A Critique of the Current-day Popular Shīʿa Narrative on Divine Appointment of Amīr al-Mu’minīn Imam ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib (as)
The current-day, popular narrative on post-Prophetic succession and format of leadership within Shīʿa communities has come to rest so firmly on the idea of leadership by Divine appointment via Prophetic designation that the average Shīʿa today almost sees this as a forgone conclusion, and therefore takes it as something for granted and beyond the purview of critical re-evaluation.
However, when one travels back in time, and explores the earliest and most authoritative sources which showcase the actual decisions and statements of Imam ʿAlī (as), including what survives of them in widely accessible compilations and collections such as Nahj al-Balāgha, which decorates almost every Shīʿa bookshelf today, one encounters a diametrically different narrative about Imam ʿAlī’s (as) own understanding and conception of how a leader should be selected after the Prophet (Saww).
The popular view within the sect asserts that choosing the leader of the community after the Prophet (Saww) remains Allah’s exclusive prerogative, and neither the Ummah nor any of its representatives are to have any say or choice in such a matter.[1]
However, when we go back to Imam ʿAlī’s (as) writings preserved in early historical sources, we see an understanding and conception which is not centered on the idea of Divine appointment which has become popular in the sect today.
The reason we know of Imam ʿAlī’s (as) understanding of the rules for leadership (i.e. post-Prophetic succession to power and authority) is because it was challenged by his opponents after he was elected the Caliph in the aftermath of the murder of the third Caliph, Uthmān bin ʿAffān (d. 35 AH), and the Imam (as) had to argue against them in favour of his own legitimacy as Imam of the Muslims. However, the most striking aspect, from a current-day perspective, is how he never pointed to any clear Divine appointment or explicit Prophetic designation in any argument that he made, which is very surprising and odd from a Qur’ānic point of view, due to the fact, that in the Qur’ān, those appointed by God never hesitate to brandish their divine appointment in the face of those who deny it, challenge it or express doubt about it as can be seen from numerous examples of which we will suffice by pointing to two very obvious ones:
(A) Prophet Mūsā’s (as) Declaration of his Divine Appointment in the Court of Firʿawn
When Prophet Mūsā (as) was chosen as a Messenger and sent to Firʿawn, we observe that the very opening statements he made in his court carried a clear-cut declaration of his divine appointment without any regard for whether Firʿawn would recognise or submit to such a self-declaration or not. Allah (SWT) narrates his opening statements in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf (Chapter 7) of the Qur’ān as follows:
وَقَالَ مُوسَى يَا فِرْعَوْنُ إِنِّي رَسُولٌ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (104)
حَقِيقٌ عَلَى أَنْ لَا أَقُولَ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ قَدْ جِئْتُكُمْ بِبَيِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ فَأَرْسِلْ مَعِيَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ (105)
And Mūsā said O Firʿawn! I am most certainly a Messenger from the Sustainer of all the Worlds. I am in a position where it does not behoove me to assert anything about Allah except the Ḥaqq (truth). I have come to you all with clear evidence from your Sustainer, so send the Banū Isrāʾīl with me. (07:104-105).
Thus we see how even in the presence of a ruthlessly oppressive and aggressive tyrant like Firʿawn, Mūsā (as) does not shy away from declaring his divine appointment and divine mandate, and this makes perfect sense, because without revealing his divine mandate, Allah’s Ḥujjah (proof) against Firʿawn could not have been completed, since in the absence of any divine mandate, Firʿawn could have easily challenged Mūsā’s (as) authority and argued that he could see no grounds for why he should submit to his authority and honour his demand for the release of Banū Isrāʾīl.
If Mūsā (as) had hidden the news of his divine appointment from Firʿawn and his people, he would have ended up arming them with a strong defense against Divine punishment on the day of judgement, for in that case, Firʿawn would also be able to stand his ground and argue before God that he didn’t even know that Mūsā (as) had come to him at God’s instruction and with a mandate from Him, nor was he informed of this, so he cannot be accused of defying God for not submitting to Mūsā’s (as) authority. However, Mūsā’s (as) open and clear declaration of his divine appointment and mandate pre-empted and precluded any such counter-argument from the side of Firʿawn, and this is how God’s Ḥujjah (proof) against Firʿawn was completed, and he was left with no valid Ḥujjah (proof) or ʿUdhr (excuse) to argue or plead on the basis of here or in the hereafter.
(B) Prophet Muḥammad’s (Saww) Open Declaration of his Divine Appointment in front of the Pagans of Makkah
We also encounter in the Qur’ān clear evidence of how our beloved Messenger and Prophet Muḥammad (Saww) was instructed by Allah (SWT) to clearly and explicitly communicate his divine appointment and mandate to the pagan polytheists of Makkah, despite the fact that both his life and general welfare were at risk during that period:
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ فَآَمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ (158)
Say: O people, I am most certainly the Messenger of Allah towards all of you; the Allah to whom belongs the Kingdom of the heaves and the earth, there is no God except Him; He gives life and He causes death; so therefore believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Ummī Prophet who himself believes in Allah and His words, so follow him so that you may be rightly guided. (07:158).
One can hardly imagine a proclamation and announcement of a divine appointment or divine mandate clearer and more explicit than this. It should be noted that this trend of clearly proclaiming one’s divine appointment in front those who deny or doubt it is well-established for Messengers throughout the Qur’ān (in verses such as 26:107, 125, 143, 162, 178; 61:06).
Thus, when Imam ʿAlī’s (as) authority and right to lead the Ummah was sidestepped after the Prophet (Saww), and especially when it was openly challenged during his own Caliphate, one would have expected to see him also clearly announce and proclaim his own divine appointment the way divine appointees usually do in such situations in the Qur’ān when they are confronted by unbelievers.
Hārūn’s (as) Invitation to his own obedience in the Qur’ān
Even Prophet Hārūn (as), with whom Imam ʿAlī (as) is often compared due to Ḥadīth al-Manzilah, openly rebuked the Banū Isrāʾīl when they deviated after Mūsā (as) by worshipping the calf, explained the truth to them, and invited them to follow and obey him instead of Sāmirīyy as we see from Allah’s Declaration about him:
وَلَقَدْ قَالَ لَهُمْ هَارُونُ مِنْ قَبْلُ يَا قَوْمِ إِنَّمَا فُتِنْتُمْ بِهِ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ الرَّحْمَنُ فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي (90)
And Hārūn indeed had said to them before: O my People, you have only been tested with it (i.e. the golden calf), and most certainly your Rabb (Sustainer) is the Al-Raḥmān (All-Merciful), so follow me and obey my order! (20:90).
This despite the fact that doing so put his life in danger as he himself reported to his brother Mūsā (as) upon his return when he said to him:
قَالَ ابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِي وَكَادُوا يَقْتُلُونَنِي
….He said O son of my mother, the people saw me powerless, and almost killed me…(07:150)
Yet, this did not deter him from stating the truth, warning the people against their deviation, and inviting them back to his own obedience as we see in 20:90 of the Qur’ān.
So if Imam ʿAlī (as) also had a divine mandate from Allah, and a clear-cut Prophetic designation in his favour, what prevented him from following the example of Hārūn (as) and openly declaring it before the Ummah, warning the people against deviation from it, and inviting them back to his obedience and followership after Saqīfah, and also at subsequent avenues such as the Shūrā held before the election of Uthmān, as well as during his conflicts with those who rebelled against him during his own Caliphate?
It is quite intriguing to see that when the Imam (as) faced rebellion during his caliphate, he did seek to establish the validity and legitimacy of his leadership, and make a case for it, but he argued for it on grounds completely different from what a Shīʿa who believes in divine appointment today would imagine.
Imam ʿAlī’s (as) View of How a Leader is Supposed to be Chosen after the Prophet (Saww)
In one of the early letters which the Imam (as) wrote to Muʿāwiyah in which he sought to convince him to pledge allegiance to him and explain to him why his authority was binding on him, he declared:
إِنَّهُ بَايَعَنِي الْقَوْمُ الَّذِينَ بَايَعُوا أَبَا بَكْر وَعُمَرَ وَعُثْمانَ عَلَى مَا بَايَعُوهُمْ عَلَيْهِ، فَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِلشَّاهِدِ أَنْ يَخْتَارَ، وَلاَ لِلغَائِبِ أَنْ يَرُدَّ، وَإنَّمَا الشُّورَى لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالاْنْصَارِ، فَإِنِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَى رَجُل وَسَمَّوْهُ إِمَاماً كَانَ ذلِكَ لله رِضىً، فَإِنْ خَرَجَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِمْ خَارِجٌ بِطَعْن أَوْبِدْعَة رَدُّوهُ إِلَى مَاخَرَجَ منه، فَإِنْ أَبَى قَاتَلُوهُ عَلَى اتِّبَاعِهِ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَوَلاَّهُ اللهُ مَا تَوَلَّى.
Verily, those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman have sworn allegiance to me on the same basis on which they swore allegiance to them. (On this basis) he who was present had no choice (to consider), and he who was absent had no right to reject; and the Shūrā (right to engage in mutual consultation and deliberation to determine important affairs of state) is confined to the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār. If they collectively agree on a man (i.e. candidate) and name him the Imām (i.e. political leader and Caliph of the Muslims), then Allah’s pleasure lies in that.
If someone dissents and exits from their consensus with an objection or innovation, they will return him to the consensus from which he has exited (through gentle and peaceful persuasion at first). If he refuses to submit, they will fight him for following a course other than that of the believers[2] and Allah will abandon him to his own devices.[3]
What we see here is indeed quite striking and fascinating, and very different to what one would expect if one embraces the current-day sectarian Twelver narrative!
Far from citing any verse of the Qur’ān (such as 04:59 or 05:55 or 67 which are seen within the Twelver sect today as proofs related to his divine mandate) or even referring to any Prophetic Ḥadīth (such as Ghadīr, Manzilah, or Thaqalayn, which later came to be seen as texts proving a kind of Prophetic Naṣṣ or designation for him[4]), the Imam (as) actually explains to Muʿāwiyah that the correct way of choosing a leader in Islam after the Prophet (Saww) is for the Muhājirīn and Anṣār to have a Shūrā (mutual consultation and collective deliberation) among themselves with a view to proposing and discussing who would be best suited to lead them.
Once they are done discussing this matter and have arrived at a consensus to elect a particular candidate as the Imam (leader), ʿAlī (as) asserts that the pleasure of Allah lies in this consensus being respected and honoured to the fullest.
… and the Shūrā is confined to the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār. If they collectively agree on a man and declare him the Imām (i.e. political leader and Caliph of the Muslims) , then Allah’s pleasure lies in that.
Imam Ali, Nahjul Balagha
Should anyone try to wiggle his way out of it or defy it (as Muʿāwiyah was trying to do), they (i.e. the Muhājirīn and Anṣār) will return this outlier or dissenter to their consensus, with gentle persuasion at first, failing which, they are well within their rights to use force against such a person as well to ensure that he falls in line with the majoritarian consensus and submits to it.
This raises some deep, critical questions which are worth reflecting and pondering deeply over.
If Imam ʿAlī (as) believed himself to be an infallible leader and guide appointed over the Ummah by Allah in the Qur’ān, and clearly designated by the Prophet (Saww) in the Ḥadīth, why did he not complete the Ḥujjah against Muʿāwiyah by citing the verse from the Qur’ān or Ḥadīth which contained evidence of his divine mandate?
If it is argued that it could be because he feared Muʿāwiyah may not accept such evidence, such an argument is undermined by the fact that such a fear never deterred divine appointees in the past from proclaiming their divine appointment and mandate in front of unbelievers. After all, we just saw the verses from the Qur’ān (07:104-105, 158; 26:107, 125, 143, 162, 178; 61:06) which all show various Prophets and Messengers of God openly announcing and proclaiming their divine appointment and mandate from Allah in front of unbelievers who are not willing to submit to them or accept their claim of divine appointment.
So why would Imam ʿAlī (as) withhold the truth about his divine appointment or Prophetic designation based on assumptions about how Muʿāwiyah may or may not react to being shown such proof. Why would he turn away from the established practice of the divine appointees of the past who completed Allah’s Ḥujjah (proof) against those to whom they were sent by openly declaring their divine mandate and calling the people to submit to their authority on grounds of their divine appointment?
In the end, Muʿāwiyah did not even submit to him despite his use of the Shūrā argument against him, so if it was all about using an argument which would convince Muʿāwiyah or be acceptable to him, then he should have known that the Shūrā argument would not fare better than any other argument against such an adversary, given how Muʿāwiyah had already made up his mind not to submit to him at any cost, and it is not impossible to imagine that Imam ʿAlī (as) could see the signs of this throughout the course of his lengthy correspondence with Muʿāwiyah.
Thus in view of the fact that Imam ʿAlī (as) was faced with an adversary who was hell-bent on not submitting to his authority, it is not reasonable to argue that the Imam (as) used the Shūrā argument merely because he felt Muʿāwiyah would not submit to any other argument, because the reality is that Muʿāwiyah was not even willing to submit to the Shūrā this time. In addition to that, divine appointees in the past, all the way from Mūsā (as) to and Muḥammad (Saww) faced similarly stubborn and unwilling adversaries all the way from Firʿawn to the pagan polytheists of Makkah, but none of them ever shied away from proclaiming their divine mandate and appointment based on fear of how the people would react to it and whether or not they would be convinced by it.
Sidestepping the clear meaning of the Imam’s Letter
Notwithstanding, all of the above critical points and questions which should be sufficient to convince a serious and sincere truth-seeker, some sectarian Twelver Imāmī scholars have nonetheless tried to defend the popular divine-appointment theory and save it from being undermined by this letter. They do so by arguing, as the following commentator does, that:
Amir al-Mu’minin pointed out to him the (recognized) way of election and demolished his argument. It was a method known as arguing with the adversary on the basis of his wrong premises so as to demolish his argument, since Amir al-mu’minin never at any state regarded consultation (with chiefs) or the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate. Otherwise, in connection with the caliphate about which it is alleged that they were based on the unanimity of the muhajirun and the ansar, he would have regarded that unanimity of vote as a good authority and held them as valid; but his refusal for allegiance in the very first period, which cannot be denied by anyone, is a proof of the fact that he did not regard these self-concocted methods as the criterion of (validity of) the caliphate. That is why at all times he continued pressing his own case for the caliphate, which was also established on the basis of the Prophet’s saying and deeds. However, to place it before Mu`awiyah meant opening the door to questions and answers. He therefore attempted to convince him with his own premises and beliefs so that there could be no scope for interpretation or for confusing the matter, in fact Mu’awiyah’s real aim was to prolong the matter so that at some point his own authority might get support.[5]
Thus, as we can see the writer is trying to claim that Imam ʿAlī (as) didn’t really believe in the Shūrā system himself, but rather he only referred to it in this letter to Muʿāwiyah in keeping with a well-established method of argumentation whereby one momentarily accepts or concedes the belief or claim of one’s opponent only to hold it against them and prove them wrong by their own standard. In the science of debating and rhetoric, this is called “إلزام الخصم بما يلتزمه“ (Ilzām al-Khaṣm bimā Yaltazimuhū) or ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ or ‘reductio ad absurdum’ as it used to be termed in Latin, and as it is still referred to in English discourses.
However, this entire argument crumbles when we judge it against the actual claim of Imam ʿAlī (as) in the text. When one examines the wording and text of the letter closely, carefully and critically, one cannot fail to notice that the Imam (as) doesn’t just merely point to the fact that the unanimous consensus of the Muhājirūn and Anṣār was the recognised way of electing a leader in those times nor did he claim it was the way recognised by Muʿāwiyah so that it may be argued that he was simply applying the principle of إلزام الخصم بما ألزم به نفسه (binding the opponent by a principle he has bound himself by), rather the Imam (as) clearly asserts and emphasizes that this Shūrā-based way of choosing the leader after the Prophet (Saww) has the seal of Divine Pleasure and Approval stamped all over it, as can be seen from his statement:
فَإِنِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَى رَجُل وَسَمَّوْهُ إِمَاماً كَانَ ذلِكَ لله رِضىً
So, if they (i.e. the Muhājirūn and Anṣār) collectively agree on a man (i.e. candidate) and unanimously settle on declaring him the Imām (i.e. political leader and Caliph of the Muslims), then Allah’s pleasure lies in that (i.e. their unanimous choice).
Thus, when the Imam (as) is promoting the Shūrā system as the correct, divinely approved, and divinely sanctioned way of choosing the Imām (Political Leader, Ruler, Head of State) after the Prophet (Saww), and he is claiming that this is the way of electing a ruler that is pleasing to Allah (SWT), then how can it be argued, in good conscience and good faith, that he was simply pointing out ‘the (recognized) way of election’ merely to ‘demolish his adversary’s argument’, and that this entire description of how a ruler is supposed to be chosen is simply a polemical tool employed by Imam ʿAlī (as) in keeping with the polemical tradition of ‘arguing with the adversary on the basis of his wrong premises so as to demolish his argument’, when his own personal belief as claimed by the apologist was that ‘Amir al-Mu’minin never at any state regarded consultation (with chiefs) or the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate’.
The reality is that Imam’s act of claiming that this method of electing a ruler is pleasing to Allah (SWT) flies in the face of any such attempt to explain away this crucial letter, especially when the Imam’s claim is not something he has brought out of his own pocket, but rather has the full backing of Allah’s Revelations in the Qur’ān as we shall see shortly.
Accusing Imam ʿAlī (as) of Iftirāʾ
Another key flaw and drawback in the sectarian argument above is that it involves accusing an Imam like ʿAlī (as), known for his extraordinary Taqwa and and unrivaled piety, of lying against Allah, naodhubillah (God Forbid), for no one can deny that it would be a major Iftirāʾ (false attribution of unproven claims to Allah) for the Imam (as) to claim Divine approval for Shūrā in electing leaders after the Prophet (Saww) if in reality he had known that Allah has not approved of any such thing. And if he wanted to corner Muʿāwiyah by his own standards, he would not bring in the issue of Divine approval because Muʿāwiyah clearly didn’t care for it, and the Imam (as) would have instead said something to the effect of: if a leader is chosen by Shūrā, then his authority is legitimate according to you O Muʿāwiyah or by your standards O Muʿāwiyah!
The Imam (as) would not claim Divine approval for something which has no Divine approval in actual fact just to score a polemical point against Muʿāwiyah, especially when Muʿāwiyah himself had no respect or regard for Shūrā, and only wanted to grab power by whatever means possible as per the Shīʿa reading and assessment of history.
Anyone familiar with the exceptionally God-fearing and noble personality of Imam ʿAlī (as) will have to attest that he would never lie against Allah and claim Divine approval for something that is not approved by Him just to score a point against an adversary. And indeed when one studies the Qur’ān and Sunnah of the Prophet (Saww) meticulously, one sees plenty of evidence for Imam ʿAlī’s (as) claim that Shūrā in major affairs of state is pleasing to, and approved by, Allah (SWT), for all matters for which He has not revealed definitive guidance or charted a specific course of action, so the claim of the Imam (as) in this letter cannot be dismissed as a polemical gimmick or factually inaccurate point.
Even if one ignores and overlooks all of the above, it is historically well established that Imam ʿAlī (as) never invoked any Naṣṣ (Quranic or Prophetic text) to claim any Divine Appointment or Prophetic Designation. This confirms the hypothesis that there never was one. Thus those who claim Divine Appointment or explicit Prophetic designation for Imam ʿAlī (as) depart from his own policy of only claiming Khilāfah on grounds of merit.
Qur’ānic Basis for Shūrā in Major Affairs of State
Shūrā refers to the practice of mutual consultation and collective deliberation in the process of decision-making. It is firmly rooted in Islamic principles and has the full support and backing of Allah within the Qur’ān.
In fact, in the Qur’ān we find that Shūrā is not promoted as merely an option that the Prophet (Saww) is given by Allah (SWT). Rather, it is framed as a Divine Command, definitive imperative, and special recommendation from Allah (SWT) as we observe in the following verse of Sūrah Āle-ʿImrān (Chapter 3) of the Qur’ān:
فَبِمَا رَحْمَةٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ لِنْتَ لَهُمْ وَلَوْ كُنْتَ فَظًّا غَلِيظَ الْقَلْبِ لَانْفَضُّوا مِنْ حَوْلِكَ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ.
So by mercy from Allah, [O Muḥammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and hard-hearted, they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them, and ask forgiveness for them, and consult them in the matter (i.e. affairs of state). Then when you have determined (on taking a certain course of action), then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]. (Qur’ān: 03:159).
This verse highlights how even the Prophet Muḥammad (Saww) was not exempt from the command to hold Shūrā (mutual consultation and collective deliberation) in important and significant affairs of state despite being a Messenger of God with access to Divine Revelation and Guidance. Rather, he is instructed by Allah (SWT) to consult with his companions, and seek their input before taking important decisions pertaining to matters of state. He is ordered to uphold and adopt the principles of mutual consultation, forgiveness, and reliance on Allah in his governance. Even after the Prophet (Saww), this verse has been understood by exegetes of the Qur’ān as an encouragement for leaders and communities to engage in Shūrā, recognizing its importance in promoting cooperation, inclusivity, and collective decision-making.
In addition to the aforementioned verse, we have the other foundational text for Shūrā in the Qur’ān which was seen as such an important verse that the chapter it appeared in was eponymously named after it. We are, of course, referring here to Allah’s description of the ideal qualities and characteristics of a model Muslim community in Sūrah Sḥurā (Chapter 42) of the Qur’ān:
وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ
And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule/policy is to conduct their affairs through Shūrā (mutual consultation and collective deliberation) among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them. (Qur’ān: 42: 38).
Thus it can be seen that Shūrā was promoted by the Qur’ān as the hallmark of a righteous, God-conscious, believing community. It is an essential requirement for good governance and fairness in the decision-making processes in society in opposition to authoritarian, dictatorial, unilateralism and autocracy, which have always been the hallmarks of oppressive and unjust regimes. Thus, it is not the least bit surprising or out of the ordinary for Imam ʿAlī (as) to uphold Shūrā as the correct means of dealing with the most important matter of state after the demise of the Prophet (Saww), namely: the question of choosing and electing a successor to succeed him in running and administering the Islamic dominions after him.
If Imam ʿAlī (as) Believed in Shūrā, why was he upset about Saqīfah?
Before we proceed further, a response to another argument raised by the commentator previously cited may be in order. He argues that Imam ʿAlī’s (as) “refusal for allegiance in the very first period, which cannot be denied by anyone, is a proof of the fact that he did not regard these self-concocted methods as the criterion of (validity of) the caliphate. That is why at all times he continued pressing his own case for the caliphate, which was also established on the basis of the Prophet’s saying and deeds.”[6]
Our response to this is: Imam ʿAlī’s (as) reason for his refusal to give Bayʿah to Abū Bakr for the first six months has been explained by the Imam (as) himself, and the Imam never claimed that it was because he didn’t believe in the principle of Shūra or that he did not accept its validity and applicability to the matter of electing the Prophet’s (Saww) successor. Rather, his issue was with lack of due process in the election that was hastily held at Saqīfah even before the Prophet’s funeral was over, and before the key stakeholders (especially from among the Muhājirīn, and even more particularly the Banū Hāshim) in the affairs of the state which the Prophet (Saww) had established could be assembled for collective deliberation.
He clearly mentions how the main reason why he was upset and displeased initially was because the Prophet’s family and clan were not included in the deliberations that were held at Saqīfah. He never says (in any authentic narration, at least) that he was upset because they had overlooked or ignored any Divine Appointment or Prophetic designation in his favour.
IMAM (AS) WAS UPSET AT LACK OF DUE PROCESS IN SHŪRĀ
Imam ʿAlī (as) has a consistent explanation for this which is preserved both in Sunnī as well as Shīʿa sources. In the narration of Bukhārī and Muslim[7], the Imam (as) clarifies to Abū Bakr himself that his staying away from giving the Bayʿah (oath of allegiance) to him was not actuated or motivated by any feelings of jealousy or rivalry, but rather because he felt that due process had not been followed in the first election and Shūrā that was hastily held at Saqīfah. Because it was held unannounced and so close to the death of the Prophet (Saww), a lot of the key stakeholders in Madīnah itself were unable to attend it. Most shockingly and unfortunately, the clan of the Prophet (Saww), i.e. the Banū Hāshim, as well as his close family, i.e. the Ahlul Bayt (as), had been unfairly and inexplicably excluded from attending that hasty and incomplete Shūrā despite their high status as key stakeholders in the city state of Madīnah.
However, just as it is established that Imam ʿAlī (as) initially withheld Bayʿah ‘(allegiance), the same sources tell us that he eventually made peace with the Caliphs and gave them the Bayʿah[8]. So if his initial refusal to give Bayʿah had been due to his belief in his own Divine Appointment, he would never have made peace with, and given Bayʿah to, those who trampled upon his Divine Appointment, and refused to recognise it.
How ʿAlī’s (as) Sīrah undermines the Divine Appointment View
This is why the whole Sīrah (life history and trajectory) of ʿAlī (as) is one of the greatest proofs against the later sectarian Imāmī claim of Divine appointment or legally binding Prophetic designation of him.
When we look at the historical record, and even examine early Shīʿa works of history, we see that Imam ʿAlī (as) never argues for his entitlement to the Caliphate on grounds of any revelation of Allah in the Qur’ān nor does he ever cite any Prophetic Ḥadīth as proof of any designation in favour of himself, rather he repeatedly and consistently seeks to establish his claim to the Caliphate on grounds of merit – which is not in keeping with what one would expect from a divine appointee who has been appointed to the caliphate directly by Allah or through an explicit Naṣṣ (textual designation) from the Prophet (Saww).
This fact is even recognised and acknowledged by some high-ranking, Uṣūlī, Twelver Imāmī scholars as well. For instance, when refuting the Akhbārī scholar, al-Muḥaddith al-Nūrī (d. 1320 AH/1902 CE), who was led by his desperation to come up with an explanation for the complete absence of any text indicating divine appointment of ʿAlī (as) in the Qur’ān towards pointing to Taḥrīf or Naqs (reduction and deletion) in its original text as the main reason for it, Ayatullāh Sayyid Ruḥullāh al-Khumaynī (d. 1409 AH/1989 CE) argued in the following manner:
وبالجملة: لو كان الأمر كما ذكره هذا وأشباهه، من كون الكتاب الإلهي مشحونا بذكر أهل البيت وفضلهم، وذكر أمير المؤمنين وإثبات وصايته وإمامته، فلم لم يحتج بواحد من تلك الآيات النازلة والبراهين القاطعة من الكتاب الإلهي أمير المؤمنين، وفاطمة، والحسن، والحسين – عليهم السلام – وسلمان، وأبو ذر، ومقداد، وعمار، وسائر الأصحاب الذين لا يزالون يحتجون على خلافته عليه السلام؟!
‘In short, if matters were indeed as described by him (i.e. al-Muḥaddith al-Nūrī) and his ilk, that the Divine Book was (originally) filled with mention of the Ahl al-Bayt, their virtues, and the confirmation of the Wilāyah and Imāmah of Amīr al-Muʾminīn (ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib), then why did Amīr al-Muʾminīn, Fāṭimah, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, Salmān, Abū Dharr, Miqdād, ʿAmmār, and all the other companions, who consistently argued for ʿAlī’s succession, not use even one of those verses and decisive proofs from the Divine book to argue their case (for Imam ʿAlī’s entitlement to the Caliphate)?’[9]
This point is so clear from his life that even non-Muslim and orientalist writers and historians who have no dog in any sectarian race have acknowledged it. For instance, Wilfred Madelung (d. 2023 CE), erstwhile Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford University, perspicaciously concluded – after his exhaustive study of the life and career of ʿAlī (as) as well as careful study of the earliest Muslim historical sources that:
In general, however, ʿAlī did not base his right to the succession on an implied appointment by Muḥammad. Rather, he claimed to have had the best title on the basis of both his early and outstanding service to the Prophet and the cause of Islam and his close kinship with Muḥammad. He was in religious merit the most excellent of men after Muḥammad. This view was consistently upheld in speeches and letters by himself and by his governors such as Qays ibn Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah and Muḥammad bin Abī Bakr in Egypt. It was not a secondary thesis developed by the Shīʿah after his death but an essential part of his message during his reign.[10]
Thus, we can see from this that even non-Muslim western academics and orientalists who have thoroughly studied the history of the early Muslims have had to admit that the real, actual, historical Imam ʿAlī (as) never claimed Divine Appointment or Prophetic designation, but rather he merely saw himself as the most qualified and suitable candidate to lead the community of the Prophet (Saww) after him on meritocratic grounds of his superior track record of service to Islam as well as his numerous virtues and excellences which entitled him to that position. They also stress how this view was held by the Imam (as) himself as well as his early supporters, and it is not something which can be attributed to later sectarian Shīʿa development.
Imam ʿAlī (as) Established his entitlement to the Caliphate by Merit
A close, careful, and critical study of the case which Imam ʿAlī (as) always made, and the arguments and proofs which he invariably brought forward, to establish that he was more entitled for leadership of the Ummah and the Caliphate after Prophet Muḥammad (Saww), reveals that he always sought to establish his right to the Caliphate by showcasing his personal qualifications, merits, excellence, distinctions, and close kinship to the Messenger of Allah, instead of appealing to any divine appointment or Prophetic designation.
There are too many texts from both Shīʿa and Sunnī sources which we can bring forward to showcase this fact, but in the interest of brevity, we will suffice with just a few samples from both to showcase the consistency of Imam ʿAlī’s (as) line of reasoning and his persistence in arguing from merit, and not divine appointment or prophetic designation.
Imam ʿAlī’s (as) Argument before Abū Bakr after Saqīfah
It is well-known among historians that Imam ʿAlī (as), together with the Banū Hāshim, initially boycotted the government of Abū Bakr in protest at their exclusion from the Shūrā hastily held at Saqīfah Banī Sāʿidah, and withheld Bayʿah from him for at least a period of six months[11]. However, after this period elapsed, the Imam (as) decided that persisting in withholding the Bayʿah would not be in the best interests of Islam, but would instead actually be inimical to them, because the nascent and fledgling Muslim State had dangerous and powerful external enemies who were watching it closely, and looking to exploit any weakness or loophole they could find in it, and the fact that the newly formed government lacked the support and approval of the family and clan of the very Prophet in whose name it was being run would only serve to embolden the enemies by making the Muslim community seem hopelessly divided and splintered, so the Imam (as) opted to reconcile with the first Khālīfah, patch things up with him, bury the hatchet, and rally behind the government in power.
The words Imam ʿAlī (as) addressed Abū Bakr with on the occasion when he summoned him to inform him that he would be pledging allegiance to him have been recorded as follows; he said:
أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يَمْنَعْنَا مِنْ أَنْ نُبَايِعَكَ يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ إِنْكَارٌ لِفَضِيلَتِكَ، وَلا نَفَاسَةٌ عَلَيْكَ بِخَيْرٍ سَاقَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ، وَلَكِنَّا كُنَّا نَرَى أَنَّ لَنَا فِي هَذَا الأَمْرِ حَقًّا، فَاسْتَبَدَدْتُمْ بِهِ عَلَيْنَا. ثُمَّ ذكر قرابته من رسول الله (ص) وَحَقَّهُمْ فَلَمْ يَزَلْ عَلِيٌّ يَقُولُ ذَلِكَ حَتَّى بَكَى أَبُو بَكْرٍ.
‘Now then, we were not prevented in giving you Bayʿah, O Abū Bakr, by denial of your virtue, nor our of any envy for a good which Allah had driven towards you, but (rather our reason was that) we had a right in this affair (i.e. the Caliphate), which you unilaterally excluded us from. Then he mentioned his Qarābah (close kinship) to the Messenger of Allah (Saww), and their right, and ʿAlī kept speaking about this until Abū Bakr cried.’[12]
we had a right in this affair (i.e. the Caliphate), which you unilaterally excluded us from.
Imam ʿAlī, Sahih Bukhari
We observe throughout the course of the conversation which Imam ʿAlī (as) has with Abū Bakr, and also from the sermon which he later delivers in the Masjid after prayer which is mentioned later on in the same narration, and in which he reiterates in public what he said to Abū Bakr in private, that the Imam (as) does not claim at any point that he is divinely appointed or designated by the Prophet (Saww), rather he simply explains the cause of his grievance, and asserts that it was his unfair exclusion from the Shūrā, and the unilateral decision of Abū Bakr’s party to elect him without proper and fuller consultation with all key stakeholders.
Imam ʿAlī’s (as) Campaigns for the Caliphate on grounds of Merit at the Third Shūrā
The companion, Abū al-Ṭufail (RA), famous for being an early Shīʿa, narrates that he heard Imam ʿAlī (as) campaigning for himself in the following manner in the Shūrā which was held before election of Uthmān:
قال أبو الطفيل: كنت واقفا على الباب يوم الشورى فارتفعت الأصوات بينهم، فسمعت عليا عليه السلام يقول : ((بايع الناس لأبي بكر وأنا والله أولى بالأمر منه وأحق به منه، فسمعت وأطعت مخافة أن يرجع الناس كفارا يضرب بعضهم رقاب بعض بالسيف، ثم بايع الناس عمر، وأنا والله أولى بالأمر منه وأحق به منه، فسمعت وأطعت مخافة أن يرجع الناس كفارا يضرب بعضهم رقاب بعض بالسيف، ثم أنتم تريدون أن تبايعوا عثمان؟…))
Abū al-Ṭufail said: ‘I was standing at the door on the day of the Shūrā, so the voices got raised among them, so I heard ʿAlī (as) saying: “The People gave Bayʿah to Abū Bakr, while I was, by Allah, more worthy of the matter (i.e. Caliphate) and better entitled to it, but I heard and I obeyed out of a fear that people might turn apostates and strike each other’s necks with the sword (i.e. I feared a civil war may erupt). Then the people gave Bayʿah to ʿUmar, while I was, by Allah, more worthy of the matter (i.e. Caliphate) and better entitled to it than him, but I heard and I obeyed out of a fear that people might turns apostates and strike each other’s necks with the sword (i.e. I feared a civil war may erupt), and now you want to give Bayʿah to Uthmān?!”[13]
The People gave Bayʿah to Abū Bakr, while I was, by Allah, more worthy of the matter (i.e. Caliphate) and better entitled to it…
Imam ʿAlī
Imam ʿAlī’s (as) Consistency in Claiming entitlement to Leadership by Merit in his own Caliphate
When we look at the speeches, sermons, correspondences of Imam ʿAlī (as) which date back to the period after he assumed the Caliphate, we notice no change in his stance nor any shift in his line of reasoning by which he claims entitlement to lead the Ummah and be its ruler. Apart from the letter he wrote to Muʿāwiyah in which he explicitly justifies the legitimacy of his government by pointing to its being the product of the Shūrā of the Muhājirīn and Anṣār, we see him continue to stand his ground on the fact that his entitlement to the Caliphate stems from his merit and close kinship to the Messenger of Allah (Saww).
For instance, in the address delivered by Imam ʿAlī (as) before Shurḥabīl bin al-Simṭ, who came as a representative of Muʿāwiyah to him during exchanges that were held against the backdrop of the Battle of Ṣiffīn, the Imam (as) said:
((أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ بَعَثَ النَّبِيَّ (ص) فَأْنَقَذَ بِهِ مِنَ الضَّلَالَةِ وَنَعَّشَ بِهِ مِنَ الْهَلَكَة ِوَجَمَعَ بِهِ بَعْدَ الْفُرْقَةِ ثُمَّ قَبَضَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَقَدْ أَدَّى مَا عَلَيْهِ. ثُمَّ اسْتَخْلَفَ النَّاسُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَخْلَفَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ عُمَرَ وَأَحْسَنَا السِّيرَةَ وَعَدَلَا فِي الْأُمَّةِ، وَقَدْ وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِمَا أَنْ تَوَلَّيَا الْأَمْرَ دُونَنَا – وَنَحْنُ آلُ الرَّسُولِ وَأَحَقُّ بِالْأَمْرِ – فَغَفَرْنَا ذَلِكَ لَهُمَا)).
‘Now then, Allah sent the Prophet (Saww) to deliver people from misguidance and to save them from destruction. Through him, He united those who were divided. Then, Allah took him back to Himself after he had fulfilled his mission.
Thereafter, the people elected Abū Bakr as their leader, followed by ʿUmar after he was left behind to take over the Caliphate by Abū Bakr, both of whom conducted themselves well and governed with justice over the Ummah. We harbored a grievance against them for taking charge of affairs instead of us without even consulting us — despite the fact that we are the Āl al-Rasūl (the family of the Prophet) and are more deserving of this affair (i.e. Caliphate and leadership of the Ummah). Nonetheless, we forgave them for this.’[14]
A good number of more such texts can be lined up from the Sīrah of Imam ʿAlī (as), dating back to different periods, where the Imam (as) consistently and persistently asserts that he considers himself more worthy and deserving of leadership and Caliphate on grounds of his merit, but we need not lengthen this article further by presenting more of these here. The great Iranian scholar, Shaykh Muḥammad Muḥammadiyān, has collected and compiled numerous such statements in the sections found at the beginning of his book entitled Ḥayāt Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿalayhi al-Salām, so those interested in seeing all these numerous texts in which Imam ʿAlī (as) consistently lays claim to the Caliphate on grounds of his merit[15], without alluding to any Divine appointment or Prophetic designation, may access them from that crucial section of the book, and it should be borne in mind that what makes these texts credible and authentic, in addition to the fact of their transmission in cross-sectarian sources, as opposed to being confined to an individual or isolated sectarian corpus which may have led to doubts about sectarian tampering, is that they are in perfect harmony with the Sīrah of Imam ʿAlī (as) as it is preserved on the historical record across the sects of this Ummah.
This perfect alignment and correspondence with the actual Sīrah of the Imam (as) greatly bolsters the credibility of all these variegated narrations and grants the researcher a high degree of confidence in them.
Further Texts from Nahj al-Balāgha Undermining Popular Imāmī Shīʿa Narrative about Imam ʿAlī (as)
Another text from Nahj al-Balāgha that greatly undermines and exposes the falsity of the later sectarian claim about Imam ʿAlī’s (as) Divine Appointment is Sermon 92 which was delivered after the murder of ʿUthmān when people came to ʿAlī’s (as) and informed him of their decision to pledge allegiance to him and elect him the Head of State. The Imam (as) remarked:
دَعُوني وَالْـتَمِسُوا غَيْرِي؛ فإِنَّا مُسْتَقْبِلُونَ أَمْراً لَهُ وُجُوهٌ وَأَلْوَانٌ؛ لاَ تَقُومُ لَهُ الْقُلُوبُ، وَلاَ تَثْبُتُ عَلَيْهِ الْعُقُولُ، وَإِنَّ الاْفَاقَ قَدْ أَغَامَتْ، وَالْـمَحَجَّةَ قَدْ تَنَكَّرَتْ. وَاعْلَمُوا أَنِّي إنْ أَجَبْتُكُمْ رَكِبْتُ بِكُمْ مَا أَعْلَمُ، وَلَمْ أُصْغِ إِلَى قَوْلِ الْقَائِلِ وَعَتْبِ الْعَاتِبِ، وَإِنْ تَرَكْتُمُونِي فَأَنَا كَأَحَدِكُمْ؛ وَلَعَلِّي أَسْمَعُكُمْ وَأَطْوَعُكُمْ لِمنْ وَلَّيْتُمُوهُ أَمْرَكُمْ، وَأَنَا لَكُمْ وَزِيراً، خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ مِنِّي أَمِيراً!
Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not listen to the utterance of any speaker or the reproof of any reprover. If you leave me then I am the same as you are, and perhaps I might be the most cooperative and obedient subject in relation to whomsoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a Wazīr (counsellor/minister/advisor) than as an Amīr (ruler)![16]
This text also clearly contradicts the later sectarian claims of the Imāmiyyah, particularly their claim that the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them – headed by Imam ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib (as) – are Imams appointed by Allah through the designation of the Prophet (Saww), and that their allegiance is obligatory on the Ummah.
However, it is clear from even a superficial reading of the aforementioned sermon that Imam ʿAlī (as) entertained no such notions, for if he did believe in anything like this about himself, it would not have been permissible for him – in his capacity as an Imam who had been appointed by God – to discourage people and divert them from obedience to God’s order of appointment, by saying, “Leave me and seek someone else!”
If Imam ʿAlī (as) believed he had been chosen by God to carry out the task of leadership and the Caliphate, and that He had made it obligatory on the Muslims to pledge allegiance to him after the Prophet (Saww), then his requesting them to leave him alone and his asking them to turn away from him, and to seek someone else for this position would have been a disobedience to God Almighty’s judgment and a rebellion against His authority. And if this is the case, then how can it be expected that someone like Imam ʿAlī (as), with his high level of Taqwā and devotion to God, would encourage people to disobey God, by urging them and instigating them to violate God’s command mandating his appointment as the leader of the Ummah, despite the people’s desperate attempt to turn to him for guidance and leadership after the murder of Uthman.
“Leave me and seek someone else!” …. I am better for you as a Wazīr (counsellor/minister/advisor) than as an Amīr (ruler)… (After the people reached out for Caliphate after the death of Uthman).
Imam Ali, Nahjul Balagha Sermon 92
Furthermore, the Imam’s statement “perhaps I might be the most cooperative and obedient subject in relation to whomsoever you make in charge of your affairs” disproves the Imāmī claim that only infallibles are deserving of obedience. The fact that Imam ʿAlī (as) was willing to make room for the possibility that he could actually turn out to be the most obedient and cooperative subject in the polity – assuming the ruler acted in accordance with the Qur’ān and Sunnah, of course, shows us that he entertained no illusions about the necessity of infallibility as a condition for the ruler. In fact, he appointed several fallible personalities to various positions of power and authority in his own Caliphate, and expected his subjects to obey them.
Moreover, the Imam’s statement “I am better for you as a Wazīr (counsellor/minister/advisor) than as an Amīr (ruler)!” also contradicts the Imāmī belief in the fact that the Imam is appointed by God and chosen by Him, and that his obedience is obligatory under all circumstances, because if this were true, it would not be permissible for Imam ʿAlī (as) to put his own personal preference to serve as a Wazīr (counsellor/minister/advisor) over the role which God had, allegedly and supposedly, chosen for him, i.e. that of being an Amīr (i.e. Ruler, Leader)!
Imam ʿAlī (as) was not one to shy away from upholding God’s commands. If he really believed he had been appointed or selected by God to lead the Ummah, he would not initially try to turn people away from himself and discourage them from electing him as caliph of the Muslims after the murder of ʿUthmān. Rather, he would have been the quickest to rush and hasten towards this opportunity to realise God’s vision and finally enforce His hitherto ignored and abandoned Command mandating his leadership over the Ummah.
In short, if leadership and Caliphate was a responsibility imposed on the Imam (as) by God, and placed on his shoulders by a Divine decree or writ, he would not have tried to avoid it or evade it when it finally came knocking on his door by requesting people to choose someone else in his place and leave him alone to be a regular citizen of the state, and even giving them the hope that perhaps he would be even more obedient and cooperative than them to the one they choose as a ruler in his place.
[1]. It is asserted in books of ʿIlm al-Kalām and their commentaries that not only is appointing the Imam an exclusive prerogative of Allah, but rather it is also asserted that the Imāmiyyah maintain that appointing the Imam is Wājib (obligatory) on Allah (SWT)! See for instance: al-Ḥillī, ʿAllāmah Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ḥasan bin Yūsuf Ibn ʿAlī bin al-Muṭahhar. Kashf al-Murād fī Sharḥ Tajrīd al-Iʿtiqād. (With annotation and commentary by Āyatullāh Sayyid Ibrāhīm al-Mūsawī al-Zanjānī). Manshūrāt Muʾassasat al-Aʿlamī li al-Maṭbūʿāt, Beirut, 1st ed., 1399 AH/1979 CE., p. 388.
[2]. The Imām here invokes the language used by the Qur’ān to warn people against innovating a path different from that of the community of believers; see: the Qur’ān: 04:115.
[3]. Al-Raḍīyy, al-Sharīf Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad al-Mūsawīyy. Nahj al-Balāghah. Ed. Dr. Ṣubḥī Ṣāleḥ. Dār al-Kitāb al-Miṣrī, Cairo, Dār al-Kitāb al-Lubnānī, Beirut, 4th ed., 1425 AH/2004 CE., pp. 366-367.
In the edition available online which is a reprint by Markaz al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyyah, Qum, see: pp. 366-367. (https://lib.eshia.ir/12092/1/366 – https://lib.eshia.ir/12092/1/367).
The translation above is my own. I have made an effort to make it more precise and faithful to the nuances of the original Arabic text than the existing translations. But it is still not substantially or significantly different from those which are easily available online such as the one at: https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-6-muawiyah-ibn-abi-sufyan
See also: Ar-Raḍi, Sayyid Sharīf (Compiler). Nahjol Balāgha (Sermons, Letters & Sayings as Compiled by Sayyid Shareef ar-Razi). (Translated by Sayyid Ali Reza, with introductory notes by Sayyid Mohammad Askari Jafery). Ansariyan Publications, Qum, 3rd Reprint, 1414 AH/2003 CE., p. 495.
For an earlier historical source for the letter, see: Al-Minqarī, Naṣr bin Muzāḥim. Waqʿat Ṣiffīn. Ed. Abd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn. Al- Muʾssasah al-ʿArabiyyah al-Ḥadithah, Cairo. Reprinted by Manshūrāt Āyatillāh al-Uẓmā al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, Qum, 2nd ed., 1404 AH., p. 29. (https://lib.eshia.ir/22035/1/29).
Authentication: While Naṣr bin Muzāḥim al-Minqarī does provide an unbroken chain of transmission for this letter going all the way up to Imam ʿAlī (as), our chief basis for authenticating the content of this letter is its agreement with the worldview of the Qur’ān which promotes Shūrā among the believers as a divinely approved means for determining major affairs of state as will be explained further below in greater detail. The credibility and authenticity of this letter and its contents is further bolstered by the actual Sīrah of Imam ʿAlī (as), since all his actions and statements throughout his life are perfectly consistent with what he states in this letter. Thus our authentication of this letter rests on a much more cumulative case which we build based on a holistic and critical analysis of the political career of Imam ʿAlī (as) and his worldview as its manifests itself through his decisions and steps which he takes, as opposed to being premised on a single or isolated indicator for authenticity such as reliability of the chain or veracity of its individual transmitters.
[4]. For our discussion of these texts and how they were actually understood by Imam ʿAlī (as), one may refer to the following lecture:
Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr, Manzilah, and Thaqalayn: Divine Appointments? | Dr. Syed Ali Hur
For a summary of the above lecture, see: [SUMMARY] Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr, Manzilah, and Thaqalayn: Divine Appointments? | Dr. Syed Ali Hur
[5]. Ar-Raḍi, Sayyid Sharīf (Compiler). Nahjol Balāgha (Sermons, Letters & Sayings as Compiled by Sayyid Shareef ar-Razi). (Translated by Sayyid Ali Reza, with introductory notes by Sayyid Mohammad Askari Jafery). Ansariyan Publications, Qum, 3rd Reprint, 1414 AH/2003 CE., p. 496. (Footnote # 5). This footnote has also been reproduced as #1 over here: https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-6-muawiyah-ibn-abi-sufyan.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, Ḥadith # 4240, 4241: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240); Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Ḥadith # 1759a: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1759a).
[8]. For historical evidence of Imam ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib (as) eventually pledging allegiance and giving Bayʿah to Abū Bakr, one may refer to the Imam’s own declaration about how and why he pledged allegiance after abstaining for six months in a letter he wrote in this regard to some of his companions. The letter has been preserved in the early historical Shīʿa works such as:
– Al-Thaqafī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Saʿīd bin Hilāl. al-Ghārāt. Ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn al-Armavī al-Muḥaddith. Silseleh Intishārāt-i Anjuman-i Āthār-i Millī, Tehran, 2nd ed., 1395 AH/1975 CE., vol. 1, p. 306. (https://lib.eshia.ir/71757/1/306).
To access this text in English translation, one may refer to: Madelung, Wilfred. Succession to Mohammad. Cambridge University Press, 1997., p. 270; see also chapter entitled ‘Shīʿism in the Age of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs’ by the aforementioned author in the following edited volume: Clarke, Lynda (Ed.). Shi’ite Heritage: Essays on Classical and Modern Traditions. Global Publications, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, 2001., p. 16.
Sentiments similar to those expressed by Imam ʿAlī (as) in this detailed letter are found echoed in other letters as well such as: https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-62-people-egypt-sent-through-malik-al-ashtar-when
In addition to this, the evidence for the Imam pledging allegiance to Abū Bakr is also preserved in sectarian Sunnī and Imāmī Shīʿa sources, with the only noteworthy difference being that the Imāmī narrative seeks to spin everything which is historically well-established, but which nonetheless undermines it, as an instance of Taqiyyah, and thus the Imāmī narrative maintains that this Bay’āh was given involuntarily and under pressure, coercion and duress; see: Al-Kulaynī, Abū Ja’far Muḥammad bin Yaʿqūb. Al Kāfī. Ed. ʿAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī. Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah (Maktabah al-Ṣadūq), Tehran, 2nd ed., 1381 AH., vol. 8, p. 295. (https://lib.eshia.ir/11005/8/295).
To access this in English translation, see: https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/8/1/454/1.
Authentication: The narration has been authenticated by the following Imāmī Rijālī authorities despite unverified links in its chain:
– Al-Majlisī, ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Bāqir. Mir’āt al ʿUqūl Fī Sharḥ Akhbār Āl al-Rasūl. Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah, Tehran, 2nd ed., 1412 AH., vol. 326-327. [Narration # 454]. Grading: كالموثق (As good as reliable). (https://lib.eshia.ir/71429/26/326).
– Al-Bahbūdī, ʿAllāmah Shaykh Muḥammad Bāqir. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Kāfī. Al-Dār al-Islāmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1401 AH/1981 CE., vol. 3, p. 402. [Narration # 4407/454].
Note: Notwithstanding the spin found in some Imāmī narrations like the one above, there are also some high profile Twelver Marājeʿ who have been much more straightforward in stating that Imam ʿAlī (as) willingly and voluntarily gave Bayʿah to Abū Bakr, not out of any pressure or coercion, but due to his selfless concern for the best interests and overall welfare of Islam and its people. See: Āl Kāshif al-Ghiṭāʾ, Shaykh Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Aṣl al-Shīʿah wa Uṣūluhā. Ed. ʿAlāʾ Āl Jaʿfar. Muʾassasat al Imām ʿAlī (as) [Al-Imām ʿAlī (A) Foundation]. London, n.d., p. 193. (https://lib.eshia.ir/27072/1/193) as well as (https://books.rafed.net/m/?type=c_fbook&b_id=344&page=193).
As for Sunnī sources, the Bayʿah of Imam ʿAlī (as) to Abū Bakr is explicitly mentioned and documented in the following early sources:
– Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, Ḥadith # 4240, 4241: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240); Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Ḥadith # 1759a: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1759a).
See also: Khan, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin (Tr.). The Translation of the Meanings of Sahīh Al-Bukhāri (Arabic-English). Darussalam, Riyadh, 1997 CE., vol. 5, pp. 332-334. [Ḥadīth # 4240/4241]. (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240).
– Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar, Muḥammad bin Jarīr. Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī: Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk. Ed. Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. Dār al-Maʿārif, Cairo, 2nd ed., 1387 AH/1967 CE., vol. 3, p. 208. (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/1482).
– Ibn al-Athīr, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Abī al-Karam. Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh. Ed. Abū al-Fidāʾ al-Qāḍī. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1407 AH/1987 CE., vol. 2, p. 189. In the Tadmurī edition available online, see: https://shamela.ws/book/21712/878#p4.
[9]. Al-Khumaynī, al-Imām Ruḥullah al-Mūsawī. Anwār al-Hidāyah fī al-Taʿlīqah ʿalā al-Kifāyah. Ed. Muʾassasat Tanzīm wa-Nashr Āthār al-Imām al-Khumaynī (Q), Maktab al-Iʿlām al-Islāmī, Qum, 1413 AH., vol. 1, pp. 245-246. (https://lib.eshia.ir/86639/1/245 – https://lib.eshia.ir/86639/1/246.
[10]. Shi’ite Heritage: Essays on Classical and Modern Traditions, p. 15.
[11]. See: Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar, Muḥammad bin Jarīr. Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī: Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk. Ed. Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. Dār al-Maʿārif, Cairo, 2nd ed., 1387 AH/1967 CE., vol. 3, p. 208. (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/1482).
Ibn al-Athīr, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Abī al-Karam. Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh. Ed. Abū al-Fidāʾ al-Qāḍī. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1407 AH/1987 CE., vol. 2, p. 189. In the Tadmurī edition available online, see: https://shamela.ws/book/21712/878#p4.
[12]. Khan, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin (Tr.). The Translation of the Meanings of Sahīh Al-Bukhāri (Arabic-English). Darussalam, Riyadh, 1997 CE., vol. 5, pp. 332-334. [Ḥadīth # 4240/4241]. (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240).
Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar, Muḥammad bin Jarīr. Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī: Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk. Ed. Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. Dār al-Maʿārif, Cairo, 2nd ed., 1387 AH/1967 CE., vol. 3, p. 208. (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/1482).
[13]. Al-Ṣadūq, Shaykh Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin al-Ḥusain bin Mūsā Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī. Al-Khiṣāl. Ed. ʿAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī, Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī al-Tābiʿah li Jamāʿat al-Mudarrisīn bi Qum al-Musharrafah, Qum, 1st ed., 1403 AH. , vol. 2, pp. 553-554. [Narration 31]. (https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/15339/2/553 – https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/15339/2/554).
[14]. Al-Minqarī, Naṣr bin Muzāḥim. Waqʿat Ṣiffīn. Ed. Abd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn. Al- Muʾssasah al-ʿArabiyyah al-Ḥadithah, Cairo. Reprinted by Manshūrāt Āyatillāh al-Uẓmā al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, Qum, 2nd ed., 1404 AH., p. 201. (https://lib.eshia.ir/22035/1/201).
[15]. Muḥammadiyān, Shaykh Muḥammad. Ḥayāt Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿalayhi al-Salām.Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī al-Tābiʿah li Jamāʿat al-Mudarrisīn bi Qum al-Musharrafah, Qum, 1417 AH., vol. 2, pp. 14-20. (https://ito.lib.eshia.ir/84638/2/14 – https://ito.lib.eshia.ir/84638/2/20).
[16]. The translation here is my own. I have made an effort to make it more precise and faithful to the nuances of the original Arabic text than the existing translations. But it is still not substantially or significantly different from those which are easily available online such as the one at: https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-92-leave-me-and-find-someone-else
