Holy Companions ( First Two Caliphs )

Anyone having a smattering knowledge of the Shia Isna Ashariyya religion knows that this religion is based on the belief that the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) had, in his life-time, and under the command of God, nominated Hazrat Ali Murtuza as his successor, Caliph and Imam for all wordly and religious matters and eleven other persons from among his descendants, in the same way, as Imams till the end of time. While returning from the Last Pilgrimage the Prophet went to the length of getting a plain cleared at Ghadir-I-Khum where a pulpit was got ready for him and a proclamation was made for all the companions of the journey, including the Ansar and Muhajirin, whose number ran into thousands to collect there. When they had assembled, the Prophet stood on the pulpit and taking up Hazrat Ali Murtuza in his arms and raising him up so that everyone present could see him declared that Hazrat Ali was his successor, and, after him, he would be the Caliph, the Imam (leader) of the people for all wordly and religious matters, and their ruler, and added that "it is not my proposal but the command of God, and it is in fulfillment of that command that I am making this proclamation". After it, he took the pledge of acceptance from everyone present. The most authentic reports and traditions of Shia religion in that connection, further, have it that the Prophet (peace be upon him), particularly, told Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar to salute Hazrat Ali by saying, ‘As-Salam-o-alaikaya-Amir-al-Momini’ which they did.

The above is only a summary of what has been written at great length in Shi’ite books and forms part of the sayings of the Innocent Imams. The narration’s and reports concerning this event or imaginary story will be discussed, in some detail, later at the proper place.

Shi’ite books, further, mention that when the sacred Prophet passed away some eighty days after this solemn pronouncement and collective agreement and pledge by the Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, and with them, the Companions, on the whole, conspired to break and nullify the arrangement made by the Prophet under Divine command which was to last till the end of the world, and turned aside from their pledge and undertaking, and, instead of Hazrat Ali, they elected Hazrat Abu Bakr as the Prophet’s successor, Caliph and ruler. For this act of ‘treason and treachery’ and ‘heinous crime’ (God forbid), terms like ‘apostate’. ‘infidel’, ‘hypocrite’, ‘wretched’, ‘vicious’ and ‘belonging to Hell’ have been used for the holy Companions, in general, and Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar, in particular, in the Shi’ite books and sayings of the Imams and execrations have been uttered on them, as well shall see later.

Obviously, if the fictitious story of Ghadir-e-Khum, which is the cornerstone of the whole edifice of Shiaism is accepted as a fact and reality, the first two Caliphs and the Companions, in general, will stand guilty of the loathsome charges levelled against them and deserve the most hateful epithets and curses and abuses we have just quoted from the Shi’ite books and traditions. Those who conspired to subvert and nullify the arrangement made by the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) under Divine Command for the worldly and spiritual welfare of the Ummat till the last Day and for which such a solemn pledge had been taken will, inevitably, be apostates, and infidels and cursed and condemned to the everlasting Fire of Hell. The two, in any case, are correlative and connected with each other. Hence, the Shia authors, Ulema and Mujtahids drawing inspiration from the story of Ghadir-e-Khm and in the light of the sayings of their Imams lavishly confer the epithets of apostasy, infidelity, hypocrisy and unbounded villainy upon the first two Caliphs and the Companions in general.

But Khomeini is not only a Shia theologian, Mujtahid and author, but, also, a political personality, a diplomat and leader of a revolutionary movement. The Shias are the real source of his strength in the struggle launched by him, but for political expediency, Sunnis, too, have to be used for it as far as possible. Khomeini, therefore, adopts in Al-Hukumat-ul-Islamia the strategy that he mentions the myth of Ghadir-e-Khum and the appointment of Hazrat Ali as the Prophet’s successor and Caliph, as required by his own religious belief, in order to gain the confidence and unstinted support of the Shias, but restrains himself from drawing up the charge sheet of treachery, apostasy and infidelity etc., against the first two Caliphs and the Companions, in general, and assassinating their characters. In exercise of caution and prudence, he has not mentioned even once the names of the first two Caliphs throughout the book even though it deals, as its title indicates, with the Islamic Government. Anyone having rudimentary knowledge of Islamic history knows that, after the Prophet of Islam, its most glorious and exemplary period in Islamic History was the reign of the first two Caliphs1. Khomeini, however, adopted the prudent technique of skipping over the reigns of the first two Caliphs even where it was necessary to mention these for the sake of historical continuity. Two example of it are being furnished below.

Stressing the need of an Islamic Government, Khomeini remarks:

"Both Shariat and intellect go to prove that the establishment of the Government is essential at the present time as it was during the days of the Prophet and Amir-ul-Momineen Ali Bin Abi Talib." (p.26).

At another place, Khomeini observes that the responsibility of the Ulema who are the custodians of the religion, does not end with teaching the precepts of faith, but they should, also, see that these are acted upon. He writes:

"The Prophet and Amir-ul-Mominee (Ali) used to preach as well as have it aced upon." (p. 710).

At both of these, as, also, at several other places, in his boo, Khomeini ignores the periods of the first two Caliphs and from the reign of the Prophet (peace be upon him) goes straight to the period of Hazrat Ali. He hand hardly any option in the matter, for had he described the governments of the first three Caliphs as Islamic governments, the Shias who were the real source of his strength would have revolted against him and declared him unfit for the high office of Wilayat-ul-Faqih. And if he had expressed his own views and beliefs in respect of them, he would have forfeited the sympathy and cooperation of the non-Shia classes which had become his tools either due to simplicity and ignorance or under the spell of the exciting slogan of Islamic Revolution.

Khomeini’s inner feelings with regard to the first three Caliphs, however, are fully revealed by the permanent position he has taken. As we have already pointed out, the designation of Hazrat Ali as the Imam and Caliph by the Prophet, as the Shias believe, logically demands that Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar and the Companions, as a whole, should be treated as they are spoken of in the Shi’ite reports and traditions.

Now, let us see what Khomeini has to say about the nomination of Hazrat Ali by the Prophet (peace be upon him) as his successor, Caliph and Head of the Islamic State.

Writes he in Al-Hukumat-ul-Islamia:

"We firmly believe in the doctrine of Wilayat (Imamate) and we, also, firmly believe that it was necessary for the Prophet of Islam to name the Caliph who was to succeed him, and he acted accordingly." (P.18).

He goes a step further and says that "the nomination of the Caliph and successor by the Prophet was the act which marked fulfillment of the mission of Apostleship." (p. 19).

At another place, he observes more explicitly that:

"If the Prophet of God (peace be upon him) had not nominated his successor it would have meant that he had not conveyed the message of God to the Ummat which he was duty bound to do, and failed in the fulfillment of the mission of Apostleship". (p. 23).

All this is based on a tradition recorded in Usul-e-Kafi which will enable the readers to grasp the full Import of these passages. It will be reproduced at the proper place. For the present, it would be sufficient only to mention that Imam Jafar Sadiq is reported to have said: When the Prophet (peace be upon him) received the command of God that he should declare the Caliphate and Inmate of Ali after him, the Prophet feared that if he made the announcement many Muslims will turn against him and become apostates and say that he was doing so because of his relationship with Ali, and not under the command of God. He, therefore, begged God to reconsider the order and do not have the proclamation made. Upon it, the following verse of the Quran was revealed:

" O Prophet ! Whatever has come to you from your Lord, you communicate to the people and proclaim accordingly. In case you do not do so, you will be failing in communication of His message as also in your Prophetic duty".

It was only after it that the Holy Prophet made the proclamation at Ghadir-e-Khum.

In other traditions on the subject, which will be reproduced later, it is added that God had warned the Prophet (peace be upon him) that if he did not announce the Caliphate and Imamate of Hazrat Ali (God forbid), He will send down punishment on him.

Dwelling upon it, further, Khomeini says:

"And God spoke to His Prophet (peace be upon him) through Wahi (Revelation) and ordered that he should convey the command to the people in respect of the person who would be his successor and Caliph and hold the reins of government, and preach and proclaim the command. The Prophet, then, obeyed the command and nominated Amir-al-Mominin Ali for the Caliphate". (pp, 42-43).

"On the occasion of the Last Pilgrimage and at Ghadir-e-Khum, the Prophet nominated Ali to be the ruler after him. From thence sprang up animosity in the hearts of his followers". (p. 131).

And, again:

"He nominated Amir-al-Mominin Ali to be the ruler of the people after him. This office of Imamate and Wilayat went on being transferred from one Imam to the next Imam till it reached its culmination in the absent Imam, the Awaited Mehdi."

It will, perhaps, be plain to anyone that a person holding the belief of nomination of Hazrat Ali by the Prophet as his successor and Caliph, so firmly and steadfastly as Khomeini does and which is the arch-stone of Shiasim, will have no other opinion about the holy Companions than what we have indicated above from books of Shi’ite religion and the sayings of the Innocent Imams, i.e., (God forbid) they all had betrayed the trust, were guilty of fraud and faithlessness, and ended up as deserving of the curse of God and the fire of Hell.

A brief saying, in this connection, of the fifty Imam, Imam Abu Jafar i.e., Imam Baqar, as recorded in the most authoritative book of the Shias, Al-Jam’a-ul-Kafi, may, further, be reproduced here.

It reads:

" After the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), all his followers became apostates barring three". (One being asked who were those three, the Imam said): "The were Miqdad Ain Al-Aswad, Abu Zarr Ghifari and Salman Farsi. May God shower His blessings upon them". (Vol. III, P.115. Lucknow Edition).

The dangerous implications of this belief.

Our purpose in writing it is only to acquaint those who do not know the views the views, beliefs and doctrines of Khomeini. We do not propose to discuss them, in detail, at this stage. We shall, however, proceed to pint out the dangerous and far-reaching implications of these principles and beliefs.

If the statements of Khomeini are accepted (and they form the base and foundation of Shi’ism) regarding the nomination of Hazrat Ali as his successor and caliph by the Prophet of God (peace be upon him) and announcing it at Ghadir-i-Khum, it will locally mean that the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) failed so utterly (God forbid) in the education, training and character building of his followers (Ummat) as no other Divine Apostle or, even, reformer or preceptor had done. The people he had taught, enlightened and instructed from the beginning of his Apostleship till the end of his life, and who had sat at his feet, spent their lives in his company and listened to his teachings and sermons at all times, turned into such traitors immediately upon his death that they destroyed the very fabric of the order set up by him, under the command of God, for the reform and welfare of the community till the end of time in their lust for power and rule. Does history offer any other example of such a failure of a mentor or reformer?

A graver consequence would be that the whole of Islam would lose its believability for it was through these very Companions that it had reached the Ummat. Obviously, no reliance could be placed on persons in respect of belief and faith who were so faithless and self-indulgent.

The present Quran, specially, will become wholly unreliable for it is an accepted, compiled and issued to the people under official patronage during the reign of the first three Caliphs, and, according to Khomeini, these very persons were the real culprits (God forgive) and destroyers of the order established by the sacred Prophet. In that event, it can be safely assumed that these persons, for their personal and political ends, must have tampered with the Quran and altered it in every way to suit their purpose as it is set forth in hundreds of reports and traditions of the Imams contained in the most authoritative books of the Shias. But we will return to it later.

It is worthy of note, here, that Khomeini, like all Shia Ulema of our day, accepts the present Quran to be the real and genuine Quran and rejects the doctrine of alteration and mutation. But, at he same time, he has referred in his book, Al-Hukumat-ul-Islamia, with full reverence to the great Shia ideological scholar and Mujtahid, Allama Nuri Tabrasi, and in support of his own theory of Wilayat-ul-Faqih, cited a tradition from his, Mustadrak-ul-Wasail. (p. 66 of Al-Hukumat-ul-Islamia). Khomeini knows very well, as every Shia theologian does, that this great Allama has written a voluminous book in support of the theory of tampering with the Quran which is entitled, Fasl-ul-Khitab-fi-Isbat-e-Tehrif-e-Kitab-e-Rabbil-Arbab. By all manner of arguments Allama Tabrasi has tried his utmost to prove that the Quran has been tampered with, and asserts that there are over two thousand narrations of their Innocent Imams which go to prove that the Quran has been changed and all sorts of alterations have been made in it, and it has been the view and belief of their earlier Ulema in general. We will cite extracts from the aforementioned book in the coming pages which will leave no one in doubt concerning the Shi’ite doctrine of alteration in the Holy Quran.