So far we made you aware of the blatant exaggerations about each of these
three and made you familiar that merits which Ahle Sunnat fabricated and
statements embellished with falsehood are so blatant that they are opposed to the
well known nature and conduct of those fellows, and their acts and omissions
recorded in history are not compatible with their fabricated merits.
Now, we present another form of fabricated merits: that is in a collective
form; which include all three of them. Statements of the like of: Ibne Hazm, Ibne
Taymiyyah, Ibne Jauzi, Ibne Jauzia, Ibne Kathir, Ibne Hajar and some other
scholars.
Like Taftazani writes in Sharh Maqasid:1
“Our scholars have reasoned as follows regarding infallibility not being
obligatory: that the Imamate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (r.a.) was through
consensus and we have consensus that their infallibility was not obligatory;
although they were infallible, that is from the time they embraced faith, they had
the capacity of refraining from sins even though they were capable of committing
sins.”
We mentioned pages from the books of these infallibles most of which they
performed on the basis of pre-Islamic habits, and we will present them to you and
make you aware that they committed the same acts during the period of Islam
also.
It makes every just man to beat his head what to say about one regarded as
infallible? Regarding this, we will not go into a long discussion, because those
calamities and problems, heresies, are extremely evil acts and which contradict
the conduct of Islam, and are deviated from conduct of Quran and Sunnah and
what was mentioned before is sufficient for us and it makes us needless of wide
discussion.
As for the conclusion, which Taftazani has derived, it is a great error,
because:
Firstly: We don’t accept that there is consensus on infallibility of each of the
three [Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman], because Caliphate of Abu Bakr, after
degradations and humiliations, which blackened the pages of history and left
perpetual degradation for the Ummah, this Imamate was only through allegiance
of one, two or five persons.
It is from this aspect that they thought that Caliphate is established through one, two or five persons, inspite of a large number of people from senior companions opposing this allegiance according to the details mentioned before.2
Moreover, nothing gathered the people around them, except threats, fear,
formation of assembly and gatherings, and the flash of swords. And their huge
armies, which subjugated everyone in the country, including Saad bin Ubadah,
chief of Khazraj tribe, who was said to have been killed by the arrow of a genie!
As for the Caliphate of Umar – it was by the clarification of Abu Bakr, for which companions condemned and criticized him and a large number of people
supported Talha in this matter. He said: “What justification will you present
before your Lord if he asked you regarding appointment of a nasty person [Umar]
over Us?”3
As for the Caliphate of Uthman; it came into being through the Shura
committee through malicious accords, which occurred between members of
Shura; and Abdur Rahman bin Auf tied the pledge of Caliphate for him. And on
the basis of the statement of Eiji,4 they did not regard consensus of people of
Medina a condition, what to say about consensus of whole community?
Yes, Abdur Rahman completed the allegiance in favor of his friend while he had drawn the sword at the head of Imam Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) and he was
saying: “Pay allegiance, otherwise I would strike off your head.” And the folks of
Shura supported him and said: “Pay allegiance, otherwise we would fight with
you.”5
Then they tried to justify that consensus was obtained in a gradual manner,
but this has no benefit for them, because in their view, Caliphate is proved by
first allegiance and people later give consent to it and make it strong.
Secondly, supposing there is deficiency in stance of Taftazani, it is possible
that their consensus on Caliphate of three persons was not because they were
infallible as Taftazani has clarified, as during the time of Taftazani, views of
hundreds of thousands of past scholars are known that they did not regard
infallibility of the Caliph obligatory.
Someone, who deeply ponders on the pages of period of the first Caliphate,
in the gathering of people there was no mention of infallibility and not even a
weak voice was heard about it and they regarded Caliphate only as rulership
through which they can obtain security of country, defend boundaries, cut off the
hands of the thief and take retaliation from killers, as was mentioned in detail.6
Scholars and theologians have acted according to this and that is why they
have not spoken regarding issues of nature like knowledge, piety and sanctity,
except words, which say that there are no such conditions. Which Caliphate in view of the past scholars was religious that they may argue about it? Caliphate, in
their view, was nothing, except politics of the day and administration of affairs of
people and nothing more than that.