The roots of the Sunni-Shia divide can be traced back to opposing views on the issue of Khilāfah (succession). According to Shia belief, Imām ʿAlī (as) was directly appointed by the Holy Prophet (saw). In contrast, most Sunnis hold that the Holy Prophet (saw) did not appoint a successor, leaving the decision to the Muslim community. This leads to an important inquiry: What did Imām ʿAlī (as) himself believe regarding this matter? Did he see himself as the rightful successor to the Holy Prophet (saw)? Let us investigate some opposing proofs in this article, if God wills.
Did ʿAlī (as) reject the caliphate, per Nahj al-Balāgha?
In some sources of Islamic history, it is recorded that Amīr al-Mu’minīn (as) rejected the offer for the caliphate and opted for someone else to take his position instead. While various reasons have been suggested by some scholars to explain these words, the most compelling scholarly evaluation of this statement is that it is a fabrication attributed to Imām ʿAlī (as), and unsubstantiated by any reliable evidence.
A common source often quoted to compel the Shi'a to accept this narration, ignorantly, is quoted from the famed compilation of al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, Nahj al-Balāgha, Sermon 92, where it is attributed to ʿAlī (as) that he said:
فقال عليّ: دعوني، والتَمِسوا غيري…
Ali said: Leave me alone and choose someone other than me…
To the unfortunate surprise of our opponents who quote this passage, we remind them that al-Sharīf al-Raḍī (may God sanctify his soul) did not compile his book with the intention of presenting only reliable sources. Rather, it was intended to gather literature and poetry. As a result, the sources mentioned therein cannot be considered binding evidence. The author does not even mention the chain of narrators for this report, and therefore, it cannot be quoted as if it provides any certainty for the Shīʿah that ʿAlī (as) truly uttered these words.
For scholarly reference, we cite a book intended to compile the opinions of scholars regarding various issues in the study of Ḥadīth and Rijāl, Qabasāt Min ʿIlm al-Rijāl (vol. 2, pg. 142 - 148) which states that al-Sayyid Muḥammad Riḍā al-Sīstānī, al-Sayyid al-Khu’ī, and other scholars all concurred that Nahj al-Balāgha cannot be relied upon as a dependable source of reports due to the absence of chains of narration provided by the author. Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting that the author intended to compile reliable reports, thus we cannot make any assumptions regarding the author's acceptance of these reports.
This dismisses the report's Ḥujjiyya (authority), as it is neither reliable nor dependable in any way. However, since we know the author quoted other sources, we can investigate alternative sources for this saying in order to examine its chain of transmission. This research was undertaken by the great ʿAllāmah al-Tustarī (may God sanctify his soul), who concluded in his commentary work, Bahj al-Ṣaḥāba fī Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāgha (vol. 9, pg. 563 - 4):
الأصل في العنوان رواية سيف الذي قد عرفت في من فصل عثمان، أن رواياته كذب وافتعال، إما كلاً واما جزءاً، وإنه يدخل في كل شيء شيئا ويضع في مقابل أمر أمرا
The origin of this report traces back to Sayf b. ʿUmar, who is widely known in the chapter concerning ʿUthmān. His narrations are considered lies and fabrications, either in totality or partially. It is reported that he tends to embellish accounts, often adding details to everything, and he is known to fabricate stories when instructed to do so.
Sayf b. 'Umar is a famous character that was known to fabricate reports to argue against the Shi'a, and we shall cover him in a moment. First we'd like to mention the origin of this source, which is found in the famous history work, Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 4, pg. 43 (English version). The chain of narration proceeds as follows: al-Ṭabarī narrates from the writings of a man named al-Sarī, who transmits from Shuʿayb, who in turn narrates from Sayf, and finally from Ṭalḥah, who is attributed with narrating this incident directly.
This report has been weakned by Sunni scholars, such as the famous examiner of Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Ṭāhir in his Da'īf Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī (vol. 8, pg. 621 - 2), who in the footnote of this narration addressed the problems in this chain & its report, for it contradicts other more authentic reports.
Who is Sayf b. ʿUmar al-Tamīmī?
He is a 9th-century Islamic historian and narrator, but controversial to researchers of all sects. Scholars of ḥadīth and Islamic historiography, both within Sunni and Shi'a circles, have critiqued his reliability. His reports are often seen as biased or historically problematic, and many Islamic scholars have questioned the authenticity of his accounts. This is particularly true in the context of his narrations about events during the early years of Islam, where his stories sometimes include contradictions or questionable details.
The beloved Muḥaqqiq of the Salafis, Al-Albani writes about him in his Silsilat al-ʾAḥādīth al-Daʿīfah, (vol. 14, pg. 1169) the following:
قلت: وهذا إسناد ساقط بمرة، المتهم به: سيف بن عمر: قال الذهبي في "المغني ": "متروك باتفاق ". وقال ابن حبان: " اتهم بالزندقة ". قلت: أدرك التابعين وقد اتهم. قال ابن حبان: " يروي الموضوعات "
I say: This narration is rejected immediately, the accused person in the chain is Sayf Ibn Umar. Al-Dhahabi said about him in Al-Mughni: There is an agreement on him being rejected. Ibn Hibban said: He is accused of Heresy. I say: He lived around the same time as the Taba'in and was accused. Ibn Hibban also said: He narrates fabrications.
This is famous known to anyone who knows this narrator, that he is extremely weak and not to be trusted with narrating early Islamic history, especially when the narrative is aimed to argue against the Shi'a. Below are a list of several scholars weakening him:
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani: Weak [Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 1 pg. 428]
Al-Dhahabi: Agreed weakness [Mughani Fi al-Dhu'afa, pg. 419]
Ibn Hibban: Narrates fabricated traditions [Al-Majrohin, vol. 1 pg. 439]
Yahya Ibn Ma'in: Weak [Tarikh Ibn Mu’in, vol. 2 pg. 245]
Ibn al-Jawzi: Accused of fabricating [Al-Mawdhu’at, vol. 1, pg. 223]
Al-Nasai': Weak [Kitab al-Du'afa, pg. 123]
Ibn Abi Hatim: Weak [Kitab Jarh wa-Ta'dil, vol. 2, pg. 278]
What were the real views of Amīr al-Mu’minīn (as)?
Since we have established that Imam ʿAlī (as) did not, in fact, reject the caliphate when it was offered to him, we shall now demonstrate how, in reality, he spoke about his right and entitlement to the caliphate instead.
We would first like to mention a Shīʿah source that correctly demonstrates his view, which can be found in several works, such as in al-Shaykh al-Mufīd's (may God be pleased with him) al-Amali 19:5:
سمعت أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام يخطب الناس فقال في خطبته: والله لقد بايع الناس أبا بكر وأنا أولى الناس بهم مني بقميصي هذا، فكظمت غيظي، وانتظرت أمر ربي، وألصقت كلكلي بالأرض
By Allah, people gave allegiance to Abu Bakr while I was worthiest of them all, together with the attire of mine. But I swallowed my anger, and waited for my Sustainer’s will, keeping my chest low to the ground (i.e. adopting a low profile).
This narration attests to a clear testimony of ʿAlī's (as) belief that he was the worthiest and most entitled to become the khalīfah; the right should have been his. However, because the people had rejected him, he did not seek to persuade them further and thus remained silent. The reasoning for this is more suitable to be discussed in another article, but this follows the tradition of Prophet Ibrāhīm (as), who left his people after they continuously rejected his call for monotheism.
وَأَعْتَزِلُكُمْ وَمَا تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَأَدْعُوا۟ رَبِّى عَسَىٰٓ أَلَّآ أَكُونَ بِدُعَآءِ رَبِّى شَقِيًّا
"For now I will leave you and the idols you all pray to, and I will pray to my Lord and trust that my prayer will not be in vain." [19:48]
What is especially interesting, is the fact that his narration is present in the Sunni corpus too, despite efforts maintained to censor such reports by their scholars. The uncensored version of this report can be read from the famed work, Anṣāb al-Ashraf by al-Balādhurī (vol. 2, pg. 402):
حَدَّثَنِي رَوْحُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُؤْمِنِ، عَنْ أَبِي عوانة، عن خالد الحذاء عن عبد الرحمان بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ :أَنَّ عَلِيًّا أَتَاهُمْ عَائِدًا فقال: ما لقي أحد من هَذِه الأُمَّةَ مَا لَقِيتُ، تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَنَا أَحَقُّ النَّاسِ بِهَذَا الأَمْرِ، فَبَايَعَ النَّاسُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ فَاسْتَخْلَفَ عُمَرَ فَبَايَعْتُ وَرَضِيتُ وَسَلَّمْتُ، ثُمَّ بَايَعَ النَّاسُ عُثْمَانَ فَبَايَعْتُ وَسَلَّمْتُ وَرَضِيتُ، وَهُمُ الآنَ يَمِيلُونَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ مُعَاوِيَةَ.
Narrated by Ruḥ b. ʿAbd al-Mu’min from Abī ʿAwanah from Khalid al-Khazāʿī from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakrah that ʿAlī (as) would repeat:
"No one in this Ummah faced what I faced. The Prophet (saw) passed away, and I am the most deserving of it (the caliphate). But the people gave bayʿah to Abū Bakr. Then he gave it to ʿUmar, and I surrendered and gave bayʿah. Then the people gave bayʿah to ʿUthmān, and I surrendered and gave bayʿah. And now people are comparing me to Muʿāwiyah."
This report mirrors the Shīʿah narration, where ʿAlī (as) clearly entitles himself to this issue (amr), referring to the caliphate as he speaks about the matter following the death of the Prophet (saw). The narrators are also all well-known and have been given tawthīq (authentication) by Sunni scholars. Khalid, the narrator above, narrates from Abdul-Rahman b. Abi Bakra in Sahih al-Bukhari 1912, showing the chain to be reliable as well as connected.
This same narration was mentioned but censored by ʿAbdallāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in his important work Kitāb al-Sunnah (vol. 1, pg. 563, H. 1316):
حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي وَعُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ الْقَوَارِيرِيُّ، وَهَذَا لَفْظُ حَدِيثِ أَبِي قَالَا: حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، نا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، عَنْ خَالِدٍ الْحَذَّاءِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَتَاهُمْ عَائِدًا وَمَعَهُ عَمَّارٌ فَذَكَرَ شَيْئًا فَقَالَ عَمَّارٌ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ. فَقَالَ: " اسْكُتْ فَوَاللَّهِ لَأَكُونَنَّ مَعَ اللَّهِ عَلَى مَنْ كَانَ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: «مَا لَقِيَ أَحَدٌ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ مَا لَقِيتُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تُوُفِّيَ فَذَكَرَ شَيْئًا فَبَايَعَ النَّاسُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فَبَايَعْتُ وَسَلَّمْتُ وَرَضِيتُ ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَذَكَرَ كَلِمَةً فَاسْتَخْلَفَ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فَذَكَرَ ذَلِكَ فَبَايَعْتُ وَسَلَّمْتُ وَرَضِيتُ، ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَ عُمَرُ فَجَعَلَ الْأَمْرَ إِلَى هَؤُلَاءِ الرَّهْطِ السِّتَّةِ فَبَايَعَ النَّاسُ عُثْمَانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فَبَايَعْتُ وَسَلَّمْتُ وَرَضِيتُ، ثُمَّ هُمُ الْيَوْمَ يَمِيلُونَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ مُعَاوِيَةَ»
My father and ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-Qawārīrī narrated to me, and this is the wording of my father's narration. They said: Yahya b. Ḥammād Abū Bakr narrated to us, from Abū ʿAwanah, from Khalid al-Ḥadhdhāʾ, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakrah:
ʿAlī (ra) came to them as a visitor, and with him was ʿAmmār. He mentioned something, and ʿAmmār said, "O Amīr al-Mu’minīn." ʿAlī (ra) replied: "Be quiet! By Allah, I will be with Allah on the side of the one who was [right]." Then he said: "No one from this Ummah has faced what I have faced. The Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away, and then the people gave bayʿah to Abū Bakr (ra). I gave bayʿah, submitted, and was pleased. Then Abū Bakr passed away, and he mentioned a word, and he appointed ʿUmar (ra). I gave bayʿah, submitted, and was pleased. Then ʿUmar passed away, and he entrusted the matter to these six men. The people gave bayʿah to ʿUthmān (ra), and I gave bayʿah, submitted, and was pleased. And now they are comparing me to Muʿāwiyah."
This narration is similar to what we have presented earlier, with the difference of a censorship game being played. We are not surprised, however, as Sunni scholarship has long relied on their ability to censor reports in order to conceal the fact that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) did not agree with their beliefs or views. It is very clear that the insincerity of their scholars reveals their inability to address the factual reality of Imam ʿAlī's (as) belief that he was meant to be the khalīfah. The son of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal followed in the footsteps of his father and concealed the truth of this report. This is because he knew it would present a problem; otherwise, he wouldn't have censored it. What is more important is the reliability of this ḥadīth, which was affirmed by the editor in the footnote, who stated that all the narrators are reliable. Once again, we have another authentic chain to prove that Imam ʿAlī (as) uttered these words.
The last source we shall mention comes by way of Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, the author of the Ṣaḥīḥ, who mentions in his Tārīkh al-Kabīr (vol. 1, pg. 530) the following:
مُحَمَّد بْن عميرة النخعي، قَالَ لي يحيى بْن سُلَيْمَان حدثني مُحَمَّد قَالَ نا شريك عَنْ عَبْد الملك بْن عمير عَنْ عَبْد الرَّحْمَن بْن أَبِي بكرة قَالَ لما قدم علي البصرة قَالَ لي استأذن لي يريد زياد فاستأذنت فأذن له فدكر ما لقي بعد النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وقَالَ توفِي النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فظننت إني، فبويع لأَبِي بكر فسمعت وأطعت
Muhammad b. ʿAmīrah al-Nakhaʿī said: Yahya b. Sulaymān narrated to me, saying: Muḥammad said: "Sharik narrated to us from ʿAbd al-Malik b. ʿAmīr from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakrah, who said:
'When ʿAlī (as) arrived in Basra, he said to me, "Ask permission for me to visit Ziyād." So I asked, and permission was granted. He mentioned the hardships he faced after the death of the Prophet (saw) and said: "When the Prophet (saw) passed away, I thought I would... Then the bayʿah was given to Abū Bakr. I heard and obeyed."' "
This narration is most dubious of them all, as the author has taken a careless approach in censoring the report. The missing sentence was intentionally skipped over, leaving the narrative incomplete and nonsensical. But of course, it's not exactly a shock that someone like al-Bukhārī would engage in such editing, given his well-known tendency to selectively omit reports. It is very clear, that the strategic "editing" was designed to conveniently leave out ʿAlī (as)ʾs clear assertion of his entitlement to the khilāfah.
We shall end with the words of the famous Salafi scholar, Ibn Uthaymīn, and his remarks regarding this issue, as mentioned in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim (vol. 1, pg. 74):
قال الشيخ ابن عثيمين - رحمه الله - لا يمكن أن نُخطئَ الصحابة - رضي الله عنهم - في بيعة أبي بكر - رضي الله عنه - ونصوِّب علياً - رضي الله عنه - فيما رأَى؛ لأن ما رآه علي - رضي الله عنه - مخالفٌ لظاهر ما جاءت به السُّنَّة، وهو أنه أحقُّ من أبي بكر - رضي الله عنه - وغيره، لقرابته من رسولِ اللَّهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn said, "We cannot fault the Ṣaḥābah in the bayʿah to Abū Bakr and we cannot affirm ʿAlī's perspective, because what ʿAlī believed contradicts the apparent teaching of the Sunnah, which is that he [Abū Bakr] was more deserving of the caliphate than ʿAlī or anyone else, due to his proximity to the Messenger of Allah (saw).
Not only have we demonstrated that the narrations which would suggest Imam ʿAlī (as) did not wish to assert himself as the Imām of the Muslims are dubious, but we have also highlighted the admission of Ibn ʿUthaymīn in his book, where he acknowledges that Imam ʿAlī (as) believed he was the most rightful to the caliphate. Furthermore, we have provided authentic narrations from both our own sources and those of our Sunni brothers to affirm that Imam ʿAlī (as) did, in fact, believe he was the most deserving of the caliphate, and how our opponents have tried to censor these reports because of their acknowledgment of the problem it serves.
We conclude by affirming that we adopt the view of Imam ʿAlī (as) over others. If he saw himself as the most entitled to the khilāfah, then, as his humble followers, we too shall regard his stance with respect and adherence.
وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
Comments