Abu Bakr was legitimate,and that divine appointment is a nonsense, but the statement of Ibn Abbas destroys the houseof Shura upon which your entire article rests! We see a clear acknowledgement from thisrenowned Sahaba that Allah (swt) had appointed from the Banu Hashim, a Khalifa over the

Ummah, to succeed the Seal of al Prophets, Muhammad al Mustafa (s). It is interesting to notethat Nawasib often claim that the doctrine of the divine appointment in relation to the Imamah,was concocted by Abdullah Ibn Saba, who appeared on the scene during the reign of Uthmanibn al Affan. Ibn Abbas made it clear to Umar that the succession to Muhammad was via divineappointment, so where did he attain this belief from? Was there some earlier proto type of IbnSaba on the scene, or should we not accept the fact that Allah (swt) had indeed divinelyappointed a Leader and the Quraysh chose to ignore that appointment? If the belief of Ibn

Abbas, as is espoused by the Shia was something alien to Islam, why did Khailfa Umar notrebuke him, for adhering to a unislamic belief? Rather than switch to defaming the BanuHashim would it not have been better to correct the devious beliefs of Ibn Abbas, in relation tothe divinely appointed Imamah? The failure of Umar to correct this statement of Ibn Abbasserves as concrete proof that his belief that Allah (swt) appointed a Khalifa after Muhammad

(sa) was a completely legitimate one. If (according to Ahlul Sunnah) all the Sahaba are justand truthful, then why do they not embrace the words of the just and truthful Ibn Abbas on the

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_altabari_v14_p136-138.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_altabari_v14_p136-138.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_altabari_v14_p136-138.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_altabari_v14_p136-138.jpg


22/62

Page 22 of 62

topic of divinely appointed Imamah? Ibn al Hashimi tell us what concept of Imamate should weadhere to? The man made doctrine advanced by Umar, or the divine one that Ibn Abbasmentions the Sahaba chose to ignore?



23/62

Page 23 of 62

3. Chapter Three Is the act of Bayya the pre-requisite forbeing the lawful Sunni Khalifa?

In this chapter we shall seek to discuss a truly amazing revision of history by Ibn al Hashmi.

History testifies that the founding forefathers of the Khailafath were appointed throughmethods such as at a gathering at Saqeefa (Abu Bakr), direct appointment by the predecessor(Umar) or through a six man Shura Committee. Ibn al Hashimi asks his Sunni readers to ridthemselves of this fact. He in fact suggests that these three methods were not appointments,rather they were merely nominations. The matter was then referred on to the public and it wastheir act of bayya that in effect rubber stamped these nominations. Let us leave it to Ibn alHashimi to explain this incredible take on Islamic history:

Ibn al Hashimi states:the general public gave their Bayat (pledge ofallegiance) to show their acceptance of each ofthese nominations. As is apparent, this system of

nomination was egalatarian in spirit andconsistent with fairness.

8. Reply One The Imamate of Abu Bakr was not dependent upon thebayya of the Ummah

This is completely false. Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to suggest that the bayya administered toAbu Bakr at Saqifa, his appointing Umar directly, and the 6 man Shura that lead to theappointment of Uthman were merely nominations this is completely falsely. The debate thatoccurred in Saqifa was over who succeed the Prophet [s] as his successor, and when Umar putforward the name of Abu Bakar that is a nomination, but immediately without anyconsultation administered bayya to Abu Bakr, it was not bayya to a nominated Khalifa, rather itwas bayya to a man that he recognized as the Khalifa and wanted others to recognize likewise!We would challenge Ibn al-Hashimi to produce any source that would evidence the Shaykhayninforming the Sahaba that Abu Bakr had been nominated as Khalifa and the public now had tovote on the validity of the nomination. If there was merely a nomination, then Umar shouldhave asked for an adjournment of the meeting and held back giving bayya, by insisting thatshura needed to take place. He could have then brought this nomination before the Sahaba atthe Mosque of the Prophet [s] in Madina, set out why he backed this nomination and then afterconsultation with the Sahaba left it them to decided whether to recognize Abu Bakr as theKhalifa of the Prophet [s]. We would be keen to know of the Islamic justification for the actualmethod used by Umar wherein he issued the name of a nominee and then automatically gavebayya to him, thus excluding every other Sahaba from having a say in the process! One bayya

was secured inside Saqifa from Abu Ubayda and the Ansar, once success was attained it wasdeclared at the Mosque of the Prophet [s], and the Sahaba were simply asked to follow suitwith the decision at Saqeefa, by giving bayya to Abu Bakr. Shura would involve discussingmatters as a means of determining who the Khalifa should be, not informing them of anappointment after it had been secured, so that the only thing the Sahaba were left with was tofall in line with that decision! Exactly the same was the case with Umar, he was appointed bythe dying Khalifa as his successor, and the public were now tasked with giving bayya to thatappointment. The public Bayya was merely a ratification of these appointments, its not like anyother candidates could be put forward following these nominations. This is blatant dishonesty.Ibn al Hashimi is falsely asserting that these nominations only turned into actual appointmentswhen general public bayya was given. This is a completely false claim.



24/62

Page 24 of 62

9. Reply Two The Sunni Ulema have ruled that general bayya is not apre-requisite to Imamate

It is interesting that the Ulema of Ahlul Sunnah have themselves cites these historical

appointments as proof that Imamate can be established without any public bayya, rather oneperson giving bayya shall suffice. Imam Abu Bakar Muhammad bin Abdullah popularly known asIbn Arabi (d. 543 H) states:

For a Imams bayah, it is not necessary that all people be a part of this rather twoor just a single person is sufficeSharah Sunan Tirmidhi, Volume 3 page 229

Imam Qurtubi ( d. 671 H) in his commentary of Surah Baqarah verse 20 I am going toappoint a Khalifa upon the earthstates:

:

If only a singe person amongst Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed (the influential ones and thosehaving power) appoints someone as Imam, his Imamate will be legitimate and hisact will be Hujjah on the rest of the people. And we oppose the opinion of somepeople who say that in order to establish Imamate, it is necessary for a group ofAhlul alhil wa Alaqed to be present because our argument is that Umar [ra] hadappointed Abu Bakar as Imam while no Sahabi objected at him. This proves that likeother Uqud, numbers are not needed for Imamate.

Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 1 page 269

Latrer on he stated:

When someones Imamate is established through agreement of Ahlul alhil waAlaqed or even through a single one amongst Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed, then it will beobligatory on all the people to give their bayah to him

Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 1 page 272

Allamah Abul Maaali Al-Juwayni (d. 478 H) in his book Al-Irshad fi Al-Kalam stated:

The Imamate of a person that was established through bayah of a single person, itbecomes necessary to recognize his Imamate

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Qadhi Ayji (d. 756 H) in Mawaqif fi Ilm al-Kalam [Egypt edition] Volume8 pages 351-353 states:

Third reason for the establishment of Imamate. Its summary is that the Imamate isestablished/enforced by the nass of the Prophet or Nass of the previous Imam andit can also be established by a bayah by Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed, unlike the Shia, ourproof is the bayah of Abu Bakr. When this has been proved that Imamate isestablished via election and bayya, then you should also know that ijma is not arequirement for Imamate because there exists no logical or textual argument aboutit, apart from Ijma two or just a single person among Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed have theright to appoint someone as Imam because we are aware of the fact that Sahaba

were quite strict in religion yet they deem the appointment of a Imam by a singleperson to be correct, as the appointment of Abu Bakar was made by a single person

http://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://window.open%28%27http//www.answering-ansar.org/biographies/qadhi_adad_al_shafii/index.php','BIOqadhi_adad_al_shafii','width=520,height=520,scrollbars=yes');%20void('');http://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/44/2414.htmlhttp://window.open%28%27http//www.answering-ansar.org/biographies/qadhi_adad_al_shafii/index.php','BIOqadhi_adad_al_shafii','width=520,height=520,scrollbars=yes');%20void('');


25/62

Page 25 of 62

namely Umar and similarly, Abdurehman alone had appointed Uthman and they hadnot put the condition for the Ijma of the people of Madina, let alone of the wholeUmmah, and this act of them were not disliked by anyone, and from that day tilltoday, the very method is being.

Imam Mawardi in al Ahkam al Sultaniyya page 5, English translation by Professor Wafaa H.

Wahba made this point very clear:

Supreme leadership is established in two ways: selection by the electors, orappointment by a predecessor. There is considerable disagreement among scholarson the number of electors necessary for the valid investment of the sovereign. Somesay that he would be invested by no fewer than the generality of the electorsthroughout the land in order for his election to be unanimously approved and hisauthority universally accepted. This view is refuted by the vote of allegiance to AbuBakr, may God grant him favour, given by those who were present, withoutawaiting for the arrival of those who were absent.

Ahkam al Sultaniyah, page 5

These references prove that the suggestion by Ibn al-Hasihmi that the public endorsed thenomination of Abu Bakr is false. We appeal to justice. Ibn al-Hasihmi is seeking to dupe hisSunni readership into believing that there was open debate that lead to Abu Bakr coming topower. This could not be furthest from the truth, Abu Bakr was appointed by the Khalifa insideSaqifa, and the only thing that legitimised the process was Umar giving bayya. Umar putforward his nomination, and without providing any opportunity for discussion that gave hisnominee bayya as the Khalifa. There was no Shura, the Sahaba that had no role in the processwere merely asked to agree to what had occurred inside the Saqifa, there was no consultationover the Khalifa. Abu Bakr had already been appointed as Khalifa inside Saqifa, in absence ofany shura of the Sahaba, Mawardi acknowledges this, and points to this method as a legitimatemethod to appoint a Khalifa, Ibn al-Hashimi would have us believe that those not party to theSaqifa proceedings i.e. all the Muhajirin minus three, were given the opportunity to vote on the

nomination of Abu Bakr at Saqifa, Mawardi is making it clear that there was no such delay toprovide others such an opportunity, Abu Bakr was made the Khalifa at Saqifa and that was theend of the matter.

The Sunni Ulema have likewise accept the legitimacy of Imamate, based on a single persongiving bayya, and have relied on Umars giving bayya to Abu Bakr as proof that ends anysuggestion that there was Shura by the Sahaba over the nomination of Abu Bakr at Saqifa. Ibnal-Hashimi needs to read up on history before making such absurd comments.

Similarly with the appointment of Umar, the Sunni Ulema have likewise pointed to the Abu Bakrappointed Umar without reliance on any manner of consultation a sound method ofappointment. Mawardi writes further on:

Investment by the nomination of a predecessor is permissible and correct bygeneral consensus on the basis of two precedents adopted by Muslims and neverput in dispute. The first is the appointment by Abu Bakr of Umar, may God grantthem his favor, which was accepted by Muslims as sufficient to establish forleadership.

Ahkam al Sultaniyah, page 9

10.Ibn al Hashimis false inference that the Sahaba had the free choice onwhether or not to give bayya to Abu Bakr

As part of his web of lies, Ibn al-Hashimi seeks to convince his readers that all was perfect in

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p5.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p5.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p9.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p9.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p9.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p5.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p5.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/Ahkam_sultaniyah_p9.jpg


26/62

Page 26 of 62

the domain of the Sahaba following the death of the Madina, and the people clamored to givetheir bayya to the Khalifa following the Saqeefa discussions:

Ibn al Hashimi states:the general public gave their Bayat (pledge ofallegiance) to show their acceptance of each of

these nominations. As is apparent, this system ofnomination was egalatarian in spirit andconsistent with fairness.

11.Reply Critics of the regime were coerced into giving bayya

Fairness would be if those that were unhappy with such appointments had their opinionsaccepted, but this was not the case. The Nasibi is suggesting that the general public gave theirBayat (pledge of allegiance) to show their acceptance of each of these nominations let us

demonstrate one example of how the general public gave their baya and then our readers candecide whether such a method is consistent with fairness. We read in Musnaf of Imam Ibn AbiShebah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045:

Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam thathis father Aslam said: When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after theMessenger of Allah, Ali and Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consulther and revise their issue, so when Umar came to know about that, he went toFatima and said : Oh daughter of Messenger of Allah, no one is dearest to us morethan your father and no one dearest to us after your father than you, I swear byAllah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me fromgiving order to burn the house and those who are inside.

So when Umar left, they (Ali and Zubair) came , so she (Fatima) said to them: Doyou know that Umar came here and swear by Allah to burn the house if you gatherhere, I swear by God that he (Umar) will execute his oath, so please leave wiselyand take a decision and don't gather here again. So they left her and didn't gatherthere till they give baya to Abu Bakr.

All the narrators are authentic as they are the narrators of Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim.Muhammad bin Bashir:Imam Al-Dahabi said: Thabt(Al-Kaashif, v2 p159), Imam IbnHajar Asqalani said: Thiqa(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p58). Ubaidllah bin Umar:Al-Dahabi said:Thabt(Al-Kaashif, v1 p685), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa Thabt(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1p637). Zaid bin Aslam:Al-Dahabi said: Hujja(Siar alam alnubala, v5 p316), Imam Ibn Hajar

Asqalani said: Thiqa(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p326).Aslam al-Qurashi (the slave of Umar):

Al-Dahabi said:'Faqih, Imam'(Siar alam alnubala, v4 p98), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p88).

Also see:History of al-Tabari, Volume page 9 pages 186-187

This is the fair approach via which bayya was secured during the reign of Abu Bakr, whereinthose opposed to the appointment are threatened with murder. Subhanallah! As you can seefrom this example, it is not so much that the general public gave their Bayat rather thegeneral public was forced to give their Bayat.

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v9_p186_187.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v9_p186_187.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v9_p186_187.jpghttp://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/egalitarianism/tarikh_tabari_v9_p186_187.jpg


27/62

Page 27 of 62

12.Ibn al Hashimis failure to highlight the other non egalitarian methodsthat entitles a man to be Khaleefs

We find it amazing as to why Ibn al Hashimi only presented the four methods for determining

the Khalifa of the Prophet [s], methods that he defined as egalitarian in spirit. We wonder whyhe failed to cite all the methods of appointing the Khalifa of the Prophet [s] in Sunni Islam sothat their readers would be in a better position to conclude whether the Sunni doctrine ofImamate is indeed egalitarian in spirit and consistent with fairness.

In addition to the above four methods that we have commented allow us to cite the otheroptions available on the Sunni Imamah menu. Qadhi Abu Yaala in Ahkam al Sulatniya pages7-11 states that Imamate can be secured via force / coercion, enter into some agreement isunnecessary:

Imamate can be established through force and triumph and there is no need of

selection by anyone amongst Alaqed (those having power)

Then we also read:

If anyone that attains power via sword and becomes the Khalifa and begin to callhimself Ameer al-Momineen (master of the believers), then anyone who believes onAllah [swt] and the last Day is not permitted to spend even a night withoutrecognising him as the Imam, whether he be pious or a transgressor, he is Ameer al-Momineen

Moroever he states: "."

." ".

If someone rebels against a Imam, both of them have some followers with themthen the Friday prayers shall offered with the group that triumph and its proof isthat Ibn Umar used to offer prayers with the people of Madina [Yazeedies] duringthe episode of Harra, and he used to say: We are with the one who has triumph

Al Akhkam, pages 7-8

The Imam of the two Holy Sites Allamah Abul Maaali Al-Juwayni (d. 478 H) in his book Al-Irshad fi Al-Kalam wrote discussing the powers of the Imam said on page 424:

You should know that Ijma is not a requirement for Imamate. Imamate withoutijmaa is established and its proof is that the moment the Imamate

non egalitarian imamate

Documents