Reply to the twenty-third objection
The first nonsense is that he says: The tradition is without chains of
narrators; as if a veil was spread on his eyes; so much so that he cannot even see
the Musnad of his imam; and he does not see that Ahmad bin Hanbal has narrated
this report from Yahya bin Hammad from Abu Awana from Abu Balaj from Amr
bin Maimoon from Ibne Abbas.1 And the narrators of report, other than Abu
Balaj are all reliable.
Nasai has quoted it in his Khasais and Hakeem in Mustadrak through
authentic narrators, all of whose reporters are reliable.2
What is the excuse of Ibne Taymiyyah in considering this tradition to be
without authorities and denying its continuous chains? Can he behave with
traditions in this way? Is it proper to behave in this manner with knowledge and
religion?
More amazing is the fact that after all this, he has quoted traditions and tried
to refute the captioned tradition through the statement that Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) left Medina many times, without appointing Ali (a.s.) his
representative.
If one looks at the text of this incident through the angles, which we shall
mention, he would understand that it was a special incident and such a thing was
present only in this and no other incident; it was that firstly: the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
was aware that no battle was to take place; secondly, Medina was in severe need
of a Caliph like Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), since the awe of Harqil, king of Rome
and his powerful forces had cast awe in the people of Medina. So they believed
that Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his men did not have the power to confront them.
Moreover, hypocrites abstained from joining the Muslim army and remained
in Medina. On the basis of this, it was necessary that in absence of Prophet, the
hypocrites would definitely create mischief. Hence, to prevent this mischief, the
Prophet found it necessary to leave someone, whose awe would prevent
hypocrites from creating mischief.
This could not be anyone else, other than Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), because
the people were well aware of his capacities. Otherwise, the Prophet would not
have stopped Ali (a.s.) from participating in the Battle of Tabuk like he
participated in all other battles.3 According to Sibte Ibne Jauzi in Tadhkira4, writers of prophetic biography have consensus on this point.
After the above clarifications, the point, which shouldn’t be forgotten is that
the statement is not speaking of absences of Prophet from Medina; that one
should object against it; on the contrary, it has a special meaning restricted to the
expedition of Tabuk and that is all.
From this aspect his objection that the Prophet appointed others as his
representatives is invalid, because in those instances, there was no danger to
Medina. On the contrary, in other battles, there was severe need of Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) there; and there was no one else, who could have fulfilled his
role; since no one was capable to defeat the infidel stalwarts and confront huge
armies. On the basis of this, the act of Prophet in both instances was based on
exigency.
Ibne Taymiyyah after reducing the value of the Caliphate of Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.), says: “During Tabuk, his successorship was only regarding
ladies, children and so on…that is all,” but if someone will ponder upon it
deeply, he would conclude that:
First
The statement of the Prophet: Are you not satisfied that you are to me as
Harun was to Moosa? This statement comprises all ranks of Prophet, except
prophethood: position, rulership and leadership; and proves all these for Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) as all ranks of Moosa (a.s.) were inherited by Harun. Therefore,
the aim of Prophet in issuing this statement is different as before this, whenever
he appointed others, he never declared similarity to Moosa and Harun. In this
case, the appointment of Ali to this rank was to show his position vis-à-vis the
Prophet.
Second
The statement of Saad bin Abi Waqqas: “By God, if one of these three
things were given to me, I would have preferred it to the whole world: one is the
statement of Prophet when he was proceeding on the Battle of Tabuk: Are you
not satisfied that you are to me as Harun was Moosa, except that there is no
prophet after me?”5
In Murujuz Zahab,6 Masudi, after quoting this tradition, says:
When Saad mentioned this to Muawiyah he wanted to rise up from his seat.
During this Muawiyah passed flatulence and then said to Saad: “Sit down, so that
you may get the reply to your statement. At this moment, no one is worse than
you; then why did you not help him? Why did you not pay allegiance to him?
Indeed, if I had heard this from the Prophet, I would have definitely served him as long as I lived.” Saad said: “By God, I am worthier for your seat.” Muawiyah
replied: “Banu Azra will not be pressurized by you.” It was common knowledge
that Saad was an illegitimate born and his father was a man from Bani Azra.
Third
Statement of Imam Abu Bistam Shoba bin Hajjaj regarding this tradition:
Harun was the most superior of the people of Moosa (a.s.); that is why for
preservation of this clear tradition, it is necessary that Ali should be the most
superior from the people of Ummah, because Moosa said to his brother, Harun:
اخْلُفْنِي فِي قَوْمِي وَأَصْلِحْ
“Take my place among my people, and act well.”7