Home » Islam » Islamic History » Historical Roots of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception
   About Us
   Islamic Sites
   Special Occasions
   Audio Channel
   Weather (Mashhad)
   Islamic World News Sites
   Yellow Pages (Mashhad)
   Souvenir Album

Historical Roots of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

Ahmad Husain Yaqub

The Quraish consist of twenty five clans. The best and the most honorable clan is the sons of Hashim Bin Abd Menaf. They are directly followed by the sons of Abdul-Muttelib Bin Abd Menaf,... Al-Harith Bin Abd Menaf,..., Umaya Bin Abd Shams Bin Abd Menaf and Nawfel Bin Abd Menaf respectively. The Hashemites are the celebrities of Quraish. They succeeded their father in management. They are named ‘Al-Mujebbirun -The healers-’. They are regarded as the foremost in holding peace treaties with the kings of that time. Hashim held a peace treaty with the kings of Syria. Abd Shams held an alike one with Nejashi, the king of Abyssinia. Nawfel held an alike one with the kings of Persia. Abdul-Muttelib held an alike one with the kings of Himyer; Yemen. According to such treaties, people of Quraish could settle in various areas of this world. For the high standing and the mastery of the Hashemites upon the Arabs, they were called ‘Aqdahun-Nedhar -Cups of Gold.-’

The Quraishi clans concluded a political form respecting distributing positions, such as the leadership, the pennon, the assemblies, watering the pilgrimages, hosting the guests... etc. This form was the furthest thing the clans could achieve. They, as a whole, were convinced that that had been too satisfactory to abuse any one's rights. The political positions are estimated as the fate of those clans that it is none's benefit to alter or change, since it is impossible to recognize the consequences of such attempts of altering or changing. It might, at least, result in losing what had been achieved. The entire clans, in addition, were pleased to such a form that arranged the affairs of the pilgrimage and the Holy House. Gradually these positions and missions became a significance of a political belief and a heritage of the forefathers. It became impermissible for any to stand against such missions.

In the years of starvation, Hashim was the only individual who committed himself to providing food to people. He was named the master of Bat'ha. His food-tables were spread in times of amenity and distress. He was wont to host the guests and the passers-by and secure the troubled. Umaya Bin Abd Shams feared and envied him. He failed in imitating Hashim; therefore, the other Quraishi people criticized and imputed dishonor to him. Hashim rejected his challenge to argue about the more honorable of them. Owing to Umaya's insistence, he accepted it. They agreed that the loser should undergo fifty she-camels and banished. As the arbiter ruled of Hashim's being more honorable, fifty she-camels of Umaya were slaughtered and he was deported to Syria. This was the first seed of hostility between the sons of Hashim and those of Umaya. It seems that the motive beyond Umaya's challenge was his envying Hashim and the apprehension that he would be a serious danger against the political form according to which the sons of Abd Shams had been the leaders. Furthermore, He might have realized that the fame of Hashim would shake the form as a whole and would, as a result, cause people to follow him.

In Mecca, it was commonly spread that soon there would be a prophet to be assigned by God, and that he would be a successor of Abd Menaf. Abu Sufian was one of those who believed in this foretelling and worked depending on it. He established distinguishable relations with Abdullah Bin Abis-Salt. According to his conception, Abu Sufian was certain that the intended prophet should cancel the political form -of the Quraishi clans-, the leadership of which was in his hand. Hence, this prophet would be forming the most hazardous factor against the sons of Umaya. After a long period of panic and suffering, he could have a term of tranquillity since he believed that the prophet would be a successor of Abd Menaf, and there was none, from among the successors of Abd Menaf, fitter than him in undergoing such a mission. On that account, he should certainly be the very one intended.

Mohammed, the successor of Hashim, declared his being the anticipated prophet whom had been favored by God for leading the Arabs and the mankind to the right path. He declared that the evidence of his prophesy had been God's words. A little group of eloquent individuals and those who were harshly treated in this world, followed Mohammed.

With all their forces, the Hashemites embraced Mohammed. The leaders of Quraish threatened that they would kill him. In fact, they spread a rumor of Mohammed's being killed. Abu Talib gathered the Hashemite men and gave each a hard bar. Walking with the sons of Hashim and his, Abu Talib raised his voice at the people of Quraish: “O people of Quraish! Do you realize what I am to do?” “No, we do not.” they answered. Abu Talib ordered his people to show what they were keeping in their hands. Each showed the hard bar he had. Abu Talib commented: “By God I swear, if you kill him -Mohammed- I will never keep any of you alive unless we both are terminated.” Accordingly, people of Quraish were defeated. Abu Jahl countered the largest share of that defeat.

Led by Abu Sufian, the other clans of Quraish exerted all their efforts for the sake of facing Mohammed. Nevertheless, they could not intercept him. For countering the importunity and the rejection of the Hashemites, the clans of Quraish unanimously agreed on the following decisions:
1. Issuing a total boycott against the Hashemites. The Quraishi clans, including Teim and Edi, ostracized the Hashemites. They restricted them in the cols of Abu Talib for three continuous years. The Hashemites, during that period, had to have from the leaves of the trees due to the starvation they suffered. Their children, likewise, had to suck the sands due to their thirstiness. This is an indisputable fact that is as clear as sunlight. Neither Mohammed nor did the Hashemites submit to the Quraishi people. Finally, God refuted the trickeries of the Quraishi people and leaders. After a three year boycott, the blockade proved its failure.
2. As they realized that Mohammed would soon immigrate to Yathrib, where he could find supporters and could establish a base for his advocacy, the clans of Quraish decided unanimously to kill him. They selected a man from each tribe so that they would strike him together that his blood would be distributed among the entire tribes equally. The purpose beyond such a cabal was obliging the Hashemites to miss out any opportunity to revenge Mohammed. They believed that Mohammed would achieve his goals and, in sequence, divest them from their leadership and authority, if he reached in Yathrib.
They applied this cabal so accurately, but they were astonished when they found Ali Bin Abi Talib sleeping in Mohammed's bed. The leaders of Mecca became so perturbed that they offered big prizes as a remuneration for those who would be able to capture Mohammed, alive or dead.
In the other side, Mohammed, his companion and the guide were pushing their way to Yathrib in safe, by God's will. This is an indiscussible fact that is as clear as sunlight.
Neither the Quraishi clans led by the Umayids, nor were the Hashemites, Mohammed and his group despondent from achieving triumph against the adversary party. The Arabs were three parties; one was supporting people of Quraish and their joint commandment. The other, even few, was supporting Mohammed. The third was waiting for the outcome for supporting the victorious. In Badr and Uhud, wars broke up between the two parties. A third war broke out when the leadership of the Quraishis raised armies and allied the Jews forming the multipartite army. They advanced towards Al-Madina, the Prophet's capital. Precisely, these multipartite armies failed. A while later, the Quraishi were surprised by the armies of God in Mecca, their capital. Hence, the leaders of Quraish were submitted and they had to embrace Islam. Owing to this submission, the entire Arabs were dominated by the Prophet's government and, consequently, they embraced Islam in groups.
Sparing no single sort of rejection and resistance, the clans of Quraish, led by the Umayids, opposed the religion established by Mohammed, the Hashemite. Apart from their loyalty to their pagans, the main reason beyond this resistance was their abhorrence that a Hashemite would be the one to whom this religion had been revealed. They disliked the Hashemites’ leadership. The shade of the old political form was another motive towards their resisting this advocacy.
Finally, Abu Sufian was surprised by God's soldiers on the doorsteps of Mecca. Al-Abbas detains him so that he should see God's soldiers with his own eyes. “I have never seen such a domination alike of which is not existed neither at Khosrow, Caesar nor the Romans.” expresses Abu Sufian. Before the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), Abu Sufian is dragged by Al-Abbas. “O Abu Sufian! Woe is you! Is it not the appropriate time to realize that there is no god but Allah?” the Prophet addresses at him. “I do conceive that Allah would not affect me in any sort if there was another god besides Him.” answers Abu Sufian. “O Abu Sufian!” the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) reasks, “Is it not the proper time to realize that I am the messenger of God?” “Regarding this, my soul, by God, cannot receive it completely!” admits Abu Sufian. Al-Abbas shouts: “Woe is you, Abu Sufian! Declare your being Muslim and admit that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is surely the messenger of Allah, lest you shall be beheaded.” Only after mentioning beheading, surrounding and hopelessness, Abu Sufian declares his being Muslim for nothing other than saving his soul. He was gazing at the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) surprisingly when he said to himself: “By which weapon did this man overcome?” God, informed His Apostle of Abu Sufian's wonderment; therefore, he came to him and said: “By Allah I overcame.”
Thus and so, the Quraishi clans realized the following facts:
The Hashemite prophesy is an inescapable and determined fate.
They, as clans, had no role, at all, in this preference. They would never agree upon this option if only they had any role in the operation.
The prophesy is a one time phenomenon.
No single clan of Quraish will be catching or joined to the Hashemites.
The political form was not only shaked, but also was it completely blasted.
Hence, the Quraishi clans worked furtively for occluding this (Hashemite) advancement towards governing the royalty besides the prophesy, the matter which results in gaining the integrity as a whole.
The most enthusiast clan towards occluding the Hashemite advancement: The clans of Quraish, altogether, believed that the Hashemite prophesy had certainly shaked the political form of distributing roles of celebrity among them in an unprecedented form. Saving the Al-Muttelib Bin Abd Menaf who supported the Hashemites, the Quraishi clans, as a whole, rejected this Hashemite prophesy. The Umayids, however, were the most enthusiast and denying against this Hashemite advancement. They did their best for the sake of intercepting the Hashemite from joining headship to the divine prophesy. The following are some of the reasons beyond such an enthusiastic situation:
1. Before Islam, the Umayids were engaged in considerable hostility, enmity and envy against the Hashemites.
2. Owing to the Hashemites' prophesy, the Umayids lost the headship they had enjoyed.
3. It was the Hashemites who killed the chiefs of the Umayids. Utbeh, Al-Waleed and Sheibeh were killed by Hamzeh, Ali and Ubeidullah. In addition to their abhorrence, the Umayids bore malice to the Hashemites. The amount of this malice is evidently reflected by Hind, Muawiya’s mother and Abu Sufian’s wife. Being not sufficed by killing Hamzeh, she corrupted his celibate corpse. On account of the victory and the expansion of Mohammed's prophesy, besides the Umayids retardation to join Islam and their long and famous history in antagonizing, they could not have any opportunity to declare their plan of intercepting the Hashemites from gaining the authority, beside the prophesy, of this nation.
The notion of the unacceptability for the Hashemites to join headship to prophesy became the preeminent trend, although it was stable only in the hidden because of the presence of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), the dominion of legality and the unification of the Prophet's virtuous companions. As soon as any of these three factors is missed, the legality will be shaked and the virtuous companions will be (the like of a single white hair in a black bull's skin) as Muawiya describes. The authority, then, will be the prevailing's.
The following is the argument of the three Muhajirs -immigrators to Yathrib- in the Saqeefeh of Bani Sa'ideh:
Abu Bakr stated: “We are the Prophet's clan while you are his supporters. Thus, you are our supporters in this religion.”
Omar stated: “Two swords cannot be put in the same seath. Nay, by God. The Arab shall never accept your being the leaders while the Prophet is another clan's. The Arab should never select but those from whom the prophesy came forth. The evident argument and the manifest evidence is ours against our opposers. Who dare to litigate with us about the authority and the heritage of Mohammed while we are his backers and people? None but the wrong, the sinful or the involved in a disaster may do so.”
The Ansar -the supporters; people of Yathrib who supported the Prophet and his followers.- shouted in one voice: “We shall select none other than Ali.” Ali, however, was absent. Some of the Ansar shouted: “We shall select none other than Ali.”
Without any respite, the matter of Mohammed's succession became in the hands of As-Siddiq, Abu Bakr. As he was called for declaring his fealty to Abu Bakr, Ali stated: “I am the most rightful in this affair. I am not to submit to your leadership. It is you whom are to be submitted to my leadership. You seized it from the Ansar claiming of the Prophet's kinship. Now, you intend to seize it from the Prophet's household coercively?! Have you not argued before the Ansar that you are more rightful in holding this affair of leadership due to your relation to the Prophet? And they complied to your claim and gave it to you. Now, I do provide the very same argument before you; we are the most rightful in enjoying the Prophet's authority and heritage in and after his life.. etc.”
Bed-ridden, Omar were engaged in planning for the future of Mohammed's nation. Evading no single face, he stated: “Had Abu Ubeideh, Me'ath Bin Jabal, Khalid Bin Al-Waleed or Salim the slave of Abu Hutheifeh been alive, I would have nominated as my successor.
Salim is a non-Arab slave whose lineage is unknown. Me'ath is one of the Ansar whom were impermitted to have the authority in the meeting of Saqeefeh. Khalid is from Bani Makhzum. He is a ten class companion since he immigrated in the period between the Hudeibiyeh peace treaty and the conquest of Mecca.
Once, in his reign, Omar argued Ibn Abbas:
“O Ibn Abbas! Do you realize the reason beyond your people's neglecting your nominating for managing the Islamic state?” Evading the anticipated consequences, Ibn Abbas escaped from the answer. “Well, Ameerul-Mu'mineen! If I ignore the answer, you are definitely in full awareness of it.” commented Ibn Abbas. “Your people disliked the matter that you would have the prophesy and the authority altogether and then, you would have been unjust to them. People of Quraish selected for themselves. Indeed, they succeeded as they opted for the right one.” expressed Omar. “O Ameerul-Mu'mineen!” Ibn Abbas worded, “May I speak provided that you shall not be irate?” “Yes, you may.” permitted Omar. Ibn Abbas signified: “Regarding your saying (People of Quraish selected for themselves. Indeed, they succeeded as they opted for the right one.), they would have been right absolutely and without litigant if only they had clung to what God had opted for. Regarding your saying: (Your people disliked the matter that you would have the prophesy and the authority altogether.), God, the Exalted, described a people who disliked; saying: (That is because they hated what Allah revealed, so he rendered their deeds null.)” “Far it is, Ibn Abbas!” replied Omar, “I have been informed of some news about you, but I do not like to discipline you about so that your status would not be lessened.” Ibn Abbas answered: “O Ameerul-Mu'mineen! My status at you must not have been lessened in case these news were true, otherwise, I am one of those who obviated the ill deeds from approaching towards their entities.” Omar said: “Well, I was informed of your claim that the general authority had been taken away from you, Mohammed's clan, due to envy, aggression and injustice.” “Respecting the injustice,” responded Ibn Abbas, “it had been realized by the level-headed, as well as the ill-minded. Respecting envy, Adam was envied, and we are his envied sons.” “Far it is. Far it is.” expressed Omar, “Your hearts, sons of Hashim, are filled in with an immovable envy.” Ibn Abbas answered: “Slow down, Ameerul-Mu'mineen! Do you impute such a description to hearts that God has (kept away uncleanness from them and purified them a thorough purification?)”
The event recorded by Al-Mas'udi in his Muroujut-Theheb, regarding the conversation of Omar and Ibn Abbas, does reveal the intellectual rebellion and the disclosure of the preeminent trend which was hidden during the Prophet's lifetime before the foundation of the caliphate. The following is a literal quotation of this narrative:
The literal quotation of this narrative:
Ibn Abbas related:
I responded Omar's summon. I was before him when he addressed at me: “O Ibn Abbas! The governor of Hims has just died. He was one of the rare virtuous people. Except for the matter I have against you, I do regard you with those rare virtuous ones. Do you accept my offer to be the governor of Hims?” “I will not work for you unless you tell of the matter you have against me.” I said unto him. “What for are you asking so?” asked Omar. “I do desire to know it. I will be cautious if it is a real thing, and if not, I will realize that I do not have it. Then, I will accept your offer. I noticed you have hardly asked for a matter with respite.” I answered. Omar expressed: “O Ibn Abbas! I anticipate that I will face my fatal chance while you are keeping your position, then you may call people to select you as the new leader. I noticed the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had neglected assigning you, his household, in any position.” “Yes, by God. I noticed so, too. Do you realize the reason?” I wondered. “I do not know exactly. Was it for the reason that he had been too cautious to give you official positions to which you are certainly authorized, or was it for that he anticipated that you would be elected for the leadership because of your relation to him? Only then, blame would fall. Inevitably, blame shall fall. That is it. What do you see now?” commented Omar. “I see I should not accept this position.” I said. “What for?” questioned Omar. “I shall be a permanent mote in your eyes as long as you bear this opinion...”
Even after his decease, Omar, the excessively careful for the Muslims' interests, must be sure that the Hashemites shall never be having dominion over people, and shall never be ruling Mohammed's nation.
In general, the saying of the abomination of the Hashemites' joining headship to prophesy was changed into a preeminent trend. This trend could find a ground to show and impose itself as a common conception adopted by the authorities and the priority of people. It is considered as the ultimate way against the Hashemite injustice and the apt course that enables the Quraishi clans to enjoy headship respectively as a compensation to be undergone by the authorities of the Hashemite prophesy. As Al-Faruq describes: “This conception is one of the appearances of the divine discrimination of Quraish. By inducing Abu Sufian to the ruling regime, giving him the right to dispose in the alms he had levied, nominating Yazeed, his son, as the commander of the army of Syria and nominating Muawiya, his other son, as a commander and, then, as the governor of Syria; all these procedures resulted in the formation of a factual alliance between the ruling regime and the ‘released.’ Both parties have the same access to intercept the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy. This alliance eradicated the opposition and worked seriously for rehearsing the conception of the impermissibility of the Hashemites’ joining headship to prophesy.
Thus, the Prophet's immaculate household, besides their having been completely deposed and blocked, lost every thing including the privilege of honorability granted by the political form according to which Mecca was ruled before Islam. This seems clear in Al-Faruq's saying to Ibn Abbas: “By God, we did not refer to you due to need, but we disliked you to object against the matter on which people agreed unanimously. That would cause them, as well as you, suffer catastrophic consequences.”
The degree of humiliating the Prophet's progeny attained such a great level that even Abdullah Bin Az-Zubeir menaced to put the Hashemites' houses on fire with their inhabitants. Without the intercession of some virtuous individuals, this would have happened.
This proposes that every clan among those who imposed a blockade on the Hashemites in the cols of Abu Talib for three continuous years, and participated in the congregational cabal of assassination against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), became in a state better than that enjoyed by the Hashemites themselves. Likewise, every individual of such clans became more rightful in coming to power than the Hashemites. Headship and authority is practically licit for every one except the Hashemites. All these procedures were taken for one goal only; occluding the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy. Is the reward of goodness aught but goodness?!
Totally, the conception is uncivilized. It is completely contradictory to the divine texts and the political regulations derived from the divine beliefs. The Prophet David, was inherited by Solomon, his son. Both joined headship to prophesy. None objected against the prophets and their progenies who had been gifted judiciary, prophesy and divine manuscripts. Privilege is in God's hand. Caliphate is a religious and, in the first place, mundane position. A Caliph is the prophet's representative. Stating arguments and setting forth rules that are completely methodological processes, are the main missions of prophets.
It is effortlessly probationary for the aware of the basic components of the Islamic political strategy, to recognize that the conception of intercepting the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy has entirely blasted that strategy, as being divine, and has totally extricated its constituents. It is also proved that the conception involved has practically changed it into an ordinary positive strategy that is different from others in the political form only. Moreover, the leadership of the state became a prey obtained exclusively by the prevailing whoever he was. After achieving prevalence, that one occupies the Prophet's chair (reed mat, in fact), attires the cloak of Islam and, hence, becomes the new caliph. In case any one of the ‘released’ who fought against Islam as much as possible till he was surrounded and had to show his being Muslim to save his soul, prevails, he will openly impose his orders upon the Muhajir who participated in every battle supporting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Similarly, God's representative who is, according to divine regulations and texts, the president of the Islamic state will become an ordinary citizen under the authority of such a ‘released’. Thus, for the sake of seeking justice of the other clans and intercepting the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy or, in other words, reviving the old political form of distributing missions in a new dress, the illiterate ruled and the learned's mouth was shut up.
As the old political form distributed missions among the clans, the new one, when applied, ranted such clans to come to power in turn and, in the same time, to share positions of headship. Regarding the divine regulations appertained to the Islamic political strategy, they were reckoned with other irrelevant topics since they were unfitting the political form established before Islam.
The first effect was the total disappearance of the discrimination between those who fought against Islam and those who fought for its sake till triumph was achieved. From the political side, the two categories are Muslims of the same credit. Consequently, the all shall be in the same Paradise. The Hashemite individual, in a like manner, who was occluded in cols of Abu Talib for three years, is not different from that previously polytheist who imposed this blockade upon him since he declared his being Muslim!! Islam does erase what precedes it! Had Hamzeh been alive again, he should have been as same as Wahshi -his killer-. This is from the practical political side. The killer and his victim are enjoying the very same rank. The Muhajir and the ‘released’ are enjoying the very same rank, too. The same is said about the illiterate and the most learned. Supposing this illiterate predominates, it shall be politically obligatory upon that most learned to obey and comply to. This is not regularly; on the assumption there is a most learned Hashemite, like Ali Bin Abi Talib, to compete with an Ansari with a less degree of knowledge, the latter will certainly be preferred. This is evident from Al-Faruq's following saying: “Had Me'ath Bin Jabal or Khalid Bin Al-Waleed been alive, I would have nominated as the caliph.” This was said with the presence of Ali Bin Abi Talib! Besides the battle of Uhud, Khalid fought against Islam in many positions, while Ali fought for the sake of Islam in all of its positions. Nonetheless, Khalid is preferred. Al-Faruq, also would have opted for Salim, the slave of Abu Hutheifeh, if only he had been alive. He would have made this non-Arab slave the chief of Ali Bin Abi Talib who is “the master of Omar, Abu Ubeideh and every male and female believer,” as Al-Faruq himself had declaratorily confessed.
The second effect was seeding and sheltering the unceasing discrepancy. As long as there is no discrimination between the Muhajir and the ‘released’ or the killer and his victim, and it is rightful for every one to take in Islam according to his idiosyncratic elucidation, this will result in the existence of various sources of jurisconsultance, notions and independent impressions. Hence, every party claims of being the right, and takes a path not taken by others. With the absence of a leading jurisconsult, whose judgments are followed by the all considering it as juristic doubtless evidences, the seed of discrepancies was planted in a fertile land. Supposing Ali and one of the ‘released’ judge in a certain issue, the receiver of these two judgments will be having the full prerogative to opt for any. This is by the reason that practically they, Ali and the ‘released’, are indiscriminately Muslims of the same rank. They both shall be in the same Paradise. So, both are Sahaba. Practically also, there is no statutory preference for Ali's judgment; how, then, is it to make preference between the equal, or how is it to make a distinction between the completely alike? In the same manner, to take any of the two pieces of gold that are having the very same size, shape, amount and value, is practically acceptable. Making any discrimination is a cautioned matter. The harmony involved is external, while the discrepancy is developing under that exterior. Sooner or later, this discrepancy will certainly be grown into a fatal malignancy that shall tear the unification of this nation and pull them out of their frame into mystery and the unknown.
The third effect was excluding the Hashemites particularly from coming to power. This meant that there was no obstacle at all against any Muslim to have the leadership of the Islamic state, provided that this position could be attained by any means including the illegal. This gives the opportunity to come to power using any methods if it becomes liable to subject people. A condition that forms an obstruction against this process is the belongness to the Hashemites, whom were exclusively granted with prophesy. So, they are fully sufficed with prophesy.
This general privilege turned the avarice for authority into a horrible nightmare and an irksome approach that made the nation lose their decision and settlement, and an experimental program for all those who looked forward to coming to power. Owing to such a privilege, the constitutional political strategy of the Islamic state became off. Regarding discerning this new ruler's lineage, knowledgeability, beliefs or preference to Islam; these matters became a second class affairs that are practically valueless and no-good since the predominating ruler has already prevailed, and the prevailed's satisfaction is a matter of an idiosyncratic interest.
Thus, what should prevent Yazeed, the notorious lascivious, from being the head of the state since he is the son of Muawiya, the former chief? What should prevent Al-Hussein Bin Ali Bin Abi Talib who is, according to categorical divine texts, (the master of the youth of the Paradise,) (the dweller of the Paradise,) (the Prophet's basil) and (the constitutional imam of this nation), from being an ordinary citizen in Yazeed's state? Both, Al-Hussein and Yazeed are Muslims of the same rank that shall be in the Paradise. Yazeed, the murderer, and Al-Hussein, the victim, will both be in the same Paradise. Both are Sahabi!! Those who criticize this notion are miscreants whom should be neither shared in food or drink nor offered the funeral Prayer when they perish!!
The fourth effect is confusedness. The good has been confused with the bad, the right with the wrong, the sweet with the bitter. The precedent became as same rank as the tardy, the attacker as same rank as the absconder, the killer as same rank as his victim and the supporter of Islam as same rank as the antagonist. They all embraced Islam and saw or were seen by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family); therefore, the all are Sahaba, the all are in the Paradise.
The virtuous ones hid themselves in the numerous provinces of the state and became “the like of a single white hair in a black bull's skin”, as Muawiya describes. The Islamic political strategy collapsed. The preferred became tardy and the tardy preferred. (And Allah's is the end of affairs.)
There is a complete difference between the Islamic political system adopted since the Prophet's decease till the period of the last Ottoman caliph, and the divine political system constituted by God's revelation to Mohammed, His slave, for managing Muslims' affairs in every time.
Insisting on the factual existence of such a difference, we, hereby, are to prove that there is a diversity among persons and reigns regarding size of this difference. It is trivial to assert on existence of this difference since it is a matter facilely realized by every sane provided that partisan imitation is abandoned. If the Islamic political system, with its divine form and contents, had been literally applied after the Prophet's decease, the Islamic state would not have collapsed; those seditious matters and massacres would not have occurred; the Islamic nation would not have been engaged in discrepancies; the glorious Islamic extension would not have stopped at this mass and, finally, Islam would have prevailed this whole globe causing a radical changing in the mankind history. In his An Experiment In The General History, the English Philosopher, Wales, one of the most notable thinkers of modern history, says that Islam would have conquered the whole world if only it had been kept on its first procession and the seditious matters avoided. While the Arab scholars -as far as they could conceive- misthink of caliphate system as the factual Islamic political system and, hence, they demand with re applying it. It is proved that the factual Islamic political system is only that applied in the Prophet's reign. This occurred before the formation of the caliphate system, since it means succeeding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Considering the Islamic system is caliphate; what was, then, the system applied in the Prophet's reign? Certainly, the political system applied in the Prophet's reign was the actual divine Islamic political system. This was utterly applied before the formation of caliphate. It is the origin and the ideal. Other strategies are not more than branches or forms of that ideal, which can be extended or acclimatized according to remoteness or closeness to the original.
The Islamic political system is that applied by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) during his divine solicitation for organizing relations with his followers. As this solicitation was developed into a government, the Prophet applied the same system during his leadership which lasted for ten years.
God perfected the religion and completed His grace upon people and explicated absolutely everything before the Prophet's decease. By extrapolating this system, it is believable to describe it as a divine system that is prepared and formulated to be the ideal international system leading to an ideal world. It is indeed divine in its ideal form and ultimate composition.
The Islamic political system is based upon four pillars connected to each other in such a way that any is impossibly separated from the others. In case any separation occurs, the system entirely loses its Islamic characteristics. This is by the reason that these pillars are the distinguishing feature of the system. Perfection of such pillars is the only method by which fruits of application of the system are given.
As a matter of fact, political leadership in every divine doctrine, among which is Islam, is nominated or elected directly by God. Applied to this fact is the prophets David, Solomon and Mohammed. It was none but God, the Elevated, who selected them as prophets and presidents of states of God's oneness. This divine decision is notified directly or indirectly. An instance on the indirect notification of God's selection is Saul, when elected as the Israelites’ political leader. One of the Israelite prophets declared God's decision of electing Saul as the assigned king. They protested claiming that Saul had not been fit enough for such a position. God revealed the many reasons owing to which this man was elected. Among these was Saul's superlative objective and physical competence. In addition, preference is God's concern; he, the Elevated, does know to whom He should give. Another example -on the indirect notification of God's selection- is God's nominating Ali Bin Abi Talib as the successor of Mohammed, the leader of the nation. This preference had been widespreadly declared by Mohammed in the sight and hearing of one hundred thousand Muslims. That was in the Prophet's last ritual pilgrimage; the Farewell Pilgrimage.
As regard to the question of leadership, the pure impeccable necessity of ordinary people is having the most learned, the most favorable and the fittest in positions of authority. Realizing such an individual with such qualifications, that are hidden for everybody, is an impracticable matter. Hence, God, as a sort of His mercy to His believing creatures, has shown them the very intended individual provided that they are honest in their searching for the most qualified. Leadership, as a matter of fact, is a technical process of specialization. In most cases, it is succession of prophesy. Guidance, advocacy, solicitation, wide-heartedness and decisive judgments parallel to the exact divine purpose beyond the entire rules of the divine juristic policy, are considerable qualifications of prophesy. It is not pertinent to commit these affairs to people's various fancies and tempers.
This pillar, in truth, is the only practical factor that demarcates the Islamic political system among other positive ones. Allowing conjecture and guess, positive strategies decide according to people's intents and humors in matter of electing the fittest for political leadership. This election will not be resulted from perfect precision that is exclusively gained by following the divine approach.
Thoroughly every divine manuscript is revealed to an individual, every divine guidance is committed to a director and every divine missive is revealed to selected messenger. Depending on so, relation between the divine manuscripts, guidance and missives, from one side, and the individuals, directors and messengers, from the other side, is organic in such a way that it cannot be incoherent.
It is inevitable to substantiate divine manuscript, explicate guidance and display missive for enabling followers to pursue, as well as altering the space between the beginning and the end result into a calling of interpretation and a field of application of the texts contents. By this operations, a fertile probation that betters and demonstrates the divine missive, manuscript and guidance will be progressed. Unless process of prophesy is technical and specialized, God may convey a copy for each individual. Mohammed, none else, is the qualified skilled in this field. He is the unique expert in field of calling for Islam in such a way that is fully concurrent to the divine intendment of the whole texts. He is the most learned of the divine missive, script and guidance, the superior follower and the fittest political leader who directs his followers pursuant to policies of the divine revelation. He whom is nominated by the Prophet, according to God's divine order, is the unshared authorized for keeping perpetuity of the organic relation between the divine doctrine and its political leadership.
According to the Islamic political system, the imam -political leader- is restricted to the divine jurisprudential formulation. Hence, he does not enjoy any sort of self-determination in the field of issuing judgments. The imam's judgment, however, must be fully and identically concurrent to the divine will in both characterization and components. The jurisprudential formulation is God's making. It is the operative law to which every individual under leadership of the imam -political leader- is submitted. Repeatedly, the jurisprudential formulation is not the constituting of the imam or the mandate people, it is God's making. As a matter of facts, Mohammed's sayings are not more than forms of explicating and expounding upon the divine revelation. This is regarded as another difference between the Islamic political system and positive ones which are issued and organized by some individuals and imposed upon followers. The jurisprudential formulation of the Islamic political system, on the other hand, is made by Allah, and imposed upon both leaders and followers in the same degree under the supervision of the Maker, Allah. Those submitted to, implementing and judging the Islamic system are, on even terms, slaves of God, the Maker. Both are imposed to the system. Both are to submit to God only.
The public, usually, count on having an ideal jurisprudential formulation that is capable of determining general, as well as private, goals, and capable of delving into the apropos means for attaining such goals. They, as well, look forward to having the most favorable and fittest political leader that is most knowledgeable of constituents of the jurisprudential formulation. In favor of saving people from this grievance, the Divine Care provided the solution by explicating the most agreeing jurisprudential formulation. The solution was Islam with all its components; the Holy Quran and the Prophet's traditions; words, deeds and signature. The leader who is most familiar with that jurisprudential formulation, as well as the most favorable and the fittest, was Mohammed. After Mohammed's decease, the succeeding leader must be the one nominated by Mohammed according to God's command through revelation. The same is repeated after the decease of the current divinely assigned leader.
The public's contentment to this divine characterization of the jurisprudential formulation, as well as the political leadership, shall lead to sublime welfare and guidance to the right path. This result is attained only by accepting the divine characterization which means applying the formulation and acceding to the leadership. In adversary conditions, God shall certainly leave the public for undergoing and suffering penalty of disobedience if they reject the divine mandate, formulation and leadership by opting for one not assigned and decided by Allah.
How can one realize that he is on the divine right path? It is an undiscussible rule that he whoever accedes to political leadership assigned by Allah is with Allah. In a like manner, it is logic that those who supported Mohammed are forming the party of Allah, while those antagonizing are the party of the Satan even if they continuously adhere themselves to performing the duties God has imposed. This is by reason that acceding and following the divine leadership is the criterion with respect to which is membership of any of the two previous parties is determined. The very same thing is said about those who pursue or antagonize the divine successor of Mohammed.
Following Mohammed was the exact distinction between the truthful and the liar. There was a great deal of people who performed ritual prayers, established mosques, gave alms and could find excuses for their failing to appear in fields of battles led by the Prophet. Yet, they were decided, by Allah, as hypocrites. This was for nothing other than the fact that their following Mohammed had been incorrect.
Othman Bin Affan held leadership of the Islamic nation after the assassination of Al-Faruq. Othman, as a nature, was fond of caring for his relatives. The Umayids began their journey to throne consecutively. The caliph himself accredited their being his men and consults; so, he gathered them around him. Practically, the entire affairs of the state became in the hands of Marwan Bin Al-Hakam who, later on, issued the orders of assassinating Mohammed Bin Abi Bakr and his associates, using the caliph's seal without seeking permission or authorization. This situation is precisely described in Ali's saying: “After his being old-aged, Othman, the previous companion of the Prophet, handed his sword to Marwan directing it as he liked.”
Who was Marwan? He is one of the ‘released’ and classified with the inclined-hearted group. Those are individuals given a share of the alms for making their hearts attached to Islam. His father, Al-Hakam Bin Al-Aas, was deported out of Al-Madina all over the reigns of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Omar. When Othman came to power, Al-Hakam was permitted to return to Al-Madina with full respect and dignity. Besides, he was gifted one hundred thousand dirhams as a compensation.
Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh was one of those who played a considerable role in establishing the Umayid state. He was the governor of Egypt; that rich province. Who was Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh? He was the very one who had forged lies against God. Therefore, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) sentenced him to death penalty in absence. It was fully legally to kill that man whenever found even if he hangs to the Ka'ba's curtains. (This is recorded in As-Seeretul-Halabiya, Section: Mecca Conquest.) On the day of conquest of Mecca, Othman accompanied the man as he was seeking the Prophet's canceling the death penalty. For a considerable period, the Prophet kept silence hoping that the man would be killed by any. None could implement the Prophet's will; thus, he had to secure him. It is not unacceptable to say that the seed; Muawiya, that had been planted by Abu Bakr -by assigning him as the governor of Syria- had been rooted in the land firmly. For twenty years, Muawiya kept the position of governing Syria. He had full authority to do anything in that valuable land. So, he levied and gifted without supervision.
Marwan, Muawiya, Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh and Al-Waleed Bin Aqaba, the governor of Kufa who performed the Fajr prayer with four Rak'as -units of prayer-; those four released’ persons were the best students of Abu Sufian's school. Even Othman, the caliph, was about to be given a graduating certificate from that school.
Al-Jawhari records the following:
When Othman was named for caliphate, Abu Sufian addressed at him: “This affair -authority- was Taim's. They were originally unfitting. Then, it became in the hands of the Edi's. They were more unfitting than the previous. Only then it returned to its proper place and settled for its original people. Yes, like a ball, receive it and hand it to one another.”
On another occasion, Abu Sufian addressed at Othman: “My father and mother I do sacrifice for you! Spend over and do not be the like of Abu Hajar. O sons of Umaya! Hand it one another, just like children's handing a ball one another. By God I swear, there is no Paradise and no Hell.” Az-Zubeir was attendant in this situation; therefore, Othman had to rebuke Abu Sufian. “Is any body else here, my son?” wondered Abu Sufian. Az-Zubeir shouted: “Yes, there is. By God I swear, I will never keep it secret!!”
Precisely, In his Al-Kamilu Fit-Tarikh, part 3, Chapter: Events Preceding Othman's Assassination, Ibnul-Atheer records: (Once, Marwan Bin Al-Hakam shouted: “Deformed be your faces! Do you intend to strip our sovereignty?”)
In the last quarter of Othman's caliphate, authoritarian affairs became absolutely in the hands of the Umayids. It became hardly to see a province ruled by other than the Umayids, if not the ‘released’. Thus, it became reasoning that any who would succeed Othman should certainly be an instrument operated by the Umayids, lest he should engage himself in a lightless night and an uneven mined land.
As a result of large expansion of the Islamic state, owing to the conquests, numbers of the fresh Muslims and pocket beneficiaries of the state became greatly large. In a like manner, number of the honorable Sahaba on whose shoulders the Mohammedan government was established was in continuous deficiency. Thus, the foremost Sahaba became as sparse as a single white hair in a black bull's skin. As Imam Sharafuddin Al-Amili expresses: “Sahaba, in that period, became the like of alarmed sheep in a winter night.” This was because of the abundant catastrophic misfortunes they had to encounter sooner or later. Muawiya, the crafty, had full acquaintance of these matters. Before assassination of Othman, he menaced the Sahaba: “You are as scanty as a black spot in a white bull's skin.”
The situation became in this form; the whole provinces were loyal to or governed by the Umayids. Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian, son of the previous leader of the parties conflicting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), and the one suckled by Hind Bint Utbeh, became the only leader. He was governor of Syria, centre of the circle and guardian of the Umayids. Besides, he granted himself the right of avenging Othman. In fact, demanding with taking vengeance of Othman was not more than a game plan aimed at guaranteeing continuity of the Umayids' rule. It was certainly a case of continuity of the Umayids' rule which, actually and practically, began on the day when Abu Bakr assigned Yazeed Bin Abi Sufian as a governor. All matters went well after assassination of Omar, and none demanded with taking vengeance. This rule became firmer and firmer till it attained climax in the last of Othman's reign. It was turned into a decided sovereignty. This is the very meaning intended by Marwan's saying: “Deformed be your faces! Do you intend to strip our sovereignty?”
It became proved that Othman's assassination was forming no crux at all. So, insistence on condemning the assassinators was not pivot of the case. This is confirmed by the fact that Muawiya, when became the authoritative caliph, did not demand with condemning Othman's assassinator. As a matter of fact, it was a case of domination! For the Umayids, killing blameless people is not that incompatible matter. Marwan Bin Al-Hakam issued a decision of sentencing Mohammed Bin Abi Bakr and his group to death penalty without being condemned to anything. Muawiya did kill Al-Hadrami whom was accused, by Ibn Ziyad, of acceding to Ali. It was Muawiya who killed Amr Bin Al-Hamq whose face was distorted due to his distinctive worship. It was Muawiya who killed Hijr Bin Edi and his associates; those godly pious groups who enjoined good and forbade evil. It was Muawiya who gave authority to Ibn Ziyad in massacring people and crucified them on trunks of date palm trees. Hence, Muawiya's most important concern is sovereignty and taking revenge for killing his grandfather, maternal uncle, cousin and his brother.
Seizing the opportunity of Al-Jamal battle, Muawiya goaded Talha, Az-Zubeir and A'isheh. He promised Talha and Az-Zubeir to be assigned as rulers of Basra and Kufa. When they were defeated in this conflict, Muawiya enlisted for breaking a war against Ali.
In his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan, Abbas Mahmud Al-Aqqad says: “A certain trickery by which wonderful achievements were attained, was frequently practiced by Muawiya against Muslim, as well as non Muslim, rivals. This trickery was mainly depending upon ceaseless work of creating discrepancies and despondency among the adversary party. This was carried out by throwing seditious matters and arising malice in the lines of the adversary party. The same trickery was actually used against people of his family and relatives. He could not tolerate noticing any concord between any two individuals. The natural competition between his most remarkable enemies could support him in accomplishing the trickery of throwing animosity among them.”
Muawiya went on practicing this easygoing plan. He would spare no effort for creating as much as possible variant trends and parties. He would be surely described as the sower of discord if he was accurately balanced historically. The authentic signification of men and deeds is determined by the straight readers of history especially in matters like some historians’ accounting the year of Muawiya's full domination of the Islamic state as ‘year of congruity’. This was because he had been the direct and main reason beyond Muslim's discrepancies and discord. Owing to so and the like, it is so unfamiliar to constitute forms of agreement with the existence of such claims. Being not sufficed by seeding discrepancies, Muawiya left people in plenteous discrepancies; each follows a definite norm.
He used Bishr Bin Arta'a and sent him to Al-Madina where he terrified and humiliated the Sahaba.
Precisely, by means of killing, destroying, firing, creating discrepancies and reviling at the Prophet's supporters and companions, Muawiya could gain people's swear of allegiance. He used the wealth he had illegally levied and expended in Syria for twenty years, for solidifying his dominion. One of his strategies was naming a definite salary to be given to the military officials of the state at nominating the new caliph.
Muawiya and A'isheh, Ummul-Mu'minin, mutinied against the legitimate caliph demanding with condemning Othman's assassinators. When Muawiya came to power by force, neither Ummul-Mu'minin nor did he practice or demand with this affair.
Although his father and he were among the ‘released’ and they led conflicts against Islam with an unexampled enthusiasm till they had to profess Islam for saving their souls, Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufian, became the authoritative leader, the representative and the successor of Mohammed on people.
How had such a revolution occurred? How had the right been defeated? How had the right become retarded while the wrong advanced? How had the ‘released’ become preferred to the Muhajir? How had those who restricted Islam become favored to those on whom this restriction fell, for the sake of Islam?
The most astonishing matter is that the year in which strength defeated legality has been named ‘year of congruity.’ Thus and so, the virtuous people failed. They were heavily depressed as they felt of deep sorrow and nonsuccess. Anyhow, it was too late to repent. They had matters within their hands. As is they were living in an inadvertence, they wake up on effects of a horrible nightmare. When they opened their eyes and minds, they found the nightmare a reality.
People were engaged in analyzing what had been occurring. A great deal of variant hypotheses and conception were come forth. For instance, Sufism, the conception of imputing matters -good and evil- to Allah, fatalism and the Sahaba's ultimate decency; these faiths were originated. The Umayids, together with their supporters, were the main incentive beyond emanation of such conceptions. They were used as a high quality weapons for defending the Umayid royalty. Besides, they were used for dispersing the rivals' efforts for the sake of establishing pillars of the Umayid royalty and substantiating its false legality.
1. Substantiating the process of the wrongful seizure of power: Muawiya, the ‘released’, the son of the ‘released’ and one of the inclined-hearted category, found himself the president, or the king, of the Islamic state, the representative and, officially, the successor of God's messenger. This is incredible and unbelievable! It is unacceptable according to the entire intellectual, doctrinal and positive criteria. The father, Abu Sufian, was the head of the parties opposing Islam and the director of polytheism during the entire battles. His sons, supporters and he exerted all efforts and used all weapons for resisting Islam. They had to confess Islam only when they had been completely surrounded. Here is his son, Muawiya. He is preceding all those who had preceded him to Islam and whose shoulders were the pillars on which Islam was established.
There should be a justification of this revolution. The best way selected was ruling of decency of all of the Prophet's companions. As long as Muawiya and his faction are reckoned with Sahaba, according to terminological and the lexical meaning of this idiom, who are entirely decent, and shall be in the Paradise, and none of them shall be in the Hell, and there is no difference between them because of the total qualifications they, indistinctly, enjoy, then what should prevent Muawiya from being the caliph and the Muslims' juristic leader? What, in the same manner, should prevent his faction, who are Sahaba terminologically and lexically, from being his close entourage? They are so decent that all of them shall be in the Paradise and none shall be in hell-fire. The far-reaching conception of the Sahaba's ultimate decency is the most ideal substantiation of Muawiya's royalty. This wide-spreadingness shows evidently a real view of Muawiya’s artfulness and evil cunning.
2. Substantiating deeds of Muawiya and his faction: The most catastrophic misfortunes Islam and Muslims had faced were on the hands of Muawiya and his faction. Bishr Bin Arta'a and Muslim Bin Aqaba, for instance, committed the most terrible crimes from which even the heavens complained and the most hard hearts bled. In the Harra collision, the whole warriors of Badr were killed. Seven hundred men of Quraish and the Ansar were killed. From ordinary people, about ten thousand souls were killed in that collision. Nothing intercepted those commanders from killing the children. This crime was perpetrated by Bishr Bin Arta'a when he killed the babies of Ubeidullah Bin Abbas. In addition, battles against Imam Ali prove the criminal conduct of Muawiya and his faction. The most offensive matter, however, was Muawiya's planning for terminating Mohammed's progeny inclusively. In executing so, his faction and he used several devious devices for murdering. He poisoned Al-Hassan Bin Ali (peace be upon him), Abdurrahman Bin Khalid Bin Al-Waleed, as Ibn Abdil-Berr records in his Alisti'ab, and Abdurrahman Bin Abi Bakr As-Siddiq. Malik Al-Ashtar was also poisoned by Muawiya. For this, Amr Bin Al-Aas said: “Allah does have soldiers of honey!” Furthermore, Muawiya made Muslims engaged in various discrepancies and discord. Al-Aqqad says that Mohammed's nation had been absolutely incapable of achieving unanimity whatever they attempted. Certainly, the Islamic jurisprudence was deformed on the hands of Muawiya. (The truth is that the Umayid reign was not Islamic..,), Dr. Ahmed Amin says.
Is there any way of substantiating these ill deeds other than the invention of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception? As the entire Sahaba are so decent that they shall be in the Paradise, Muawiya and his faction, then, had not committed any mistake. Had they been mistaken, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), the indisputably authentic and true-tongued who does never speak out of desire, would not have declared the entire Sahaba’s being in the Paradise. Considering him as an elicitor Sahabi, Muawiya is rewarded in all cases. He shall be double rewarded if he kills rightfully, otherwise, he shall be once rewarded. Muawiya is the right, whether he fights or opts for peace, attacks or absconds, takes or gives. This is because he is a Sahabi; and Sahaba are entirely decent.
Accompanying substantiation of Muawiya's usurpation of leadership, the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception verifies crimes and offenses committed by his faction and him. Likewise, the conception grants immunity against any sort of criticism, including the constructive, railing, maligning and detracting from the estimate of such individuals since they are Sahaba and, consequently, decent. He whoever criticizes, maligns or rails at any of the Sahaba, especially those who are presidents of the state, is reckoned with the miscreants whom are to be not shared in food and drink and to neglect offering their dead bodies the ritual funeral prayer. This (juristic) rule is recorded in At-Thehbi's Al-Mizan. There is no other conception or plan that can immunize Muawiya such as this Sahaba's ultimate decency conception.
Adopting the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception secures victory, or tie at least, of Muawiya and his faction in any conflict against rivals. For example, if Mohammed's progeny affirm that they are those from whom God has removed -mental and physical- uncleanness and purified them a thorough purification, Muawiya and his faction will immediately submit that simultaneous answer of considering Mohammed's companions -Sahaba- as decent that they do never lie, since they all shall be in the Paradise and none of them shall be sent to the hell-fire. If Mohammed's progeny assert that those who cause harm to them should be reckoned with those who cause harm to God, Muawiya and his faction shall provide that immediate answer that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) say: “They are harming me those who harm any of my companions..” In such a manner, the right is mixed with the wrong, the obedient with the disobedient and the virtuous with the sinful.
In case Muawiya obtains the ability of emanating and broadcasting of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception with its wide-spreading features, a party of Muslims will adopt, and another will contravene. Controversy, accompanied by fanaticism, will arise in each party's convictions. This will lead to discrepancy and that each party record convictions that shall certainly be followed by a great deal of successors pursuing partisan imitation, claiming of defending the right and their own viewpoints. Regarding the conception involved, those who support such a conception are not necessarily supporting Muawiya. They claim of supporting the Prophet's companions. Those who disagree to the conception, on the other hand, are acquitting themselves from the view of dissenting the Prophet's companions, indicating that their aim is divulging trickeries and political cabals hidden for the other party. Practically, each party has actually stood in the face of the other shunning Muawiya who, in that case, is watching the two cheerfully, preparing himself to be the arbiter whenever necessary. This is the very artfulness intended by Al-Aqqad in his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan
Ibn Arafa -Naftawayih, one of the most notable hadithists- records that most of narratives appertained to merits of the Prophet's companions were forged in the Umayid reign, as the forgers intended attaining the rulers' satisfaction since they conceived that such falsity would submit the Hashemites. These false narratives were formed in such a way that every Sahabi, lexically or terminologically, would be the most virtuous guide in this world and that curses are continuously thrown on those who malign or accuse any of the Sahaba of any matters.
Unanimously, historians assert that the origination of forging lies against the Prophet was in the last of Othman's reign and after occurrence of the revolution that prejudiced the caliph's soul. This falsity was extended and spread after people's swearing allegiance to Ali as he became the legitimate caliph. As soon as Muslims selectively declared their fealty to Ali, the Umayid's devil moved its horn for usurping the affair from its rightful owner. At any rate, events went on and some of declarants of fealty broke their allegiance to the fourth Rashidite caliph. The consequence of such a repeal was a good many battles and conflicts between Muslims, that were ended by the Umayids' dominating power. Due to so, in fact, structure of Muslims' conformity was seceded, ring of the their unification was ruptured, many contradictory sects were originated. besides, the many irreconcilable parties went on advocating their ideas by words and deeds on the account of the other party. Ground of founding the false hadiths and exegesis of the Holy Quran was quite proper. So, each party exaggerated in defending its ideology that discrepancy, in its highest rank, occurred. Nothing was more catastrophic to Islam than forging false sayings and imputing erroneous and heretic matters to its doctrine. These were the elements that spoiled Muslim's intellects and caused others to mistrust fundamentals of Islam. Misfortunes and detriments of such false narratives were chiefly undergone by those who lived under dominion of the Umayids. In that reign, the number of hadithists had recorded a great typical progress, while the number of authentic people had been in gradual retardation. Majority of the moral Sahaba ceased reporting the Prophet's narratives unless they had full acquaintance of decency of the one they were to report to.
Imam Mohammed Abduh referred to the procedures taken by Muawiya for himself. He asserted that Muawiya had used a mass of the Sahaba and their successors for fabricating ill news against Ali (peace be upon him). The composition of such mendacious sayings falsely imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), was referring to maligning and repudiating Ali. As Muawiya set a considerable remunerative prize for forging such lies, those individuals did their best for seeking his satisfaction. Abu Hureira was one of those narrators.
In His Dhuhal-Islam, Dr. Ahmed Amin says: “It is to mention that the Umayids did actually forge or employ people to forge lies against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) that flow in the service of their policies from various sides. Muawiya gifted Abu Samara Bin Jundub, the Sahabi, with five hundred thousand dirhams for inventing the lie of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stating that Ali Bin Abi Talib had been the one intended in the Verse: (And among men is he whose speech about the life of this world causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries.) In a like manner, Abu Samara forged the lie of the Prophet’s having saying that Abdurrahman Bin Muljim, the assassinator of Ali (peace be upon him), had been the one intended in God's saying: (And among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is affectionate to the servants.)”
Abu Hureira Ad-Dusi, is one of Muawiya's associates and followers. He imputed 5374 sayings to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Only 446 sayings of them are recorded by Al-Bukhari. Abu Hureira accompanied the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) for less than 18 months. The Prophet's grand companions who had adhered to him from the first moment of his divine envoy till his being transmitted to the Elevated Associate, reported less than one hundred hadiths -narratives-. The grand Sahaba are Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali, Abdurrahman Bin Awf, Talha Bin Ubeidillah, Me'ath Bin Jabal, Selman, Zeid Bin Thabit and Ubey Bin Ka'b. This is an evident example.
In his Al-Fawa'idul-Majmu'a Fil-Ahadithil-Mawdu'a, Ashawkani, who proves falsity and unauthenticity of the entire (hadiths) regarding praising or mentioning Muawiya's credits, says: “Having reckoned hadiths appertained to Muawiya's virtues with the forged ones, Ibnul-Jawzi excused that Isaaq Bin Rahawayih, Al-Bukhari's most authentic narrator, confessed of the fact that none of the hadiths respecting Muawiya's virtues had been authentic at all.”
An-Nisa'i had that famous story pertaining Muawiya's virtues. Ad-Darqutni relates:
An-Nisa'i's companions asked him about Muawiya's preference. He answered: “How come is it not sufficient for him to be equated with any, that he seeks preference?” For this reason, he was pushed out of the mosque..
Abul-Fida relates that Ashafi'i informed Ar-Rabee, secretly, of the fact that testimonies of four individuals from among the Prophet's companions should not be admitted. Those four are Muawiya, Amr Bin Al-Aas, Al-Mugheera and Ziyad.
This might have been the incentive that made Ibn Muin ruled of dishonesty of Ashafi'i in narrating hadiths.
At-Tabari mentions that Al-Hassan Al-Basri used to say:
“Four ill deeds, any of which is sufficiently periling, are Muawiya's. They are his using the ill-minded ones -with the existence of the Prophet's companions and virtuous individuals- as rulers of this nation till he could dominate and cancel principal of advisory. His nominating Yazeed, his son, the drunkard who dresses silky clothes and plays on drums, as his successor. His avowing Ziyad as his brother, whereas the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had said: 'Babies are for the bed, and the prostitutes' share is stones.' His killing Hijr and his companions. Woe will be him due to killing Hijr and his companions. Woe will be him due to killing Hijr and his companions.”
According to the content of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, Mohammed's progeny must have been reckoned with the decent. This should definitely make the Umayids stop their maligning and reviling at them.
Nonetheless, it is noticeable that regarding to his situations towards Imam Ali, Muawiya, the chief of the despotic party, adopted the very situation his father had against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Yazeed, the son, made no difference in his situation against Al-Hussein Bin Ali. As soon as he came to power, the first procedure Muawiya took was writing missives to his governors and officials, ordering them of declaring cursing Ali during prayers and from pulpits. Furthermore, sessions of sermons, in Syria, were programmatically ended with reviling at Ali. Testimonies of those who accede to Ali or any of his progeny were inadmissible. Names of such individuals, who showed loyalty to Ali or any of his sons, were erased from the general record of the province. Hence, they were discriminated and intercepted from receiving any of the governmental salaries everybody joined.
In his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan, Al-Aqqad records: “Even if only the preponderant reports regarding Muawiya's orders of cursing Ali from pulpits of the Umayid state, are accepted, this will be acceptably sufficient to prove authenticity of the other reports involved in the same topic.”
The Sahaba's ultimate decency conception was formulated and concluded in such a secure approach that it perfectly ensures the inventors' past, present and future, and deem lawful all their manners. The conception was also prepared so accurately that its effective presence is secured at any matter that might influence the inventors, in any form, or modify their remoteness or closeness to legality, or originate or obliterate discrepant locations in the rivals' camp, or, finally, misguide rivals in the midst of suspicion, mystification and unstability.
The most inexplicable matter, indeed, is that we see the adopters of the conception, nowadays, hold it as their signification to adoring to Mohammed and his companions. Those modern adopters of that false conception take charge of supporting it and engage themselves in discrepancies on behalf of the origin inventors of the conception who kept themselves out of the ring as if the matter does, in no means, not concern them.
Those who demand with adjusting the conception are, in fact, not of less affection of Mohammed and his companions. They only demand with depending upon intellectual and doctrinal grounds for keeping this affection in the frame of Islam, neglecting partisan fanaticism and imitation since these two things do incapacitate the role of intellect and the grace of functional conversation dedicated to the godly elected individuals.
Previously, we could prove that the majority of hadiths regarding merits of the Prophet's companions was forged in the Umayid reign, seeking their amenity as the forgers considered their ill deeds as helpful factors in submitting the Hashemites. This fact is asserted by Ibn Arafa, one of the most notable hadithists. We could prove also that the historians unanimously agreed upon the fact that invention of forged lies against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had been originated in the last stage of Othman's reign and, in a greater size, after the sedition of his assassination. This size of forging lies and false sayings attained its climax when people swore allegiance to Ali Bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him). As soon as the legitimate valid declaration of fealty to Ali was acted, the Umayid devil moved its horn for usurping authority from its owner. As the Umayids came to power, an organized art of forging lies and intriguing false sayings against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was officiated. “The Umayid rulers offered rewards so precious that many might hunger for, for those who showed skillfulness in the art of forging lies and intriguing false sayings against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).” Mohammed Abduh describes.
Such false and forged sayings, besides the authentic ones related by virtuous Sahaba, were regarded as sources of citation depended on by Sunnis with all of their various sects and trends.


In addition to reports of the virtuous Sahaba, the forged and false sayings originated in the epoch of sedition and perfectly formed in the Umayid reign were depended on by those who believed that the entire Sahaba had been decent of the same rank since they all were to be in the Paradise. Logically, those who should be in the Paradise should never forge lies. Sahaba, then, are source of citation of such people whom were prevalently named Ahlus-Sunneh. So, those Sunnis took and conceived their religion from those who are terminologically and lexically entering under the name of Sahaba. The closest to the Umayid royal palace were those who related the greatest number of false hadiths. Abu Mohammed Bin Hazm mentions that Abu Abdirrahman Bin Mukhelled Al-Andalusi's record of hadiths contained about 5374 sayings narrated by Abu Hureira alone. Not more than 446 sayings of them are recorded by Al-Bukhari. The close relationship between Muawiya and Abu Hureira is a matter too famous to illustrate. It is to mention that the period Abu Hureira spent with the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) extended for less than eighteen months. In brief words, for Sunnis, every (hadith) narrated by any of the Sahaba, in both terminological and lexical meanings, is taken in consideration and highly regarded as reckoned as a part of the religion, since the entire Sahaba are ultimately decent and absolutely not liable to prevarication, as they all are to be in the Paradise. Principally, narrators should be authentic as long as they show no agreeableness to Ali or the Prophet's household, lest they are inauthentic and irreliable.
Yahya Bin Muin records:
As he ruled of authenticity of Sa'eed Bin Khalid Al-Bujeli, they protested against him claiming that Sa'eed had been a Shiite. “Yes, he is Shiite and authentic!!!” He asserted. However, the Jumhour* had never used these two descriptions concurrently since the last years of the first century -A.D-)

Sunnis claim that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had said: “My companions' like is the stars; you shall be guided to the right path if you refer to any of them.” or “..if you rest upon the words of any.”
Ibn Teimiyeh, the named ‘Master of Islam’, comments: “The saying ‘My companions' like...’ is ruled as doubtful by the most notable hadithists. Hence, it cannot be regarded as an evidence.” This fact is written down in At-Thehbi's Hujjetul-Munteqa, page 55. The saying, however, is ruled as incorrect according to the unanimity of the hadithists.
In addition to the Book of God, Shias rested upon sayings of the Imams of the Prophet's household and narratives related by the virtuous Sahaba as the jurisprudential sources of citation in regarding the entire principal and secondary questions and matters Islam had referred to. Imams of the Prophet's progeny did inherit their entire jurisprudence, fundamentals and instructions in all of its stages and chapters from Ameerul-Mu'minin, their grandfather, about whom the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had stated: “I am the city of knowledge. Ali is the door to that city. He whoever intends the city, must, first, see the door.” Such an authority enjoyed a constant restraints. Imams (peace be upon him) used to say: “Whatever we say is concordant to the Holy Book of God. You are to shun any saying imputed to us if it is contradictory to the Holy Book of God.” Imam As-Sadiq was wont to say: “My saying is my father's. My father's saying is his father's. His father's saying is the Prophet's. The Prophet's saying is God's.”

Decisive doctrinal texts of the holy Quran and the Prophet's traditions, in its three categories; words, deeds and signature, that are unanimously agreeable by both Sunnis and Shias, are the doctrinal base upon which Shias relied in referring to the Imams of the Prophet's household as the legal authority. In Quran, Imams of the Prophet's progeny are those meant in God's saying: (Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the house and to purify you a thorough purifying.) The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said: “They -the Prophet's household- are the minor weighty thing as the Quran is the major.” Guidance to the right path cannot be attained unless adherence to these two weighty things is reached. In a like manner, deviation from the right path cannot be avoided unless adherence to the two weighty things is reached. As the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) describes, the Imams' like is Noah's ark. He shall be certainly saved that who takes it, while those who eschew shall certainly sink. They are also Mohammed's nation's secure against discrepancies.
Role of the authority at Sunnis: Sahaba, lexically and terminologically, are the authority referred to by Sunnis in questions of understanding the Quranic texts. The entire Sahaba, without citing any discrimination, are intended, since they all are equally decent and, then, to be in the Paradise. In the first stages following the Prophet's decease, the Sahaba's concern was not more than reporting the Prophet's sayings and deeds. When sects became numerous and widespread in various provinces, narrations were including the Prophet's words and deeds, as well as the Sahaba's. The Sahaba's opinions occupied the third position after the Quran and the Prophet's tradition, in sources of Islamic legislation. The Shafi'ite sect was less fanatic than the other three; the Hanbalite, the Malikite and the Hanafite. Although he was so enthusiast to principal of analogy he regarded as the second source of Islamic legislation after the Holy Quran, Abu Haneefeh used to prefer the Sahaba's opinions to the analogy in cases of inconsistency. The following saying is imputed to him: “In case I could not find the text involved in the Quran or the Prophet's traditions, I go straightly to the Sahaba's opinions. Supposing that there were various opinions of various Sahaba, I, then, have full option to adopt any provided that I do not prefer their followers' opinions to theirs.”
In his I'lamil-Muwaqqi'in, Ibnul-Qeyyim writes down: “For Imam Ahmed, principals of legislation are five. The first and the second are the -doctrinal- texts and the Sahaba's verdicts respectively. Hanafites and Hanbalites ruled of allocating the Holy Book of Allah to the Sahaba's deeds. Their argument is that the learned Sahabi would not neglect applying a general text unless he has an evidence. Hence, applying on the contrary of a doctrinal text is an evidence on allocation of such a text. A Sahabi's deeds, however, are as same valuable as his words.
As far as one can see, Sunnis have intensely exaggerated in sanctifying Sahaba. As a matter of fact, this sanctification is identical to principal of sinlessness.
With diffusion of the juristic sects, this intense exaggeration was used as a weapon in the face of assenting Imams of the Prophet's progeny. The Sahaba's sayings were treated as if they were revealed from the heavens; therefore, they were used in allocating general significations of the Holy Book of Allah and generalizing a restricted meaning.
Role of the authority at Shias: The Holy Quran was revealed as an explanation of everything at all. Reports related to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) in such a decisive proved way that no doubt is arisen about, are reckoned with the doctrinal texts. In other cases, it is impermissible to refer contingently to the Prophet's traditions in matters of legislation except traditions supported by a Quranic text. This is by reason that the Quran has an explanation of everything thoroughly. The Quran was revealed in Arabic; the Arabs' tongue, and in a style easily conceived by everyone. The Prophet's tradition is related by ordinary people who might be authentic or dishonest in the same rank. Those individuals were engaged in discrepancies with each other to the degree that some rejected others' reports and each followed his own conclusion. They accused each other of the worst misdeeds and ruled of legality of killing one another.
In brief words, the Holy Quran is decided as the indisputable judge for Shias since it has a manifestation of every thing thoroughly. Secondly, the Prophet's traditions; deeds, words and signature, the authenticity of which is decisively proved in such a way that no doubt is arisen around, is also regarded in authority.

1. Sunnis count on the principal that the entire lexical and terminological Sahaba, including babies who saw or was seen by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) once only, are totally so decent that it is impossible for them to lie or forge lies since they, unexceptionally, shall be in the Paradise and none of them shall be in the hell-fire. By this generalization, Al-Hakam Bin Al-Aas whom, with his two companions, had been banished by the Prophet, and Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh who had forged lies against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and Muawiya; they all are decent, impossible to lie and their fate shall, beyond any dispute, be the Paradise. Effect of counting on such a principal is not quite different from the principal itself. Whatever is said by a Sahabi, after proving his having been a Sahabi, is definitely correct that inelegance cannot approach. In case there are various opinions of various Sahaba concerning a certain question, the elicitor -of juristic rules- is fully free to opt for any without any flaw at all. For instance, if Al-Hakam Bin Al-Aas, Abu Hureira, Hutheifeh Bin Al-Yeman and Abu Bakr had different opinions in a certain question, it is perfectly optional to take in any's. This is by reason that they all are decent of the same level as they all are Sahaba. Hence, it is illicit to criticize or malign any of them like Sunnis' conducts towards the narrators of other sects!
A more considerable matter is that Hanafites and Hanbalites ruled of dedicating the Quranic texts to a Sahabi's deed. They claim that a Sahabi would not shun practice decided by the Quran unless he had an evidence. Hence, a Sahabi's deed that is contrary to the Quranic text is an evidence on the dedication of that text. A Sahabi's word, in addition, is ruled as same as his deed.
The most extraordinary matter is that Sunnis mean by Sahaba all those individuals that meet the lexical, as well as the terminological, signification of this term. This means that they rule of sinlessness of the entire Sahaba, that any of them is a legal legislator, if not playing a considerable role in legislation.
From this side, the matter is very different at Shias. They assent Mohammed's companions who did their best for the sake of backing this religion, and strove with their wealths and souls. The well known supplication frequently repeated by Shias for the sake of Mohammed's supporters is a highly considerable evidence on their honest loyalty and sincere tenderness. The following is a piece of that long supplication:
(..O God, and as for the companions of Mohammed especially those who did well in companionship, who stood the good test in helping him, responded to him. When he made them hear his message's argument, separated from mates and children in manifesting his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening his prophecy, and through him gained victory; those who were wrapped in affection for him, hoping for a commerce that comes not to naught in love for him; those who were left by their clans when they clung to his handhold and denied by their kinsfolk when they rested in the shadow of his kinship; forget not, O God, what they abandoned for Thee and in Thee, and make them pleased with they good pleasure for the sake of the creatures they drove to Thee while they were with Thy Messenger, summoners to Thee for Thee. Show gratitude to them for leaving the abodes of their people for Thy sake and going out from a plentiful livelihood to a narrow one, and [show gratitude to] those of them who became objects of wrongdoing and whom Thou multiplied in exalting Thy religion..)
Those are Mohammed's companions whom are greatly respected by Shias who believe in loyalty to them and refer to them in their religious beliefs after proving authenticity of the narration.
In brief words, Shias rule of decency only after attaining its probation. The origination of decency of every Sahabi is invalid and lacks evidences. In full freedom of expressing one's own impressions, Shias debate and criticize the ill deeds of such Sahaba, and contemplate each according to his actual importance. They do never befriend those who antagonize God and His messenger. They declare their acquittal from those who betook their oaths as a protection for the sake of occluding the path to Allah. Following such a trend, Shias do not counter the Book of Allah and the Prophet's traditions and norm and the virtuous ancestors' course of discriminating the Sahaba, and garbling the decent from the indecent. This was the exact reason beyond which Shias went on encountering and suffering false accusations.
Because they adopted grounds other than these adopted by Sunnis, Shias could attain different results.


Recurrently, during the reign of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), a many opinions about a certain case was provided. And he had been wont to listen to them all before rendering the doctrinal judgment through a Quranic text or his prophetic tradition. The honest acceded to this judgement. Hence, they were united after discrepancy, and taken to the field of certitude after their suspicion. Frequently, occurrences were repeated and settling solutions were rendered. This made the numerous opinions about a certain question an appearance of intellectual enrichment. That was by reason that there was a unique fair and decisive authority the entire people referred to. Identity of authority is the base on which social and doctrinal unity rely. Banned discrepancies fall only when there was more than a unique authority. Since discrepancy is opposite to unity and for the sake of achieving unity, the ruler will be having to confiscate people's rights of expressing their ideas.
Objectively, authorities were copious as a result of establishment of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. There were thousands of authorities with various opinions, conceptions and understanding, originated in the Islamic society. Due to such a multiplicity, people were engaged in various sects and parties; each supporting their authority and believing of its being the only rightful and the only path to Allah. Practically, ruling authorities, as they are dominators of mass media of the state, have the capability of focusing lights on a definite authority, or authorities, and regarding them as the only honest and rightful and seeker of the straight path to Allah. Encircling verdicts and conceptions of a selective authority with an aura of respect and esteem, the ruling regime may lead ordinary people, indirectly, to trust that authority apart from considering eligibility. Abu Hureira, for instance, was an unfamiliar Sahabi who lacked any role in the Rashidite reign. His job was serving people. The period he had spent with the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was not more than eighteen months. Yet, he became an enormous authority whose excessively numerous sayings were regarded as the absolute right, beside which wrong can never approach. This was because of his seeking favors of the Umayid royalty. In that period, Abu Hureira publicized about seven hundred (hadiths) exceeding the entire grand Sahaba twofold. These achievements would not have been progressed if the ruling regime had not adopted and elected that man for being their representative in an authority attracting all the other ones.

No religion exists without authority. No doctrine exists without authority. Mohammed is the unique authority of Islam and its doctrine. His judgment is decisive. In case there is another authority, according to God's mandate, he should be basically related to the first one considering the most knowledgeability and the most familiarity of the doctrine.
Jewism had a unique authority. Moses (peace be upon him) was the authority and Aaron was his follower. Aaron would be Moses' successor in case the latter was absent. When he returned, Aaron returned to his fellowship.
In a like manner, Christianity has a single authority. He was Jesus (peace be upon him). The Disciples were related and working for the sake of that religion under authority of Jesus (peace be upon him). Just after Mohammed, Moses or Jesus had been transmitted to the Elevated Associate, the existence of a unique authority for each of these doctrines, nominated by the first main one, was necessarily falling. Leaving the religion or the doctrine without an authority is contrary to perfection of the divine religions and an act of disregard that prophets are honorably released from.
As to Islam, the authority of Muslims is the Prophet's household and, markedly, the chief of this dignified clan in every generation. This is proved by many doctrinal decisive texts. Regarding the wonderment why those individuals of the Prophet's clan had been defined; we may say, first, that this is God's grace. He bestows to whomever He wills. Secondly, the Prophet did set them practically. Reciprocally, the Prophet and they embraced and supported each other. God shows us that they have been the best and the most favorable at every period of time. This is one of specifications of authority. After the Prophet's decease, it was so clear that the chief of his household, Ali Bin Abi Talib, would be the authority to whom Muslims should refer. Each individual Muslim was informed of the decision that Ali would be his master and the master of every male and female Muslim. This is obvious in Al-Faruq's saying: “This is my master, your master and the master of every male and female Muslim.” This is the doctrinal authority.

It is noticeable that the doctrinal authority was ceased just after the Prophet's decease. The caliph occupied the role of the doctrinal authority. Three decades later, the doctrinal authority could recover his position. Great problems were proceeded till he was assassinated. When Al-Hassan came to power he realized that these problems had been still arisen, and that it would not be stabilized unless he would be assassinated. So, he abandoned that affair. Al-Hussein, together with his immaculate household, was surrounded in Kerbela and terminated. Thus, people lost the doctrinal authority. The Umayid rulers spared no efforts for assigning themselves as the doctrinal authority since authority is an essential pillar of unificating societies. They worked for persuading people of their being the doctrinal authority. It is natural that great numbers of seekers of mundane affairs agreed with them for achieving that purpose.

The entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception had been lexically and terminologically designed in such a way that it included the Umayid rulers. Thus, decency had been imputed to the entire Sahaba. Like the doctrinal authority, the Sahabi is decent and impossibly forging lies that he should certainly be in the Paradise. That led to the belief that the Umayid rulers are decent and fully legible to be the doctrinal authority of Mohammed's nation. This was the clue to the following events.

The Sahaba's ultimate decency conception would have been completely frail in case ordinary people had fabricated. With a mental and fiscal support of the ruling authorities, individuals known as the Prophet's companions had argued for the conception. The ruling regime did provide a remuneration for forging false hadiths regarding criticizing the doctrinal authority succeeding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). They favored the adopters of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception and conferred them with wealth and credits in addition to utilizing the whole mass media of the state for publicizing their thoughts.
The Virtuous Sahaba could naturally conceive the whole play; yet, they were too short to do anything as their hands were enchained, the nation was engaged in discrepancies and the ruling authorities held fast on every thing. The grand Sahaba, however, denied the whole conspiracy suing their tongues and hands. Unfortunately, these forms of denial were sentenced to death in a dark corner of poor houses as soon as they attempted to arise. On the other side, a remarkable support of the conception was occupying the entire mass media of the state. Courses of maligning, cursing and reviling at the real doctrinal authority of the nation became such a daily activity coercively practiced by people. The fate faced by Hijr Bin Edi would be the same of those whoever object the ruling regime in this regard. The fate, however, was a form of holding up the monthly pays and the earnings, if not killing.
So quietly, the process of founding a surrogate authority was keeping its straight way.

The generation of the virtuous Sahaba was extinct. The virtuous followers of the Sahaba were deceased. The opposition was terminated. So, argument of all of those categories became null. A very little size of those arguments remained. The thing remaining with all its details was the intact information necessary for imputing legality to the counterfeit surrogate authority. Those details were considered as a part of the preserved documents of the state. By this, the counterfeit surrogate authority became apparently actual and legitimate. This occurred only after the decease of those who realized the truth, and whose arguments and objection had been completely hidden. The current generation, hence, believed that the authority they were noticing through the ruling regimes were identical to that doctrinal one of which God had ordered and founded. In this manner, opposing this conception ware regarded as an opposition to the religion itself, not the founders. Moreover, the conception became an undicussible truth. As a judgment, he whoever disputed, opposed or criticized this conception was ruled as a miscreant and that it was haram -forbidden- for people to share him in a food or a drink, or offer his soul the funeral prayer. The Shias' being forming the main opposition against such a conception, they, led by the Prophet's household, were the field of throwing curses as they were regarded as the principal foes of this religion, disbelievers and evildoers. This is the view planted in the mentality of people including the who had been graduated from institutes adopting the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. The whole history were re related through this conception.

The solution, in this stage, is nothing other than tolerance. It is the course of Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family) who was opposed by the whole people. Yet; he did not submit. Using wisdom, suitable logical reasoning, legitimate methods, decisive arguments and clear proofs, Mohammed could cleave the curtains of partisan imitation, and purify the truth. In the end, people were convinced. This is the only procedure to be taken by adorers of the doctrinal truth.

People confess that the Islamic nation would indisputably assent to seventy three parties. Saving one, the whole would be sent to hell-fire. Nevertheless, they were divided into various discrepant sects and parties each of whom was claiming of being the right alone. They all believed in the fact that there is only one right which is followed by that saved party. The saved party is that ensuing the doctrinal authority. This division was one of the excuses of the foundation of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception.

In the absence of the doctrinal authority whose mission is explicating the actual intendment of the doctrinal texts and harmonizing such texts with actuality, Muslims were engaged in tens of jurisprudential sects and parties each of which was necessarily showing a political attributes. These jurisprudential parties were mainly concentrated in five powers:
1. Ahlul-Beit sect: It is the foremost Islamic sect. It is the sect of the saved party, as we shall certainly prove. It was called the Jafarite sect in regard to Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq (peace be upon him).
2. The Hanafite sect: It is appended to Abu Haneefeh who had been a student of Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq before he established his own school.
3. The Malikite sect: It is appended to Malik. Before he established his own sect, Malik had been receiving his studies from Abu Haneefeh.
4. The Shafi'ite sect: It is appended to Ashafi'i. In the same manner, Before Ashafi'i had his own school of jurisprudence, he had been receiving his studies from Malik.
5. The Hanbalite sect: It is appended to Ahmed who had received studies of jurisprudence from Ashafi'i before he established his own school.
Pursuant to the previous, it is conspicuous that Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq was the master of the four founders of Islamic sects. They did take pride in this fact. Followers of those four sects ruled of the deviation of the followers of Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq.

The following are the purposes beyond the permanent aggressive prosecution against the Prophet's household:
1. Insistence of the prosecuting groups on compelling the Prophet's progeny to abandon the mission they are exclusively charged with by Allah.
2. Lexical and functional misrepresentation of properties, the Prophet's household are exclusively granted by Allah.
3. Founding topical properties that are competing the divine property of the Prophet's household for distorting the signification and the functions of their exclusive properties.
4. The entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception has been established as the topical property confronting the exclusive properties of the Prophet's household.
5. Supposing the infallible Prophet's progeny broke off their divine properties and submitted to the falling matters, they would not be left alone. They would be enduringly prosecuted by ruling regimes.
6. The previous fact is based on the habit that although rulers espoused the attractive beautiful mastery by force after they had robbed from its rightful owners, the spirit, as well as the heart, of that charming mastery is still with the legitimate spouse. Therefore, mastery frequently declared this fact in the face of the usurpers. This matter set fire in the rulers' hearts all that period. This fire incited them to commit shameful misdeeds.

The Hashemite race is the most honorable among all people in general and the Arab in particular. This is proved by doctrinal texts. The house of Abdul-Muttelib is, in the same manner, the most honorable among all people in general and the Arab in particular. This is also supported by doctrinal texts. The Hashemites are sons of Hashim Bin Abdi Menaf Bin Qusay Bin Kelab.
Mohammed's household is the most honorable and the most favorable. God, in His Holy Book, imposed cherishing those individuals upon the all. Likewise, He, the Exalted, rendered blessing them as a pillar part of the ritual obligatory prayers. This meaning is cited in Ashafi'i's poetic verses:
O the household of Allah's prophet! Your affection
Is a mandate of Allah, revealed in the Quran
It is sufficiently a great pride that
He who does not bless you is false performer.
Mohammed's household is indeed the nucleus of this nation, and the tree of healing. They are the Prophet's most favorable individuals.
God has purified the Prophet's household and removed mental and physical uncleanness away from them. The Verse of Tatihir -purification- is obviously visible to every single Muslim. Thanks to God, the Exalted, and due to their hard striving for the sake of Allah, they preceded the all. They are the doctrinal authority of Islam and Muslims. They are the political leadership. These are unattainable glory and untouchable honor and properties of Mohammed's family.

Property of kinship can be looked at as a matter of ennobling. In essence, it is a mandate of definite meaning and functions.

This immaculate kinship is the leaning point of Muslims. They are the element that is lonlily able to complete the circle and define its center. They assemble the Islamic nation in cases of discrepancies. By referring to that divine leaning point, Muslims are provided with the proper solution of their discord. Hence, they will not take east or west or any other direction. They will immediately encompass and direct towards the immaculate kinship of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), who are the doctrinal reference of this religion and Muslims. Those immaculate relatives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) explicate the beliefs so evidently that the whole Muslims, as well as non Muslims, will conceive. As another mission, they may provide the most ideal understanding of the religion, that is absolutely simultaneous to the divine intendment, after they listen to the various viewpoints of Muslims.

The following are the main functions of the infallible progeny of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family):
1. They are regarded as a point of leaning and assembling Muslims.
2. They are regarded as authority of the religion who solicit for Islam before other nations and explicate it the Muslims.
3. They are regarded as the minor weighty thing -of this doctrine-, as the Quran is the major. Being guided to the right path cannot be attained unless these two weighty things are clung. Similarly, deviation cannot be avoided unless these two weighty things are held fast. Deviation from the right path shall be certainly falling if people cohere the Holy Quran and shun the Prophet's immaculate progeny. This is by reason that the Quran is the remedy, and the Prophet's progeny are the physician. Physic, however, is a process of specialization.
4. They are prepared to be the political leadership of this nation. People, as a whole, will certainly accede to the leadership of Mohammed's progeny since they are representing radical solutions that abolish any discrepancy or discord. In the same time, the Prophet's progeny stand for the source of settlement and the annihilator of greed and illegal rivalry. The divine doctrine took the charge of nominating the one to whom authority is transmitted, and way of transmission.

Why was it Mohammed, not Abu Sufian, to whom the Divine mission was set forth? This is God's grace; He grants whomever He opts. Why were some prophets preferred to others? This is a matter of God's grace. Why was the Prophet selected from among the Hashemites, not the sons of Teim, Edi or Umaya? It is God Who favors and bestows favor to whomever He opts. A deep look to the history of Islam, we, however, may notice some incentives beyond such an option.
1. God, the Elevated, showed that Mohammed's kinsmen had been the most honorable and favorable. It is better for creatures to be led by the most honorable and favorable. This particularity has been previously documented.
2. The warning issued by the Hashemites and addressed at the other Quraishi clans when they attempted to assassinate Mohammed. This warning was declaimed by Abu Talib saying: “By God I swear, if you kill him I will never keep a single one of you alive till you and we shall be entirely terminated.” By this form, Abu Talib asserted that he would slay the entire Quraishi celebrities when it was rumored that Mohammed had been killed.
3. The Quraishi clans decided, in unison, boycotting and ostracizing the Hashemites. They cut the social and commercial relations with them. They agreed upon a covenant containing forbiddingness of espousing, dealing and associating with the Hashemites. Hence, the Hashemites were occluded in Col of Abu Talib for three years. The Quraishis ruptured supplying them with alimonies. During these three years, the Hashemite could leave that Col only once a year. Cries of their babies could be heard a few yards away from that col. The Quraishis, however, had one demand only; the Hashemites would hand them Mohammed for killing, or they might give him up. Importunately, this demand was rejected. The Hashemites sacrificed with their souls, wealth, sons and settlement for Mohammed.
4. With the failure of that blockade, the clans of Quraish planned for a new matter. As they took fright of Mohammed's immaculate relatives, they selected a man from each clan for assassinating Mohammed. In this way, every clan would be a partner in the murder and that the Hashemites would lack the capability of retaliating the entire clans. Practically, those selective men moved for killing him, but God saved him.
5. The Prophet's immaculate kinsmen were the head of Quraish that no step would be taken without their consultance.
6. The Prophet's kinsmen are the single means of safety and the shield. This is proved by decisive doctrinal texts. For these reasons and others, in addition to the divine grace and the heavenly methodical and educational preparation of their heads, the Prophet's kinsmen were treated so exclusively that they were granted this property.
Addressing at the Ansar, Abu Bakr stated: “People are our subordinates. We are the Prophet's kinsmen.”
In the same occasion, Omar Al-Faruq addressed at the Ansar: “It is most surely, by Allah, that the Arab shall never submit to your leadership when their Prophet is of another clan. They should never elect other than those among whom prophesy was arisen. This is our evident argument and bright justification against any of the Arab who may dispute us. Who dares to dispute us in Mohammed's heritage and authority while we are his people and clan?! It is none but the wrong disputant, the sinful seeker or the engaged in a catastrophic affair.”
Commentating on the addresses of As-Siddiq and Al-Faruq, Bashir Bin Sa’d discoursed at the Ansar: “Mohammed, peace be upon him and his progeny, was a man from Quraish. His people is the most meritorious of his heritage and authority. By God I swear, none shall see me in a situation disputing them in this affair. Beware of Allah. Dispute not them. Oppose not them.”
While Ali was engaged in the misfortune of the Prophet's household, the Ansar submitted to the argument, asserting that they would not swear allegiance to anyone other than Ali. The majority of the attendants at the Saqeefeh of Bani Sa'ideh declared their loyalty to Abu Bakr as the caliph. Thus, the meeting of Saqeefeh was closed at selecting Abu Bakr as the Muslims' caliph, Omar as the first councilor of the caliph, Abu Ubeideh as the second councilor and the groups who had just elected Abu Bakr as the caliph's armed forces.
When the heir apparent, Omar Bin Al-Khattab, demanded Ali, who was shocked by these events, with declaring his fealty to the new caliph, Ali addressed at the caliph and his councilor: “I am the most rightful of managing this affair. I do not declare fealty to you. It is you who are to declare fealty to me. You drew this affair from the Ansar claiming of your having been the Prophet's kinsmen. Now, you intend to seize it from us, the Prophet's household. Have you not argued, before the Ansar, that you had been more meritorious of this authority since Mohammed had been one of you. They gave you their submission and handed the authority. I, by now, do use the very same argument you have provided. Whether in his life or after his death, we are the most meritorious of the Prophet's heritage and authority. You should treat us with justice if you are believers, lest, let you live in injustice while you do realize the fact.” “We are not to leave you before you declare allegiance to Abu Bakr.” Omar answered him. Ali, here, orated: “You are milking for gaining half of the product, and strengthening his position so that he will hand it for you in the morrow. By God I ask you, Muhajirs! Do not take Mohammed's sovereignty of the Arab out of his area and his own house, and transmit it to your areas and houses. Do not push his people away from his standing and right among people. O groups of Muhajirs! We, by God, are the most meritorious in him. We are his household and we are the fittest to this position whilst the perceiver of God's Book, the studious of God's religion, the most familiar to traditions of God's Apostle, the well-acquainted of people's affairs, the defender of people in misfortunes and the distributor between them in full justice is among us. He is, by God, among us that who carries such attributes. Follow not your fancies that you shall be certainly deviated and be remoter and remoter from the right.”
As Sa'd Bin Basheer heard Ali's words, he commentated: “O Ali! If only had the Ansar heard your current words, they should never have agreed upon declaring fealty to Abu Bakr and, as a result, no any two of them would have litigated about your meritoriousness in this position.”
Just after the decease of Fatima (peace be upon him), Ali summoned Abu Bakr. The Hashemites were attendant when Ali addressed at Abu Bakr: “Praised and thanked be Allah. O Abu Bakr! It was neither a matter of denying your favor nor was it an envy. We saw that we had been having a privilege in the position, that you tyrannically usurped.” Going on mentioning his relation to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), Ali spoke so detailedly that Abu Bakr wept. “The Prophet's relatives are more adorable to me than my relatives.” Abu Bakr said.
Responding to Al-Mugheera Bin Shu'beh's suggestion of giving Al-Abbas a position in their government for blocking the road of argument repeatedly arisen by Ali and Al-Abbas, Abu Bakr, Omar, Abu Ubeideh and the suggester visited Al-Abbas for providing him a position. In their session, Abu Bakr addressed a long oration in the middle of which he said: “Slow down, sons of Abdul-Muttelib! God's messenger was one of us as same as he was one of you.”
Al-Abbas answered the entire points he had arisen. Regarding the previous, he said: “The Prophet is from the tree we are its branches while you are but neighbors.”
Owing to Abu Bakr's nominating him as his successor besides his being from Quraish, Al-Faruq became the masterful caliph. For the same reasons, Othman came to power after him. Practically, Omar nominated him. In addition, he was indeed from Quraish. For Ali and Al-Hassan (peace be upon him), they came to power because they were the fittest and people elected them. When Muawiya seized power by force, he claimed that he had been from Quraish and one of the Prophet's relatives. Hashim is Abd Shams's brother. For the entire Umayid rulers, they alleged of their being the Prophet's kinsmen although they betook duress as their means of dominating the government. The Abbasids used the same weapon of kinship. They played on the cords of the suffering faced by the Prophet's progeny, such as murders of assassinating Ali, Al-Hassan, Al-Hussein and the immaculate progeny of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Using force, they dominated and ruled.
One of the pillar sides of coming to power after the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was depending upon the base that leaders should be Quraishis. Quraishis are the Prophet's relatives. At any rate, it is evidently noticeable that the Prophet's household were continuously deprived of the privilege of the Prophet's kinship, while the far did use it.

A group led by Omar Bin Al-Khattaab (God be pleased to him) went towards Ali's house and took him out neglecting the weeping of Fatima Az-Zahra. They brought him before Abu Bakr.
Abu Bakr - Declare your allegiance to this government.
Ali - What if I do not?
Abu Bakr - We will behead you.
Ali - Then, you are to kill the slave of Allah and the brother of His apostle.
Omar, here, urged Abu Bakr to issue the order of killing him. Abu Bakr answered: “As long as Fatima is next to him, I am not to drive him to any matter.”
Thus, Ali went directly towards the Prophet's tomb weeping and crying: “(Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.)” Fatima arouse his voice with: “O my father! O God's messenger! See what we had suffered after you from son of Al-Khattab and son of Abu Quhafeh!”
Omar, Abu Bakr's emissary to the group who boycotted the ceremony of swearing allegiance, called upon them to come out from Ali's house. As they sheltered at that place, Omar ordered his companions to bring firewood: “By my soul's Prevailing I swear, I will set fire in that house and all of its occupants.” he asserted. “O Abu Hafs! Fatima is there.” some reminded. “So what?!” he answered.
Responding to this menace, the rebellious group left that house, and Omar ceased burning it.
Fatima, however, was dead. She was buried at night underhandedly since she willed that Abu Bakr should never offer the ritual funeral prayer to her soul. Only after Fatima's decease, Ali declared his fealty to Abu Bakr who nominated Omar as his successor. During reigns of those two caliphs, they were wont to precede the Prophet's household at distributing imports of the state. As Al-Belathiri records in his Futouhul-Buldan, Omar began, in distributing imports of the state, with Mohammed’s family, Abu Bakr’s family and Omar’s family respectively. The two caliphs used to seek consultancy of Imam Ali, and refer to him in affairs of the state. In a side, it is acceptable to regard reigns of Abu Bakr and Omar as the golden period of the Prophet's progeny, if it is measured to other reigns.
The Umayids came. They fought against Ali, poisoned Al-Hassan and completely terminated Al-Hussein and his present household. They prevented them from drinking from the Euphrates. This calamity is detailedly recorded in Al-Belathiri's Tarikhul-Ashraf. The Umayids poured their range on those who acceded to Mohammed's family. Just after his coming to power, Muawiya wrote missives to the entire governors of provinces, in which he ordered of declaring reviling at Ali from every pulpit. This fact is recorded by Al-Aqqad in his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan, page 16.
Ibn Asakir, in his At-Tarikh, part 3, page 407, records that in addition to cataclysmic procedures taken by the Umayids against the Prophet's family, every single session of sermons in Syria was ended by reviling at Ali. The Umayids ruled of inadmissibility of testimonies of the acceders to Ali. They canceled names of Ali's family and followers from the general record of the state. Hence, Ali's family and followers were deprived of receiving any of the imports distributed on the entire citizens of the state.
The Umayids were followed by the Abbasids. Abu Bakr Al-Khawarzmi says: “In brief words, Harun did not die before he had reaped the tree of prophesy and uprooted the plant of Imamate.”
As he intended to kill Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq, Al-Mansur expressed his hidden while he was meticulously furious: “A thousand or more individuals I had killed from Fatima's progeny. Yet, I left their head and master; Ja'far Bin Mohammed.” Orally, he addressed at Imam As-Sadiq: “I will certainly kill you, and kill your people so completely that none of you I will keep on this earth. I will surely abolish Al-Madina so thoroughly that no single wall I will keep.”
In his book of history, At-Tabari writes down: “A cabinet full of heads of Alawid individuals was within the heritage of Al-Mansur to Al-Mahdi; his crown prince. Hanged to each of these heads, there was a sheet of paper on which name of that head's owner had been written. In addition to old-aged ones, there were heads of young and children individuals in that cabinet.” Al-Mansur used to locate the Alawids in cylinders used for stabilizing walls of building. As a means of torture, he used to stabilize them to the walls with hooks. These methods of physical torture adopted by Al-Mansur is recorded in Al-Ya'qubi's book of history. Other methods of physical torture were leaving those Alawids without food till they die due to starvation, and leaving them in places too malodorous to be tolerated. The tortured were detained in a single narrow place that they had no place special for defecation. They were kept in small underground cells that after a period of that detention those cells were collapsed on their enchained occupants that some of them might have been dead some weeks ago, but left without burying.
Ar-Rasheed took a bond on himself of eradicating Mohammed's progeny and their followers. In this regard, he says: “Till when should I bear the progeny of Abu Talib? I, by God, will massacre them and massacre their followers in an unparalleled ways of killing.” He, however, was so cruel to the Alawids that he pursued them everywhere for killing.
Al-Mansur sent a missive to Imam As-Sadiq inviting him to visit him often like other people. “We do not have what we should fear you for. You do not have what we want you for, from affairs of the Hereafter. You are neither in an elegance that we should congratulate on, nor are you in a misfortune that we should console you for. What do we have at you, then?” the Imam answered. “We mean that you associate us for advice.” Al-Mansur commented. Imam As-Sadiq answered: “Seekers of mundane affairs do never advise you, and seekers of heavenly affairs do never associate you.”

1. The close relatives. They are Fatima, Ali, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein. Their progeny is attached to this property of close relation. Those individuals did suffer the entire sorts of agonies and calamities. This is the reward of Abu Talib's attitudes to Islam and its Prophet, and Ali's situations during battles of Islam. They endured the entire difficulties and, as a result, results went to their enemies.
2. The remote relatives. Those relatives were the rulers for the claim that they had been the Prophet's clan (Quraish.) So, they received the whole prizes, while the close relatives suffered the whole distress.
As a logical result, Imam Ali was dismissed after the decease of Fatima. As an appearance of the ruling authorities' aspiration of dismissing the Imam was their endeavors to attract Al-Abbas, as well as his descendants, to take a part in their authorities, and urge him on accepting a good position in their government. Al-Abbas rejected this offers so definitively that he used decisive words in showing his situation towards their efforts. Gradually, the close relatives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) were isolated from the Hashemites, the Prophet's clan and people. Pursuant to topical criterion, supposing following either the ruling authorities or their rivals, the earlier should be naturally opted regarding their capability of dominating the whole affairs. This was the reason beyond the fact that most of people followed the ruling regime, while a minority followed the Prophet's close relatives. In other words, a poet expressed this meaning by saying: “Hearts are in the side of the Prophet's household, while swords are in the other.”
As he accomplished the Fajr prayer during which he obligatorily had to say (O Allah! Bless Mohammed and Mohammed's household.), Omar Bin Sa'd Bin Abi Waqqas, the commander of the caliph's army against Al-Hussein's, went straightly for massacring all of Mohammed's household and progeny present at that place. Being not sufficed by killing them, the caliph's army beheaded the Prophet's household's dead bodies and robbed their clothes. In addition, horsemen spurred their horses to step on Al-Hussein's dead body as well as the other individuals of Mohammed's progeny. This was for seeking the good will of Ibn Ziyad and Yazeed Bin Muawiya. God, however, had His own affairs in his creatures. This was one of the fruits of the impracitcability of the Hashemites’ joining leadership to prophecy.

No human can shiver what God has stabilized. No creature can change what the Creator has cited. Rulers have already realized that the exclusive property of the Prophet's progeny cannot be changed whatever they do to those individuals. Blessing them is an obligatory ritual precept. Their purity is mentioned in a candid text of the Holy Quran. Their leadership of this nation is authentically proved. The divine texts regarding their merits are imposing. Even if the Prophet's progeny are completely terminated, their divine property shall remain as the nightmare that chases rulers permanently. Hence, there is no substitute for the divine property of the Prophet's progeny.


The innovators of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception attached the following prospects to their fabrication:
1. Misrepresenting the divine property of the Prophet's progeny in such a way that it would lose its content and function.
2. Descrying a surrogate property competing the Prophet's progeny's one and backing affairs of the rulers by imitating functions of the Prophet's progeny.
3. Inventing confused matters and giving rise to states of perplexity and suspicion among people for keeping them away from affairs of the ruling authorities, by finding a subordinate discrepancies that, gradually, would be deep, menacing and perpetual.

God has removed squalor away from the virtuous household of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and purified them thoroughly. Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are, according to all criteria, within the Prophet's household at least. God has purified those individuals mentally and physically and foretold of their being in the Paradise before those definite individuals foretold of their being in the Paradise. According to divine texts, the Prophet's household are masters of occupants of the Paradise. They are, by the logic rule of the less is gained by gaining the more, indisputably decent.
The most honorable Sahaba, who had showed honesty to God, are dignified people who had been decided, by God, as decent. Rulers were not among those honorable Sahaba. Most of them were classified as ‘released’ who declared their Islam only after they had been surrounded by Muslims. There is no single policy in the whole world that has the techniques of regarding those ‘released’ individuals as same honorable as the Prophet's household, except the invention of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, with regard to looking upon the lexical, as well as the terminological, meaning of Sahaba. According to this conception, there is no difference at all between a Muslim who embraced Islam before conquest of Mecca and fought, and another who declared his being Muslim only after the conquest. This conception equates the killer with his victim; the applicant of the blockade with that upon whom the blockade had been imposed; the Muhajir with the ‘released’ and the faithful believer with the hypocrite. Those individuals, as a whole, are enjoying the very same qualification; decency. Ali Bin Abi Talib, one of the Prophet's household, is a Sahabi in the same weight of Muawiya, the Sahabi. Both are decent. Both are legislators. Both are to be in the Paradise. Both are infallible. Ali is the foremost to Islam. He is God's devotee in the divine texts.. the carrier of the Prophet's pennon during the whole battles. He is the headmost knight of Islam during the entire battles. This man is not different from Muawiya who, accompanied by his father, fought against Islam in the entire battles, and embraced Islam only after they had been surrounded.
Topical justice does reject such a characterization. The divine justice, with stronger reason, rejects it, too. Allah and His Apostle and deeds did differentiate between the two. Who, then, did order us of regarding the two as equal? Saving the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, which was originally invented for eradicating distinction between the foremost and the tardy; the fighters and the absconders and the first and the last, what is the evidence on such an equalization?
Invention of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception and allegation of the entire Sahaba's decency were originally founded for competing property of purification exclusively gifted the Prophet's household.

With respect to divine texts, Ali is the head of the Prophet's household, the disciple of this nation, the foremost to Islam and the pursued by the right. Loyalty to Ali is regarded as same as loyalty to God, and antagonizing him is as same as antagonizing God. Moreover, he is a Sahabi admitted by inventors of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. He is foretold of being in the Paradise.
Regarding Ali as a Sahabi, for what reason, then, did you, originators of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conceptions, impose people to curse him from pulpits in the entire provinces of the Islamic state? For what reason did you curse and revile at him actually? Was it not you who decided the penalization of reviling at Sahaba? You decided that the revilers at Sahaba are miscreant whom should be not shared in a food or a drink, and that the ritual funeral prayer should not be offered to their souls.
Does the entire Sahaba's decency work for benefit of the whole except Ali and his household? Does it stop when it reaches Ali and his household in order that characteristic of decency should not be ascribed to them?

Al-Hassan Bin Ali and Al-Hussein Bin Ali are, according to divine texts, the masters of the youth of the Paradise. They are basils and sons of God's messenger. According to divine texts, God made the offspring of every prophet from his own backbone, while Mohammed's was made from Ali's. At any rate, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein are decent since they are Sahaba. It is illicit for any to malign, criticize or revile at any of Sahaba. He whoever commits such a thing is decided as a miscreant that he should not be shared in a food or a drink or offered the ritual funeral prayer. What about, then, those who poisoned Al-Hassan Bin Ali, the Sahabi? What is your judgment about those who murdered Al-Hussein and occluded his household and him from having a single drop from water of the Euphrates, the river from which beasts, birds and animals including dogs, drink freely? Is it not to reckon murdering with maligning? What do you say about those who killed the entire progeny of Mohammed and robbed their luggage while they were dead, and captured the harem of Mohammed's progeny and the Sahaba's progeny?

Lexically and terminologically, those who poisoned Al-Hassan were Sahaba. Those who assassinated Ali were Sahaba. Those who murdered Al-Hussein were Sahaba. Those who terminated the Prophet's progeny in Kerbela were Sahaba. Those who cursed and reviled at Ali and his associates were Sahaba. Those who ruled of inadmissibility of testimonies of Ali's assenters were Sahaba.

Al-Hassan Bin Ali, the Sahabi, is one of the decent. Those who poisoned him to death are decent because of their being Sahaba. Al-Hussein Bin Ali, the Sahabi, is decent. Those who murdered him are decent because of their being Sahaba. Mohammed's progeny who were completely terminated in Kerbela were decent. Those who practiced termination against them were decent because of their being Sahaba.
The poisoner and the poisoned are equally in the Paradise since both are decent Sahaba! The killer and his victim are both in the Paradise since they are decent Sahaba! The robber and the robbed are in the Paradise since both are decent Sahaba!
This equalization raises a real flouting of mankind intellect. It is forming an appearance of shameful slavery of imitation.

The mission intended by the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception was fully accomplished. Ali became as same as Muawiya since both were decent Sahaba who should be in the Paradise. Both are rightful with the difference that the victorious should be the legitimate ruler of the nation. The year of victory had been named ‘year of congruity.’

The saying that he whoever hurt the Prophet's household would be hurting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) himself, is faced by the one that he whoever hurt the Sahaba would be hurting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). In a like manner, he whoever bears malice against Mohammed's household is one of people of the Hell, is faced by the saying that he whoever bears malice against any of the Sahaba extensively is one of people of the Hell. Exceeding the protection given exclusively to the Prophet's household, it was ruled that those who defame any of Sahaba is reckoned with the miscreant, and that it is obligatory to avoid sharing him in a food or a drink and avoid offering his soul the ritual funeral prayer. Just like a carcass, such an individual should be cast aside. Thus, the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception granted the Sahaba a protection identical to that given exclusively to the Prophet's household, but with a little higher degree.

The Quran is the major weighty thing. Mohammed's family is the minor. Being guided to the right path cannot be attained unless these two weighty things are adhered. Deviations cannot be eluded unless these two weighty things are cohered. This fact is decided by incontrovertible divine texts. The Prophet's household are the Ark of Noah; he shall be most surely saved that who takes it, while that who lags behind shall be certainly drowned. This fact is documented by conclusive divine texts. They are the door to acquittal of sins; he shall be certainly forgiven that whoever passes through that door. They are the shelter of this nation. Stars are the shelter of people of this earth, and Mohammed's household are the protection against discrepancies of this nation. This is also quoted from undiscussible divine texts. Without them, this nation shall be like a donkey the backbone of which is broken. The head of the Prophet's household takes that task of settling discrepancies established in this nation after the decease of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). These facts are documented by indisputable divine texts.

(The like of my companions is salt. Food is valueless without salt.) This (hadith) is recorded in Alisti'ab, in the margin of Ibn Hajar's Al-Isabetu Fi Tamyizis-Sahaba, part 1, page 7.
In the (hadith) numbered 33792, of Kenzul-Ummal, part 12, page 22, the following is recorded: (Quraish is means of amending people. People cannot be amended by other that Quraish. Except them, none should be referred to. Their like is salt. Food cannot be accepted by anything other than salt.) This (hadith) is related to A'isheh. Ibn Edi, in his Al-Kamil, relates it to A'isheh.
The (hadith) numbered 33807, of Kenzul-Ummal, part 12, page 25, is the following: (Quraish is security from drowning for all people of this earth. Loyalty to Quraish is security of people against being engaged in discrepancies. Quraish is people of God. People of Iblis -the Satan- are the Arab tribes who confront them.) This (hadith) is quoted from At-Tabarani's Al-Kabeer and Al-Hakim's Al-Mustedrak.
In his Al-Issabeh, page 19, Ibn Hajar, as At-Tirmithi and Ibn Hebban quotes, records the following (hadith): The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said: “I ask you by God to take care of my Sahaba. Betake not them as an advantage. It is just for my cherishing, they are cherished, and it is just for my hatred, they are hated. He whoever hurts them, shall be hurting me. He whoever hurts me shall be hurting God. He whoever hurts God shall be taken in an unexpected time.”

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stated: “O Ali! He is departing God that whoever departs me. He is departing me that whoever departs you.” “He whoever hurts Ali shall be hurting me.” “He whoever cherished Ali is cherishing me. He whoever bears malice against Ali is bearing malice against me.” “Your adherent is adherent to me. My adherent is adherent to Allah. Your enemy is an enemy to me. My enemy is an enemy to Allah. Woe is those who will bear malice against you after my departure.” “Blessedness is those who cherish and accept you. Woe is those who bear malice against you and belie you.” “I do counsel every one who believed and confided in me to cling to leadership of Ali Bin Abi Talib. He whoever accedes to him shall be acceding to me. He shall be acceding to Allah that who accedes to me. He whoever cherishes him shall be cherishing me. He is cherishing Allah that who cherishes me. He whoever bears malice against him shall be bearing malice against me. He is bearing malice against Allah that who bears malice against me.” “Stars are shields of people of this earth against drowning. My household are shelters of my people against discrepancies. Any Arab tribe who confront my people shall be the party of the Satan.”
See the Prophet's saying: “Stars are shelters of occupants of the heavens. My household are the shelters of my people.”

Supposing a Sahabi hurt or bore malice against Ali, or Ali hurt or bore malice against a Sahabi; what should the situation be? Whom should we follow? Who should be the right, and who should be the wrong?!
Supposing Quraish and the Prophet's household each claimed of being shelter of this nation; how should the situation be? Whom should we confide on?!
Supposing a party of this nation followed Quraish and another followed the Prophet's household, and both claimed of being the right; what should the situation be? Which party should be regarded as the right and the bearer of the truth?!
Hint at the false saying spuriously imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family): “Stars are the like of my companions. Guidance to the right path is concluded by following any of them.” This false saying is deceitfully arisen.
In At-Thehbi's Al-Munteqa, page 551, the following saying of Ibn Teimiyeh is recorded: “The hadith is ruled, by the most learned hadithists, as doubtful. Hence, it cannot be taken as an evidence.”
Providing a group of Sahaba supported Ali, another supported Muawiya, a third were non-partisan and a fourth were waiting for results so that they would follow the victorious. Is it rationally and conventionally acceptable that the followers of any of these four groups would be rightful? Who would be the wrong, then?!
On condition a Sahabi claims that the right is in the east, and another Sahabi claims, in the same time, that the right is in the west, and a third claims that the right is in the south, and a fourth claims that the right is in the north and so on that the nation is divided into seventy three parties each with a definite argument, as we are foretold by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Will it be rationally and conventionally acceptable that the entire parties are rightful and following the right although there is only one right?! Contrariety is a crime. Unification is a matter of seeking God's favor. Is it, then, rational that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) engages his nation in discrepancies?!

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said unto Ali: “After me, you convey my mission and make them hear my voice and explicate for them matters they will be discrepant about.”
Despite the fact that he was enthusiast to Al-Abbas, Abu Haneefeh was wont to prefer any Sahabi's opinion to Al-Abbas's when being variant in a certain question. It is recorded that Abu Haneefeh used to say: “I will refer to the Sahaba's opinions if I lack the ability to infer from the Quran and the Prophet's traditions. In case there are different opinions of different Sahaba, I will take from any indiscriminately, in order not to neglect their opinions and opt for the followers'.” In his A'lamul-Muwaqqi'in, Ibnul-Qeyyim mentions the following: “For Imam Ahmed, sources of legislation are five: 1. The text. 2. The Shaba's verdicts.. Hahafites and Hanbalites ruled of allocating the Quran's judgments to the Sahaba's deeds. This is for the reason that the Sahaba would not neglect applying the Quran's judgments unless they had an evidence. Hence, whenever the Sahaba contradicted the Quran, this item must have been allocated for a specific state or manner. The Sahaba's deeds, however, are as same as their words.”
By the way, the Prophet's traditions are his words, deeds and signature. Regarding the saying that the Sahaba's deeds are as same as their words, this means that lexical and terminological Sahabi's words allocate the Quran's judgment and generalize the Quran's specific situations. This reckons the Sahaba's words with the heavenly revelations that wrong does never approach from any side. The main catastrophe, here, is that every Sahabi, whether in lexical or terminological meaning, is included in this (rule). As a matter of fact, the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception granted the Sahaba's what the Doctrine has not granted to the Prophet's household.
Ibn Khuldoun says: “Not the entire Sahaba were juriscounsults. Doctrinal laws were not taken from all of them. This task was private to the Quranists, who had full knowledge of positions of repealing and repealed Verses, decisive and allegorical Verses and other evidences elicited from the Quran that they had received from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) directly or indirectly. For this reason, such individuals were named ‘Qurra -reciters-’ since the Arab were generally illiterate. For a considerable period, this concern was preserved.”
Mohammed Bin Sehl Bin Abi Kheithemeh, related the following saying to his father: “Three from the Muhajirs and three from the Ansar were the only individuals who had authority of issuing judgments and rulings in the Prophet's reign. They were Omar, Othman, Ali, Ubey Bin Ka'b, Me'ath Bin Jabal and Zeid Bin Thabit.”
Abdurrahman Bin Qasim relates the following saying to his father: “A number of Muhajirs and Ansar were usually summoned by Abu Bakr whenever he had a question to seek advisory about. He used to summon Omar, Othman, Ali, Abdurrahman Bin Awf, Me'ath Bin Jabal, Ubey Bin Ka'b and Zeid Bin Thabit. Those individuals had authority of issuing verdicts in the reign of Abu Bakr. People received rulings and verdicts from those individuals only. When Omar became the caliph, he followed the same policy.”

It is noticeable that the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception collapsed the whole traditions relied upon in reigns of Abu Bakr and Omar and mutinied against the whole conceptions familiar in reign of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). According to this conception, every Sahabi, in lexical and terminological meaning, had the opportunity of expressing his own opinion towards any question. In the same manner, it became lawful for every researchist or scholar of jurisprudence to refer to the idea of any Sahabi at all in any question. This was by reason that the entire Sahaba were equally decent. They all shall be in the Paradise. It is impossible for them to forge lies. Hence; matters were commingled so heavily that it became impossible to discriminate. The foremost to Islam became of the same rank of the tardy. The ‘released’ became as same as the Muhajir. The whole enjoyed the same attribute of decency. A Sahabi is flawless. It is impermissible to comment on verdicts, words and deeds of the Sahaba. These rulings are deduced from the general frame of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. What is authentically related to the Sahaba is the right that wrong does never approach from any side. This is because it was traditions of the decent who had the capability of restricting a general rule frankly mentioned in the Holy Quran and, similarly, generalize a restricted Quranic rule. Consequently, efforts were exceedingly exerted for the sake of surveying and detecting the life account of the narrators from many sides like the good general behavior, honesty of their believing and authenticity of their sayings. As soon as such attributes are available in personality of a narrator and the saying is truly ascribed to that Sahabi, then such a text shall be considered as the indisputable right since it had been issued by a decent Sahabi.

It is fully acceptable for any narrator to accede to Abu Bakr, Omar or any other Sahabi at all. This loyalty will not injure honesty and authenticity. It also does not occupy any position of confusedness. Confusedness falls only on those who show any sort of loyalty to Ali and the Prophet's household. It is impracticable to regard such narrators who accede to Ali or the Prophet's household as authentic and then, it is impossible to accept narratives of such individuals. As a rule, it is to neglect totally the hadith among the authentic narrators of which there is an individual who shows loyalty to the Prophet's household. The acceptable narratives are only those related by authentic men. Authenticity and loyalty to the Prophet's household do never concur.
Abu Amr Bin Abdil-Berr says: “Mohammed Bin Waddah related that Yahya Bin Mu'in ruled of the unauthenticity of Mohammed Bin Idris Ashafi'i.” Yahya Bin Mu'in is one of the most remarkable hadithists whose decision about a person is undiscussibly regarded. Ashafi'i, the founder of a notable sect, is not authentic narrator in the opinion of Ibn Mu'in. This is an unimaginable matter! This judgment of Ibn Mu'in was issued because of Ashafi'i's carrying a little loyalty to the Prophet's household. Realizing the unacceptability of this ruling, At-Thehbi commented: “Ibn Mu'in's words about Ashafi'i were mere a flaw of the tongue due to following whim and fanaticism.”
Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq, however, is the tutor of founders of the four sects. He is the director of a four thousand graduate school. He is the founder of the sect of the Prophet's household and an elevated name in the sky of the Prophet's people. Although Al-Bukhari, who had recorded narratives related by Marwan Bin Al-Hakam, neglected regarding Imam As-Sadiq's narratives as an evidence on authenticity of a hadith, Abu Hatem and An-Nisa'i ruled of the Imam's authenticity (in narrating hadiths.)
Yahya Bin Mu'in: (As he ruled of authenticity of Sa'eed Bin Khalid Al-Bujeli, they protested against him claiming that Sa'eed had been a Shiite. “Yes, he is Shiite and authentic!!!” He asserted. However, the Jumhour had never used these two descriptions concurrently.)
Authentic people are only those disloyal and remote from the Prophet's progeny. As for Omar Bin Sa'd Bin Abi Waqqas, the commander of Yazeed's army who massacred Imam Al-Hussein and his household in Kerbela, Al-Ujeli decides him as (one of the Sahaba’s followers. He is honest. People reported his narratives.)
Imran Bin Hattan was decided as an honest by Al-Ujeli. This Imran composed a number of poetic verses praising Ibn Muljim (Cursed be him), the murderer of Imam Ali for his murder.

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 Imam Reza (A.S.) Network, All rights reserved.