FAQ in the category of Shiaism, Alawism, Jafarism

Shias are divided into 22 sub-sects. These are:

1. Sabaiyyah Sect: The founder of this sect is Abdullah bin Saba. Basis of their beliefs are; Ascribing Uluhiyyat (praying and obeying only to ) to Hazrath Ali (as) and his descendants. They claim that Hazrath Ali (as) is not death, the one who has died was a Satan incognito as Ali (as). Hazrath Ali (as) ascended to heaven. Thunder is his voice; flash of lightening is his scourges clatter.

2. Kamiliyyah Sect: According to this sect, Imamate (duties and rank of Imam) is a nur (heavenly light). One other attribute of imam is prophet at the same time. These people claim that sahaba (Companions of Prophet) are unbelievers.

3. Ulyaniyyah Sect: The followers of this sect who pray and obey to Hazrath Ali (as) and to his descendants claim that Hazrath Ali (as) sent Hazrath Mohammad (pbuh) as a messenger.

4. Mughapriyyah Sect: They say that Allah (swt) has a shape of a mortal man and carries a crown, which is made of a heavenly light and believe so many other outdated superstitions that would even amaze Satan himself.

5. Mansuriyyah Sect: Imams are blameless; prophets are not free from mistakes. Imams are higher in ranks. They believe such like superstitions and myths.

6. Hatabiyyah Sect: According to them world is eternal. There is no Hell. They do not accept Haram (anything that is prohibited by faith), or Halal (anything that is permissible under Islam).

7. Hashimiyyah Sect: They think of Allah in shape of a human.

8. Numaniyyah Sect: They are also called as Sataniyyah Sect. Just like Hashimiyyah Sect, they think of Allah in shape of a human.

9. Yonusiyyah Sect: They claim that Allah sits on a throne and the angels always see Him.

10. Nasriyyah Sect: They claim that Allah penetrated into Hazrath Ali (as) and his descendants. That is to say they became a united whole.

11. Canahiyyah Sect: They drivel by claiming that Allahs spirit was with Hazrath Adam and passed to the other Prophets and to the twelve Imam.

12. Gurabiyyah Sect: These sects members by defending an opininion of Hazrath Alis (as) likeness to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) claim that Angel Gabriel revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by mistake.

13. Zarrariyyah Sect: They believe that all the other attributes of Allah except the Life Attribute came into being afterwards.

14. Zarramiyyah Sect: They say that Imamet came down from Ali (as) to his son Mohammad Hanafi and from him to the others.

15. Mufavizzah Sect: They are in dark by saying that Allah created Prophet Mohammad and he created the heavens and earth and the universe.

16. Badahiyyah Sect: Their situation is much weirder than the others are. They claim that Allah created his creations without thinking of their pasts and futures.

17. Banaiyyah Sect: Just like Nasriyyah Sect they believe in becoming one (Allah and Hazrath Ali and his descendants)

18. Salahiyyah Sect: They are mutazillah (man is the owner of his acts and they negate the effects of fate) in faith, Hanafis (school of the oldest of the four schools of thought or jurisprudence within Sunni Islam. The Hanafi sect named after its founder, Abu Hanifa) in practice.

19. Sulaymaniyyah Sect: They accept Hazrath Abu Bakrs (as) and Hazrath Omars (as) Imamate however reject of their being imam prior to Hazrath Ali.

20. Imamiyyah Sect: According to them, Hazrath Mohammad (pbuh) appointed Hazrath Ali (as) as imam personally and he was the one who can choose the following imams because of Hazrath Mohammads will.

21. Garrudiyyah Sect: They claim that the words of our Prophet about Imamet clearly refer to Hazrath Ali (as) and blame Companions of Prophet of being blasphemous.

22. Ismailiyyah Sect: By the followers of this sect under the cover of religion, it had been tried to be founded a kingdom. Under the leadership of Ubaydullah whom was one of the descendants of ibn-i Meymoon it became an Empire spreading from Damascus to Morocco. After 270 years of ruling, it fell in the year 570 (Islamic calendar). These are also called as Batinis.

They, by keeping their imams distinct from others consider them as being approved by the divine enlightenment. According to them, their imams are blameless, they do not make mistakes, and they do not sin. They cannot be responsible for their acts because they know things, which anybody cannot.

Bektashism: The first thing that comes to mind when Alawism is mentioned is Bektashism. Actually, Bektashism is a tariqah-religious order-that is believed to have been founded by Hajji Bektash Wali. However, Bektashism can be called Alawism as its followers are attached to the basic principles of Alawism like affection for Hadrat Ali and the Family of The Prophet, loving the ones who love the Family of the Prophet and not loving the ones who do not love them. In Turkey, while every Bektashi is Alawi, not every Alawi is necessarily Bektashi, although they regard Hajji Bektash as the Horosan Saint, and respect him. For this reason, there is a division of Rural Bektashism and Urban Bektashism; while the former is called Alawi, the latter is called Bektashi. (1)

According to the Alawi writer Rıza Zelyut, there is no difference between Bektashism and Alawism. He thinks that Hajji Bektashi Wali is a great master of Anatolian Alawism. In general, he did not create a way or tariqah peculiar to himself. The great master is Alawi. In this respect, the expression Bektashism is wrong. The Bektashis he calls Dervish Bektashis are also Alawi and have small differences among each other. (2)

We think that there has arisen a difference between Alawism and Bektashism especially since the sixteenth century. Some current differences are as follows: Although the basic beliefs of both groups resemble one another, their social structures are different. While Alawis are the groups that have generally come from tribes and lived in rural places for centuries, Bektashis are groups that live in towns and that are generally educated. (3). Although both of the groups love and regard Hajji Bektashi Wali, Alawis are attached to the lodges of Dervishes that they believe have come from the lineage of the Prophet, not the Lodge of Hajji Bektash. Actually, as Bektashism is a tariqah, everyone who sticks to the way of this tariqah can be a Bektashi. However, Alawism depends on lineage and only the one whose parents are Alawi can be an Alawi himself. (4)

Haslok mentions such a distinction concerning belief between Alawis and Bektashis: While Alawis claim that they are attached to the Fifth Imam Muhammad Bakr, Bektashis claim that they are attached to the Sixth Imam Jafar-i Sadik as their master. (5) Besides these, there are also some other differences. (6)

Sources:
1- Ethem Ruhi Fığlalı, Türkiyede Alevilik Bektaşilik, Ankara 1989, page 9. According to Abdurrahman Sezgin, who has studied Bektashism, there is no difference between the words Alawi and Sunni. See Hacı Bektaş Veli ve Bektaşilik, İstanbul 1990, s. 60.
2- Rıza Zelyut, Öz Kaynaklarına Göre Alevilik, Istanbul 1990, page 12-13.
3- Irene Melikoff, Uyur İdik Uyandırdılar, trans. Turan Alptekin, page 29.
4- Mehmet Eröz, Türkiyede Alevilik ve Bektaşilik, Ankara 1990, page 52; İlyas Üzüm, Günümüz Aleviliği, İstanbul 1997, page 4.
5- F.R. Haslok, Bektaşilik Tetkikleri, trans. Ragıp Hulusi, simplified by Kamil Akarsu, Ankara 2000, page 4.
6- For these differences see: Ahmet Turan, Anadolu Alevileri-Kızılbaşlar, OMÜ İlah.Fak.Dergisi, Issue 6, Samsun 1992, page 58-59.

There appeared quite a new era in the whole of humanity with the Qurans being sent down, which is the greatest torch through the way of Allah. People were rejoicing at embracing the True Religion, which was their souls most natural need. They reached to the Unity from polytheism, to light from darkness, to truth from superstitions, to knowledge from ignorance. The Qurans vital principles took them to both material and spiritual elevation any moment.

In the era of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Islam established its absolute sovereignty in Mecca, Medina, and Hijaz and in neighboring lands. The age of ignorance and darkness have been replaced by that of bliss and light.

With the magnificent conquests that were conducted at the times of Abu Bakr and Umar within a short time, the conquest of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Persia became successful.

This wonderful expansion caused the enemies of Islam, especially Jews, to increase their envy and hatred against Islam. Jews were horrified in the face of the advancement that Islam enjoyed within such a short period; they were bursting with envy. Furthermore, the conversion of most Jewish religious groups drove them crazy. This rapid and brilliant spread of Islam by all means should have been stopped.

It was quite necessary that the conspiracy, which once was organized against Christians, must be done for Muslims this time. They negotiated the matter and put Ibn-i Sebe on the stage. Abdullah Ibn-i Sebe was the chief rabbi and a master manipulator.

Ibn-i Sebe based his destruction plans on mainly two principles. First, he would prevent the advancement of Islam by causing diversity among Muslims and second, he would seek the ways for a diversity of opinions among Muslims, which would continue until the end of the world by inserting superstitions into the Islamic faith and creed. In order for these two ends to be achieved, he would set up covert groups and through them, he would conduct intense activities that would first debilitate and then obliterate the spiritual ties among Muslims such as the spirit of unity, love, brotherhood. There would be an immediate summing-up the situation just after every stage of mischief- making, the planned goals and received results would be evaluated, there would be new plans to achieve further aims under changing and developing conditions and these plans would be put into practice.

Ibn-i Sebe fully achieved his first goal for he caused disunity and battles within Muslims.

Ibn-i Sebe was approaching his main objective through these inside battles. For his main objective was to have Islam gone corrupt by introducing superstitions into the Islamic creed.

All fighting Believers might have made peace soon and re-set up the Islamic unity by coming together. It was vital that there be a controversy among them, which would continue until the end of the world, and disunite them in respect of faith and divide them into opposing parties. The most important task now to do was to make them swerve from the right way by inserting religious superstitions. The abuse of the love of the Prophets Family was the first thing to resort to by Ibn-i Sebe. He appeared to be the most zealous adherent to the Family of Prophet. He propagated that Ali needed to be incumbent of Caliphate and it was usurped from him unjustly. He attempted to distort the religion of Islam from its creed of Unity, as is the case in Christianity, by rendering Ali and his children (may Allah be pleased with them) so-called A Dynasty of Gods. Finally, a group of people headed by Ibn-i Sebe came before Ali and said to him, You are our God, you are our Lord. Ali had some of them burnt to death. He then decided not to have him burnt fearing that his death would provoke further mischief and weakness since he has many adherents in the army. He exiled him to Medayin, the former centre of government of Persia.

Unfortunately, Medayin was a very appropriate place for Ibn-i Sebes perverted ideas to flourish. Ibn-i Sebe met Kharijites (1) here, who in the past fled from Ali, and found their chief Ibn-i Evfa. Realizing that Ibn-i Evfa was about to take action against Ali, he told him, You cannot defeat Ali with such an action; on the contrary, you will be defeated. When Ibn-i Evfa asked him about his opinion, he said that they could finish him off with three assassins.

After this meeting, they agreed on the assassination of Ali, Muawiya, and Amr Ibnul-Âs (May Allah be pleased with them). To this end, they sent three assassins. Three Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were to be killed on the seventeenth day of Ramadan while they were performing their morning prayer. Through Divine Determining, Muawiya and Amr Ibnul Âs survived these assassination attempts but the assassin named Ibn-i Mulcem succeeded in wounding Ali with a poisonous sword, which would soon occasion his martyrdom.

Having sent Ibn-i Mulcem on his way to kill Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Ibn-i Sebe sent Ibn-i Meymoon together with a couple of men of his to the city of Kufa. Ibn-i Meymoon there was to disseminate superstitions such as Ali has never died, he has gone to heavens. He is over the clouds now. Soon he will be back and distribute justice to the whole of the world with his sword

Ibn-i Sebe together with his accomplices laid down the plans of treachery that they would carry out in Persia and they immediately set to work. The social conditions of that time were quite favorable for their putting their plots into practice.

Islam spread through a very large area within such a short time. It was an extraordinarily difficult task for a newly established Islamic state to convey all meanings and subtleties, wisdom and truths to the peoples who recently converted to Islam within such a large geography, and to make those who have different ways of life co-exist in the Islamic melting pot. People were converting to Islam in large numbers. Although this situation gladdened Muslims, but on the other hand, this spiritual dough could not be kneaded properly, Muslims were not brought up as properly as expected of them and consequently Muslims could not reach integrity as desired of them in terms of ideal way of sensing and of understanding. The masses were like uncultivated soil. This situation especially made it deeply felt in Persia.

The new converts were not fully free from their old fallacies. They deemed it rather difficult to embrace the pure, clear, unadulterated truths of Islam as they were which were far from being illusions, falsifications and superstitions since these people had been exposed to the influence of superstitions and false beliefs which dated back hundreds of years. Islam was not truly being comprehended by these pious people and the true religion was not being implanted in hearts and feelings exactly. As a psychological demand, they wished to continue their previous beliefs, customs, and common usages along with Islam. On the other hand, the institution of Caliphate was unable to conduct the services of warning and guidance properly. The service to establish Islam in those places with its all institutions and to remove their suspicions and hesitations was coming to a halt. For Islam spread through a large area, most of the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) had died inner turmoil, some chose a life of a recluse, and some other were too old to interfere with the social life.

As a result of neglecting this sacred task, these new places remained unowned for a long time. With the first enthusiasm and knowledge they received during the conquest, they could not fully understand the truths with regard to the Quran and faith. Therefore, they did not reach a point to distinguish between true and false, superstition and truth.

A mischief-making society, Jews, achieved to make use of these social conditions.

Another important factor, which made it possible for Ibn-i Sebe to implant his evil ideas in Persia, was the psychological state of the people. Their inner worlds were prevailed by emotions rather than reasoning. Their hearts were vulnerable to myths and superstitions rather than truth. They could not analyze events within a harmony of logic and reasoning.

They were unable to stomach the demolition of their centuries-long dynasties and national prides by Arabs, whom they once were regarding as slaves, also showed great envy in the sense of feelings though not in the sense of reasoning.

Ibn-i Sebe masterfully made use of these factors. He gathered his friends around him and told them: We have just started the war. Know that this is the start of a war among Muslims, which would continue until the end of the world. We shall sanctify Ali and have others to do the same. Sometimes we shall call him god, sometimes prophet, sometimes we shall tell that Caliphate was incumbent on Ali, but Abu Bakr, Umar, and Osman usurped this right of his.

After taking this decision, Ibn-i Sebe and his fellow men commissioned their men around to spread these ideas. These men inculcated people with their lies such as, Ali should have been the Caliph, he and His sons deserve it more than anybody else. This right was usurped from them. Three other caliphates, especially Umar, opposed the will of Allah by usurping this right In order to obey the will of Allah, we should take sides with Ali When these mass suggestions are accepted by the people, going further, they endeavored to insert the incarnation of God, which attributes divinity to human beings, into the Islamic creed. By trying to distort the Islamic belief from its right path, they started to disseminate a belief, which is diametrically opposite to the creed of Unity. The belief of The incarnation of God existed in old religions of Persians. Thus, this false belief enjoyed a quick popularity among them.

First, they attributed divinity to Ali (May Allah be pleased with him). Then they asserted that this divinity passed to his children and consequently there appeared a dynasty of gods in Persia.

On the death of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) Ibn-i Sebe commented that who died actually was not Ali but a devil taking on his form, he now went up the heavens and made a throne for himself over the clouds, by showing his death in the direction of the incarnation of God.

Eventually Shiism, which was first initiated in Egypt by the establishment of Sebeiyye Sect, started to grow and flourish in Persia. Then there emerged sub-sects out of this, which are more than twenty.


(1) Kharijites: These people are known to be the adversaries of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). These people disliked the policies of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and always exhibited a tough attitude towards him and his rule. Therefore, there always took place controversies between Ali and Kharijites.

Qizilbash is one of the most preferred names to describe Anatolian Shias and one of the most adopted names by Shias in its general meaning. The usage of that name dates back to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. There are various views put forward to explain why that name was given to Shias.

First: When the Prophet was wounded by Makkans in Uhud Battle, his head was painted red with blood. Hazrat Ali wore a red crown in other battles that he attended in order to commemorate that event. The name of Qizilbash was given for that reason and it has been in use since then (1). A Shia writer tells another variant of that narration: When Prophet Muhammad got wounded in Uhud, Hazrat Ali prevented his blood to drop onto the ground by rubbing it on his own head. Ali made himself a shield for Prophet Muhammad and protected him while everyone else was escaping. He got wounded in sixteen places of his body in the battle and his face and hands were all in blood. As his helmet was also in blood, Ali was called Qizilbash (red head) (2).

Second: Shah Ismail made an agreement with Bayezid II and transferred his soldiers to Syria via Anatolia. Those soldiers had red helmets. For this reason, Shias were called Qizilbash and Shias in Anatolia were called Qizilbash, too. (3)

Third: This view is related to Shah Ismails soldiers, too. Shah Ismails Shia soldiers used to wear red helmets unlike others. Anatolian Shias were called Qizilbash referring to them. (4)

Fourth: Shamans, who managed the religious rituals of Turkmens who were followers of Shamanism before Islam and then accepted Shiite, used to wear red conical hats. As Shia grandfathers (religious leaders) wore red conical hats while managing their institutions, Anatolian shias were named Qizilbash by Sunni Turks.

According to Melikoff, the reason why a derogatory meaning was attributed to the word Qizilbash in Ottoman documents is that they attended riots. (6)

In conclusion, let me state this: Although some people consider the word Qizilbash an insulting expression, a group of Shias perceive it a reason for honorability. On this issue, Zelyut says: Shias do not feel embarrassed or despised for being Qizilbash. They are angry with the opponent people to use this word as a means of insulting. Moreover, they brag about being Qizilbash by saying We have got the title Qizilbash. Shias relate being Qizilbash to Hazrat Ali (7).

There are two more different views apart from those four views written above. In our opinion, these two views seem more reasonable than the others. One of them is related to Turkmen tribes who used to wear red helmets or coifs. There are tribe names which refer to their helmets amongst Turkish tribes. For instance, a Turkish tribe who used to wear black coifs (papak, kalpak in Turkish) was named Karakalpak or Karapapak (black coif). A Sunni community of Bukhara school was named Yeshilbash (Green head). There are many villages in Turkey named Karabörk (Black helmet), Karabörklü (one with black helmet), Akbaşlı (white-headed) and Akbaşlar (white heads) (8).

There is an example on this issue in History of Aşıkpaşaoğlu as follows: Orhan Ghazi used to wear a red helmet like his father and he also made his soldiers wear red helmets too. His brother Alaaddin Pasha gives him an advice on this: My King! Shall we give your soldiers a sign that no other soldiers have? Orhan Ghazi said: Brother, whatever you say, I accept it. Alaaddin Pasha suggests: Helmets of the neighboring Lords are red. Let yours be white. For this reason, Orhan Ghazi ordered white helmets from Bilecik. (9)

Another view about the origin of the name Qizilbash is as follows: Sheikh Haydar from the sheikhs of Ardabil dervish lodge wore a twelve-pieced red crown and put a red turban around it. He let his students wear the same crown with or without turban, depending on their degrees. For this reason, the followers of Ardabil dervish lodge were named Qizilbash. (10)

Sources:

1- Enver Behnan Şapolyo, Mezhepler ve Tarikatlar Tarihi, İstanbul 1964, p. 254.
2- Zelyut, Alevilik., p. 82.
3- Şapolyo, Mezhepler ve Tarikatlar., p. 254.
4- Şapolyo, ibid., p. 255.
5- Şapolyo, ibid., p. 255.
6- İrene Melikoff, Alevi-Bektaşiliği Tarihi Kökenleri Bektaşi-Kızılbaş (Alevi) Bölünmesi ve Neticeleri, Tarihi ve Kültürel Boyutlarıyla Türkiyede Aleviler Bektaşiler Nusayriler, İstanbul 1999, p.23.
7- Zelyut, ibid., p. 82.
8- Mehmet Eröz, Türkiyede Alevilik Bektaşilik, Ankara 1990, p. 81-82; Ethem Ruhi Fığlalı, Türkiyede Alevilik Bektaşilik, Ankara 1989, p. 9-10; Şapolyo, ibid., p. 255.
9- Aşıkpaşaoğlu, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, Atsız Neşri, İstanbul 1949, p.117.
10- Fığlalı, Türkiyede Alevilik Bektaşilik, p. 12; Bekir Kütükoğlu, Osmanlı-İran Siyasi Münasebetleri, İstanbul 1993, p. 2; CL. Huart, Haydar, İ:A:, İstanbul 1993, V, 387; Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, Kızılbaş, İA, volume 6, p.789; Sayın Dalkıran, İbn-i Kemal ve Düşünce Tarihimiz, İstanbul 1997, p. 20; Osmanlı Devletinde Ehl-i Sünnetin Şii Akidesine Tenkidleri, İstanbul 2000, p. 9.

This lurid claim essentially emanated from Jews; because in the Age of Bliss, some Jews did not believe in the Quran only because it was brought by Gabriel and they said to Prophet Muhammad, Gabriel is our enemy. If it was Michael who came to you, we would have believed. In other words, the enmity of Jews against Gabriel underlies the matter.

Firstly, this verse is so clear as to leave no possibility for such sophistries:

While those who believe and do good, righteous deeds, who believe in what has been sent on Muhammad – and it is the truth from their Lord – He will blot out from them their evil deeds (which will otherwise prevent their achievement of their goals in both worlds), and set their hearts fully aright and improve their conditions (both in this world and the next). (Muhammad Surah, 47:2)

In this verse, God proclaims that He revealed the Quran to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which Muslims must believe in him and in what is revealed to him, and that the right and the wrong are present only in the Quran.

There are two possibilities for the baseless claim above: The first one; Gabriel did this on purpose; the second; he did it by mistake.

The people who claim that although revelation came to Hazrath Ali, Gabriel brought it to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on purpose mistake angels, who are far from being deceived by the devil, for humans, who are always dragged to the wrong way by their selves and open to the deception of the devil.

It happened that sometimes envoys deceived their kings and changed their orders with intrigues. It is being openly ignorant of God and Gabriel to liken Gabriel to such an envoy.

As is known, angels are qualified as sinless just like prophets. In other words, they are innately far from sinning. They do not have the capacity for evils. It is impossible for them to rebel against God.

God Almighty describes Gabriel: That this (which informs you of all the events mentioned) is the Word (brought) by an honored messenger (Gabriel), Endowed with power, with high rank and esteem before the Lord of the Supreme Throne; One obeyed (by his aides), and trustworthy (in fulfilling Gods orders, most particularly conveying the Revelation). (At-Takwir Surah, 81:19-21)

If such a belief is accepted, then this kind of a sophistry will be the outcome:

Gabriel-God forbid-would be appointing the prophets, not God Almighty.

God warns these slanderers:
(Enmity to Gabriel, who does nothing other than what he is commanded to do by God, means enmity to God and to His will.) Whoever is an enemy to God, and His angels, and His Messengers, and (so) Gabriel, and Michael, (should know that) God is surely an enemy to the unbelievers. (Al-Baqarah Surah, 2:98)
As is seen, in the verse God takes enmity against angels and prophets as enmity against Himself and proclaims that He Himself is the enemy of those unbelievers.

As for the possibility that Gabriel did this by mistake not on purpose; i.e. mistaking Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) for Ali, this is also impossible.

Gabriel is the perfect messenger of God, who is present at the same moment on thousands of stars and issues the commands of God to thousands of angels without mistaking and forgetting. His knowledge is not gained through study and work like that of human beings, but given by God. It is unreasonable to attribute mistaking and forgetting to such a Messenger of God. This means first not knowing God. Of course, it cannot be thought that God, who creates everything in the best way, created a defected and lacking messenger.

Furthermore, the Quran was not revealed all at once, but in a period of twenty three years as verses and surahs. Even if it is thought for a second that Gabriel did-God, forbid-such a mistake, God Almighty would have warned him and corrected his mistake.

Moreover, Gabriel did not see Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) for the first time when he was issuing revelation. He began to tend to him from his birth and his interest, protection, and service continued without a pause through his childhood and youth. In other words, even when the revelation was not sent, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was under his protection and care.

Finally, we should pay attention to this point: When revelation was given to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Hazrath Ali was in his teens. It was impossible for even the most stupid to mistake Prophet Mohammad for Hazrath Ali. For all these clear truths, it is impossible to understand how some people have believed in this sophistry and followed this open superstition for a thousand and four hundred years.

It is possible to answer these claims under different headings:
1- O Messenger (you who convey and embody the Message in the best way)! Convey and make known in the clearest way all that has been sent down to you from your Lord. For, if you do not, you have not conveyed His Message and fulfilled the task of His Messengership. And God will certainly protect you from the people. (Al-Maidah Surah, 5:67) (1)
There is no implication in the verse to the caliphate of Hazrath Ali. As Shavkani says, the verse expresses generality. (2) In other words, it says, Whatever has been sent down to you, convey all of them. In fact, Hazrath Aisha said, Whoever says Muhammad has hidden something from what has been sent down to him will have been lying. and recited the verse above. (3)

This being the case, the Shia says that (4) the verse above proclaims the caliphate of Hazrath Ali. However, with this claim they accuse Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) of not performing his duty completely; because if the verse is meant how they understand it, then it means Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) passed away without announcing it.

2- While he was going on a campaign (to the Campaign of Tabuk in the narration of Suyuti) Prophet Muhammad left Hazrath Ali in his place. When Hazrath Ali said: Do you leave me with women and children? Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) answered: Wouldnt you like to be the example of Moses and Aaron with me? However, there will be no prophet after me. (5)

In the answer of the Prophet, there is a sign to the event of Moses going to the Mount Tor. Moses went to Mount Tor leaving his brother Aaron in his place. Aaron is also a prophet like his brother Moses.

It is reasonable to infer the high virtues of Ali from the above narration and no one opposes to this. However, it is a far-fetched evaluation to conclude, The first caliph should have been Hazrath Ali. For Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also left some people other than Hazrath Ali in his place when he went to war. Abdullah b. Ummi Maktum is one of them. (6)

3- Bara b. Azib relates: In a military expedition, we rested in Gadir-i Hum. The call to the prayer was issued... After the prayer, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) held the hand of Hazrath Ali and said: Of whoever master I am, Ali is also the master of him. O My Lord, be a friend to whoever is a friend to him; and be an enemy to whoever is the enemy of him. (7)

Even if this narration is accepted as healthy, it is not possible to understand from here that Hazrath Ali should be the first caliph (8); because Hazrath Ali is surely one of the distinguished among Muslims. He bears the honor of being the lion of God with his courage. He possesses the rank of the Master of Closeness to God. Because of such distinguished qualities of his own, he has been the master of all Muslims all through the history. As Alusi puts it, if the Prophet had wanted to leave Hazrath Ali as the caliph in his place, he would have said, O people! This is the ruler of you after me. Listen to and obey him! (9) And such a command would surely have been fulfilled. Surely it cannot be thought that the Companions who love the Prophet so dearly as to say: May both my mother and father be sacrificed for you! would not have listened to the word of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in such a significant issue. Likewise, the wish of Hazrath Abu Bakr: I recommend Hazrath Omar after me was realized and Muslims gave their oaths to Hazrath Omar. (10)

4- One of the narrations the Shia put forth as evidence to their claims: Before his passing while his illness deteriorated, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: Bring me a pen and a piece of paper; I will dictate a testament in order for you not to deviate. When Hazrath Omar said: The illness of the Prophet deteriorated. The book of God is enough for us. there emerged off-handed talks. Prophet Muhammad said, Go away from me. It is not appropriate to dispute in my presence. (11)

According to the claim of the Shia, the Prophet wanted to dictate that Hazrath Ali should succeed him and Hazrath Omar prevented this. (12) However, in the narration in question there is no implication to this. It is just compulsion to understand this verse in that way.

5- Say: I ask of you no wage for it (for conveying Gods Religion to you which will bring you this favor), but (I ask of you for) love for my near relatives (on account of my mission) (Ash-Shura Surah, 42:23) (13)

In another narration, upon the revelation of this verse, Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was asked: O Messenger of God, who are your relatives that we should love? and he answered, Ali, Fatıma and their offspring. (14)

The Shia presents this verse as evidence to the love of the Family of the Prophet. While it is possible to accept this as an implicational meaning, there is no evidence to this in the open meaning of the verse.

Ibn-i Abbas was asked about this verse. Before he answered, Said b. Cubayr who was present there said, The Family of the Prophet whereupon Ibn-i Abbas said, You hurried; because there is no family of Kuraysh with which Prophet Muhammad does not have a tie of relationship. The meaning of the verse is: At least take the right of relation into attention. (15)

In the explanation of the verse, Ibnu Kasir points out this meaning: If you do not help me, at least do not make me suffer for the sake of the relationship between us. (16)

This evaluation of his really shows a delicacy deserving attention: The evidence to prove that the intended meaning of the verse is Hadrat Ali, Fatıma and their offspring is weak. Moreover, the surah is among the Meccan surahs. In Mecca, however, Hazrath Fatima had no children. She had children after the War of Badr in the second year of the Hegira when she got married with Hazrath Ali. But it should not be misunderstood that not accepting this narration means not loving the family of the Prophet; because they came from a pure progeny, from the most honorable family upon earth in respect of honor, virtues, and lineage. (17)

Fahraddin-i Razi presents the narrations: Be it known that my Ahl-i Bayt (family) among you is like Noahs Ark. As those who boarded the Ark (at that time) attained salvation, so any person who loves my Ahl-i Bayt (now and on) shall attain salvation and My Ashab (Companions) are like celestial stars in the sky. A person who follows any one of them will attain salvation. (18) And he makes this evaluation: Now we are in the sea of responsibility. The waves of doubt and lust hit us. The one who sails in the sea needs two things:

1- A sound ship.
2- Stars that give off light.

Therefore, whoever gets on such a ship and sails looking at the stars has greater hope. Ahl-i Sunnah has embarked on the ship of affection for the Family of the Prophet and is sailing looking at the stars of Companions. (19)

Ahl-i Sunnah does not have a problem of not loving the Family of the Prophet. We pray for them in each sitting of every salat and love them dearly. (20) Among Ahl-i Sunnah, names like Ali, Hassan, Hussein, Fatıma are very common.

Sources:
1- Al-Maidah Surah, 5:67
2- Şevkani, Muhammed, Fethu'l- Kadir, Daru İhyai't- Türasi'l- Arabi, Beyrut, ts. II, 59. Besides see Kurtubi, VI, 157
3- Buhari, Tefsir, 5/7; Şevkani, II, 59
4- See Şevkani, II, 59-60
5- Tirmizi, Menakıb, 20; Süyuti, Celaleddin, Tarihu'l Hulefa, Daru'l- Kütübi'l- İlmiyye, Beyrut, 1988, page 133
6- See Hamidullah, Muhammed, İslamın Hukuk İlmine Yardımları, Ist. 1962, page 142-143
7-Ibnu Hanbel, IV, 281; Suyuti, Tarihu'l- Hulefa, page 134; Alûsî, VI, 192-193
8-See Onat, Hasan, Emeviler Devri Şii Hareketleri ve Günümüz Şiiliği, TDV. Publication Ankara, 1993, page 24
9-Alûsî, Ebu'l-Fadl, Ruhu'l-Meani, Daru İhyai't-Türasi'l-Arabi, Beyrut, 1985, VI, 195
10-Süyuti, Tarihu'l - Hulefa, page 62-64
11-Bukhari, Merda, 17; Müslim, Vesaya, 22; İbnu Hanbel, I, 325
12-Naim, Ahmet, Tecrid-i Sarih Tercemesi ve Şerhi, Diyanet Yay. Ankara, 1982, I, 108.
Ahmad Naim analyses concerning narrations in a very good way here. For further information, this can be referred to.
13-Ash-Shura Surah, 42:23
14-Beydavî, Kadı, Envaru't-Tenzil ve Esraru't-Te'vil, Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye, Beyrut, 1988, II, 362
15-Kurtubi, XVI, 15-16; İbnu Kesir, VII, 187; Süyuti, Dürrü'l- Mensur, Daru'l - Mektebi'l- İlmiyye, Beyrut, 1990, V, 699
16-Ibnu Kesir, VII, 187
17-Age. VII, 189
18-Aclûnî, I, 132
19-Razî, XXVII, 167
20-Razî, XXVII, 166

Harijis emerged after the Siffin War that took place at the time of Hazrath Ali. During the war that was fought between the followers of Hazrath Ali and Hazrath Muaviya, when the followers of Hazrath Muaviya understood that they would be defeated, they put pages from the Quran on their spears and said: Let the Quran be arbitrator between us. upon which the clashes stopped and talks started.

After this arbitrator issue, some people left the side of Hazrath Ali saying, You accepted them as arbitrator; but judgment and authority rest with none but God alone. (1) These are called Harijis.

The statement Judgment and authority rest with none but God alone (2) became a slogan for Harijis. Moreover, when one day Hazrath Ali was addressing the public, one of the Harijis stood up and said O Ali! You rendered people partner to the religion of God. Judgment and authority rest with none but God alone! whereupon from all sides the voices rose: judgment and authority rest with none but God alone. Hazrath Ali answered: This is a right statement; but with this the false is intended. (3)

One day, while Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was distributing loot, one said: O Mohammad (PBUH), be just! You did not distribute with justice. Prophet Mohammad turned red and said: If I am not just, then who else can be so? and he stated: Beware, a group of this kind will emerge in future. They will leave religion as an arrow leaves its bow. (4)
Therefore, Harijis are the people described in this hadith. They did not even hesitate to call Hazrath Ali, the hero of Islam, unbeliever. Actually, they are fond of worship. With the expression of the Prophet: One among you sees his own prayer inferior to their prayer, and his own fasting inferior to their fasting. But their belief does not go beyond their throats. (5). As Shatibi puts it; they do not understand what they read. (6)

Hazrath Ali sent Ibn-i Abbas to the Harijis as an envoy. When they said: Judgment and authority rest with none but God alone! Ibn-i Abbas answered: Yes, judgment and authority rest with none but God alone. However, God wished for appointing an arbitrator in discords between wife and husband. (7). Likewise, He appointed arbitrator for the one who hunts while he is in ihram (a sacred state that a Muslim must enter in order to perform the major pilgrimage). (8) Therefore, which one comes first in appointing arbitrator: the issues of wife-husband and hunting or the issue that concerns the community? (9)

Harijis are generally the Arabs that live in deserts. They lived poorly before Islam. As they continued living in deserts, their economic situation did not improve when they entered Islam. Their ideas are simple and their understanding is narrow.

For this reason, they are bigoted in religion and their capacity of reasoning is lacking. They quickly get angry and easily conquered by indignation. Just like the desert they are living in, they are harsh in nature and hard-hearted. (10)

Harijis always struggled with Muslims instead of non-Muslims. (11)

Among their most evident characteristics are: intolerance, fanaticism, shutting doors for the ones who are not from themselves, affecting political change by violence and narrow-mindedness. (12)

Harijis accept each sin as blasphemy. They say that performers of big sins will be in the hell forever. (13) They think that belief and unbelief do not have a middle way. (14) They claim that practice is part of the belief. They deduce judgments from the outer meanings of the verses that were revealed about mushriks-people who attribute partners to God-and about unbelievers. (15)

For example, from the verse: Pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to God by all who can afford a way to it. And whoever refuses (the obligation of the Pilgrimage) or is ungrateful to God (by not fulfilling this command), God is absolutely independent of all creatures. (16) They judge that whoever does not go to the Hajj is unbeliever. However, the judgment is not for the one who does not perform Hajj, but for the one who refuses it. (17)

Likewise, they bring the verse: Whoever (declines to confirm and) does not judge by what God has sent down, those are indeed unbelievers, (18) as evidence to the supposition that sinners are not Muslims. (19). However, while there is no objection to the fact that whoever does not attest to/accept whatever God reveals is unbeliever; the sinners who do not do what God commands although they believe are still Believers. They can never be called unbelievers.

Sources:
1-Şehristani, page 106-107; Eş'ari, I, 167-168; İbnu Teymiye, Takıyyüddin, et-Tefsiru'l - Kebir, Daru'l- Kütübi'l- İlmiyye, Beyrut, 1988, II, 8-9; Şatıbi, Ebu İshak, el- Muvafakat fi Usuli'ş- Şeria, Beyrut, ts., III, 292; Ebu Zehra, Muhammed, Tarihu'l-Mezahibi'l-İslamiye, Daru'l-Fikri'l-Arabi, I, 65; Yemeni, Ebu Muhammed, Akaidu seles ve's- Sebîne fırka, Tahkik: Muhammed Abdullah Zerban el-/amidi, Mektebetu'l- Ulûm ve'l- Hikem, Medine, 1414 h., I, 11-12; Kılavuz, page 311
2-Al-Anam Surah, 57; Yusuf Surah, 40, 67
3-Şehristani, page 107 (in the footnote).
4-Buhari, Megazi, 61; Müslim, Zekat. 144-146; İbnu Hanbel, III, 4
5-Buhari, Menakıb, 25; Müslim, Zekat, 147; İbnu Mace, Mukaddime, 12
6-Şatıbî, el-İ'tisam, page 403
7- The reference is to the verse: "And if you fear that a breach might occur between a couple, appoint an arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her people." An-Nisa Surah, 35.
8-Al-Maidah Surah, 95
9-Cevzi, İbnu Kayyim, İ'lamu'l- Muvakkiin an Rabbi'l - Alemin, Daru'l - Kütübi'l -İlmiyye, Beyrut, 1991, I, 163; Şatıbi, el- Muvafakat, III, 292
10-See Ebu Zehra, I, 68-69
11-Akyol, Taha, Haricilik ve Şia, Kubbealtı Neş. İst. 1988, page 97
12-Fazlurrahman, İslam, Ter. Mehmet Aydın ve Mehmet Dağ, Selçuk Yay. Ank. 3. Bsk, page 234
13-Eş'ari, I, 167-168
14-Taftezani, Şerhu'l - Akaid, page140-141
15-See Şatıbî, İ'tisam, page 404; Koçyiğit, Talat, Hadisçilerle Kelamcılar Arasındaki Münakaşalar, TDV. Yay. Ankara, 1989, page 37-39
16-Al-Imran Surah, 97
17-Ebu Zehra, I, 71-73
18-Al-Maidah Surah, 44
19-Alûsî, VI, 145

The only solution to solve these separations is to stick to the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); because the Quran and the Sunnah were both sent as remedy to all the spiritual and material diseases of humankind. As communities can be saved from all kinds of troubles and hardships by sticking to them, they can also be saved from the swamp they are stuck in by holding fast to these two strong ropes. The biggest proof of this we have is that the Age of Bliss sparkled like a diamond out of that pitch-dark age of ignorance.

As an example, we will hereby give only some of the many verses and Hadiths from the Quran and the Sunnah that are recited to solve separations:

God Almighty states, Be not as those who split into parties and followed different ways after the manifest truths had come to them. Those are the ones for whom is a tremendous punishment. (Al-'Imran Surah, 3:105). It is also stated, The believers are but brothers, so make peace between your brothers and keep from disobedience to God in reverence for Him and piety (particularly in your duties toward one another as brothers), so that you may be shown mercy (granted a good, virtuous life in the world as individuals and as a community, and eternal happiness in the Hereafter). (Al-Hujurat Surah, 49:10).

As is understood from the verse, in the event of a discord among them, God Almighty commands the believers to try to solve it. Thus, He forbids Muslims from negative conducts that cause mischief to continue and that set Muslims quarreling. Alawis-Sunnis, all Muslims should obey this commandment and endeavor together for the healing of this wound.

There is no problem that does not have a solution in our religion; provided that separations are dealt with in mutual understanding, the subject is approached with mercy and knowledge is taken as the standard instead of feelings.

All Sunni Muslims living in this country dearly love Ali (may God be pleased with him) and the Family of the Prophet. However, this love is within a measure. They neither attribute divinity nor prophethood to them nor deny their value and honor.

When we look into the history, we see that the Alawis somehow overlooked this affection, on the contrary they withdrew from the Sunnis calling them Yazid. On the other hand, we also see that the Sunnis did not really pay attention to warning and trying to explain and convince them and that they used wrong methods. In reality, the Alawis were not embraced with mercy saying they are also our brothers., they were not addressed in the proper style and with nice advice, and religious education was not properly brought to them by presenting them with elevated truths of religion and talking with them about these truths.

On the other hand, we also see that the state also does not pay due attention to this artificial separation and neglects in Alawi settlements such services as building mosques, opening Quran courses and appointing preachers.

This being the case, the Alawis also overemphasized the issue with criticism and provocation and made this separation a wound difficult to heal.

The people whose religion, language and nation are one in essence, and who have the same history and culture and live on the same motherland has gradually become enemies against one another.

We think that today, if the Department of Religious Affairs at first, then all intellectual and distinguished people of our country canalize all their efforts into removing this separation, then unity and solidarity may be established again and foreign-based intrigues may be annulled.

God Almighty commands believers to fulfill this duty: There must be among you a community calling to good, and enjoining and actively promoting what is right and forbidding and trying to prevent evil (in appropriate ways). They are those who are the prosperous. (Al-'Imran Surah, 3:104)

A believer should love his believing brother even if he is wrong and try to remove his mistake. Believers should be as cautious as a doctor in dealing with discords among themselves. They should heal these wounds with great understanding, tolerance, and patience.

Our religion is the source of mercy and compassion. Having benefited from this source, we Muslims should advise our vicinity in a state of soul suited to this mercy and try to present them peace and bliss.

God proclaims the best measure in this issue in the Quran:

Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and argue with them in the best way possible. (An-Nahl Surah, 16:125)

Taking lesson form such verses, Prophet Muhammad would call to the right path with wisdom and knowledge and would base his arguments on proofs.

He would not show anger and aggression in his speech. He would welcome his addressees in a warm manner and would advise them with mercy and compassion. He would always prefer soft and kind words. He would remove doubts and hesitations with great patience and understanding. He would regard his addressees and speak clearly and articulately. Even if the questions asked were irrelevant, he would respond to them with a smile and take them seriously. One of the biggest reasons of the impact his sermons and advice had was that he would forgive mistakes and pardon people. Moreover, at the time of the conquest of Mecca, he forgave the ones who martyred his beloved uncle and his many other relatives and companions and the ones who had them killed. However, that day he was the victorious and could punish them as he wished.

He thus affected souls, roused and developed their capacities and abilities from the seed to the fruit. He made them each a star on the sky of humankind.

In one of his Hadiths, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the master of both worlds, who is sent as a blessing for the worlds says, Believers are like bricks of a building. They protect one another from collapsing. and thus eloquently emphasizes the importance of affection and fraternity among believers.

Our nation has long suffered great damage by discords, clashes, and rebellions. The renowned Jalali rebellions that continued for years, the Dersim movement we experienced in the recent past and the incidents of Sivas, Maraş, and Çorum are the clearest and unfortunate proofs of this. The prominent cause of all these events has been our enemies outside and they benefited from it most. It is feared that if we do not take our lesson from history similar incidents may happen. It is whether Sunni or Alawi, anyone with high morals who loves this country and nation should try to remove these enmities with all their efforts. This is a religious, national, and patriotic duty.

This claim is one of the false ideas of Ibn-i Saba. This person attributed divinity to Hazrath Ali and succeeded in making his followers believe in this sophistry after Hazrath Alis death (may God be pleased with him).

At that time, some ignorant people who could not distinguish between the right and the fallacious were taken in by this superstition. Unfortunately, these people could not judge that the views of Ibn-i Saba were how much contradictory with the measures of the Quran and with the truths Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) issued.

However, it is very clear that this claim of Ibn-i Saba is contrary not only to the Quran but also to reason and intellect, knowledge and wisdom.

First, the devil was forbidden to take the guise of humans after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh0 honored this world. On the other hand, how will people, who make such claims, answer the following questions?

Could not Hazrath Hassan and Hussein and other companions (may God be pleased with them all) who were present in the mosque know that Hazrath Ali was raised to the heavens and Ibn-i Muljam killed devil in his stead. If it is claimed that they did not know, then how come Ibn-i Saba who were not even present there knew what these distinguished people did not.

Furthermore, Hazrath Hassan and Hussein brought their father to home as wounded and paid him service. According to the fallacious view of Ibn-i Saba, did they serve devil and performed its funeral prayer in his stead?

If Ibn-i Muljam killed the devil instead of Hazrath Ali, shouldnt he be rewarded? Why was retaliation applied? Did the children of Hazrath Ali become murderers by killing an innocent?

It is too big a cruelty which astonishes even devils to slander this person in such a way who feared God for all his life, who paid utmost attention to applying the judgments of the Quran both to himself and to everyone, who spent every moment of his life recalling God and who is promised the paradise.

It is fixed with the statement of Holy Quran that namaz (ritual prayer practised by Muslims five times a day in supplication to God) is farz (religious duty obligated for all Muslims) for all believers. There are more than one hundred verses related with this decree in Quran. Each Muslim who will come to this world until the Judgment Day is responsible to fulfill this duty. This responsibility is not limited or bounded with time. That is to say, namaz being farz is not limited with either Hazrath Alis life or anybodys. There is no record that states, Namaz will be performed until Hazrath Alis death as a martyr in our religion, Islam. According to this logic, all of the believers, who will live after Hazrath Ali will not perform namaz, and worship until the Judgment Day. How could it be possible to reflect belief out into the open (in daily lives) then? When there is no such a reflection, how would it be possible to differ to believers from unbelievers?

As you may well know, both Hazrath Omar (as) and Hazrath Osman (as) were massacred as martyrs by rebels (unbelievers) while one was performing his morning namaz in a masjid (place of worship) and the other one was reciting the Holy Quran. There was no one among companions who had stopped going to mosque because of the death of the second and third Caliphs of Islam.

We should also express that headed by Hazrath Hasan (as) and Husayn (as) (Hazrath Alis sons), all believers continued to perform namaz in mosques and read Quran.

Moreover, namaz (except congregational prayers such as Friday prayer and religious feast prayers) is not a prayer, which is bounded by the mosque and the temple. Any place on the earth is a masjid for all Muslims. People who suggest the excuse above can perform namaz in their homes, offices and any place that they like. Nevertheless, if they have left to perform namaz completely, in that case, it is so clear that this excuse is a blind one.

We should firstly introduce the Muslim since a Muslim woman is only allowed to marry with a Muslim person. Muslim is the one who accepts all of the definite orders of the religion Islam and rejects none of them. Namely he who accepts and believes in the orders like salah, fasting, zakah (alms), hajj (pilgrimage), ablution and ghusl (ablution of whole body); and the prohibitions like fornication, drinking, interest etc. But if somebody does not accept some of these orders and prohibitions he is not considered to be a Muslim and it is not appropriate to marry with him. If the marriage occurs it is considered to be illegitimate.
So the criterion of marrying is Islam. Unfortunately today many Muslim ladies marry with non-Muslims without learning the order of the Islam and deserve the curse of Allah till the doomsday. (Halil GÜNENÇ, Günümüz Meselelerine Fetvalar(Juridical Decisions for Today’s Problems) II. 119)
Similar questions are coming on this subject for a while. Firstly I want to point out an issue.

We are not in favor of encouraging the Shia-Sunni dispute and dividing people. We support the unity and the cooperation. Flaming different views and breaking our unity does not bring good to any of us, it only harms all of us. We believe on the issue this way.
Indeed from the viewpoint of Islam there is no problem in taking Hz. Ali’s love as the base to himself for any Muslim or sect. Taking Hz. Ali and Ahl al-Bayt (family of Hz. Muhammad)’s love as a guide is ok as long as not disrespecting the other sahaba (companions of Hz. Muhammad), performing the salah in the light of the Quran and the sunnah (the way of the prophet), performing the fasting and the other responsibilities are fulfilled. Reality is that a true Shia who knows the book and the sunnah and lives as required accepts only Allah as god. He considers himself as a member of the Islam, accepts Hz. Muhammad as the last messenger and the Quran as the last holy book.

The only way to break this artificial separation is to get into the light of the Quran and to accept it as the base for criterian. Allah (swt) commands all the Muslims to gather around the Quran by saying in the Quran: “And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves”.
I will try to reply your question in this understanding.
Firstly we should know what the Shia is so that we can find the right answer. What is the Shia really? Yes, this is the question we should find the answer. If we know this we can give an answer like “marrying is appropriate” or “not”. But the understanding of the Shia in our country (Turkey) is not clear and unique. I listened some of the Shia representatives’ understanding of the Shia on the Samanyolu TV...
If the Shia is like this one, marrying is ok from the viewpoint of the Islam, and there is benefit in being kin. These representatives say that:
- Shia can not be outside of the Quran. It can not object to the sunnah. It can not be explained as opposed to Hz. Muhammad’s way of life, there are all the religious orders like salah, fasting, hajj and zakah in the Shia. Those who claim the opposite are the ones who want to make the Shia an instrument to their aims. You should not be deceived by them; you should not pay attention to those who want to show the Shia as outside of the Islam.
If the Shia is like this it is ok. We consider them as our brothers; moreover we may ignore some of their faults and shortcomings, because all of us have some sort of shortcomings and lacking in practice...
But if the Shia is not like this, and if it is like some claim... That is to say:
- If there is no salah, fasting, zakah; if they consider their worship only as a matter of heart and reject the five time prayer of salah; if they disrespect other caliphs of Hz. Muhammad, if they keep a hostility carrying some historical events to date; if they don’t accept the ghusl after being junub (ritually impure due to sexual intercourse or semen discharge) which is a must... it is not rational to think that it is possible for two people who accept and do not accept these things to establish a happy and calm home when people of the same culture also having problems in their marriage these days. Because of this I will say that: “How do the parts understand the Shia, firstly this must be well defined!”
If they take the Quran as base as our holy book, if they accept that the meaning of the Quran is explained in the sunnah, if they take the way of Hz. Muhammad and Ahl al-Bayt as a model, then it means we have no difference mainly. And it is possible to tolerate other differences.
The one who accepts the fards (religious duties) is a mu’min (believer). And the one who denies them is considered to be a kaffir (unbeliever). And determining this is possible by meeting and talking. Without talking it is prejudice.
I want to point out another important aspect too:
People who consider the Shia as inside of the Islam are our brothers, and the people who consider it as outside of the Islam are our citizens. We want to live in respect to each other with all of them too. This is a necessity of our religion too.
Shia can not be outside of the Quran. It can not object to the sunnah. It can not be explained as opposed to Hz. Muhammad’s way of life, there are all the religious orders like salah, fasting, hajj and zakah in the Shia. Those who claim the opposite are the ones who want to make the Shia an instrument to their aims. You should not be deceived by them; you should not pay attention to those who want to show the Shia as outside of the Islam... It is our duty to love and respect the people who were found worthy for the positions of bridegroom and father-in-law by Hz. Muhammad (pbuh).
Aile İlmihali (catechism of family), Cihan Yayınları

For the answer, please click the links given below.

How did Shiism emerge?

What is the wisdom of the difference of sects in Islam?

What is the point of the difference of sects in Islam?

Isn’t there a solution to end the separation of the Alawis and the Sunnis?

In the beginning, I want to point out that the ones who first attributed divinity to Hazrath Ali were Jewish Ibn-i Saba and his friends. Ibn-i Saba, in person, said to Hazrath Alis face, -God forbid-You are God. and was exiled to Madayin by Hazrath Ali.

Unfortunately, we see that -though their number is small-some people still write poems and publish books in order to keep these deviant ideas of Ibn-i Saba alive, even though such a long time as 1400 years has passed. These false beliefs are tried to be kept alive through hidden indoctrinations. It is known by all Muslims both Alawi and Sunni that this claim is a superstition far from the truth, because it is a clear truth that Islam is a religion of oneness and denies any kind of idolatry-attributing partners to God. Islam proclaims and proves that the real One to be worshipped is God alone, neither hand-made idols, the sun, stars and fire nor animals, humans in short no creature whether living or non-living can be attributed divinity. Islam makes it known that God Almighty is the Necessarily Existent One Who has no similarity, superior or partner either in His Self, Names or in His deeds.

For this reason, it is just an unfaithful delusion that is absolutely contrary to the Quranic decrees for some to attribute divinity to Hazrath Ali, by deceiving the intentional instigations of Ibn-i Saba. No uncorrupted mind would accept such a superstition and deviation.

Those deviated who attribute divinity to Hazrath Ali have fallen into the fallacy of not being able to distinguish between the sacred nature of God and the nature of creatures.

It is a known fact that no work of art resembles its master. For example, a watch does not resemble its master in the least in respects of either its self or its quality and deeds. Although both of these are of the kind of creature, they have great differences of nature. Therefore, how can the nature of God who is the Creator of all the creatures be compared to a human being He created Himself?

Ibn-i Saba who claimed that he was Muslim surely knew all these truths. But he was after something. Well aware of all these truths, he indoctrinated the so-called divinity of Hadrat Ali to the people of Iran who had just converted from Zoroastrianism and who had not yet understood Islam completely.

Finally, I want to point out that the people who attribute divinity to Hadrat Ali are unaware of the words of even Hadrat Ali. At least if they had read his work Nahcul-Balaga that contains his sermons they would not have dared such a thing.

In all his chats, advice and sermons, he taught people faith, oneness, the right and justice all the time.

Once he was asked about oneness; his answer was as follows:

Oneness is to know God beyond all dreams that come to the heart and beyond anything man can imagine. In other words, just as human heart, mind and imagination are all created, so everything that comes to them is also created. However, God does not resemble creatures in respect of neither His Self and names nor His deeds. As anything that comes to the mind and imagination is created, it is open shirk-polytheism, ascribing partners to God- to attribute divinity to them.

It can be stated expressly why the claim is fallacy in the light of these facts:
First of all, fasting is stated as a month not as days in the Holy Book Quran. It is not mentioned as 30 or 29 days. It is commanded as Shar-u Ramadan (month Ramadan) (Al-Baqara Surah, 2:185). Moreover, there is no such number in Quran; there is a letter, which specifies that. In other words, it is not possible to be mistaken even if a bug [can seem like the Arabic zero (numerical value of a dot is zero)> grounds next to three because it is not given any numerical value as three in Quran.

On the other hand, it cannot be thought that Gabriels (the messenger angel) not having found Our Prophet in Medina. Actually, he is the messenger of Allah who is One, All Seeing, All Hearing. He is an eminent angel, who can be present at thousands of stars while he conveys the commands of Allah to the other angels, and prostrates to his Rabb (Cherisher and Sustainer) at Arsh-i Azam (highest throne), brings revelations to Prophet at the same time. He would not have come to a certain place for revealing. He would have come directly alongside Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

For example, even if it is thought as his not having been able to find our Prophet (pbuh) for once, Allah (swt) who is the One, All Knowing with His divine knowledge and power would warn His trusty Angel and would informed about Our Prophets location.

This is a mischief instigated by Jewish Ibn-i Saba. We should first point out that it did not concern Ibn-i Saba in the least which one of the Four Caliphs was more virtuous than the others and whose right the caliphate was before the others. His main intention was to cast doubt into Islam by breaking the regard towards the Companions and to cause separation among Muslims and to continue it.

There is a very sly and dangerous Jewish intrigue here. As all the Companions including Hazrath Ali gave their oaths to Abu Bakr, they are all accused of making mistake by claiming that although the caliphate was the right of Hazrath Ali, it was seized by Hazrath Abu Bakr wrongfully.

Some people say: Taking into attention the unity and solidarity of Muslims, Hazrath Ali renounced his right. Then should not we think this way: Although Hazrath Ali gave that much importance to the unity and solidarity of Islam, for what reason do we leave his way and go in for disputes and separation? At a time Muslims are in sheer need of unity and solidarity, what is the point in mentioning events that happened 1400 years before and trying to set Muslims quarreling; and what benefit do they expect from this?

If the period of caliphs is looked into, it will be seen: None of them desired to be the caliph; but this rank was given to them. They did not want this duty but they were seen worthy of the caliphate. This happened as follows:

Upon the passing of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the Hereafter, taking into account the unity and solidarity of the community of Mohammad, the Companions immediately set out to choose the caliph and they made the election before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was buried and Hazrath Abu Bakr was elected as the caliph unanimously. All the companions including Hazrath Ali gave their oaths to him. After Hazrath Abu Bakr performed the duty of caliphate for two years and a half, while he was dying he recommended Hazrath Omar as the next caliph, and the Companions chose him as the caliph. And Hazrath Omar continued this duty for eleven years with perfect justice, and finally he was assassinated and before he died he formed a group of six people including Hazrath Ali and wanted them to choose a caliph among themselves. After dialogues and debates, this group chose Hazrath Osman as the caliph. All the Companions and Hazrath Ali complied with this verdict exactly and gave their oaths to him. Upon the martyrdom of Hazrath Othman, the Companions went to the house of Hazrath Ali together and asked him to be the caliph; although Hazrath Ali did not desire the caliphate, taking into account the delicacy of the situation because of the threats of rebels, he accepted this duty.

As is seen, the selection of the four caliphs took place with the unity of the Companions, who were each on the rank of a mujtahid (Ais someone qualified to exercise ijtihad, which literally means striving and technically means juridical endeavor and competence to infer expert legal rulings from foundational proofs within or without a particular school of law) and who are the most virtuous of this community; this brought about an unshakeable unity of opinions. From then on, there can be no imaginable unity of opinions stronger than it; so no other unity can ever shake the unity of the Companions.

Another point: There is a purpose of fate in Hazrath Ali being the last in the caliphate although he was the next of kin of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

This is as follows: The periods of Hazrath Abu Bakr, Omar, and Osman (may God be pleased with them all) were periods of development and conquest, in which the unity and integrity of Islam were continued. Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Cyprus and many other lands were conquered in this period and the belief of oneness was established in these countries.

However, at the time of Hazrath Ali, this period of conquest came to a halt and various separations arose in the extending Islamic World. Hazrath Ali had to deal with these disorders and separations and could protect Islam against the attacks of all kinds of fake views and beliefs with his perfect courage, keen perception, and unprecedented knowledge.

Thus; just as unity, solidarity and Islamic successes at the time of the three caliphs show that they were worthy of the caliphate and were on the right path; the separations in the period of Hazrath Ali also clearly show the wisdom in his being the last in the caliphate.

As Bediuzzaman says, if Hazrath Ali had been the first caliph, it was highly likely that competition among various tribes, families, first of all the Amawis, would have arisen, and that unity and solidarity among Muslims would have been in jeopardy. And this would have dealt a big blow to the development of Islam.

On the other hand, in a period when various separations arose in the World of Islam, no power except Hazrath Ali and the Family of the Prophet could have stood up against this mischief and handled it.

In this respect, although it seems as a loss for him that Hazrath Ali was the last in caliphate, it was a great benefit and an advantage for Islam.

This false belief was instigated by Ibn-i Saba. Ibn-i Saba, whose sole aim was to mar the belief of Muslims, knew well how to deceive people while handling his negative activities. Firstly, he tried to persuade some people saying Hazrath Ali was God; in places where he understood this would not be accepted he attributed prophethood to him; when this too would not receive approval, he claimed that the caliphate was the right of Hazrath Ali before anyone else, and that this right was cruelly taken from him.

If we pay attention, we see that these three claims contradict one another. And contradiction is invalid. In other words, God cannot be a prophet, and there is no caliphate in question for a prophet as well. Even this contradiction clearly shows that only treachery and mischief underlie this issue.

As is known, everything has a beginning and an end; likewise, the institution of prophethood that began with Prophet Adam ended with the last prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). God Almighty gave the Glorious Quran, the perfect one of the heavenly scriptures to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the perfect one of all and completed the institution of prophethood with the last Prophet (PBUH). From then on, no prophet will ever come again until the doomsday.

It is stated in the Quran that Prophet Muhammad is the last messenger:

O believers (know) that Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets. God has full knowledge of everything. (Al-Ahzap Surah, 33:40)

In this verse, God proclaims both the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) by calling his name, and states that he is definitely the last prophet with the expression the Seal of the Prophets.

As is known, the prophets to whom a scripture was sent are called Rasul-messenger. In the verse, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is introduced as both Rasul-messenger, and as the last Nabi-Prophet. Thus, it is definitely announced that no prophet will come after him and that the door of prophethood was closed with him. In other words, Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet, as well as the last messenger; because every messenger is at the same time a prophet; but not every prophet is necessarily a messenger.

As is known, it is a farz-duty, obligation- on people appointed as prophet to announce this duty openly. This is a divine rule. All the prophets that came conformed to this rule fully and proclaimed their prophethood without fearing anyone. Some of them were thrown into fire, some were cut in half, some were exiled from their motherlands; but all of them performed the duty of announcement even at the cost of their lives.

As the previous prophets did, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also started proclaiming his prophethood with the revelation of the first verse. He was not intimidated in the least by the enmity of his own tribe, did not value the promises that were made to discourage him from his cause and with these words he showed his perseverance in his cause, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandoned this course, until God has made it victorious or I perish therein, I would not abandon it." As a prophet sent for the entire humanity, he did not hesitate to proclaim any verse to even his most violent enemies. He also wrote letters to all the emperors and kings and announced without hesitation that if they did not comply with him they would not reach salvation, and their properties, lives, states and nations would not be secure.

Now let us briefly examine the instigations of Ibn-i Saba who attributes divinity to Hazrath Ali and his followers:

Firstly, If Hazrath Ali was appointed as a prophet, he himself should have believed in this first and it would have been a farz on him to announce his prophethood. He never made such an announcement neither on paper nor by word of mouth; on the contrary, he got some of the people who made such claims killed and some he exiled.

When he was just a kid of ten years of age, he accepted that our prophet was the last prophet and for this end he made spiritual and material jihad and during his caliphate he applied the judgments of the Quran attentively. In brief, he worked on the way of God and His Messenger from his childhood to his death.

It is a baseless superstition to attribute prophethood to such a person.

God Almighty states, We have not sent you but to all humankind as a bearer of glad tidings (of prosperity for faith and righteousness) and a warner (against the consequences of misguidance). But most of humankind do not know (this, nor do they appreciate what a great blessing it is for them). (Saba Surah, 34:28)
God clearly says that the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) encompasses the entire humankind.
Another verse proclaiming his prophethood clearly: Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and those who are in his company are firm and unyielding against the unbelievers, and compassionate among themselves. You see them (constant in the Prayer) bowing down and prostrating. (Al-Fath Surah, 48:29)

In the beginning of the verse, God Himself witnesses the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH). In other words, God Almighty with His Greatness proclaims, Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Which doubt or fake view can overshadow this witnessing?

For all these explicit statements of the Quran, it is open fallacy and groundless mischief to attribute prophethood to Hazrath Ali.

This kind of claim could be valid neither religiously nor logically. Even Hazrath Ali (as) has loved Hasan and Hussein (his sons) at most, they and their descendants have never claimed as, Our namaz (performing a ritual prayer) has been performed. On the contrary, they have not just performed farz namaz (religious duty required for all Muslims) they also have performed sunnah [what the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said, did or approved of> namaz (practices) and Nafil namaz (Voluntary) in the proper sense.

Claiming that prayer (namaz) is no more obligation (required religious duty) for believers who follow Hazrath Ali (as.) because of his having performed it, is just like claiming one has eaten food during his lifetime so his descendants have full stomachs or he is erudite so his descendants are all intellectuals. If it is considered that Hazrath Ali (as) has performed namaz for Muslims who love him as true for a moment, there comes the picture as follows:

Except for the Harijis, just because all Muslims love Ali (as) faithfully, all of the ayats (verses of Quran) and Hadiths (specific reports of the Prophet Mohammads (pbuh) words and deeds as well as those of many of the early Muslims) are only binding for Hazrath Ali (as) and Harijis. However, addressee of the verses and hadiths are all of the Muslims who will ever exist until the Judgment Day. On the other hand, according to this understanding after Hazrath Alis (as) death, every literal (theological) work, which was written on namaz, every masceed and mosque that was ever built for namaz for billions of Muslims to pray in, are all meaningless and unnecessary. Besides, it is so clear that Hazrath Alis (as) probable life would not have been adequate to perform namaz for billions of Muslims who will ever come until the Judgment Day.

After clarifying this claim as not to be true logically, we should point out that, It is Allahs command that namaz is a religious duty (farz) for all Muslims including Prophets. Nobody can perform namaz on behalf of someone else.

Allah (swt), in the Surah Baqarah by stating that It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns holds every Muslims oneself responsible for their rewards and punishments.

There are more than one hundred verses relating namaz in the Holy Book Quran. In the Surah Al-Nisaa, (perform your prayers) such prayers are enjoined on believers at stated times (Al-Nisaa Surah, 4:1-3)

Our Prophet also stated that, Namaz is the central pillar of religion and declared the importance of namaz in his Hadiths to his followers. He (pbuh), even in the brutal times of the wars, did not leave namaz to compensate it later, did not sacrifice congregational namaz which is more meritorious and had Muslims perform congregation namaz in two groups. Our Prophet (pbuh) also gave importance to nafil (voluntary) namaz, sometimes performed it until sunrises.

Our Prophet once to his Companions (Sahaba-i Kiram):

If there was a river at the door of anyone of you and he took a bath in it five times a day, would you notice any dirt on him? They said, Not a trace of dirt would be left. The Prophet (pbuh) added, That is the example of the five times namaz with which Allah (swt) blots out evil deeds. (Bukhari Hadith Book)

Our Prophet once told to our Mother Fatima:

Fatima: do not ever leave your namaz just because you are the daughter of Allahs Messenger (pbuh). I swear to Allah (swt) who sent me as a Prophet, you would never rewarded with paradise unless you perform five times prayers at stated times. (Abdullatif, Meclisul-Envaril Mohammadiyya. p, 286)

Although the Shi’as are divided into some classes such as Ghaliya, Zaydiya and Imamiya, when it is said Shi’a, Imamiya is generally understood in our time.
After the passing away of the Prophet (pbuh) to the Eternal Realm, the Shi’as accept Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and his two sons in order and his grandsons as the legal imam (caliph) by the determination and the will of the Prophet and they regard believing in the twelve imams as a foundation of the faith. Therefore, that group is called as “Ithna Ashariyya” since they accept only the twelve imams as the imams; it is called as “Imamiya” since they accept believing in the imams as a condition of the faith; and it is called as “Ja’fariyya” since they rely on the opinions of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq both in faith and worship and acts.

The Shi’as are of the opinion that the imamate, namely, the caliphate is not from the “minor” acts which can be left to the desire and election of the Muslims as the Sunnis accept. According to them, imamate is a pillar existing in the basis of the religion and takes place among the fundamentals of the faith. Therefore, the Shi’as have to believe in the existence of the imam in the same way as they believe in Allah, the prophets and the Day of Judgment. According to that faith, the imams are innocent just like the prophets; they never commit a minor or a major sin, they do not behave unjustly; a person who does not know them becomes an unbeliever. Moreover, “Their commands are the commands of Allah, their prohibitions are His prohibitions. Obeying them is obeying Allah; disobedience to them is disobedience to Allah.”    

Iran, which accepts Imamiya as a formal madhhab (school of law) today, has given the duty of imamate including the religious authority to “Ayatullah al-Uzma” (Great Sign of Allah). Therefore, absolute obedience to that “imam” is obligatory. Opposing him is like opposing Allah and the Prophet. In the Iranian constitution, where the article “The formal religion of Iran is Islam and its school of law is Ithna Ashari Ja’afari. And that article can never be changed” takes place, believing in the “Twelve Imams” is accepted as an important principle.(1)  

The issue of imamate, considered as above, does not take place among the fundamentals of the religion in any way according to the Sunnis. The imam, namely the caliph, comes to the mission by the conferring and the election of the Muslims. Any person possessing the determined attributes in the matters of the world and the hereafter can undertake the management of the Muslims. He cannot be innocent and sinless in any way.  

In regard to the opinion of the Sunnis about the Twelve Imams; the eleven imams (their number is twelve with Hazrat Ali) are exalted saints and authorities in point of merit, godliness and spiritual ranks.

Badiuzzaman mentions the twelve imams while listing the persons who are the objects of mystery of the hadith “The scholars of my community are like the prophets of the Children of Israel.” (2) He introduces the twelve imams as the great people of the Sunnis by stating “The people of fact, first of all, the Sunnis as the Four Imams (the imams of the four schools of law) and the Ithna Ashara Imams (the Twelve Imams) of the Family of the Prophet..” in another statement of him. (3)
The Twelve Imams are the following persons: Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Hasan, Hazrat Hussain, Ali bin Hussain, Muhammad Baqir, Ja’far as-Sadiq, Musa Kazim, Ali Riza, Muhammad Taqi, Ali Naqi, Hasan Asghari and Muhammad Mahdi (may Allah be pleased with them.) 
References
1. Çağımızda İtîkâdî İslâm mezhepleri, p. 118-139; Muvazzah îlm-i Kelam,p. 24-25.
2. Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Collection, The Rays, p. 527.
3. Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Collection, Emirdağ Lahikası, 1:201

Mehmet Paksu

In order to understand this issue completely, these three points must be explained:

1) What is worship? Why human beings are held responsible for worship?
2) What is love? Whom should man love and at what degree?
3) In our religion, what is the place of the love for the Family of the Prophet?

The first point: What is worship?

Worship is the believer performing such duties as proclaiming God Almighty as the greatest and offering Him thanks in the fashion He commands. Man is responsible for fulfilling the duty of offering thanks to Him with complete modesty, thinking that he is fed with the endless favors, presents, and blessings of God Almighty. And this can be done only through worship. The worshipper performs all his actions in the circle of divine commandment. He lives as the slave of no one else but God. This slavery improves him in humanity, honor, and avoidance from sins. Actually, the purpose of the creation of humankind is to reach this honor with worship.

It is clear that this sacred duty could not be fulfilled through loving Ali (may God be pleased with him). If this was the case, there would be no need for all the commandments of worship in the Quran and we would have been commanded only to love our Prophet instead.

The second point: What is love? Whom should man love and at what degree?

The love of God is a light that forms in the heart in proportion with contemplating and praising the perfection and beauty of God Almighty. Through this affection, the human soul is saved from troubles and sufferings. He reaches pure joy and peace. The strongest one of the causes that leads the human soul to high virtues is the love of God.

God has put into the human heart an endless capacity of affection. This endless affection is exclusively for God, who has an endless perfection with His Self and names. In other words, this capacity of affection that is bestowed on man is for the love of God.

Man loves something either for its perfection or for the benefit and pleasure, he takes from it. For example, a Muslim loves prophets, people of closeness to God and of knowledge and virtue for their perfection-maturity-virtues. He loves the people who bestow upon himself for their favors and blessings. He loves the foods and fruits he eats for their flavors. Man knows mentally and conscientiously that all entities whose perfection he praises whose favors he is pleased with and takes pleasure from belong to God. He created them all. All the perfection, beauty, and favors that are reflected upon these come only from Him.

Hence, man should direct this endless capacity of affection firstly to God and then other people that deserve affection, and favors and blessings for the sake of God.

For this reason; we Muslims love first Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Four Caliphs, the Family of the Prophet, all the Companions for the sake of God and because God loves them and wants us to love them, too. If we love these people not for God but only for their personalities, then we would also have fallen into the danger Christians have fallen. For they love Jesus Christ (UWBP) not for the sake of God as one of His prophets, but-God forbid-like God. They stray from the right path by attributing him as a partner to God.

As for how the love for God should be, the Quran gives us this measure:

Say (to them, O Messenger): "If you indeed love God, then follow me, so that God will love you and forgive you your sins." God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (Al-Imran Surah, 3:31).

As an explanation to the above verse, it is stated in the Risale-i Nur Collection:

"If you believe in God (May His Glory be exalted), you will surely love Him. Since you love God, you will act in the manner He loves. To do that, you must resemble the one God loves. And he may be resembled by following him. Whenever you follow him, God will love you too. Anyway you have to love God so that He shall love you." (The Flashes, 21)

The third point: In our religion, what is the place of the love for the Family of the Prophet?

It is wajib-obligatory in our religion to love the Family of the Prophet-According to Imam Shafii; it is a farz-duty.

God Almighty says in the Surah Ash-Shura:

Say: "I ask of you no wage for it (for conveying Gods Religion to you which will bring you this favor), but (I ask of you for) love for my near relatives (on account of my mission)." (Surah Ash-Shura, 42:23)

In one of his Hadiths, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says, I leave you two things. If you stick to them, you will be rescued. One of them is the Quran, and the other is my family.

By mentioning the Book of God and the Family of the Prophet together in this hadith, we are given this lesson of truth:

Every Muslim who obeys the Book of God should love the Family of the Prophet, and every Muslim who loves the Family of the Prophet should practice according to the Book of God. All in all, a believer who loves the Family of the Prophet should believe both in all the principles of faith that the Quran comprises and in all its judgments concerning morals and worship and apply them to his life.

As is the case in everything, the love for the family of the Prophet should have a measure. And this measure is to live the Sunnah of the Prophet completely. Bediuzzaman explains this point as follows:

His purpose with the Family of the Prophet in accordance with his duty of prophethood is his Sunnah. As the one who abandons the Sunnah is not really from the Family of the Prophet, he cannot be a real friend of the Family of the Prophet, either.

Hence, only the Muslim who sticks to the Sunnah of the Prophet loves the Family of the Prophet in its real meaning.

Finally, I want to highlight this truth; it is not only for their personalities that we love the Family of the Prophet, but also for their services to the Quran and services in the fields of knowledge and values and for the great sacrifices they showed in issuing Islam.

Thanks to services of theirs, the community of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) could save their belief from the fake ideas and superstitions of the people astray.

As a reward for their pure and sincere services, God Almighty sent such great people from their line as Zaynal-Abidin, Jafar-i Sadık, and Abdulkadir-i Gaylani who showed the world of Islam the right path.

The Family of the Prophet knew worship as the biggest objective of their lives and performed the duty of slavery with the utmost sincerity and purity at any moment in their lives. For example, Zaynal-Abidin would pray one thousand series of salats night and day, even at the time of tremendous mischief and intense political clashes.

All the great people and scholars of Islam that have come from their offspring also followed the same way and with great efforts led the community to this right path.

Therefore, every believer who loves the Family of the Prophet should model them, resemble them, and try to be like them by performing his duty of worship. The love of the Family of the Prophet can be realized only through this way.

Karbala, which is located about 100 km southwest of Baghdad, is a famous place in the history of Islam because Hz Husayn and his family members were martyred there by the Umayyad on Muharram 10, 61 H (October 10, 680) and their graves are there.

It is the second holy place after Najaf, where Hz. Ali is believed to be buried. There are some views about where the name comes from but they are disputable: It may come from Akkadian word 'karballatu' meaning pointed cone, which was changed to karbala in the Middle Hebrew and Aramaic; it may also come from 'kuwar Babil' in Arabic meaning around Babylon or from the verb karbala, which means (feet) sinking into soft ground. 

It is known that after the conquest of Hira, Khalid bin Walid came here with his army and stayed there for a few days in the year 12 H (634). It is also narrated that Hz. Ali stopped here while returning to Kufa from Anbar or Siffin, that the people around him were worried about lack of water and that they found a well and drank water from it. The information above shows that Karbala is a place established before Islam.

(see T.D.V. İslam Ansiklopedisi, KERBELA item., Mustafa Öz, Ankara 2002, Vol. 25, p. 271)

We learn the orders of Islam from our book, the Quran, and from the Sunnah of our Prophet, Hz. Muhammad (pbuh). The pillars of Islam are definite. No matter what their name is, no group or sect can deny prayers and fasting. Therefore, there cannot be a satisfactory answer regarding the issue. A Muslim can be satisfied only by the Quran and the Sunnah. There is no other satisfying evidence.

Besides, it cannot be said that all Alawites "do not perform prayers and fasting". Some Alawites perform prayers and they fast in Ramadan.

The Incident of Qirtas

a) The Attitude of the Companions when the Prophet Wanted Pen and Paper (Qirtas):

It is necessary to mention “the Incident of Qirtas”, which is closely related to Hz. Abubakr’s election as the Caliph. For, this incident is one of the evidences that Shiite put forward to state that it was the right of Hz. Ali to become the Caliph. (1)

When the disease of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) got worse on Thursday, five days before his death, he said, “Bring me a pen and some paper; I shall write something after which you will not go astray.”

The Companions who were there heard this. Hz. Umar was among those who heard it. He opposed bringing pen and paper because he interpreted the wish of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) as follows:“The disease of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) got worse. We have the Book of Allah; it is sufficient for us.” In our opinion, what made Hz. Umar think like that was the statement of the Messenger of Allah on Dhul-Hijjah 18, the end of 10^th year of the Migration, which was about 2 months and 10 days before his death:  

"O people! Know that I am only a human being and the messenger of my Lord (Azrael) will come to me. I will respond to his call. I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of the two is the Book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it. The second is my Ahl al-Bayt (family). I urge you to remember Allah regarding my Ahl al-Bayt."(2)

In the hadith above and similar ones that the Messenger of Allah said on the last days of his life, he advises his ummah to adhere to two things so as not to go astray: the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt, or the Quran and the Sunnah. Muslims were not supposed to go astray if they adhered to them firmly. What was meant by his Ahl al-Bayt was his Sunnah. For, like all of the Companions, Ahl al-Bayt were the guards of the Sunnah. They supported the Sunnah by their character.

In our opinion, Hz. Umar opposed the advice to be written when the Prophet (pbuh) was very ill. According to him, the Prophet (pbuh) had recently explained to his ummah what to do to avoid going astray. There was no need for the advice of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) at that time, when he was seriously ill since the Muslims had the Quran, which was full of guidance, and the Sunnah, which could not be separated from the Quran and which was almost as valuable as the Quran (3). [The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) died on Monday, Rabiul-Awwal 12 in 11 H.]

Some of the Companions who were there supported Hz. Umar when he opposed bringing pen and paper and regarded his view appropriate. However, some Companions did not support his view and opposed his view. According to them, pen and paper should have been brought and the advice of the Messenger of Allah should have been written. When the discussion between them lengthened and loud voices were heard, the Messenger of Allah said, “Move away from me. There can be no discussion in my presence. Leave me alone."(4) Thus, the discussion in the presence of the Messenger of Allah and the incident of Qirtas ended.

b) The Incident of Qirtas According to Ibn Abbas and Hz. Aisha

According to al-Kamil, theIncident of Qirtas reported from Ibn Abbas is as follows: Five days before the death of the Messenger of Allah, that is, on Thursday (5), at the beginning of the month of Rabiul-Awwal in 11 H, the disease and pain of the Messenger of Allah got worse. (Tears were coming down from his eyes down his cheeks.) Thereupon, he said, “Ituni bi diwatin wa baydaa = Bring me pen and paper. Aktub lakum kitaban la tudilluna ba’di abadan = I shall write you something after which you will never go astray.” Fa tanaza’u = Upon this, they/ the Companions argued in the presence of the Prophet though it was not appropriate to argue (6). They said, “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is certainly talking in his sleep due to his disease.(7) They started to repeat it near him. Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah said, “Leave me alone. The condition I am in is better than that which you ask me about.” He advised three things: The polytheists to be driven out of the Arabian Peninsula, the delegates coming to Madinah to be entertained in the same way as he did.” Ibn Abbas, who narrated the incident said, “He avoided saying the third one, or I forgot it.”(8)

As it is seen, the incident is a bit different here. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) explained two of the three things that he would advise with pen and paper and he did not explain the third one; or he explained it too but the narrator forgot it or did not say it. That is how the Incident of Qirtas took place according to Ibn Athir. 

We think a hadith reported by Hz. Aisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), is also related to the Incident of Qirtas:

Hz. Aisha stated the following: When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) got ill, she said to me,

“Call your father Abu Bakr and your brother (Abdurrahman) to write something. I fear that somebody will wish and say, ‘I deserve (Ana awla) the caliphate more’ after my death.”

After that, the Messenger of Allah gave up this view by thinking “Allah and the believers will accept only Abu Bakr.”(9)

As it is seen, the writing that was wanted to be written related to the caliphate during the days of illness was related to Hz. Abu Bakr. If this narration is regarded as the basis for the evaluation, it showed that Hz. Abu Bakr deserved the caliphate more and that his caliphate would prevent conflicts. Besides, we can deduce the indication that Hz. Abu Bakr would be the first caliph after the Messenger of Allah.

c) The Incident of Qirtas and the Theory of Will

The Shiite used the Incident of Qirtas, which was reported this or that way, as an evidence from the Sunnah for the theory of “will” of the imamate for political reasons – this is important – after a very long time.(10) They did everything they could to show the interpretation of this incident to be related to the caliphate of Hz. Ali. According to Shia understanding, Hz. Muhammad (pbuh) wanted pen and paper in order to appoint Hz. Ali as the Caliph but Hz. Umar and the others who knew what he would will prevented him. Thus, the caliphate was grabbed from Hz. Ali unjustly. Hence, the Companions – God forbid – became oppressors, grabbers and even unbelievers and apostates.(11) For, according to Shia, imamate is based on the appointment of Allah. Allah appoints imams/caliphs as He appoints prophets. This appointment was going to be made by Allah and the Messenger of Allah. The appointment occurs by “nass” and the announcement of the Messenger of Allah. Or, the imam announces the imam after him by nass. The decree about it is the same as the decree about the prophethood. People have no right to choose the imam. The imam is the deputy of the Messenger of Allah; therefore, his caliphate has to take place with the permission of Allah and the Messenger of Allah. If people choose the imam/caliph, they will influence him, which is out of question.  

According to Shia belief, the crime committed by Hz. Umar, Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz. Uthman is very big. They did not accept the imam that Allah appointed and that the Prophet (pbuh) would announce. According to them, not to accept the imam appointed by Allah can lead the Companions, Hz. Umar, Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz. Uthman to unbelief and apostasy. Their enmity to the Companions except a few of them and the three rightly guided caliphs originates from this incident.(12) However, Sunnis do not discriminate among the Companions, do not criticize them and regard Shiite and the people of bid’ah as believers and Muslims.(13)

d) The Importance of Imamate in Shia in Four Points

Imamate is very important in Shia. In Sunnis, there are six principles of belief. In Shia, there are five principles of belief: Tawhid (oneness), prophethood, justice, resurrection after death and imamate.

According to them, it is necessary for a person to believe that imams (14) are appointed by Allah and the Messenger of Allah one by one and that imamate will continue up to Doomsday with the descendants of Hz. Ali in order to be a believer. According to some of them, a person who does not believe in the principle of imamate/caliphate can be regarded as a believer. Imams are sinless and innocent like prophets; they are protected from crimes, mistakes, doing wrong things and all kinds of disgrace. Imams are people that protect shari’ah and apply it; therefore they need to be sinless and innocent like prophets.(15) Otherwise, they will not be reliable.

According to them, imams know all divine decrees and ilms. They learn them from the Prophet (pbuh) or the imams before them. They are not in need of learning from others and a teacher. They learn new things through inspiration. They answer all questions. They do not say, “I do not know.” What is more, they do not wait or think for the answer; they do not delay giving answers.(16)

According to Shia, the imam is a hujjah (evidence) for Allah's slaves. The imam is Allah's hujjah on earth. If there were no imams, people would be excused when they did not obey Islamic decrees. They use verse 165 of the chapter of an-Nisa for evidence:

“Messengers who gave good news as well as warning, that mankind, after (the coming) of the messengers, should have no plea against Allah."(17)

Sending imams is hujjah just like sending imams. The titles like “Hujjatullah”, “Ayatullah” and “Ayatullahul-Uzma” in Iran come from this belief.

According to Shia belief, obedience to imam is fard in any case. Obedience to the imam/caliph is obedience to Allah. He who loves imams/caliphs loves Allah. He who refuses their orders is regarded to have refused the orders of Allah and the Messenger of Allah. Since imams are innocent, they will not make any mistakes; since they know divine ilms and decrees, their orders are always Allah’s orders.(18)

In Sunni belief, caliphs are also human beings; they can make mistakes. There are no innocent people except prophets. Even the greatest Companions and saints can make mistakes.

e) A Brief Analysis of the Incident of Qirtas

It will be useful to analyze theIncident of Qirtas, which we have dealt with briefly, in terms of a few points. 

Firstly: In fact, not all of the Companions held the same view in theIncident of Qirtas, which is a small detail. The Companions had different views related to other issues too. It is normal. It is understood that eventually the view of Hz. Umar and those who thought like him was accepted since pen and paper were not brought.

Secondly: After theIncident of Qirtas, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and some of his Companions did not accuse the others of oppression, grabbing and preventing the appointment of the imam. If there had been oppression and grabbing, first the Prophet (pbuh), then the Companions who were truthful and just would have opposed it. Besides, Hz. Ali, who was ready to sacrifice everything for the truth would have acted in the same way.  

Thirdly: During the last illness of the Prophet (pbuh), some other incidents related to Hz. Fatima, Hz. Uthman and other Muslims took place in addition to theIncident of Qirtas.(19) One of them is about Hz. Abu Bakr, as it is mentioned above. However, Shia give great importance to the Incident of Qirtas and want to associate it with Hz. Ali with strained interpretations.  

Fourthly: Although paper and pen were not brought, the Messenger of Allah expressed his will. According to a report from Ibn Abbas, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) expressed his will orally. In that case, there was no prevention and Hz. Ali was not appointed as the imam. The Messenger of Allah lived for five days after the Incident of Qirtas.

Fifthly: The Incident of Qirtas is an incident that Shia started to deal with a lot in terms of politics and make interpretations a long time after it happened. If this incident had been related to the appointment of Hz. Ali as the Caliph, would the followers of Ali not have mentioned it at once and when Hz. Abu Bakr was chosen as the Caliph?

Sixthly: According to a narration from Hz. Aisha, the request and will of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to dictate something about the caliphate was not related to Hz. Ali but to Hz. Abu Bakr. However, Sunnis did not exaggerate this narration unlike Shia and did not interpret it as “the appointment of Hz. Abu Bakr as the Caliph”. The Companions did not do anything like that either. They regarded it as only a little sign for the caliphate of Hz. Abu Bakr and his deserving it.

Seventhly:The illness of the Prophet (pbuh) lasted for about thirteen days. He lived for four more days after he wanted pen and paper on Thursday.(20) Meanwhile, he gave several orders and instructions along with advice. On the day he died, he seemed very well and the Companions who came to the mosque thought that he had recovered. Hz. Abu Bakr also thought like that and went to his house in Sunh, which was about 2 miles/3 km away from the mosque.

If the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) had wanted to make an appointment or give an order about caliphate, he would have done it during those four days somehow. However, he did not mention it again. Maybe he did not regard it important and gave up.

If we evaluate the issue based on the points like that, it would be easier to reach a healthier and more balanced conclusion.

f) How Sunnis View the Imamate belief of Shia

The explanations above can be evaluated from those points in terms of Sunni view.

- According to Imamiyya, imamate can be completed by believing. According to Sunnis, imamate is among secondary issues. It is regarded as a detail. It is not among the principles of belief. There are six principles of belief.

- According to Shia, it is essentially wajib for Allah to appoint an imam.(21) According to Sunnis, it is also wajib to appoint a caliph. However, a caliph can be appointed by Muslims through different ways.

- According to Shia, imams/12 imams are innocent/sinless like prophets. They do not commit sins. They are the people whom Allah orders people to obey. They are the treasure of Allah's ilm, the conveyor of revelation and the principles of tawhid. They do not commit minor or major sins. According to Ahl as-Sunnah, nobody is innocent/sinless except prophets. Even the Companions and the notables among them can commit sins. Ahl as-Sunnah do not criticize all Companions but they accept that they can commit minor or major sins. They do not attribute innocence and infallibility to caliphs. They are like the other people in terms of committing crimes. They can make mistakes.  

- According to Shia, a person who denies the sinlessness/innocence of imams is regarded not to recognize them. "A person who does not recognize them is an unbeliever."(22) In the grave, after the questions, "Who is your Lord, Who is your prophet?", people will be asked the question "Who is your imam?" Those who say, "My imam is Ali" will attain salvation.(23) Not to recognize the imam is the reason for not being able to attain salvation in a sense. In Ahl as-Sunnah, there is no such thing as to accept thesinlessness/innocence of caliphs. There is no question about it in the grave.  

- In Shia, imamate gives superiority to the people coming from the descendants of Hz. Ali after the Messenger of Allah (pbuh); it elevates them to the degree ofsinlessness/innocence; and it shows that they have “special knowledge” that others do not have. According to Ahl as-Sunnah, there is nobody having the attribute ofsinlessness/innocence except the Messenger of Allah (pbuh); and they do not accept that a group among Muslims have special knowledge. Every Muslim can know and learn the Quran and Islam. To know divine ilms cannot be restricted to a group (Ahl al-Bayt) from the descendant of Hz. Ali; it is contrary to the spirit and essence of the Quran. Superiority (value, honor) in the presence of Allah is through taqwa. However, Ahl as-Sunnah loves the descendants of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Ahl al-Bayt.(24)

- According to Shia, imamate is the right of the people who are descendants ofHz. Ali. According to Sunnis, caliphate is not restricted to a certain dynasty or group. The best example of it is the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Footnotes:

1- For the other evidences put forward regarding the issue, see Ahl al-Bayt, Hadiths about Hz. Ali; Tarikhul Khamis, II, 200; Adam Mez. Onuncu Yüzyılda İslam Medeniyeti, translated by. Salih Şaban, İstanbul 2000, p. 87-88; Peygamberimizin Hayatı, II, 708.
2- Ahmed b. Hanbal. Musnad, I-IV, Beirut, ty. IV, 369; Ahl al-Beyt, 45, 78; al-Kamil, II, 320; Onuncu Yüzyılda İslam Medeniyeti, p. 87; Şibli Numani. Hz. Ömer ve Devlet İdaresi, I-II, translated by Talib Yaşar Alp, İstanbul 1980, p. 1000 ff.
3- The term thaqalayn indicates this closeness of value. see al-Mufradat, p. 79; Ahl al-Beyt, p. 45.
4- Musnad, I, 325; Ibn Sad, at-Tabaqatul-Kubra, I-VIII, Beirut, nd. II, 242; Hizmetli. İslam Tarihi, p. 456; al-Kamil, II, 320
5- Hz. Prophet died on Monday.
6- Some wanted pen and paper to be brought while others did not want them to be brought.
7- “Inne Rasulallahi Sallallahu alayhi wa sallama Yahjuru.”
8- al-Kamil, II, 320; Hizmetli, İslam Tarihi, p. 456; Sah. Bukhari, IV, 66,
9- et-Taj, III, 309; K. Fadail. Muslim Fadailus-Sahaba, 11; al-Halabi, Insanul Uyun, I-III, Beirut 1980, III, 456; İslam ve Hilafet, p. 156,
10- Hizmetli, İslam Tarihi, p. 437.
11- Fığlalı, E. Ruhi. İtikadi İslam Mezhepleri, İstanbul 1985, p. 127-128.
12- İtikadi İslam Mezhepleri, p. 127-128; İslam ve Hilafet, p. 135 ff; Muhammad Rıza al-Muzaffar. Şia İnançları, translated by Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, İstanbul 1978, p. 50, 57-58.
13- İtikadi İslam Mezhepleri, p. 127 ff;
14- On İki İmam.
15- Şia İnançları, p. 51-52
16- ibid, p. 52 ff.
17- an-Nisa, 4/121
18- Şia İnançları, p. 53 ff.; İtikadi İslam Mezhepleri, p. 118, 127-129; Hz. Ömer ve İslam İdareleri, p. 100.
19- Siratun-Nabi, IV, 328; Advice of goodness to Ansar.
20- Hz. Ömer ve Devlet İdaresi, p. 100, 104. see Sah. Bukhari, K. Ilm.
21- İtikadi İslam Mezhepleri, p. 129; Hizmetli, İslam Tarihi, p. 514.
22- İtikadi İslam Mezhepleri, p. 128; al-Qummi, Abu Jafar Ibn Babawayh, Risalati Itiqadatil-Imamiyya, Şii İmamiyyenin İnanç Esasları, translated by E. Ruhi Fığlalı, Ankara 1978, p. 113.
23- ibid, p. 130.
24- İtikadi İslam Mezhepleri, p. 141-142; Ahl al-Beyt, see part 1 and 2; Hizmetli, İslam Tarihi, p. 514.

Shiite try to show various things as evidences when they claim that it was Hz. Ali’s right to become the first caliph. One of them is the incident of Ghadir Khumm: While returning from Farewell Hajj, the Prophet and the Companions with him stopped in a place called Ghadir Khumm. The Prophet rested for a while, led the noon prayer and addressed his Companions as follows:  

“If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too. O Allah! Love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.”1

Shiite reflect this hadith in a wrong way and interpret it differently. “Walayah” the Prophet (pbuh) mentioned in Ghadir Khumm does not mean caliphate as Shiite mean but friendship. As a matter of fact, Hasan al-Muthanna, the grandson of Hz. Ali states the following regarding the issue:

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not mean caliphate or sultanate with it. If he had meant so, he would have stated it clearly. For, the Messenger of Allah was the most fluent and clear speaker among the Muslims.”

When Hz. Ali was asked in Basra,“Is there a promise and authority given to you by the Messenger of Allah about caliphate or are you acting on your own view?”, he gave the following answer:

“No, there is no promise. By Allah, I am the first person to approve and believe in the Messenger of Allah; I cannot be the first person to tell a lie on behalf of him. If there had been a promise of the Messenger of Allah to me about the caliphate, I would have never allowed Abu Bakr and Umar to ascend to his pulpit. I would have struggled against them with my hands if I had had no power."

One of the claims of Shiite is that Hz. Ali paid allegiance to Hz. Abubakr and Hz. Umar and helped them because he was afraid of them; thus, they accuse him of hypocrisy. Badiuzzaman Said Nursi states the following regarding the issue in his book called Lem’alar (Flashes):

“As for the Caliphate Shi‘a, they can claim no rights before the Sunnis other than shame. For although they say they have tremendous love for ‘Ali (May Allah be pleased with him), they disparage him, and their creed necessitates accusing him of immorality. For they say that although Abu Bakr the Veracious and ‘Umar were acting unjustly, ‘Ali feigned approval for them; according to Shi’i terminology, he dissimulated. That is, he was frightened of them and behaved hypocritically. But it is not love to hold that someone who was such a hero of Islam, won the title ‘Lion of Allah’, and was the commander and guide of the faithful, was simulating love for people he did not love out of fear and deception, and was feigning approval for them in fear for more than twenty years, and was following wrongdoers. ‘Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) would disclaim love that sort.”

“Thus, the people of truth’s creed in no way disparages ‘Ali, nor levels accusations of immorality at him. It does not attribute cowardice where there was such remarkable courage, but says that if ‘Ali had not considered the Rightly-Guided Caliphs to be right, he would not have recognized them for a minute, nor obeyed them. It means that since he thought them right and preferable, he made over his courage and striving to the way of justice.”2

As it is understood from the explanations above, the Prophet did not express a will to Hz. Ali, and Hz. Ali paid allegiance to the caliphs before him not because he feared them but because he regarded Hz. Abubakar and Hz. Umar to be worthier of the caliphate more than him and because he promised Hz. Uthman that he would obey him. Hz. Ali loved those three caliphs before him very much and he did not hesitate to express it anywhere.  

Some of those who did not pay allegiance to Hz. Abubakr wanted to pay allegiance to Hz. Ali. However, Hz. Ali struggled for the unity of the Muslims throughout his life. He never opened the door to mischief. For instance, one of those who wanted to pay allegiance to Hz. Ali was Sufyan. He answered Sufyan as follows:

“We regard Abubakr sufficient for the caliphate and worthy of it. We left him as the caliph. We did not intervene.”3

Hz. Ali was one of the greatest assistants of Hz.Abubakr during his caliphate. When Hz.Abubakr died, he made the following speech:

“You were like a mountain which stands firm in the face of hard blows of dashing winds and waves. You truly were as the Messenger of Allah said weak in your body, but strong in the religion of Allah, humble in your heart, but lofty in your ranking with Allah and well-esteemed in the eyes of people and in the world. Nobody nurtured a grudge against you. You had no characteristic that people regarded worthless. The strong were weak in your presence until the weak got their rights. The weak were strong until they got their rights. May Allah not deprive us of from your thawabs! May He not allow us to go astray after you!”4

Hz. Ali never allowed anyone to speak against Hz.Abubakr and Hz. Umar during his caliphate. Once, he spoke as follows:

“I hear that some people regard me to be superior to Abubakr and Umar. If I had said something about this issue before, I would punish those who speak like that. I do not do anything to them now because I have not said anything about it before. Anybody who speaks like that from now on is a slanderer. The best person after the Messenger of Allah among people is Abubakr and then Umar. May Allah be pleased with both of them!

“I swear by Allah who greens dry seeds and gives life to non-living things that only virtuous believers love Abubakr and Umar and only sinners criticize them and treat them as enemy.”5

Hz. Ali married his daughter Umm Kulthum off to Hz. Umar due to his love toward him.7 When Hz. Umar died, Hz. Ali approached his dead body and said,

“O Umar! I want to enter into the presence of Allah with a deed that you like. There is nobody else whose deeds I envy.”6

Hz. Ali paid allegiance at once to Hz. Uthman, who was chosen by a consultation committee that was formed after the martyrdom of Hz. Umar. Hz. Ali loved Hz. Uthman as he loved Hz.Abubakr and Hz. Umar. He was Hz. Uthman’s greatest assistant during his caliphate. He defended Hz. Uthman against mischief-makers. He rejected the offer of those who wanted to unseat Hz. Uthman and to pay allegiance to him. He did not accept the allegiance of mischief-makers after the martyrdom of   , Hz. Uthman either. He said,  

“I take refuge in Allah from accepting the allegiance of the murderers of Uthman.”7

Footnotes:

1. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, IV, p. 368.
2. Lem’alar (Flashes), p. 31.
3. Dört Halife Devri, p. 340.
4. ibid, p. 341.
5. Hayatus-Sahaba, III, p. 348, 349.
6. H. İbrahim Hasan, İslam Tarihi, p. 317; Dört Halife Devri, p. 343.
7. Dört Halife Devri, p. 343.
 

GHADIR KHUMM

It is the name of a place between Makkah and Madinah, near Juhfa. (Mu'jamul-Buldan, VI, 268). It is a boggy place about 2-3 miles away from Juhfa; the bog is surrounded by a dense wood. The most important issue related to the emergence of Shia is the incident of Ghadir Khumm.

According to Shiite resources, it was determined in Ghadir Khumm that Hz. Ali had the most rights to be the caliph. When we look at the books of Shia scholars, it is possible to find the following information:

Hz. Muhammad (pbuh) stopped in Ghadir Khumm while returning from Hajj. He gathered the groups before they returned to their towns and addressed them. The reason he gathered them was to announce them the following verse, which was sent down there: "O Messenger! Proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission:And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith." (al-Maida, 5/67) According to Shiite writers, this verse was sent down about Hz. Ali. The only thing to be proclaimed by the verse was the caliphate of Hz. Ali. Hz. Prophet concealed certain things from his wife Hz. Aisha and hence Allah Almighty warned him. (Wahidi, Asbab an-Nuzul,115; Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 20; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima, II; H. Nisaburi, al-Mustadrak, III,109; Kulayni, al-Kafi, II, 72)

After proclaiming that verse in Ghadir, the Prophet stated the following:

"Jibril brought me the following order from my Lord: Ali b. Abi Talib is my brother, guardian and caliph; he is the imam after me. O people! Allah appointed him as the guardian and imam for you. Anyone who opposes him will be cursed and anyone who respects him will be shown mercy. Listen and obey! Allah is your mawla and Ali is your imam. The imamate will continue until Doomsday from his progeny." (Wahidi, Asbab an-Nuzul, 115) According to Shiite, the Messenger of Allah also declared the following there:

1) He stated that he left two heavy things (thaqalayn) to Muslims. One of them is the book of Allah; one side of it is in the hand of Allah and the other side is in the hand of Muslims. The second is the Sunnah of the Prophet.

2) He lifted Hz. Ali's hand and said, "Ali is the mawla of a person whom I am a mawla of."

3) The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prayed as follows: "O Allah! Help those who help Ali! Be an enemy of a person who is an enemy of Ali!"

4) He also said, "O Allah! Turn the truth toward Ali from the place where it turns!"

Ahl as-Sunnah views the narrations put forward by Shiite scholars related to the incident of Ghadir Khumm as follows:

According to the claim of Shiite, the number of the sincere Muslims after the death of the Prophet is no more than ten. However, more than one hundred thousand Companions listened to the sermon in Ghadir. The meaning of this claim is as follows: "More than one hundred Companions did not keep their promise and collaborated to deprive Hz. Ali of the caliphate." This alliance is impossible to happen logically. What can be the use and benefit of it?

On the other hand, the sermon of Ghadir Khumm was delivered on Dhulhijjah 18, in the tenth year of the Migration while the Prophet was returning from Farewell Hajj. The verse "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion" (al-Maida, 5/3) was sent down on Dhulhijjah 9, the day of Arafah of the same year. Is it possible for this verse to have been sent down before verse 67 of the chapter of al-Maida, which orders Hz. Muhammad to proclaim his prophethood and whose translation was given above? The verse stating that the religion was completed was sent down and it was announced to more than one hundred thousand hajjis. The great majority of the Islamic scholars determined that verse 67 of the chapter of al-Maida was sent down before the Conquest of Makkah and the Battle of Khaybar. (Said Ismail, Haqiqatul-Khilaf Bayna Ulamaish-Shia wa Jumhuri Ulaemail-Muslimin, Carbondale 1983, 25, 26)

There are some writers who deny the incident of Ghadir Khumm and there are also some Sunni scholars who do not deny it but who do not express it clearly. There are praises about Hz. Ali in their writings but there is no statement about the appointment of Hz. Ali as the caliph.

Nasai includes this incident in his book about the virtues of Ali b. Abi Talib. In this narration reported from Zayd b. Arqam, the hadith of “Ghadir” and the hadith of “Thaqalayn” are combined and it is stated that both of them were uttered on the day of Ghadir. Ibn Majah includes the hadith about Ghadir in his Sunan but he does not mention where it was uttered. (Nasai, Khasais,16; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Muqaddima, II)

The hadith of Ghadir reported by Zayd b. Arqam (D. 66/689) is as follows: "Once, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) delivered a sermon to us in a watery place called Khumm between Makkah and Madinah. In this sermon, he first praised Allah and gave us some advice. He mentioned Allah and addressed us as follows: "O people! Know that I am only a human being and the messenger of my Lord, Azrael, will soon come to me. I will respond to his call. I am leaving behind two weighty things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of the two is the Book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it.” Thus, he encouraged us to read the book of Allah and advised it to us. Then, he continued as follows: “The second is my Ahl al-Bayt (family). I urge you to remember Allah regarding my Ahl al-Bayt.” He repeated the last sentence three times. (Nasai, Khasais, 15; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, II,114, IV, 367; Darimi, Fadailul-Quran,1). Ibn Kathir mentions almost all narrations of the khadith of Khumm and points out the reliable and weak narrators. (Ibn Kathir, as-Siratun-Nabawiyya, IV, 414)

After Zayd b. Arqam reported this hadith, he was asked, "Who is included in Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet? Are his wives regarded among Ahl al-Bayt?" Zayd said, "The wives of the Prophet are also from Ahl al-Bayt but his real Ahl al-Bayt are those for whom it is haram to accept sadaqah after him." He listed them as follows: "The family of Ali, the family of Aqil, the families of Ja'far and Abbas." (Muslim, Fadailus-Sahaba, 36)

Ibn Taymiyya states the following regarding the narrations of Ghadir Khumm: "Let alone being mutawatir, this fabricated incident has no sound chain of narrators. Was it not necessary for at least one Companion to mention this incident on the day of Saqifa, when Hz. Umar died, when the consultation committee of six people was established and on the days when the caliphate of Hz. Ali was discussed after the martyrdom of Hz. Uthman? As it is seen, it is one of the fabrications of Rafizis." (Ibn Taymiyya, Minhajus-Sunnah, IV, 118)

Goldziher, the orientalist, writes the following regarding the issue: "Therefore Ali adherents were concerned with inventing and authorizing traditions which prove Ali's installation by the direct order of the Prophet. The most widely-known tradition (the authority of which is not denied even by orthodox authorities though they deprive it of its intention by a different interpretation) is the tradition of Khum, which came into being for this purpose and is one of the firmest foundations of the theses of the Ali party." (Goldziher, Muslim Studies)

That the hadith of Ghadir, which is put forward as the evidence for the claim that Hz. Ali was worthy of the caliphate more than the others, was not reported even by only one narrator during the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs brings about serious doubts about its existence. It is understood that Shiite invented a reason for the emergence of this hadith, which they later spread as the hadith of Ghadir. Even Hz. Ali himself did not mention such a narration when it was needed very much. For instance, during the illness of the Prophet, when Ali b. Abi Talib came out after visiting the Messenger of Allah, people asked him, "O Abu Hasan! How is the Messenger of Allah?" He said, "Alhamdulillah, he is fine." The narrator said,“Thereupon, Abbas held Ali by the hand and said, ‘By Allah, within three days, you will be the slave of the stick. By Allah, I think that the Messenger of Allah will die from his present ailment, for I know the signs of death on the faces of the Sons of Abdulmuttalib. So, let us go to the Messenger of Allah and ask him whether the caliphate belongs to us or not. If it belongs to us, we will know it; and if it is not, tell him to recommend us.’ Hz. Ali said, "By Allah, I cannot do it. If we ask the Prophet for it and if he refuses, people will never give it to us. ‘" (Bukhari, Isti'dhan, 29; For detailed information, see Cemal Sofuoğlu, Gadîri Hum Meselesi-Ankara Ü. İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Ankara 1983, Vol. XXVI, p. 461-470).

If it had been announced that Hz. Ali would be the imam/caliph after the Prophet in Ghadir Khumm and if Muslims had been ordered to obey it as Shiite claim, all of the Companions including Hz. Abbas would have known this will, which is claimed to have been announced in front of more than one hundred thousand Companions. On the other hand, the conversation between Hz. Ali and Abbas mentioned above would have been meaningless. However, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) delivered a sermon in Ghadir as it is included in the resources of Ahl as-Sunnah. Some statements about Hz. Ali were uttered there and the Prophet asked Muslims to treat Ahl al-Bayt well. However, Sunni scholars interpret the statement "If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too" more differently from Shiite. Ibn Qutayba states the following regarding the issue: “Hz. Prophet is the mawla of all Muslims. Walayah is both between the Prophet and the believers and also among Muslims. The relationship of the Prophet with Hz. Ali is like that. ‘The Believers, men and women, are protectors (awliya) one of another.’(at-Tawba, 9/71) There is no difference between the words wali (singular form of awliya) and mawla. This does not give Hz. Ali a privilege.” There are many verses regarding the issue (at-Tahrim, 66/4 at-Tawba, 9/71; al-Baqara, 2/257; Yunus, 10/62). Hz. Prophet said similar things for great Companions like Hz.Abubakr and Hz. Umar. He said the following for Abu Ubayda b. al-Jarrah: "He is the trustworthy one (amin) of this ummah. According to the view accepted by Ahl as-Sunnah, it is fard for Muslims to like Hz. Ali as it is fard to like the Prophet; it is haram to be an enemy of Hz. Ali as it is haram to be an enemy of the Prophet. This is also in compatible with the view of Ahl al-Bayt. (Abdulaziz Dahlawi, Muhtasaru Tuhfatil-Ithna Ashariyya, 161)

Hamdi DÖNDÜREN

There is no information mentioned in the question in Suyuti’s work named al-Itqan, which is given as a source at the end of the question.

It is understood that a bad custom of some Shiites and their followers are in question here. When some Shiites and their supporters see a fact in a book belonging to Ahl as-Sunnah, they add many lies and slanders to it and write ideas that are suitable for Shia thought; then, they put that source belonging to Ahl as-Sunnah under it.

For example, “If I am someone’s mawla (friend), Ali is his mawla (friend) too.” The hadith above is mentioned in many sources belonging to Ahl as-Sunnah. Some Shiites, who took advantage of this, added “He is my successor; follow him after me.” They add some information that does not belong to the Prophet (pbuh), such as the one above, and add the sources of Ahl as-Sunnah under it.

Similarly, it is not possible to find the information given in the question in the work named al-Itqan, which is given as a source at the end of the question.

Answer 2:

The source mentioned at the beginning of the question is the work named “al-Imama was-Siyasa”, which is attributed to Ibn Qutayba ed-Dinawari.

In fact, the author of this work has not been determined definitely. However, in some places it is attributed to Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889).

In the book in question, which contains different and extensive information from the narrations in other sources, the process of each caliph’s coming to power, the political and military struggles regarding the issue, if any, are explained, the events are analyzed, and some Companions are criticized. There are also inaccuracies and fabricated narrations in the book, which contains statements in favor of the Umayyads. One of the most striking mistakes is that the first Abbasid caliph, Abul-Abbas as-Saffah, is described as two separate persons as Saffah and Abul-Abbas.

Abu Bakr Ibnul-Arabi regards the attribution of the book called al-Imama was-Siyasa to Ibn Qutayba as doubtful and criticizes the book severely. [Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi, al-Awasim minal Qawasim (published by Muhibbuddin al-Khatib), Cairo 1399, p. 248]

Muhibbuddin al-Khatib also states that the work does not belong to Ibn Qutayba (Awasim, footnote of the publisher, p. 248)

Many orientalists including Gayangos, Reinhart Dozy, Michael Jan de Goeje and Brockelmann and many historians claim that the book in question does not belong to Ibn Qutayba due to the following reasons and similar ones:

- None of those who wrote about Ibn Qutayba’s life mentioned a book written by him with that name;
- The style of the work is not similar to his other works;
- He started a paragraph including his own views with the phrase “Qala Abu Muhammad” in his previous books, but in the book in question, the phrase “Qala Abdullah” is used;
- Although he mentions his other books by referring to them from time to time in his books, none of his books are mentioned in al-Imama;
-Although he does not include the history of Africa, Maghrib and Andalusia in his other books, the conquest of those regions - though irrelevant - are mentioned in the book;

-Nobody except for Ibnush-Shabbat (d. 681/1282), who lived much later than him, quoted from the book in question;  

- The Abbasids caliphs are criticized in al-Imama but there is no such criticism in Ibn Qutayba’s other books.

Based on the fact that forty pages were allocated for the conquest of North Africa and Andalusia, it was stated that the book might belong to an Andalusian or Egyptian author, a contemporary of Ibn Qutayba. The name of Ibn al-Qutiyya, who wrote a book on the history of Andalusia, is also mentioned among them [G. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, EI2 (Eng.), III, 845]

While some scholars such as Jibril Jabbur attribute al-Imama to Ibn Hazm, some others insist that it belongs to Ibn Qutayba. According to them, by criticizing Ibn Qutayba, Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi accepted that the book belonged to him but he doubted whether the entire book belonged to him. Therefore, it is stated that the mistakes in the book, the part that is not related to the topic and purpose of the book may have been added by others, not by the author. (Fahri Demir, “el-İmame ve’s-Siyase Adlı Eser Üzerine”, Diyanet İlmî Dergi, XXXI/1, Ankara 1995, pp. 31-44)

To sum up, the claim that the source in the question belongs to Ibn Kutayba ad-Dinawari is doubtful. Even if it is assumed that it belongs to him, both the claims about the Companions and the information in the question can never belong to him.

Answer 3:

Most of those who narrate this issue are Shiites and Rafidis. The information in the sources referenced in the question was reported from Rafidis and liars.

We could not find any statement by Ali that the Quran was distorted. Although some of the previous Shiites said so, the sane ones among the current Shia scholars do not accept it.

The following is stated in an article dealing with the issue in a journal:

“Although some of our previous Shia scholars said so, it is unacceptable because the following verse is very clear: ‘We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).’ (al-Hijr, 15/9) The views contrary to it mean unbelief.”

Did Ali (ra) no know this verse, God forbid?

To sum up, according to our research, it is seen that the issue is distorted and the names of the Sunnis are mentioned but the names of the Shiites who give the real information are kept secret; there are liars who openly slander. We regard it as appropriate to give a few examples without lengthening the issue:

Shia claim:

Shahristani reports the following in “al-Milal wan-Nihal” Vol. 1 p. 57: “Umar hit Fatima in the stomach on the day of allegiance and caused her to suffer a miscarriage.”

Answer:

The information in question does not belong to Shahristani, but was reported from Nazzam, who was a Mutazilite. (see al-Milal wan-Nihal, 3/57)

Shia Claim:

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani reports the following in in his book “Lisanul Mizan” Vol. 1, p. 268: Umar hit Fatima in the stomach and caused Muhsin to drop. (adh-Dhahabi, “Mizanul-Itidal”, Vol. 1, p.139)

Answer:

Ibn Hajar states that Abubakr Ahmad b. Muhammad, who reported the narration above is a liar. (see Ibn Hajar, Lisanul-Mizan, ibid)

The summary of the answer to this question is as follows:

The Prophet (pbuh) said for Hz. Ali,

 “If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too.” (Tirmidhi, Manaqib,19; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima,11; Ibn Hanbal, 1/84,118, 119)

Ibn Hajar states that this hadith was narrated through various ways and points out that it is sound. (see Ibn Hajar, 7/74)

On the other hand, Zaylai states that it is weak though it came through various narrations. (Tuhfatul-Ahwazi, 3/137)

Acting upon such hadiths, Ahl ash-Shi’a claim that Hz. Ali was the first caliph and that his right was grabbed. This issue has been an issue of discussion between the scholars of Shi’a and Ahl as-Sunnah for fourteen centuries. It was discussed in hundreds of books.

According to Ahl as-Sunnah scholars, the meaning of the hadith “If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too” is as follows: “If I love someone, Ali loves him too.” According to some other scholars, the meaning is as follows: “If I take someone as a friend or if I give authority to someone, Ali takes him as a friend too or he gives authority to him too.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwazi, ibid)

If we interpret those two views, we can say that attention is attracted to two points in the hadith.

a) If we accept the word “MAWLA” in the hadith to be in the sense of tawliya/giving authority as Shi’a accept it, the meaning of the hadith will be as follows: “If I give authority to someone, Ali gives authority to him (accepts his authority) too.”

According to this interpretation, the hadith includes an important lesson for Shi’a, who regard the caliphs before Hz. Ali as cruel and unjust in order to support Hz. Ali. Ahl ash-Shi’a is wrong in this attitude since they do not accept the caliphate of the first three caliphs whose authority Hz. Ali accepted, since they nurture a grudge against them, since Hz. Ali showed respect to them during their caliphate and loved them, since he did not oppose them and since he acted as a kind of sheikh al-Islam for them. The attitude of Ahl ash-Shi’a is contrary to the indication of the hadith in question and to the attitude of Hz. Ali toward the first three caliphs. For, Badiuzzaman Said Nursi states the following regarding the issue:

“The fact that ‘Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) followed the first three Caliphs, whom he repeatedly acknowledged, and held the position of their Sheikh al-Islam, refutes these claims of the Shi‘ites. Furthermore, the victories of Islam and the struggles against its enemies in the time of the first three Caliphs and the events in ‘Ali’s time, refute the Shi‘ites’ claims, again from the point of view of the Islamic Caliphate. That is to say the Sunnis’ claim is rightful.” 

“For although they (Shi’ites) say they have tremendous love for ‘Ali (May God be pleased with him), they disparage him, and their creed necessitates accusing him of immorality. For they say that although Abu Bakr the Veracious and ‘Umar were acting unjustly, ‘Ali feigned approval for them; according to Shi’i terminology, he dissimulated. That is, he was frightened of them and behaved hypocritically."

"But it is not love to hold that someone who was such a hero of Islam, won the title ‘Lion of Allah’, and was the commander and guide of the faithful, was simulating love for people he did not love out of fear and deception, and was feigning approval for them in fear for more than twenty years, and was following wrongdoers. ‘Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) would disclaim love that sort.” (Lem'alar, p. 22, 25)

b) Against the negative propaganda of the Kharijites, who called Hz. Ali an unbeliever, the people who nurtured a grudge against him and some sinners and oppressors, the Prophet put Hz. Ali in the place that he deserved, indicated his spiritual position as the chief of saints and attracted the attention of his ummah – in order to make people have good thoughts about him. 

Badiuzzaman Said Nursi indicates this fact as follows:  

“Furthermore, the Prophet (pbuh) saw with the eye of prophethood the grievous events and internal strife to which ‘Ali would be exposed in the future, and in order to save him from despair and his community from thinking unfavorably of him, he consoled him and guided his community with significant hadiths like مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلاَهُ فَعَلِىٌّ مَوْلاَهُ (If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too).” (Lem'alar, p. 23)

The verse in question is as follows:

“O Messenger. Proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.” (al-Maida, 5/67)

- First of all, we see that there is a general command to proclaim the message rather than a specific issue in the verse. It is possible to understand it from the phrase “Proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord”. The sentence “And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief)” is also in accordance with that general meaning. If he had appointed Hz. Ali as the caliph, no one among the Muslims would have objected. Even the Qurayshi polytheists - due to tribal fanaticism - would have been pleased by the appointment of Hz. Ali, their relative, as the caliph.

The general expression of the verse prevents the issue from being related to only one person (Hz. Ali). As a matter of fact, according to Ibn Abbas, the meaning of the phrase “If thou didst not” in the verse is “If you hide a single verse from the Quran, it will be as if you did not convey the whole Quran”. (see Ibn Kathir, the interpretation of the verse in question)

What is meant by the sentence “And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief)”?

- According to the information given by tafsir scholars, they are Jews, Christians and polytheists because many of their faults are mentioned in the Qur'an, their mistakes are revealed, and their ideas and thoughts are criticized. If he had explained them, the Jews of Madinah, the Christian states and the polytheists of Mecca could have assassinated the Prophet (pbuh). As a matter of fact, several assassination attempts had been made since the first day of the prophethood. However, Allah protected him all the time. (cf. Tabari, Razi, the interpretation of the verse in question)

1. Alusi included the aforementioned narration from Shia along with various narrations. However, he stated that Shia made up many words and added them to the hadith “If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too” based on their own desires. (Alusi, the interpretation of the verse in question)

Ismail b. Alusi quoted from the eulogy of a Shiite poet named Ismail b. Muhammad al-Himyari as an example and included his couplets showing that he criticized the Companions based on the information in “Ghadir Khum”. Alusi cursed that poet, who insulted the Companions with the claim that they allegedly usurped Ali's rights, by saying “May Allah not forgive the sins of that man who insulted the Companions!”, which shows clearly that he never approved of Shia.

Alusi also stated that the claim of “Shia's caliphate” was not accepted by Ahl as-Sunnah, and that many sound narrations regarding the issue supported Ahl as-Sunnah. (Alusi, ibid)

In addition, Alusi stated that the word “Mawla” indicated someone worthy of respect and love, not the caliph who managed the affairs. (see Alusi, ibid)

According to him, the fact that Bukhari and Muslim did not include the information in “Ghadir Khum” in their works shows that they do not regard that information to be in compliance with their own conditions of narration. (see ibid)

2. Suyuti gave the following information: The verse “al-yawma akmaltu” (al-Maida, 5/3) was revealed in Arafat. The Prophet (pbuh) died 81 days after that.” (see Suyuti, the interpretation of the verse in question)

Suyuti included more than ten narrations that this verse was revealed in Arafat. In another place, he included two more narrations stating that it was revealed in “Ghadir Khum” but he added the following note “Their chains of narrators are weak”. (see ibid)

Wahidi did not mention any relation of the verse with Hz. Ali. Like other tafsir scholars, he also pointed out that this verse generally mentioned proclaiming the revelation. (see al-Wajiz, the interpretation of the verse in question)

Ahmed b. Hanbal included many narrations on the issue in “Ghadir Khum” but they all have one thing in common: Emphasis on the hadith, “If I am someone's mawla, Ali is his mawla too.” There was no mention of the caliphate in any of them. Besides, statements other than this sentence are accepted as sound by scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah.

To sum up, different narrations are mentioned in all Sunni sources. However, as a result, none of them contains a decree showing that the claims of the Shia are true.

Some information about the emergence of Shia, which is not a right madhhab and which is not regarded as Ahl as-Sunnah, and its thoughts are as follows:

When the Quran, which is the greatest torch of guidance, was sent down, a new era started in the whole realm of humanity. People were happy due to reaching “the true religion”, which is a natural need for the hearts and spirits of people. They reached oneness from polytheism, the light from darkness, the truth from superstitions, and knowledge from ignorance. The live principles of the Quran led them to material and spiritual loftiness all the time. The Bedouins of the past reached the level to teach civilization to humanity. Muslims were spreading the light of belief and wisdom to the whole humanity with a dazzling effort and devotion. Despite all the oppression and torture, deceit and betrayal, and tricks, people who came under that light of guidance were increasing and getting stronger day by day. The true religion was shining with a great light, progressing and rising. Islam was spreading by conquering hearts; signs indicating that belief would defeat unbelief, the truth would defeat the falsehood, oneness would defeat polytheism and justice would defeat oppression started to be seen.

Indeed, it turned out to be so. During the time of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), Islam became dominant in Makkah, Madinah, Hejaz and the surrounding areas. The age of ignorance and darkness was replaced by the age of happiness and light.

Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Iran were captured thanks to the unique conquests made in a short time during the caliphate of Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz. Umar. That magnificent development increased the envy and hatred of the enemies of Islam, especially the Jews (1).

Throughout history, Jews have been a tricky nation skilled in causing discord and separation, and dividing the people of the truth. They opposed the divine will in every period and did not hesitate to kill their prophets. They are a harmful nation that plots all kinds of revolutions and directs and manages all committees of mischief, and whose main purpose is to break the peace, ethics and creed of humanity. No nation could keep up with them in terms of mischief and hypocrisy. It would be appropriate to call them “evil-commanding soul of humanity”. As the Quran remarks with the statement, “Duribat alayhimuz-zillatu wal maskanatu (shame and destitution were pitched on them)”, Jews were marked with a brand of shame and destitution that they could not be able to erase until Doomsday.

The Jews were appalled by the great development of Islam in a short time and their brains seemed to be cracked. Moreover, that many Jewish communities became Muslims drove them completely crazy. That fast and bright spread of Islam had to be stopped. At that rate, Islam would spread to the whole world and Judaism would disappear. Jewish existence of a few thousand years would come to an end. Jews faced such a “danger of extinction” with the advent of Christianity, six and a half centuries before Islam. At first, they made great efforts to eliminate Christianity, and later, when they realized that they could not defeat the members of that new religion by using force, they resorted to tricks and intrigue:

They used Saul, who was a scholar and philosopher of Jews, to demolish the basic foundations of Christianity and replace it with their own made-up superstitions. That clever Jewish gentleman, pretended to be converted to Christianity, and changed his name to Paul; he retired to a church and led an ascetic life for a long time. He strictly followed the rules of the Christian religion and gradually gained the trust of people. In the end, he gained the love and tolerance of Christians to such an extent that they began to respect him like an apostle. Paul knew well how to use that love in a very tricky way to corrupt Christianity. He succeeded in convincing people that he had met Christ (pbuh) and received instructions from Him. As a result of his intense and planned efforts, he managed both to make Christians deviate from their creed and worship and to bring about some false sects and groups. (2)

“Unity (oneness)” was replaced by “trinity”, that is, Christians started to attribute deity to the Jesus (pbuh) and to Mary, instead of one deity.

However, the danger the Jews encountered in the face of the rapid spread of Islam was much greater than before. It was impossible for Jews to resist this new religion because the development ability of Islam was extraordinary. The religion of Islam affected the hearts because it is compatible with reason and logic. It seemed certain that not only the Jews of Yemen but all Israelites would melt in the face of this rising Islamic sun. In that case, it needed to be prevented at any cost.

The trick, which was once planned against Christians, needed to be played against Muslims. They held long negotiations and finally put Ibn Saba on the stage in Madinah (3).

Ibn Saba established his destruction program on two main principles. First of all, he was to prevent the development of Islam by causing divisions among Muslims. In the second phase, he was to include superstitions in the Islamic belief and creed, and to create a difference of opinion among Muslims that would last until Doomsday. He was to establish secret committees to achieve those two goals and work intensely to eliminate the spirit of unity among Muslims by weakening the spiritual ties such as love and fraternity. After each stage of mischief, the situation was to be evaluated immediately, the results achieved with the planned targets were to be checked, new plans were to be made and put into effect in order to achieve new targets under changing and developing conditions.

Ibn Saba and his friends decided to disguise as sincere Muslims and virtuous believers in order to influence the people. In that phase, Ibn Saba managed to play his role in a unique way. He went to the mosque before anyone else in the morning prayers and left the mosque after everyone else at night. He prayed a lot, fasted most days and was always busy with dhikr. He made attractive speeches wherever he went and displayed himself as the most sincere and loyal worrier of Islam. He chatted a lot with the Companions, especially with Hz. Ali (ra) and made them trust in him. On the one hand, he showed his virtue and taqwa to people; on the other hand, he found outsiders who could not adapt to the environment and talked to them secretly. He influenced some of those people by benefitting from their ambition for office and position, some from their personal anger, and some from racial superiority, making them problematic individuals.

Afterwards, he decided to expand his activities outside Madinah and to provoke people against the caliphate by contacting the men he had previously sent there. Unfortunately, the social structure of that period was well suited to the spread of those destructive ideas. There were issues that could be exploited against the state. One of them was the Hashemite-Umayyad rivalry. The fact that the majority of the statesmen were from the Umayyads was a source of uneasiness and hence an important factor of provocation for the Hashemites. Another issue that can be used was that Muhajirs were given more duties than Ansar in state affairs.

Ibn Saba went on a trip to benefit from all those and similar opportunities. He went to Basra first. He established contacts with people who were not satisfied with the state there through his secret committee he had previously sent there. When his activities attracted the attention of the Governor Abdullah bin Amr, he went to Kufa. The fact that some people there were against the administration made things easier for Ibn Saba; he organized his secret committee in a short time and set off for Damascus. He could not find what he wanted in Damascus because the state affairs were regular and there were not many issues he could provoke. Then, he went to Egypt. Unfortunately, he found more than what he wanted there because there were various groups that were against the state administrators there. Ibn Saba gathered those scattered groups under one roof at the end of his great efforts and made them ready for action against Hz. Uthman.

After that stage, he became engaged in a new and intense activity to initiate an uprising against Hz. Uthman, the Caliph, by sending a list of slanders he prepared to his men in other Islamic provinces and gave them the following instruction: “Start by denigrating all the officials of the state. Enable people to see that you are engaged in ‘enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil’. Earn the respect and love of the people.”

He constantly sent letters to various provinces and especially to Basra and Kufa. In those letters, he exaggerated administrative and political issues with lies and slanders. He tried to give the impression in those letters that Hz. Uthman and his governors oppressed and persecuted people and that all provinces were in a terrible disorder. His aim was to inculcate people with the idea that the regions except Madinah gradually moved away from the Islamic line, that anarchy became widespread in all Islamic regions, and that the caliph was indifferent to and incapable of solving those issues.

When news of sedition and mischief reached Medina, Hz. Uthman sent reliable and respected delegations to various provinces with the help of Hz. Ali to examine the situation. Those delegations stated in their reports that the situation was not as propagated, and that, on the contrary, peace and tranquility prevailed in the whole country. Hz. Uthman did not find the reports of the delegations enough and called all governors to Madinah for consultation. He exchanged ideas with them. There was really no major problem., However, as a precaution, he warned the governors to treat people well. Nevertheless, mischief did not stop because the enemy was secret and insidious, working based on a plan. There was no clear enemy to struggle. People were pushed into mischief more and more every day.

During those disorders, Ibn Saba founded the Sabaiyya madhhab, the first seed of Shia (4). Thus, he took a big step in realizing his treacherous plan. That madhhab would constitute the basis of the groups that would break up Islam in the future.

Ibn Saba found enough supporters in Egypt for the madhhab that he established and conditioned them against Hz. Uthman fully. Then, it was time to determine a new candidate for the caliphate and to kill Hz. Uthman. At that point, he started with the following plan: “Hz. Uthman was a flawed and faulty person. If anyone who would replace him was a flawed person, the problems would not be solved and oppression and injustice would not be prevented. In that case, the most important point was that the person to replace him had to be an innocent and infallible person. That infallible person was Hz. Ali, who grew up under the control of the Prophet (pbuh) since his childhood, became mature with his discipline and education, and inherited his knowledge and perfection. Every prophet had a vizier and Ali was the vizier of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Hz. Abu Bakr, Hz. Umar and Hz. Uthman usurped his right of succession.”

In order to strengthen his cause, Ibn Saba portrayed Hz. Ali as one the heroes of old fairy tales, suggesting that he was a superhuman with some superstitions and stories; thus, he gradually made the people around him an admirer of Hz. Ali.

Ibn Saba implemented his plans stage by stage. It was to time to reclaim Hz. Ali’s right. He used the following method of inculcation to do it:  

“Every prophet has an heir. The Prophet (pbuh) appointed Hz. Ali (ra) as his heir. There can be no crime bigger than not fulfilling the will of the Prophet. Besides, the Prophet (pbuh) will come back to the earth like Jesus (pbuh) and ask, ‘Why did you not fulfill my will?’’ Then we will all be embarrassed and disappointed ... “(5)

When he influenced the feelings and excitement of the people well enough with such suggestions, he decided to raid Madinah and kill Hz. Uthman. Ibn Saba gathered his men, whom he mobilized by pretending to go to hajj, in Maywa near Madinah. They planned to enter Madinah at the earliest opportunity and try to kill Hz. Uthman.

In order to give the impression that the murder was committed by the Hashemites, the Egyptians were to gather around Hz. Ali and seemingly defend Ali’s right so that the Umayyads and the Hashemites would confront each other and hence a civil war would begin.

Ibn Saba had sent false letters with the signatures of Hz. Aisha, Hz. Ali, Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr to his men in centers such as Basra, Egypt and Kufa beforehand and wanted them to remove Hz. Uthman from the caliphate. The secret committees of Ibn Saba deceived many people with those letters. Thus, they got stronger and set out; they joined Ibn Saba’s group near Madinah. With those new forces, the number of Ibn Saba’s bandits reached around three thousand.

Egyptians applied to Hz. Ali, the people of Basra to Hz. Talha and the people of Kufa’a to Hz. Zubayr and said,

“We read your letters; we want to kill Osman, to restore the ummah back to peace and to make you to the head of the state.”

They said that such a letter had not been written by them, that there was a fraud about it and advised them return to their hometown immediately. This time, the rebels went to Hz. Uthman.

Thereupon, Hz. Uthman gathered the rebels and all people of Madinah in the mosque with the help of Ali. He listened to everyone’s complaints. He said to them:

“We will take your complaints into consideration; we will try to correct the issues that you think are wrong. Feel comfortable ...”

Meanwhile, the rebels demanded the removal of the Egyptian governor. Hz. Uthman asked them whom they wanted as the governor. They said,

“We want Abu Bakr’s son Muhammad.” Hz. Uthman accepted their request and appointed Muhammad at once.

Consequently, all parties began to return, having been satisfied. Ibn Saba was very disturbed by that situation. He prepared a devilish plan to make the returning Egyptian caravans come back to Madinah and to make them aggressors.

He wrote a letter addressing the governor of Egypt on behalf of Hz. Uthman.

He stamped a fake seal on behalf of Hz. Uthman and gave it to one of his militants and made him set off after the Egyptian caravan. He caught up with the caravan on his camel and drew attention to himself by doing some suspicious acts based on the plan. Eventually, the people in the caravan suspected that man and caught him; they found the letter. That was what the man wanted.

In the letter, the governor of Egypt was ordered as follows: “When these rebels come, kill their leaders and imprison the rest.” The rebels who found out what was written in that letter were suddenly shocked and agitated again; they raided Madinah again. Despite the efforts of Hz. Ali, Zubayr and Talha to calm them, they raided the house of Hz. Uthman and martyred him while he was reading the Quran.

The murderer of Hz. Uthman was al-Ghafiqi, a Yemenite Jew. With the martyrdom of Hz. Uthman, Ibn Saba covered a great distance on the way of his cause. The seeds of discord started to yield fruit. That deplorable incident prevented Muslims from spreading Islam to other countries. The period of conquest and conveying the message of Islam ended; a period of stagnation and conflict started.

After that stage, Ibn Saba prepared a new plan to make the Hashemites and the Umayyads fight each other. He provoked the Umayyads by spreading a rumor that Hz. Ali got Hz. Uthman killed and that he wanted to replace Hz. Uthman since Hz. Uthman was from the Umayyads and Hz. Ali was from the Hashemites. While the followers of Ibn Saba were slandering Ali like that, they were also trying openly to make Hz. Ali the Caliph; thus, they wanted to make people believe their slander

To this end, Ibn Saba chose a group of delegates led by Ibn Maymun, a Jew, from the caravan coming from Egypt and sent them to Hz. Ali. The delegates said to Hz. Ali, “As you know, the ummah has been left leaderless. You deserve to be the Caliph the most. We would like you to undertake this duty.” Hz. Ali refused their offer and sent them away.

When Hz. Ali responded to them like that, Ibn Saba sent a group of delegates from the people of Kufa to Hz. Zubayr and a group of delegates from the people of Basra to Hz. Talha. Both of them rejected their offer of being the Caliph just like Hz. Ali did.

When Ibn Saba could not get what he wanted from them, he said to Ghafiqi, who led the group of aggressors, “Gather all of the people of Madinah in the mosque and tell them to choose a Caliph at once. Otherwise, threaten all of them with your swords...”

The rebels led by Ghafiqi gathered the people of Madinah in the mosque as Ibn Saba ordered and said to them, “Choose a leader for yourselves immediately. If you do not do it today, we will kill you all with our swords including Ali, Zubayr and Talha.” Having heard that threat, the people of Madinah went to Hz. Ali and asked him to accept to be the Caliph. Considering the disorder and chaos, Hz. Ali had to accept their offer although he did not want to.

After a while, Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr went to Hz. Ali and asked him to act in accordance with the decrees of the Quran and punish the murderers of Hz. Uthman. Hz. Ali addressed them as follows:

“You are right but the state has not suppressed the rebels fully yet. It is necessary to wait until the state dominates fully...”

Hz. Ali (wanted to determine the criminals one by one, question them and then punish them. Hz. Aisha, Hz. Zubayr and Hz. Talha held this view:

“The mischief has increased and targeted the state; the Caliph was martyred. The issue is not the issue of finding the murderers of Hz. Uthman only. Most of those who joined this movement of mischief must be killed. Therefore, the rebels must be punished at once.”

Acting upon the verse in the Quran: “Wa la taziru waziratun wizra ukhra” (Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another’s burden)”, Hz. Ali said, “no one could be held responsible for the mistake of others”, and did not agree with them(4).

After finding out about the view of Hz. Ali, Hz. Zubayr and Hz. Talha went to Makkah and had a meeting with Hz. Aisha there. They decided to go to Basra in order to gather armed people to attack the rebels.   

When Hz. Ali found out that Hz. Aisha, Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr went to Basra, he left for Basra with his army because he did not want a break-up or separation in the state and encamped in a place called Ziqar. Hz. Ali sent an envoy called Qa’qa to Hz. Aisha, Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr to settle the issue peacefully; he told his envoy to tell them about the evil of dissension and separation, the importance of unity and accord, and the fact that it would be better to settle everything peacefully. Qa’qa went to Hz. Aisha, Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr and told them the views of Hz. Ali, explaining that the remedy for that disorder was calmness, and that after the calmness all kinds of measures could be taken and that otherwise there would be discord, mischief and disorder, which would cause great trouble among Muslims. They said, “If Ali holds those views, there is no disagreement between him and us.”

Both parties were pleased about the result. Thus, stability and calmness prevailed. Everybody went back to their tents.

Ibn Saba, the hypocrite, was very disturbed by this peace; he gathered his followers and said, “We must do something to start a fight and make Muslims kill each other. If we cannot do it, our efforts will be fruitless; we will not be able to reach our target.” They made a new plan to start a war. In accordance with the plan to be carried out very early in the morning, Ibn Saba positioned his men around the tents of Hz. Ali, and Hz. Zubayr and Hz. Talha. Later, they attacked the tents of both parties. Hz. Zubayr and Hz. Talha woke up to the noise and asked, “What is the matter? What is happening?” The men of Ibn Saba said, “Hz. Ali’s men (people of Kufa) attacked us at night.”

Thereupon, Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr said, “We see it now. Hz. Ali was not sincere when he wanted to prevent the war.” On the other hand, Hz. Ali, who heard the noise asked, “What is happening?”  The men of Ibn Saba said, “The other party attacked us at night and we drove them back.”  Hz. Ali said, “I see. Talha and Zubayr did not agree with us about peace.” Then, the Battle of Jamal, which claimed the lives of ten thousand people, took place. Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr were martyred. Thus, Ibn Saba covered a great distance toward his aim after the murder of Hz. Uthman.  

Hz. Ali stayed in Basra for a while after the Incident of Camel. Then, he went to Kufa from there. Most of the Muslims, from Morocco to the Chinese border paid allegiance to Hz. Ali (ra). Only Syrian Muslims did not pay allegiance.

Hz. Ali preferred the method of peace to ensure the allegiance of Muawiya, the Governor of Damascus, and hence Syria; he sent Muawiya a man named Jarir as an envoy.

Upon Hz. Ali’s attempt to settle the matter through peace, Ibn Saba, took action again as usual to block the way of peace because if peace was made, Hz. Ali would deal with the supporters of Ibn Saba as the first thing, and when the criminals were identified, their end would be very bad. Thus, if both sides were to made peace on a basis, the rebels would definitely be defeated. Therefore, they had to prevent peace and make the parties fight. Ibn Saba and his friends were waiting for something that would make things favorable for them. As a matter of fact, the course of events turned out to be favorable for them because Muawiya did not accept Hz. Ali’s offer. As a result, both sides completed their war preparations and confronted each other in Siffin in the month of Muharram.

However, Hz. Ali and Muawiya made a one-month ceasefire so as not to fight in that month. Hz. Ali sent delegations again to Muawiya for peace, taking advantage of the ceasefire.

Ibn Saba included his men such as the son of Adiyy b. Hatim and Sabt among the delegations that were sent in order to prevent war. Those men threatened Muawiya with an aggressive language and prevented a possible peace by uttering provocative words against him such as “You will be worse than those who were defeated in the Incident of Camel ...”.

On the other hand, Ibn Saba and his men were encouraging Hz. Ali’s army to start war as soon as possible and telling them, “The people of Damascus will be defeated like the ones in the Incident of Camel”. Consequently, the parties confronted each other again and the Battle of Siffin took place.

Ibn Saba was getting closer to his main purpose with those civil wars because his main purpose was to distort the creed of Islam by including superstitions in it.

The Believers who fought today could make peace tomorrow and re-establish Islamic unity by coming together again. It was necessary to cause a separation among Muslims that could continue until Doomsday, and to separate them in terms of belief and to divide them into factions. The most important thing to do then was to introduce superstitions into the religion in order to divert beliefs from its original form. Ibn Saba started it by exploiting the issue of “Ahl al-Bayt”. He took to the stage as the most ardent supporter of the Ahl al-Bayt. He spread the idea that the caliphate was the right of Hz. Ali and that it was unjustly usurped from him. He tried to show Hz. Ali and his children as a “Dynasty of Gods” and make the religion of Islam deviate from the principle of oneness, just like Christianity. Finally, a group led by Ibn Saba, entered into the presence of Hz. Ali and said to him: “You are our Lord; you are our God.” Hz. Ali had some of those polytheists burned.(6) He gave up the idea of making Ibn Saba burned fearing that it would cause mischief and weakness due to the large number of his followers in the army. He exiled Ibn Saba to Madayin, Iran’s former center of administration.

Unfortunately, Madayin was a very suitable place for the production of the heretic ideas of Ibn Saba. Ibn Saba met with Kharijites who had once escaped from Hz. Ali there, and found their leader, Ibn Abi Awfa. When he realized that Ibn Abi Awfa wanted to act against Ali, he said to him: “You cannot defeat Ali with such an action; you will be defeated.” When Ibn Abi Awfa asked Ibn Saba for his opinion, he said, “We will do it with three assassins.”

After that talk, they agreed on the assassination of Hz. Ali, Muawiya and Amr Ibn al-As. They sent three assassins to kill them. They planned to kill three Companions on the 17th day of Ramadan when they would lead the morning prayer. As a twist of fate, Muawiya and Amr Ibn al-As survived the assassination attempt. However, the assassin named Ibn Muljam managed to wound Hz. Ali with a poisonous sword, which caused his martyrdom.

After sending Ibn Muljam to assassinate Hz. Ali, Ibn Saba sent Ibn Maymun to Kufa with a few of his men. The duty of Ibn Maymun there was to spread superstitions such as “Ali did not die; he was raised to the sky. Now, he is above the clouds. He will return soon and distribute justice in the world with his sword ...”

Together with his close friends, Ibn Saba prepared the plans of treacherous activities in Iran and started to work. The social situation of that day was very convenient for them to implement those plans:

Islam had spread to a wide area in a very short time. It was an extraordinarily difficult task for the newly established Islamic State to convey all the meanings and subtleties, wisdom and truths of Islam to the nations that had just accepted Islam, and to absorb different tribes with different temperaments in the melting pot of Islam. There was mass participation in Islam in the places where Islam reached. That situation made Muslims happy but the spiritual improvement was inadequate; ideal Muslims could not be brought up. Therefore, the Muslims could not unite in the desired way in the ideal sense and in terms of way of life. Layers of people were like uncultivated land. It was evident particularly in Iran.

The newly converted Muslims were not fully free of their old false beliefs. It was quite difficult for those people whose souls, minds, and hearts were shaped by being under the influence of centuries-old wrong and superstitious beliefs, to accept the clear and pure truths of Islam, which was far from delusions, falsehood and superstitions. Islam could not be properly absorbed by those bigoted people; the true religion could not settle in their hearts and feelings fully. Psychologically, they wanted to continue their old beliefs, customs and traditions along with Islam.

On the other hand, the caliphate could not provide the service of warning and guidance all over the Islamic land at the required level. The service of establishing Islam with all its institutions in those towns and to remove the doubts and hesitations of people was insufficient. For, Islam spread over a wide area; most of the Companions died in internal strife; some of them preferred to live in reclusion; others were too old to interfere with social life.

As a result of the neglect of that important task, those new towns were left unattended for a long time. The people there could not fully understand the truths of the Quran and faith with the first enlightenment and knowledge they received at the time of conquest. Therefore, they were not yet in a position to distinguish between the right and the wrong, superstitions and realities.

Tricky Jews managed to take advantage of that social situation.

An important factor in Ibn Saba’s establishing of negative ideas in Iran was the psychological nature of the people. Feeling rather than mind dominated their inner world. Their hearts were more open to legends and superstitions than the truth. They could not analyze events in compliance with logic and reasoning, and could not meditate on them properly.

On the other hand, they could not accept the elimination of their centuries-long reign and national pride by Arabs, whom they once regarded as slaves; they accepted Islam in their minds but they could not accept it fully in terms of their feelings.  

Ibn Saba knew how to evaluate all those factors. He gathered his friends and addressed them as follows:

“We have just started the real war. Be aware that it is a war that will continue among Muslims until Doomsday. Now, we will sanctify Ali and make others sanctify him. We will sometimes ascribe him ‘divinity’ and we will sometimes say he is a ‘prophet’. We will tell people that ‘the caliphate was the right of Ali, but that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman usurped his right’.”

After making that decision, Ibn Saba and his friends assigned their man the duty of spreading those ideas. They started to tell people the following: “The caliphate was the right of Ali. Ali and his children are worthy of the caliphate. That right was usurped from them. The three caliphs, especially Umar, opposed the will of Allah by usurping that right. It is necessary to support Ali in order to obey Allah’s will.” When those ideas were accepted by people, they went further and made an effort to include the “Creed of Incarnation”, which attributes divinity to humans, in Islam. They started to spread a belief that was totally opposite to the creed of tawhid (oneness) by diverting the belief of Islam from its original form. The “Creed of Incarnation” was also present in the old religions of Iranians. Therefore, that wrong belief found supporters easily among them.

First, they attributed divinity to Hz. Ali. Then, they claimed that this divinity also passed on to his descendants, and as a result, a dynasty of gods emerged in Iran.

When Hz Ali died, Ibn Saba said, “It is not Ali who died, but a devil disguised as Ali. Ali has now ascended to the heavens and established a throne on the clouds.” Thus, he made an interpretation of his death in parallel with the creed of incarnation.

Thus, Shiism, whose seed was grown with the establishment of the “Sabaiyya Madhhab” in Egypt, started to grow and develop in Iran. More than twenty branches emerged from it.

Footnotes:

1. After the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine in the 70s AD, the tribes of the Jews settled in Arabia, Hejaz and Yemen; they considered those places the Second “Promised Land”. In a short time, they seized the wealth and property of those regions; on the one hand, they were trying to spread Judaism and on the other hand, they exploited the people as much as they could. When the ruler of Yemen accepted Judaism, the Jews started to make their presence felt in Yemen. However, the emergence and rapid spread of Islam worried them. As a matter of fact, with the spread of Islam in and around Hejaz, they were expelled from there as defeated and overwhelmed. That defeat of the Jews in Makkah and Madinah by the Muslims offended the Jews of Yemen deeply.

2. Abdullah Ibn Saba was a chief rabbi and a great secret militant. He came to Madinah from Yemen during the caliphate of Hz. Uthman and became a Muslim in appearance. He started to sow the first seeds of mischief and conflict there. He made great efforts to destroy Islam from within. The purpose of that Jewish convert was to deviate the religion of Islam by spoiling the Islamic creed, just as Paul did to Christianity, and to make Muslims superstitious people and dreamers. We should immediately state that the hostility of Jews to the religion of Islam started with the birth of the Prophet (pbuh). They were waiting for the advent of the Prophet of the End Times, inspired by the Torah, but they thought that he would come from their own nation. Contrary to their thoughts, when the Prophet of the End Times came from Quraysh, it provoked their grudge and envy. Despite all their efforts, both when the Messenger of Allah was alive and during the caliphate of Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz. Umar, they did not succeed in causing even the slightest mischief among the Muslims. They found some opportunities toward the end of the caliphate of Hz. Uthman. Ibn Saba also managed to make the best use of those opportunities.

Note: It was prepared from Mehmet KIRKINCI’s book titled “Alevilik Nedir?”.

Sects (madhhabs) of both creed and fiqh are not religions; they are ways of understanding the religion. Shia is one of them.

In the history of madhhabs, Shia is the common name of those who believed that Hz. Ali and his Ahl al-Bayt were the people who deserved caliphate the most, who claimed that Ali was the "legitimate" caliph based on the Quran and appointment and that the caliphs after him should come from his descendants.

The tribal management approach introduced during the Umayyad period caused many Muslims to move away from the government in power; some of those groups assumed a fatalistic understanding and preferred to be patient, thinking that the bad things that happened to them was the predestination of Allah.

However, some of the dissatisfied groups preferred to revolt against the government. In order to legitimize their rebellion and to reach larger groups, they claimed that Hz. Ali and his descendants had the right to be the caliph, that the Umayyads usurped their right, and that they were struggling to make Hz. Ali and his descendants the caliph.

On the other hand, some of the descendants of Hz. Ali like Zayd b. Ali, who were not pleased with the Umayyad government, actively led those revolts from time to time, causing the social basis and acceptability of such claims to increase.

Every revolt that took place based on that mentality and the blood that was shed in those revolts caused the opposition groups to lose their spiritual ties with large sections of the public due to supporting the government on the one hand, and to elevate Hz. Ali and his descendants more and more every day by establishing a bond based on destiny with them on the other hand. Thus, Muslims started to separate and evolved into a bipolar structure, with the broad Sunni mass on one side and the opposing Shiite group on the other.

As the political struggle continued through that bipolar structure, the language used by the two groups against each other became more severe day by day, and in parallel with that severity, the opposing Shiite groups carried the understanding of "the imamate of Hz Ali and his descendants", which they initially used only to legitimize their political opposition, to the religious field over time, developing an alternative understanding of religion, which would be called Shia.

The groups belonging to that understanding of religion that was built on the idea of "the imamate of Hz Ali and his descendants" also built a retrospective history from the place where they stood. In this understanding, which was built on a dualist structure like "Hz. Ali and his opponents" and "supporters of the good and the evil", Hz. Ali and his descendants represented the good, supporting the truth, and brightness while the other Muslim groups, which they placed in a position against Ali, represented darkness, evil and supporting the devil.

In this dualist perception of history, Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz. Umar were regarded as the main actors who deprived Ali of his right to the caliphate and hence they were described with some negative attributes. Most of the Companions who, according to them, did not defend Ali’s right to the caliphate, were also placed on the negative pole. Praising or faultfinding expressions toward a few Companions are also a result of that bipolar perception of history.

Therefore, there is such a historical, political, cultural, sociological, psychological and sectarian background behind the negative viewpoints toward Hz. Umar and the Companions.

On the other hand, it is necessary to state that this political, historical and sectarian viewpoint toward the Companions, which emerged in Shiite groups, did not cover all Shiite groups and was not defended with the same harshness in all periods of history.

Some Shiite groups such as Zaydiyya tried to remain out of the perception of the history built by Shiite groups and tried to develop a more neutral and moderate perception of the Companions.

In some Shiite groups such as Imamiyya, in which a negative perception of the Companions emerged, the dose of the negative perception of the Companions increased or decreased depending on the political relations with Sunnis. There was quite a lot of softening in the perception of the Companions in the periods when the relations with the Sunnis were better but a more negative understanding of the Companions emerged during the times when the relations were tense.

Besides, the Imamiyya sect was divided within itself regarding the issue; while the Usuliyya group, which represents a more rational tradition, tried to assume a moderate perception of the Companions, a relatively more negative language was preferred in the Akhbariyya group, which assumed a line based religious texts and tradition.

The issues you mention in the question have no historical reality and consistency. As a matter of fact, scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah have given the necessary answers to the claims you mention in every period of history.

To sum up, the negative perception developed in some Shiite groups toward the Companions is generally a product of the understanding of Middle Ages politics and the understanding of legitimizing political opposition through religion.

The duty of today’s Muslims is to make their own internal investigations by considering that the origin of some faiths that prevent Muslims from living together and in brotherhood may have been shaped by the political, social and cultural conditions of the period.

For additional information, will you please click on the links given below;

Are Shia, Shiism and Alawites of Ahl as-Sunnah and jama’ah?

Shia and their claims about Hz. Ali’s caliphate...

How can it be proved whether Ahl as-Sunnah or Shia is right about Imamate?

I do not understand why some of the narrations originating from Shia are included in some Sunni Works.

Why do Shiite scholars not accept hadiths reported from Abu Hurayra?

What are the evidences of Shia for their claim that Hz. Ali should have been the first caliph and how can these claims be answered?

It is possible to answer these claims under various headings.

1. “O Messenger. Proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief).” (1)

There is nothing related to Hz. Ali’s caliphate in the verse. As Shawkani states, the verse is general. (2) That is, it says "Proclaim the (message) which has been sent to you from your Lord". As a matter of fact, Hz. Aisha said,

“If anyone said that Muhammad hid something from what was revealed to him, he would be lying” and recited the verse above. (3)

However, based on some weak and fabricated narrations, (4) Shia state that the verse above declares Hz. Ali’s caliphate. Thus, they accuse the Prophet of not fulfilling his duty properly with those claims. If the verse is as they understand it, it means that the Prophet died without conveying it.

2. When the Prophet set off for an expedition (to Tabuk according to the narration of Suyuti), the Prophet (pbuh) left Hz. Ali in Madinah as his deputy. Hz. Ali said, “Are you leaving me with women and children?” The Prophet replied as follows:

“Do you not want to be like the Prophet Musa (Moses) and Harun (Aaron) with me? However, there is no prophet after me.” (5)

The answer of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) indicates the Prophet Musa’s going to Mount Sinai. Musa went to Mount Sinai by leaving his brother Harun as his deputy. Harun is a prophet like his brother Musa.

It is perfectly reasonable to deduce Hz. Ali’s virtue from the above narration and nobody objects to it. However, it is a strained interpretation to conclude from the narration that “the first caliph should have been Hz. Ali”. When the Prophet went on other expeditions, he left others as his deputy. Abdullah b. Umm Maktum, who was visually impaired, was one of them. (6)

3. Bara b. Azib narrates: “We stopped at Ghadir Khum on an expedition. Call to prayer was announced. After the prayer, the Prophet held the hand of Hz. Ali and said,

‘If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too. O Allah! Be a friend of his friend and an enemy of his enemy.’” (7)

Even if the narration is accepted as sound, it is not possible to understand the necessity of Hz. Ali’s being the first caliph. (8) For, Hz. Ali is truly one of the most distinguished one among Muslims. He has the title of the Lion of Allah due to his courage. He has the rank of the leadership of saints. He has been the master of all Muslims throughout history due to the distinguished features like them. As Alusi states, if the Prophet had wanted Hz. Ali to become the caliph after him, he would have said, “O people! He is your ruler and your commander after me. Listen to him and obey him.” (9) Such an order would have definitely been fulfilled. It is definitely unthinkable for the Companions, who said, “May my parents be sacrificed for you!” to the Prophet (pbuh) not to obey the Prophet’s order related to such a serious issue. As a matter of fact, When Hz. Abu Bakr said, “I advise Umar after me”, his request was fulfilled; the Muslims paid allegiance to Hz. Umar. (10)

4. One of the narrations Shia rely on is as follows:

“When the Prophet’s illness deteriorated before his death, he said,

‘Bring me a pen and paper, I will dictate my will so that you will not go astray after me.’ When Hz. Umar said,

“The Prophet’s illness deteriorated. Allah’s Book is sufficient for us”, people started to argue. The Prophet said,

“Go away from me. It does not fit you to argue in my presence.” (11)

According to the claim of the Shia, the Prophet wanted to dictate Hz. Ali’s name as his caliph but Hz. Umar prevented it. (12) However, there is no indication of it in the narration mentioned above. Evaluating the narration in that way is a strained interpretation.

5. “No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin.” (13)

According to a narration, when the verse above was revealed, the Prophet was asked, “O Messenger of Allah! Who are your relatives that are necessary for us to love?” He said, “Ali, Fatima and their sons.” (14)

This verse above is mentioned by Shia as proof of love for Ahl al-Bayt. Although it is possible to accept it as an implied meaning, there is no indication of it in the clear meaning of the verse.

Ibn Abbas was asked about that verse. Before he answered, Said b. Jubayr, who was there, said “Aal-i Muhammad” Ibn Abbas said, “You have hurried up; Quraysh has no family with which the Prophet did not have any kinship. The meaning of the verse is “Take care of the right of kinship at least.” (15)

Ibn Kathir attracts attention to the following meaning in the interpretation of the verse: “If you do not help me, do not harass me because of the kinship between us at least.” (16)

The following comment of Ibn Kathir is worth mentioning:

The narration “What is meant by the verse is ‘Hz. Ali, Fatima and their sons’” has a weak chain of narrators. Besides, it is in a chapter that was revealed in Makkah. Fatima had no children in Makkah. She married Hz. Ali in the second year of the Migration after the Battle of Badr. However, not accepting the narration does not mean not loving Aal-i Muhammad. They came from a clean offspring, from the most honorable house in the world in terms of honor and lineage. (17)

Fakhruddin Razi attracts attention to the narrations

“My Ahl al-Bayt is like Noah’s Ark. The one who embarks it will be saved” and

“My Companions are like stars. You will attain guidance if you follow any of them” (18)

and makes the following comment:

“Now we are in the sea of ​​responsibility. Waves of doubt and lust are hitting us. Those who travel in the sea need two things:

1) A sound ship.
2) Luminous stars.

So, those who embark such a ship and look at the stars have a great hope of salvation. Ahl as-Sunnah have embarked the ship of Ahl al-Bayt love and have been sailing by looking at the stars of the Companions.” (19)

Ahl as-Sunnah does not have a problem of not loving Ahl al-Bayt. We pray for them in tashahhud of each prayer and we love them truly. (20) Names such as “Ali, Hasan, Husayn, Fatima...” are very common among Ahl as-Sunnah.

References:

1. Al-Maida, 67.
2. Shawkani, Muhammad, Fathul-Qadir, Daru Ihyait-Turathil-Arabi, Beirut, nd. II, 59. See also Qurtubi, VI, 157.
3. Bukhari, Tafsir, 5/7; Shawkani, II, 59.
4. see Shawkani, II, 59-60.
5. Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 20; Suyuti, Jalaluddin, Tarihul-Khulafa, Darul-Kutubil-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1988, p. 133.
6. see Hamidullah, Muhammad, İslamın Hukuk İlmine Yardımları, İst. 1962, pp. 142-143.
7. Ibnu Hanbal, IV, 281; Suyuti, Tarikhul-Hulafa, p. 134; Alusi, VI, 192-193.
8. see Onat, Hasan, Emeviler Devri Şii Hareketleri ve Günümüz Şiiliği, TDV. Yay. Ankara, 1993, p. 24.
9. Alusi, Abul-Fadl, Ruhul-Maani, Daru Ihyait-Turathil-Arabi, Beirut, 1985, VI, 195.
10. Suyuti, Tarikhul-Khulafa, p. 62-64.
11. Bukhari, Marda, 17; Muslim, Wasaya, 22; Ibn Hanbal, I, 325.
12. Naim, Ahmet, Tecrid-i Sarih Tercemesi ve Şerhi, Diyanet Yay. Ankara, 1982, I, 108. Ahmet Naim analyzes the narrations regarding the issue very well in this work. You can refer to it for more information.
13. ash-Shura, 23.
14. Baydawi, Qadi, Anwarut-Tanzil wa Asrarut-Tawil, Darul-Kutubil-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1988, II, 362.
15. Qurtubi, XVI, 15-16; Ibnu Kathir, VII, 187; Suyuti, Durrul-Mansur, Darul-Maktabil- Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, V, 699.
16. Ibnu Kathir, VII, 187.
17. ibid. VII, 189.
18. Ajluni, I, 132.
19. Razi, XXVII, 167.
20. Razi, XXVII, 166.

If you imitate Shia in issues contrary to Ahl as-Sunnah, your worship will be invalid. For example, washing the feet in ablution is fard according to the verses of the Quran and hadiths. However, in Shia, it is not fard to wash them; it is fard to wipe over them. Therefore, if one makes wudu according to Shia, both his wudu and his prayers are invalid.

To give a brief overview, Shia is the collective name of the communities who consider Ali (ra) as the worthiest person for the caliphate after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), who accept Ali (ra) as the first legitimate caliph, and who believe that the descendants of Ali (ra) should be the caliphs after his death.

Shia emerged as a result of the political events that began with the martyrdom of Uthman (ra) and continued with the battles of Jamal and Siffin in which Ali (ra) and many Companions participated.

The Jafariyya madhhab, named after the sixth Imam of Shia, Jafar as-Sadiq, is the fiqh madhhab of the Ithnaashariyya Shia and is also known as Imamiyya. The Shia’s understanding of Sunnah differs from that of the Sunni madhhabs in that it includes the words, deeds and statements of the infallible Imams in addition to those of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and only the hadiths narrated by Ahl al-Bayt are accepted as sound by Shia.

The Jafariyya madhhab, which differs from the Sunni madhhabs with understandings such as the infallibility of the Imams, reached different conclusions from the Sunni fiqh madhhabs in fiqh issues due to the difference in the understanding of ijma, the rejection of qiyas as evidence and the difference in procedural understandings such as the intellect (reason) being accepted as evidence.

Most of the Shiites have adopted the Jafari madhhab in fiqh.

The main fiqh issues in which the Jafari madhhab differs from Ahl as-Sunnah fiqh madhhabs can be summarized as follows:

1. Wiping over the upper part of the feet up to the ankles in wudu is one of the fards of wudu. It is not permissible to wash the feet in wudu; in addition, wiping over the khuffs (masah) is not valid.

2. Touching a dead person who has not yet been washed and has cooled down requires ghusl.

3. Prostration can only be performed on things that are of the earth and on things that the earth grows but are not eaten. It is not permissible to prostrate on things that are eaten and worn, such as gold, silver, agate, and turquoise.

4. It is necessary to add the phrase “Hayya ala alal-khayril-amal”, after “Hayya alal-falah” in the adhan, since it is a part of the adhan. The phrase “Ashhadu anna Aliyyan Waliyyullah” is not part of the text of the adhan, but it is mustahabb to recite it after the sentences of shahadah.

5. Intentionally tying the hands (putting the right hand on the left hand) in prayer invalidates the prayer.

6. Gold and silver that were not been minted as money and coins are not subject to zakah.

7. Khums (one-fifth of the profit) is given from the profits of trade goods.

8. Muta marriage is permissible.

9. A man may also marry his wife’s aunt when he is married to his wife if his wife and her aunt give consent.

10. Divorces that are not made in the presence of two witnesses are not valid.

11. The five daily prayers are performed in three times by being combined.

In conclusion, if a member of the Hanafi madhhab imitates the Shia madhhab and, for example, does not wash his bare feet during wudu but only wipes them, his wudu and the prayers he performs with it will not be valid according to any Sunni madhhab. Similarly, his mut’a marriage and his marriage contract with his aunt will be invalid as long as his marriage with his wife continues. If he performs five daily prayers by combining them in three time periods - outside of their prescribed times - it is not valid

In this respect, it is not permissible for a Hanafi person to worship according to the Jafari madhhab in issues that are completely contrary to his own madhhab and other Sunni madhhabs.

However, it is valid and acceptable for him to worship according to the Jafari madhhab in issues that coincide with at least one of the Sunni madhhabs. (see DİB, Şia, Caferiye item)

- Wahidi is a source of Ahl as-Sunnah.

- “If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too.” This hadith is also included in Sunni hadith sources. (see Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 19; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima, 11; Ahmad b. Hanbal, 1/84, 118,119, 4/281; Hakim, 3/109; Nasai, Khasaisu Ali, 1/102, 113)

-Besides, Dhahabi, one of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah and a famous hadith authority, said “mutawatir” for the text of the hadith. (see Dhahabi, Siyaru Alamin-Nubala, 8/335)

- Another hadith authority is Ibn Hajar.

Ishaq said: Abu Amr reported me from Kathir b. Ziyad, and he from Muhammad b. Umar, and he from his father Umar b. Ali, and he from Ali b. Abu Talib the following:

The Messenger of Allah held my hand in Ghadir Khumm and said: ‘Do you testify that Allah is your Lord?’ They said: ‘Yes, Messenger of Allah!’ This time, he said: ‘Do you testify that Allah and His Messenger are more beloved to you than your own selves, and that Allah and His Messenger are your awliya (saints)?’ They said: ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allah.’ Thereupon he said:

‘If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too. And I entrust you two things; as long as you hold on to them, you will never go astray: The Book of Allah and my Ehl al-Bayt.’” (see Ibn Hajar, al-Matalibul-Aliya, 16/142/h. no : 3943)

Ibn Hajar states that the chain of narrators of this hadith is “sahih (sound)”. (see ibid)

- Badiuzzaman Said Nursi, who is also a great Sunni scholar also states that this hadith in “Ghadir Khumm” is sound and that there are several hadith expressions praising Ali (ra):

“The reason the Hadiths praising ‘Ali more than the other three Caliphs have become so widespread is that the people of truth, that is, the Sunnis, spread many narrations about him in response to the Umayyads and Kharijites attacking and disparaging him unjustly.

The other Rightly-Guided Caliphs were not subject to such criticism and detraction, so no need was felt to spread Hadiths about them.

Furthermore, the Prophet (UWBP) saw with the eye of prophethood the grievous events and internal strife to which ‘Ali would be exposed in the future, and in order to save him from despair and his community from thinking unfavorably of him, he consoled him and guided his community with significant Hadiths like “Whosever master I am, ‘Ali too is his master.” (see Lem'alar, p. 23)

- It means that the hadith in question and the Ghadir Khumm sermon are true. However, the concept of “mawla” mentioned in the hadith does not mean caliph according to Sunnis.

The summary of the issue is as follows:

“The Sainthood Shi‘a have no right to criticize the Sunnis, for the Sunnis have not decried ‘Ali, indeed, they love him sincerely. But they avoid the excessive love which is described as dangerous in Hadiths. The Prophet’s (UWBP) praise of ‘Ali’s followers in the Hadiths refers to the Sunnis. For it is the Sunnis among ‘Ali’s followers who love him in a moderate fashion and are the people of truth. Just as excessive love of Jesus (Upon whom be peace) is dangerous for Christians, so it has been made clear in sound Hadiths that that sort of excessive love for ‘Ali is dangerous. (see Lem’alar, p. 24)

Shiite try to show various things as proofs when they claim that it was Ali’s right to become the first caliph. One of them is the incident of Ghadir Khumm: While returning from Farewell Hajj, the Prophet and the Companions with him stopped in a place called Ghadir Khumm. The Prophet rested for a while, led the noon prayer and addressed his Companions as follows

“Whoever’s friend I am, Ali is also his friend. O Allah, be a friend to him who is friendly to him; be hostile to the enemy. Help the one who helped him.” 1

Shiite present this hadith in a wrong way and interpret it differently. “Walayah” the Prophet (pbuh) mentioned in Ghadir Khumm does not mean caliphate, as Shiite mean, but friendship. As a matter of fact, Hasan al-Muthanna, the grandson of Ali (ra), states the following regarding the issue:

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not mean caliphate or sultanate with it. If he had meant so, he would have stated it clearly. For, the Messenger of Allah was the most fluent and clear speaker among the Muslims.” 2

When Ali (ra) was asked in Basra, “Is there a promise and authority given to you by the Messenger of Allah about caliphate or are you acting based on your own view?”, he gave the following answer:

“No, there is no promise. By Allah, I am the first person to approve and believe in the Messenger of Allah; I cannot be the first person to tell a lie on behalf of him. If there had been a promise of the Messenger of Allah to me about the caliphate, I would have never allowed Abu Bakr and Umar to ascend to his pulpit. I would have struggled against them with my hands if I had had no power.”

One of the claims of Shiite is that Ali (ra) paid allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) and helped them because he was afraid of them; thus, they accuse him of hypocrisy. Badiuzzaman Said Nursi states the following regarding the issue in his book called Lem’alar (Flashes):

“As for the Caliphate Shi‘a, they can claim no rights before the Sunnis other than shame. For although they say they have tremendous love for ‘Ali (May God be pleased with him), they disparage him, and their creed necessitates accusing him of immorality. For they say that although Abu Bakr the Veracious and ‘Umar were acting unjustly, ‘Ali feigned approval for them; according to Shi’i terminology, he dissimulated. That is, he was frightened of them and behaved hypocritically. But it is not love to hold that someone who was such a hero of Islam, won the title ‘Lion of Allah’, and was the commander and guide of the faithful, was simulating love for people he did not love out of fear and deception, and was feigning approval for them in fear for more than twenty years, and was following wrongdoers. ‘Ali (May God be pleased with him) would disclaim love that sort.

Thus, the people of truth’s creed in no way disparages ‘Ali, nor levels accusations of immorality at him. It does not attribute cowardice where there was such remarkable courage, but says that if ‘Ali had not considered the Rightly-Guided Caliphs to be right, he would not have recognized them for a minute, nor obeyed them. It means that since he thought them right and preferable, he made over his courage and striving to the way of justice.” 3

As it is understood from the explanations above, the Prophet did not express a will to Ali (ra), and Ali paid allegiance to the caliphs before him not because he feared them but because he regarded Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) to be worthier of the caliphate more than him and because he promised Uthman (ra) that he would obey him. Ali (ra) loved those three caliphs before him very much and he did not hesitate to express it anywhere. 

Some of those who did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra) wanted to pay allegiance to Ali (ra). However, Ali struggled for the unity of the Muslims throughout his life. He never opened the door to mischief. For instance, one of those who wanted to pay allegiance to Ali was Sufyan. He answered Sufyan as follows:

“We regard Abu Bakr sufficient for the caliphate and worthy of it. We left him as the caliph. We did not intervene.”4

Ali (ra) was one of the greatest assistants of Abu Bakr (ra) during his caliphate. When Abu Bakr (ra) died, he made the following speech:

“You were like a mountain which stands firm in the face of hard blows of dashing winds and waves. You truly were as the Messenger of Allah said weak in your body, but strong in the religion of Allah, humble in your heart, but lofty in your ranking with Allah and well-esteemed in the eyes of people and in the world. Nobody nurtured a grudge against you. You had no characteristic that people regarded worthless. The strong were weak in your presence until the weak got their rights. The weak were strong until they got their rights. May Allah not deprive us of from your thawabs! May He not allow us to go astray after you.” 5

Ali (ra) never allowed anyone to speak against Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) during his caliphate. Once, he spoke as follows:

“I hear that some people regard me to be superior to Abu Bakr and Umar. If I had said something about this issue before, I would punish those who speak like that now. I do not do anything to them now because I have not said anything about it before. Anybody who speaks like that from now on is a slanderer. The best person after the Messenger of Allah among people is Abu Bakr and then Umar. May Allah be pleased with both of them!

I swear by Allah who greens dry seeds and gives life to non-living things that only virtuous believers love Abu Bakr and Umar and only sinners criticize them and treat them as enemy.”6

Ali married his daughter Umm Kulthum off to Umar due to his love toward him. 7 When Umar (ra) died, Ali (ra) approached his dead body and said,

“O Umar! I want to enter into the presence of Allah with a deed that you like. There is nobody else whose deeds I envy.” 8

Ali (ra) paid allegiance at once to Uthman (ra), who was chosen by a consultation committee that was formed after the martyrdom of Umar (ra). Ali (ra) loved Uthman (ra) as he loved Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra). He was Uthman’s greatest assistant during his caliphate. He defended Uthman (ra) against mischief-makers. He rejected the offer of those who wanted to unseat Uthman (ra) and to pay allegiance to him. He did not accept the allegiance of mischief-makers after the martyrdom of Uthman (ra) either. He said, 

“I take refuge in Allah from accepting the allegiance of the murderers of Uthman.” 9

Footnotes:

1. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, IV, p. 368.
2. İsmail Mutlu, Dört Halife Devri, p. 333.
3. Lem’alar (Flashes), p. 31.
4. Dört Halife Devri, p. 340.
5. ibid, p. 341.
6. Hayatus-Sahaba, III, pp. 348, 349.
7. H. İbrahim Hasan, İslam Tarihi, p. 317; Dört Halife Devri, p. 343.
8. Dört Halife Devri, p. 343.
9. ibid, p. 345.

According to the Sunnah, Muslims have annual Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha and weekly Friday as feast days.

When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) migrated to Madinah, the people of Madinah used to have two feast days when they enjoyed and had fun. The Prophet (pbuh) informed them of two feast days of Islam, when all Muslims would enjoy and have fun, instead of those feast days, which were peculiar to the people of Madinah and included the traces of Ignorance (Jahiliyya):

“Allah has given you better ones, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, instead of those two feast days you celebrate.” (Abu Dawud, Salah, 239)

“Indeed, today (Friday) is a feast day that Allah set aside for Muslims. Anyone to go to mosque on Friday should have a bath and wear perfume if he has; I also recommend you to use a miswak.” (Ibn Majah, Iqamatus-Salah, 83)

However, according to the Sunnah, Muslims do not have Ghadir Khumm feast day.

Ghadir Khumm is a feast day celebrated with enthusiasm by the Shiite world on 18 Dhulhijjah. Muizzuddawlah Ahmad b. Buwayh of Buwayhids declared this day as an official holiday in 352 H (963 AD) in Iraq, ad Muiz-Lidinillah of Fatimids in Egypt in 362 H (973 AD). 18 Dhulhijjah is still celebrated by the people in Iran today by stabbing three honey-filled buns, each representing Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. According to them, honey symbolizes the blood of the three caliphs. 18 Dhulhijjah is also considered an extremely important feast day by Nusayris. (L. Veccia Vaglieri, “Ghadir Khumm“, EI2 [Eng.], II, 993-994)

To sum up, celebrating Gadir Khumm is a bid’ah and it is against our belief.

Ghadir Khumm is the name of a place between Makkah and Madinah, near Juhfa. (Mu'jamul-Buldan, VI, 268). It is a boggy place about 2-3 miles away from Juhfa; the bog is surrounded by a dense wood. The most important issue related to the emergence of Shia is the incident of Ghadir Khumm.

According to Shiite resources, it was determined in Ghadir Khumm that Ali (ra) had the most rights to be the caliph. When we look at the books of Shia scholars, it is possible to find the following information in the part related to Ghadir:

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stopped in Ghadir Khumm while returning from Hajj. He gathered the groups before they returned to their towns and addressed them. The reason he gathered them was to announce them the following verse, which was sent down there:

“O Messenger! Proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission: And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.” (al-Maida, 5/67)

According to Shiite writers, this verse was sent down about Ali (ra). The only thing to be proclaimed by the verse was the caliphate of Ali (ra). The Prophet concealed certain things from his wife Hz. Aisha and hence God Almighty warned him. (Wahidi, Asbab an-Nuzul,115; Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 20; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima, II; H. Nisaburi, al-Mustadrak, III,109; Kulayni, al-Kafi, II, 72)

After conveying this verse in Ghadir, the Prophet said,

“Jibril brought me the following order from my Lord: Ali b. Abi Talib is my brother, guardian and caliph; he is the imam after me. O people! Allah appointed him as the guardian and imam for you. Anyone who opposes him will be cursed and anyone who respects him will be shown mercy. Listen and obey! Allah is your mawla and Ali is your imam. The imamate will continue until Doomsday from his progeny.” (Wahidi, Asbab an-Nuzul, 115).

According to Shiite, the Messenger of Allah also declared the following there: 

1) He stated that he left two heavy things (thaqalayn) to Muslims. One of them is the book of Allah; one side of it is in the hand of Allah and the other side is in the hand of Muslims. The second is the Sunnah of the Prophet.

2) He lifted Ali's hand and said, “Ali is the mawla of a person whom I am a mawla of.”

3) The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prayed as follows: “O Allah! Help those who help Ali! Be an enemy of a person who is an enemy of Ali!”

4) He also said, “O Allah! Turn the truth toward Ali from the place where it turns!”

Ahl as-Sunnah evaluates the narrations that are put forward by Shiite scholars above and that are included in the issue of Ghadir Khumm as follows:

According to the claim of Shiite, the number of the sincere Muslims after the death of the Prophet is no more than ten. However, more than one hundred thousand Companions listened to the sermon in Ghadir. The meaning of this claim is as follows: “More than one hundred Companions did not keep their promise and collaborated to deprive Hz. Ali of the caliphate.” This alliance is impossible to happen logically. What can be the use and benefit of it?

On the other hand, the sermon of Ghadir Khumm was delivered on Dhulhijjah 18, in the tenth year of the Migration while the Prophet was returning from Farewell Hajj.

The verse “This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (al-Maida, 5/3)

was sent down on Dhulhijjah 9, the day of Arafah of the same year. Is it possible for this verse to have been sent down before verse 67 of the chapter of al-Maida, which orders Hz. Muhammad to proclaim his prophethood and whose translation was given above? The verse stating that the religion was completed was sent down and it was announced to more than one hundred thousand hajjis. The great majority of the Islamic scholars determined that verse 67 of the chapter of al-Maida was sent down before the Conquest of Makkah and the Battle of Khaybar. (Said Ismail, Haqiqatul-Khilaf Bayna Ulamaish-Shia wa Jumhuri Ulamail-Muslimin, Carbondale 1983, 25, 26)

There are some writers who deny the incident of Ghadir Khumm and there are also some Sunni scholars who do not deny it but who do not express it clearly. There are praises about Ali (ra) in their writings but there is no statement about the appointment of Ali (ra) as the caliph.

Nasai includes this incident in his book about the virtues of Ali b. Abi Talib. In this narration reported from Zayd b. Arqam, the hadith of “Ghadir” and the hadith of “Thaqalayn” are combined and it is stated that both of them were uttered on the day of Ghadir. Ibn Majah includes the hadith about Ghadir in his Sunan but he does not mention where it was uttered. (Nasai, Khasais,16; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Muqaddima, II)

The hadith of Ghadir reported by Zayd b. Arqam (D. 66/689) is as follows:

Once, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) delivered a sermon to us in a watery place called Khumm between Makkah and Madinah. In this sermon, he first praised Allah and gave us some advice. He mentioned Allah and addressed us as follows:

“O people! Know that I am only a human being and the messenger of my Lord, Azrael, will soon come to me. I will respond to his call. I am leaving behind two weighty things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of the two is the Book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So, get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it.” Thus, he encouraged us to read the book of Allah and advised it to us. Then, he continued as follows:

“The second is my Ahl al-Bayt (family). I urge you to remember Allah regarding my Ahl al-Bayt.” He repeated the last sentence three times. (Nasai, Khasais, 15; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, II,114, IV, 367; Darimi, Fadailul-Quran,1).

Ibn Kathir mentions almost all narrations of the khadith of Khumm and points out the reliable and weak narrators. (Ibn Kathir, as-Siratun-Nabawiyya, IV, 414)

After Zayd b. Arqam reported the hadith above, he was asked, “Who is included in Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet? Are his wives regarded among Ahl al-Bayt?” Zayd said, “The wives of the Prophet are also from Ahl al-Bayt but his real Ahl al-Bayt are those for whom it is haram to accept sadaqah after him.” He listed them as follows: “The family of Ali, the family of Aqil, the families of Ja'far and Abbas.” (Muslim, Fadailus-Sahaba, 36)

Ibn Taymiyya states the following regarding the narrations of Ghadir Khumm:

“Let alone being mutawatir, this fabricated incident has no sound chain of narrators. Was it not necessary for at least one Companion to mention this incident on the day of Saqifa, when Umar died, when the consultation committee of six people was established and on the days when the caliphate of Ali was discussed after the martyrdom of Hz. Uthman? As it is seen, it is one of the fabrications of Rafidis.” (Ibn Taymiyya, Minhajus-Sunnah, IV, 118)

Goldziher, the orientalist, writes the following regarding the issue:

“Therefore, Ali adherents were concerned with inventing and authorizing traditions which prove Ali's installation by the direct order of the Prophet. The most widely-known tradition (the authority of which is not denied even by orthodox authorities though they deprive it of its intention by a different interpretation) is the tradition of Khumm, which came into being for this purpose and is one of the firmest foundations of the theses of the Ali party.” (Goldziher, Muslim Studies)

That the hadith of Ghadir, put forward as the evidence for the claim that Ali (ra) was worthy of the caliphate more than the others, was not reported even by only one narrator during the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs brings about serious doubts about its existence. It is understood that Shiite invented a reason for the emergence of this hadith, which they later spread as the hadith of Ghadir. Even Ali himself did not mention such a narration when it was needed very much. For instance, during the illness of the Prophet, when Ali b. Abi Talib came out after visiting the Messenger of Allah, people asked him, “O Abu Hasan! How is the Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Alhamdulillah, he is fine.” The narrator said, “Thereupon, Abbas held Ali by the hand and said, ‘By Allah, within three days, you will be a slave. By Allah, I think that the Messenger of Allah will die from his present ailment, for I know the signs of death on the faces of the Sons of Abdulmuttalib. So, let us go to the Messenger of Allah and ask him whether the caliphate belongs to us or not. If it belongs to us, we will know it; and if it is not, tell him to recommend us.’ Ali (ra) said, “By Allah, I cannot do it. If we ask the Prophet for it and if he refuses, people will never give it to us.” (Bukhari, Isti'dhan, 29; For detailed information, see Cemal Sofuoğlu, Gadîri Hum Meselesi-Ankara Ü. İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Ankara 1983, Vol. XXVI, p. 461-470)

If it had been announced that Ali (ra) would be the imam/caliph after the Prophet in Ghadir Khumm and if Muslims had been ordered to obey it as Shiite claim, all of the Companions including Abbas (ra) would have known this will, which is claimed to have been announced in front of more than one hundred thousand Companions. On the other hand, the conversation between Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) mentioned above would have been meaningless. However, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) delivered a sermon in Ghadir as it is included in the resources of Ahl as-Sunnah. Some statements about Hz. Ali were uttered there and the Prophet asked Muslims to treat Ahl al-Bayt well. However, Sunni scholars interpret the statement “If I am someone’s mawla, Ali is his mawla too” more differently from Shiite. Ibn Qutayba states the following regarding the issue: “The Prophet is the mawla of all Muslims. Walayah is both between the Prophet and the believers and also among Muslims. The relationship of the Prophet with Hz. Ali is like that. ‘The Believers, men and women, are protectors (awliya) one of another.’ (at-Tawba, 9/71) There is no difference between the words wali (singular form of awliya) and mawla. This does not give Ali (ra) a privilege.” There are many verses regarding the issue (at-Tahrim, 66/4 at-Tawba, 9/71; al-Baqara, 2/257; Yunus, 10/62).

The Prophet (pbuh) said similar things for great Companions like Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra). He said the following for Abu Ubayda b. al-Jarrah (ra): “He is the trustworthy one (amin) of this ummah.” According to the view accepted by Ahl as-Sunnah, it is fard for Muslims to love Ali (ra) as it is fard to love the Prophet (pbuh); it is haram to be an enemy of Ali as it is haram to be an enemy of the Prophet. This is also in compatible with the view of Ahl al-Bayt. (Abdulaziz Dahlawi, Mukhtasaru Tuhfatil-Ithna Ashariyya, 161)

(Hamdi DÖNDÜREN)

No, it is not permissible to call the Shia unbelievers in general, and the one who does not call them unbelievers will never be an unbeliever, but the one who calls them unbelievers will be held responsible.

The people whom Ebussuud Effendi calls unbelievers are those who deny the fards that are declared by the verses of the Quran. For example, those who deny prayers and consider it permissible not to perform prayers, those who deny the fast of Ramadan and do not fast, those who deny that drinking is forbidden and consider it permissible to drink, etc.

For example, two fatwas of Ebussuud Effendi are as follows:

“Are lovers (Alawites) Muslims or unbelievers?” The Answer: They are unbelievers who do not believe that performing prayers is fard and abandon prayers thinking that it is permissible and by saying our prayers have been performed; he who doubts that they are unbelievers is away from being a Muslim.” (Velî b. Yusuf, Mecmûatü’l-Fetâvâ, İst. Mft. Ktp. no: 178, vr. 222a)

“If a group that does not perform prayers and denies the fard of Ramadan, and when the month of Ramadan comes, does not fast, and when they are asked about it, they say, ‘We are poor, it is enough for us to fast for five or six days,’ and they say, ‘We take care of the vineyard; it is the labor of our own hands; it is halal for us to drink wine, and they drink wine with their wives and when the feast day of unbelievers comes, they observe and respect their feast days like unbelievers; and they commit many other similar sins; what is necessary for such people in Shari’ah and for those who regard them as Muslims and consent to their deeds and words? The Answer: They are unbelievers; killing them is permissible.” (Velî b. Yusuf, ibid., vr. 222a) (Velî b. Yusuf, ibid., vr. 222a)

For example, when a person who says about someone who denies Allah and does not accept the prophethood of our Prophet (pbuh), “This person is not an unbeliever”, he will exit Islam since he will be sharing the same belief; and it is definitely a sign and a requirement of belief to know that this is so and to say it when necessary.

It is haram to speak ill of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh). A person who speaks like that is called Ahl al-bid’ah. It is very dangerous, especially from a religious point of view, to underestimate and insult the first four caliphs. Such people are not called unbelievers but they are not Ahl as-Sunnah.

The following is stated in a hadith included in the Sunan of Daraqutni, reported from Ibn Masud:

“Allah Almighty chose Companions for me. He made them my friends, sons-in-law, father-in-law and my ansar (helpers). Soon some people will come and will disparage them and cause them to be insulted and degraded. If you reach them (their time), do not marry your sons and daughters off with them; do not eat and drink with them; do not perform prayers with them; and do not perform their janazah prayers (when they die).” (1)

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) touches on several points in the hadith above:

a. As Allah chose him as the last prophet, He also chose for him the Companions who were worthy of him and suitable for his greatness. He prepared them. The word khayr (khiyara) means it became good, it was useful for him in that respect. Ikhtiyar means intiqa and istifa. It means choosing one thing over another. Ikhtiyar includes choosing the good, the better and the best; and it includes selection and preference. There is a preference for one over the other. From this point of view, the Companions (ra) were chosen by Allah and were considered companions and friends worthy of the Messenger of Allah.

b. Allah made them the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh); in addition, He chose from among them sons-in-law and fathers-in-law for the last Prophet who was the greatest in terms of virtue. Although the term “sihr” is used for the son-in-law who becomes a relative through marriage, (2) the term “ashar” is used for the close relatives of both the wife and the husband. (3) According to this hadith, just like the companions of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), his ashar, sons-in-law and fathers-in-law were also chosen by Allah as worthy of and suitable for him. In that case, Uthman (ra), who married his two daughters one after the other and received the title of “Dhunnurayn”, was chosen by Allah and became his son-in-law; that is, Allah chose and favored him among the Muslims as the son-in-law of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh); similarly, He also chose and favored his uncle’s son, Ali (ra), as the husband of his youngest daughter, Fatima (ra).

c. Likewise, the fathers of the wives of the Messenger of Allah, who were honored with Islam, were also chosen by Allah just like the father of his wife Aisha was chosen as a worthy father-in-law by his marriage, and the father of Hafsa, Umar (ra), was chosen by Allah as his father-in-law. If Allah chose and liked his sons-in-law, fathers-in-law and Companions, how can it be possible for us not to like them? Is it possible not to say yes to what Allah chose and not to like and love what He likes and loves?

d. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) states the following in a hadith:

“Guard me with regard to my companions and my relatives; whoever protects me with regard to them, Allah will protect him in this world and the Hereafter. And whoever does not guard me with regard to them, Allah will turn away from him; and it is near that He will seize him with punishment.” (4)

Thus, he forbids us from criticizing, insulting and speaking against both his relatives and all his Companions. Therefore, it is not permissible to criticize, insult, show enmity and hatred toward his relatives and Companions. This is the only way to preserve the reverence of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) for his Companions and relatives.

It is not permissible to bear a grudge against, to curse and to insult Abu Bakr (ra), his father-in-law, Umar (ra) and Abu Sufyan (ra); similarly, it is not permissible to curse, insult, to be hostile to and hate his sons-in-law, Uthman (ra) and Ali (ra). Our attitude toward all the Companions should be the same as our attitude toward his relatives:

“Whoever protects the Messenger of Allah with regard to his Companions and relatives, Allah will protect him in this world and the Hereafter.”

Otherwise, He will turn away from him and punish him.

e. It is stated in the hadith that after the time of the Companions, some people who criticize the Companions, who want to defame them, who curse and insult them, who claim that they are not inferior to them in virtue, and who even say that they can surpass them will emerge. (5) Such people will say,

“...We definitely read and understood (the Quran), so who is better than us?” (6) 

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) states the following about these people who will come during the decline period of Islam:

“I wonder if there is anything good in them?” He says to his Companions, “They are the ones who will come out of you (this ummah) and they are the fuel of Hell.” (7)

The same people are mentioned in this hadith too and it is stated that “a group of people who will disparage them (the Companions of the Prophet) and curse them will emerge soon.”

f. In the last part of the hadith, the attitude that the true believers who love the Companions, and the relatives of the Prophet (pbuh) and do not speak ill of them, who love Ansar should adopt toward those who have an attitude against the Companions, the relatives of the Prophet (pbuh) and Ansar, who hate them, who spread their shortcomings, and who do not respect and love them is shown. They are advised not to not marry their sons and daughters off with those who do not love the Companions, Ansar and relatives of the Messenger of Allah, not to be together with them and not to attend their funerals. 7

Footnotes:

(1) Ramuzul-Ahadith, p. 86, no: 1196; Hayatus-Sahaba II, 561; Tafsirul-Quranil-Azim IV, 205, 306, Sharhul-Aqidatit-Tahawiyya, II, 691, 694, 698; Sunanu Ibn Majah; I, 97 (that there will be a time when the last part of the ummah will curse the first part); VIII, 89 (that ignorance will emerge and be dominant at the end of the ummah); we think that is the reason why some people do not like the first members, salaf, of the ummah.
(2) al-Mu’jamul-Wasit p. 527; see also as-Sawaiqul-Muhriqa, p. 170-171; Muhammad Sabban, Is’afur-Raghibin, Egypt, 1375, p. 119; al-Munawi, Abdurra’uf, Faydul-Qadir, I-IV, Mısır, 1958, II, 512.
(3) Faydul-Qadir I, 197, II, 512.
(4) Faydul-Qadir, I, 197, II, 512.
(5) Faydul-Qadir I, 197.
(6) see Ramuzul-Ahadith, p. 366, hadith 4525. (from Tabarani al-Kabir).
(7) Ramuzul-Ahadith, p. 366, hadith 4525.

The rukns of prayer like qiyam, ruku’ and sajdah are the same in all madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnah.

The practice of prostrating on a stone brought from Karbala exists in some Shiite groups. They do it to remember Hz. Husayn. There was not such practice during the time of the Prophet (pbuh).

According to Jafari madhhab, sajdah can be made on something like soil or stone; sajdah cannot be made on a carpet or rug. Due to this belief, they put a piece of stone on the place where they prostrate when they perform prayers in the mosque or at home. However, the differences in the definitions of “forehead”, which needs to touch the ground, bring about the question whether it is permissible to prostrate on a small piece of stone. According to a definition, forehead is the place between the hairline and two eyebrows. Accordingly, the stone on which prostration is made should be as big as the forehead. According to this definition, the prayer of those who prostrate on a stone is not valid. 

According to another definition, forehead is the part between the temples; accordingly, the prayer is valid even if the stone is small.

We learn from sound hadith resources like Bukhari and Muslim, from sound siyar and history books that Hz. Abu Bakr and Umar were at the peak among the Companions with their knowledge, taqwa and foresight. Hz. Umar’s or somebody else’s not knowing a decree, especially a new one, is quite normal. It does not mean they do not know other issues.

The Prophet (pbuh) states the following:

“There had been among the people before you inspired persons and if there were any such among my ummah, Umar would be one of them.” (Muslim, Fadailus-Sahaba, 23-2398)

Abdullah b. Abbas narrates:

"When Umar b. Khattab was placed in the coffin the people gathered around him. They praised him and supplicated for him before the bier was lifted up, and I was one amongst them. Nothing attracted my attention but a person who gripped my shoulder from behind. I looked at him and saw that he was Ali. He invoked Allah's mercy upon Umar and said:

I swear by Allah that you have left none behind you (whose) deeds (are so enviable) that I love to meet Allah with them. I hoped that Allah would keep you and your two associates together. I had often heard the Messenger of Allah saying:

“I came with Abu Bakr and Umar; I entered with Abu Bakr and Umar; I went out with Abu Bakr and Umar.” I hope and think that Allah will keep you along with them. (Muslim, Fadail 14 -2389)

We see in sound hadith resources that three verses were sent down in accordance with the desire of Hz. Umar: “Maqam Ibrahim’s becoming a prayer place; women’s hijab (tasattur); if the Prophet divorced his wives, Allah would give him better ones." (see Bukhari, Talaq, 32; Tafsir/al-Baqara 9, al-Ahzab 8, at-Tahrim 1; Muslim, Fadailus-Sahaba, 24-2399).

The Prophet (pbuh) states the following in a hadith: “Caliphate is thirty years after me.” The thirty-year period mentioned in this hadith is considered as twenty-nine years and six months of the rightly-guided caliphs plus the six-month caliphate of Hz. Hasan. (see Nawawi, Sharhu Muslim, 12/201).

The term nice bid’ahs “are the good things that did not exist during the Era of the Prophet and that emerged later.” They are not actually bid’ahs because bid’ahs are bad things that affect the origin of the religion and eliminate the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh).

For instance, Hz. Umar’s saying “a nice bid’ah” for “the tarawih prayer performed in congregation” is an indication showing how loyal he is to Islam because it is not a real bid’ah. For, it is known that the Prophet (pbuh) performed tarawih prayer in congregation though only for a few days. However, the Prophet (pbuh) did not continue performing tarawih prayer in congregation due to his compassion for his ummah, fearing that it would be wajib for his ummah. Hz. Umar sincerely called it “a nice bid’ah” sincerely since he took this subtlety into consideration. 

It is known that there are verses praising Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz. Umar.  

It is really madness in terms of religion to nurse a hatred against Hz. Aisha, who was the Prophet’s beloved wife and whose cleanliness was confirmed by the clear expression of the Quran. How can those who commit this crime expect intercession from the Prophet (pbuh).

Allah wanted the four caliphs we know to make caliphs. When he did it, He took their lifespans into consideration and put them in order. If Hz. Ali had been the first caliph, the other three would not have been caliphs because Hz. Ali was martyred after the other three caliphs.  

In our opinion, if Hz. Ali had thought that that the caliphate was his right and that his right had been grabbed, he would not have shown consent to it even for an hour and would have opposed.

What Shiite say “taqiyya” is a great wrongdoing to Hz. Ali, who is a symbol of heroism and a hero of Islam. It means to accuse him of cowardice.  

In our opinion, Hz. Ali is at the top among the Companions in terms of knowledge, taqwa and courage. The incidents that occurred during his caliphate did not occur because of him, but because of the people opposing him. Hz. Ali is definitely right in the Incident of Jamal and the Incident of Siffin. However, Hz. Zubayr and Hz. Talha who opposed him, especially in the Incident of Jamal, were people who were promised Paradise just like Hz. Ali. Therefore, it is necessary to approach the issue carefully.

In our opinion, to rake the issue up means to incite the Shiite-Sunni division and a great wrongdoing to Islam and Muslims. The care in our writing is a reflection of this responsibility.

Finally, let us hear the following words of Badiuzzaman Said Nursi, which are a serious and good lesson for us:    

“O Sunnis, who are the people of truth, and ‘Alawis, whose way is love of the Prophet’s (pbuh) family! Quickly put an end to this meaningless, disloyal, unjust, and harmful dispute between you. Otherwise the atheistic current which is now so influential will make one of you a tool against the other, and use the one to crush the other. And after defeating the one it will destroy the tool. As believers in divine unity, it is essential that you leave aside unimportant matters that cause division, for there are a hundred fundamental sacred bonds between you that enjoin brotherhood and unity.” (Lem'alar, p. 26)