Introduction: The Essence of the Dispute — Legal Obligation or Political Rivalry?

The disagreement between Sunnis and Shia was not, in its origin, a mere secondary jurisprudential dispute; it was an essential disagreement over the first fateful question after the passing of the Prophet (PBUH): was the nation left without a shepherd or a text to lead its march, or did the line of the message continue through an infallible divine appointment?

Here it must be stressed that the discussion of the imamate of Imam Ali (AS) is not an arbitrary or superficial debate resembling a quarrel over who is entitled to win the political elections of some state; rather it is a deep and fateful doctrinal debate revolving around who adhered to the divine commands and prophetic texts and who did not. Upon this adherence, or the lack of it, was built an entirely different understanding of the whole religion; for clinging to the line of the Household (AS) is what preserved doctrinal purity, whereas deviation from their course led to the emergence of grave doctrinal deviations in the understanding of the religion, and in the very foundation of divine oneness and the divine attributes.

Thus the Saqifa was not merely a “ballot box” that erred in its result; it was the beginning of the deviation from the straight path that Allah, exalted is He, and His Messenger (PBUH) had traced.

---

1. The Proofs of Text and Testament Before the Saqifa

The Shia establish the legitimacy of the imamate of the Commander of the Faithful (AS) through a body of mass-transmitted texts recorded in all the principal books of the Muslims, among them:

1. The Hadith of Ghadir and the Priority of Authority

The Prophet (PBUH) addressed the multitudes of pilgrims, saying:

“Whoever’s master (mawla) I am, Ali is his master.”

Source: al-Tirmidhi (209–279 AH / 824–892 CE), Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Book of Virtues, Chapter on the Virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS), no. 3713.

In the narration of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164–241 AH / 780–855 CE), the binding preamble that establishes guardianship and absolute authority appears clearly, for the Prophet (PBUH) first asked:

“Am I not more entitled to the believers than their own selves?”

They said: Yes. He said:

“O Allah, whoever’s master I am, Ali is his master.”

Source: Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad, Musnad of the Kufans, hadith of al-Bara’ ibn Azib (d. 72 AH / 691 CE), no. 18507.

This sequence is the cornerstone of the inference; for the word “mawla” was preceded by the affirmation of priority — “more entitled to you” — which shifts the meaning from mere affection and emotional support to absolute political and religious guardianship.

2. The Hadith of the Two Weighty Things and the Infallible Authority

The Prophet (PBUH) proclaimed the pairing of the Household with the Quran to guarantee against going astray, saying:

“I am leaving among you the two weighty things: the Book of Allah… and my Household. I remind you of Allah concerning my Household.”

Source: Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (204–261 AH / 820–875 CE), Sahih Muslim, Book of the Virtues of the Companions, Chapter on the Virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS), no. 2408.

The pairing of the the Prophet's household (AS) with the noble the Quran, and the making of adherence to both together a condition for salvation from misguidance, indicates rationally the infallibility of this authority and its continuation after the absence of the Prophet (PBUH) — which demolishes the hypothesis that the nation was left to an unmoored consultation.

3. The Hadith of Rank and the General Succession

The Prophet (PBUH) said to Imam Ali (AS):

“You are to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me.”

Source: al-Bukhari (194–256 AH / 810–870 CE), Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Companions, Chapter on the Merits of Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS), no. 3706; and Muslim, Sahih Muslim, Book of the Virtues of the Companions, no. 2404.

The point of inference here is that Aaron was the minister of Moses, his partner in his affair, and his successor over his people in his absence; so the exception of prophethood alone in the hadith leaves all those stations and authorities established and settled for Imam Ali (AS).

---

2. The Saqifa and the Knot of the Political “Slip”

While the body of the Prophet (PBUH) still lay unburied, the leading figures of the Emigrants (Muhajirun) and Helpers (Ansar) hastened to the portico (Saqifa) of the Banu Sa’ida in a feverish race for power. The historical sources relate the details of this gathering in a manner that condemns its very legitimacy.

1. Umar’s Admission of Arbitrariness and the Absence of Consultation

al-Bukhari narrated the address of Umar ibn al-Khattab (40 BH–23 AH / 584–644 CE) in which he clearly stated the occurrence of exclusion and political strife, saying:

“The Ansar dissented from us and gathered in full at the portico of Banu Sa’ida, and Ali (AS), al-Zubayr, and those with them dissented from us, while the Emigrants rallied around Abu Bakr.”

In the same address, Umar spoke his famous words:

“The pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was a slip (falta), but it was accomplished, and Allah protected against its evil. So whoever repeats the like of it, kill him.”

Source: al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Prescribed Punishments, Chapter on stoning a pregnant woman for adultery if she is married, no. 6830.

This text is a decisive Shia proof; for Umar describes the pledge to Abu Bakr (50 BH–13 AH / 573–634 CE) as a “slip” — that is, a sudden event without deliberation or consultation — and decrees the death penalty for whoever repeats it, which invalidates the claim that the caliphate arose upon a settled principle of divinely-ordained consultation.

2. The Nature of the Self-Interested and Tribal Debate

At the Saqifa no verse or hadith bearing on the religious welfare of the nation was cited; rather the struggle revolved around tribalism. The Ansar said, “A leader from us and a leader from you,” out of fear of Quraysh’s monopolizing power, and the Emigrants argued that the Arabs would submit to none but this clan of Quraysh.

This clamor and dispute, which ended with the seizing of the opportunity and the extending of the hand to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr ahead of events, reveals the scene of a political crisis devoid of piety and inclusive consultation.

---

3. The Great Offense: Leaving the Prophet (PBUH) Without Washing or Burial

Among the most bitter facts in the Shia historical conscience is the scene that followed the death; for the leaders of the Saqifa abandoned the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), whose companionship they claim and whose station they claim to revere, and rushed to snatch power, while Imam Ali (AS) and the Banu Hashim were occupied with the momentous calamity.

The washing of the noble body was undertaken by Imam Ali (AS), al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib (56 BH–32 AH / 568–653 CE), al-Fadl ibn al-Abbas (d. 18 AH / 639 CE), Qutham ibn al-Abbas (d. 57 AH / 677 CE), Usama ibn Zayd (7 BH–54 AH / 615–674 CE), and Shuqran the freedman of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) (d. 23 AH / 644 CE).

Source: Ibn Sa’d (168–230 AH / 784–845 CE), al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, mention of those who washed the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), vol. 2, p. 277.

This political conflict took so long that it delayed the burial of the pure body. A’isha (9 BH–58 AH / 613–678 CE) narrates:

“We did not know of the burial of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) until we heard the sound of the spades in the depth of the night of Wednesday.”

Source: Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad, Musnad of the Women, hadith of A’isha, no. 26353.

The Shia ask in condemnation: What respect for the station of prophethood, and what fidelity to companionship, is embodied in leaving the body of the master of all creation unburied for days in order to settle a struggle over posts? And if the caliphate were a legitimate consultation, would not those most entitled to it and most deserving of being consulted be those who bore his blood, washed his body, and buried him — such as Imam Ali (AS) and the Household (AS)?

---

4. The Protest of Imam Ali (AS) and the Authority’s Admission of Arbitrariness

The silence of Imam Ali (AS) was not consent; it was a safeguarding of the core of Islam from apostasy and armed strife. Yet he raised his voice in protest, recording his grievance.

al-Bukhari narrates that Imam Ali (AS) confronted Abu Bakr face to face, objecting to the legitimacy of their step, saying to him:

“But you acted arbitrarily over us in this matter, while we held that, by virtue of our kinship to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), we had a share.”

Until Abu Bakr’s eyes overflowed with tears.

Source: al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Military Expeditions, Chapter on the Expedition of Khaybar, no. 4240.

This text, in the soundest of Sunni books, establishes that the Commander of the Faithful (AS) confronted them with the word “arbitrariness,” affirmed his right grounded in kinship and text, and that he withheld his pledge for the lifetime of Lady Fatima (AS) (8 BH–11 AH / 614–632 CE), pledging only under coercion after her death and after the narrowing of political options before him.

---

5. The Collapse and Contradiction of the Alleged System of Consultation

The Shia advance a decisive rational and historical proof that invalidates the thesis of “consultation” (shura) by tracing the mechanism of the transfer of power, wherein the glaring contradiction appears that proves there was no defined legitimate system the people followed:

• Abu Bakr: reached power through the “slip” of the Saqifa and the seizing of the opportunity in the absence of the Banu Hashim.
• Umar ibn al-Khattab: did not come by consultation at all, but by an explicit and direct appointment from Abu Bakr while he was on his deathbed, where he wrote the covenant of the caliphate for Umar and imposed it upon the people.
• Uthman ibn Affan (47 BH–35 AH / 576–656 CE): came through the conditioned six-man council, in which Umar confined the matter to six persons and set a mechanism that guaranteed the tipping of the scale toward Uthman by making the vote of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf (44 BH–32 AH / 580–652 CE) the deciding weight, and threatened with death whoever opposed this steered council.

Regarding the succession of Umar, al-Tabari (224–310 AH / 839–923 CE) narrates:

“Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his chamber… and said: Are you content with the one I have appointed over you? For, by Allah, I have not fallen short in exerting my judgment, nor have I appointed a relative. I have appointed Umar ibn al-Khattab, so listen to him and obey. They said: We hear and we obey.”

Source: al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari, events of the year 13 AH, vol. 3, p. 429.

And in the six-man council Umar said:

“If they split, three and three, then take the opinion of the side that includes Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, and kill the rest if they oppose.”

Source: al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 229; and Ibn al-Athir (555–630 AH / 1160–1233 CE), al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, p. 35.

Here the Shia pose a decisive question: If consultation were a religious principle to which they adhered, why did Abu Bakr breach it by appointing Umar without referring back to the nation? And if individual appointment and succession were legally permissible, why is it deemed excessive for the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) to appoint Ali (AS), the infallible one supported from heaven? This contradiction proves the falsity of the entire claim of consultation and exposes their failure to respect even the very logic they professed.

---

6. The Grievance of al-Zahra (AS), Fadak, and the Conspiracy of Economic Blockade

The affair of Fadak was not a simple property dispute; it was a political and economic confrontation aimed at besieging Imam Ali (AS) and weakening his front, by confiscating the land that had been under the hand of Lady Fatima (AS) — whether as a gift from her father during his life or as a lawful inheritance.

Abu Bakr argued against the inheritance by a hadith that he alone narrated, saying:

“The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: We are not inherited from; whatever we leave is charity.”

Source: al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Obligation of the Fifth (Khums), Chapter on the Obligation of the Fifth, no. 3093.

In the face of this denial, Lady Fatima (AS) moved to expose the falsity of this claim, which clashes explicitly with the firm Book of Allah and the Quranic rules of inheritance. She went out to the mosque and delivered her Fadakiyya sermon before the crowds.

al-Zahra (AS) marshaled the verses of the Quran to refute the narration, saying in condemnation:

“Have you deliberately abandoned the Book of Allah and cast it behind your backs, when it says: «And Solomon inherited David», and when it recounted from the account of John son of Zechariah, when he said: «So grant me from Yourself an heir who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob»?… Has Allah singled you out with a verse from which He excluded my father? Or do you say that the people of two different religions do not inherit from one another?”

Source: Abu al-Fadl Ahmad ibn Abi Tahir Tayfur (204–280 AH / 819–893 CE), Balaghat al-Nisa’, p. 16; and al-Tabarsi (468–548 AH / 1075–1153 CE), al-Ihtijaj, vol. 1, p. 102.

In her sermon, al-Zahra (AS) exposed the reactionary spirit that had crept into the people, deeming the confiscation of her lawful property and the denial of her claim a slander against the purity of the house in which the Quran was revealed — the house of the the Prophet's household (AS), from whom Allah removed all impurity and purified them a thorough purification.

---

7. The Audacity of Denial: Rejecting the Testimony of the Infallibles and Belying Revelation

The essence of the dispute in the affair of Fadak and the inheritance was not an ordinary judicial dispute; it was an embodiment of the ruling authority’s audacity in belying the truthful ones whom Allah purified in His Book. When Lady Fatima al-Zahra (AS) demanded her right in Fadak, Abu Bakr confronted her with a direct denial of her claim and rejected the decisive testimonies she presented, casting aside her station and the station of the witnesses before Allah and His Messenger (PBUH).

The Context of the Narration and the Rejection of the Witnesses

al-Zahra (AS) explained that Fadak was her property because the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had gifted it to her during his lifetime, but Abu Bakr did not believe her and demanded proof and witnesses to this gift. So she brought the Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS), to testify for her, and she brought the two grandsons of the Messenger, the two Imams al-Hasan (AS) and al-Husayn (AS), and Umm Ayman (d. c. 24 AH / 645 CE).

Here came the historic shock; for they rejected the testimony of Imam Ali (AS) on the pretext that he was her husband, and rejected the testimony of al-Hasan (AS) and al-Husayn (AS) on the pretext that they were her sons and minors whose testimony for their mother is inadmissible.

Source: Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Abd al-Aziz al-Jawhari (d. 323 AH / 935 CE), al-Saqifa wa Fadak, p. 103; and Ibn Abi al-Hadid (586–656 AH / 1190–1258 CE), Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 16, p. 274, citing al-Jawhari.

Discussion and Doctrinal Analysis

This act by Abu Bakr and Umar was not merely a rejection of the testimony of ordinary individuals in a human court; it was in reality a flagrant belying of Allah, exalted is He, and His Messenger (PBUH).

• Belying the Verse of Purification and the Infallibility of al-Zahra (AS): Lady Fatima al-Zahra (AS) is, by the text of the noble Quran, among those from whom Allah removed all impurity and purified thoroughly, in the Verse of Purification:

“Allah only wishes to remove all impurity from you, O People of the House, and to purify you a thorough purification.” (Al-Ahzab: 33)

Whoever belies Fatima (AS) and demands a witness from her, it is as though he deems falsehood and impurity possible in her — and this is a direct belying of the divine will and a belying of the words of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH):

“Fatima is the mistress of the women of Paradise.”

Source: al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 3714.

• Rejecting the Testimony of the Standard of Truth, Imam Ali (AS): They rejected his testimony on the pretext of personal interest, even though the Prophet (PBUH) said:

“Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with Ali; they shall not part until they return to me at the Pool.”

Source: al-Hakim al-Naysaburi (321–405 AH / 933–1014 CE), al-Mustadrak, vol. 3, p. 134.

And the Prophet (PBUH) said:

“O Allah, turn the truth with Ali wherever he turns.”

Source: al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, no. 3714.

If truth revolves with him, how can his testimony be rejected?

• Rejecting the Testimony of the Two Masters of the Youth of Paradise, al-Hasan (AS) and al-Husayn (AS): They pretexted that they were sons and minors, despite the mass-transmitted prophetic text:

“al-Hasan and al-Husayn are the two masters of the youth of Paradise.”

Source: al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, no. 3768.

Those for whom the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) testified to mastery over the people of Paradise cannot possibly have falsehood or perjury reach their precincts at any age.

This incident reveals that the people were not moving by a pure legal logic, but by a political one; for acknowledging the truthfulness of al-Zahra (AS) and the witnesses would mean acknowledging their absolute entitlement to the legally-designated imamate.

---

8. The Historical Philosophy of the Secret Burial: The Anger of al-Zahra (AS) as a Trace of the Crime

Lady Fatima al-Zahra’s (AS) insistence, in her testament to the Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS), that she be buried secretly in the dead of night, that the site of her grave be effaced, and that neither Abu Bakr nor Umar in particular attend her funeral or pray over her — this was a divine plan that al-Zahra (AS) drew up with profound wisdom to record a decisive, timeless stance and to leave a historical trace by which coming generations and researchers into history would infer, and ask: Why was the daughter of the noblest Prophet (PBUH) buried in secret, her grave dying with her?

The Testament of the Nightly Burial and the Barring of the Rulers

The narrations in the books of the Muslims converge that Imam Ali (AS) carried out this strict testament in obedience to her command (AS). al-Bukhari narrates:

“When she died, her husband Ali buried her at night, and did not notify Abu Bakr, and prayed over her himself.”

Source: al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Military Expeditions, Chapter on the Expedition of Khaybar, no. 4240.

And Ibn Qutayba al-Dinawari (213–276 AH / 828–889 CE) narrates that Fatima (AS) said to Abu Bakr and Umar:

“I call Allah and His angels to witness that you two have angered me and not pleased me.”

And she said to Ali (AS):

“I charge you that none of these who have wronged me attend my funeral… and that you bury me at night when eyes have stilled and gazes have slept.”

Source: Ibn Qutayba, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, vol. 1, pp. 31–32.

The Rational Analysis and the Historical Trial

In the face of this thunderous Fatimid anger and this concealed nightly burial, the researcher finds himself before two possibilities and no third:

• The first possibility: that Lady Fatima al-Zahra (AS) — Allah forbid — was not justified in her anger, and that she departed from correctness and demanded what was not hers as a result of human agitation.

Raising this possibility here is a matter of pure rational inference and hypothetical dialectical argument, exactly as Allah, glorified and exalted, argued in His firm Book by a hypothetical condition to establish the proof and invalidate the claims of adversaries:

“Say: If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of the worshippers.” (Al-Zukhruf: 81)

The existence of a son for the Most Merciful is rationally impossible, but the mention of the hypothesis and the condition here came to bind the other party by the proof, to establish the conclusive argument, and to refute their claims.

Likewise, the supposition that al-Zahra (AS) was not justified is a false and impossible supposition that the firm noble Quran and the Islamic consensus overturn; for Allah, exalted is He, testified to her infallibility and her absolute purity from every impurity in the Verse of Purification, and there is not a single Muslim on the face of the earth who denies the decisive inclusion of the verse for Fatima al-Zahra (AS). Therefore this possibility falls by decisive proof.

• The second possibility: that Lady Fatima al-Zahra (AS) was entirely justified in her anger at, and her estrangement from, Abu Bakr and Umar. And if it is established with certainty that she was justified by the mass-transmitted verses and hadiths, then we stand before a decisive historical admission that a grave and momentous matter took place, and that the standing authority committed a grievous offense that necessitated the wrath of the part of the Chosen One (AS).

The Infallible Equation and the Nullification of Legitimacy

• Fatima (AS) died angry with Abu Bakr and Umar, estranged from them until death. Source: al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 4240.
• The anger of Fatima (AS) is the very anger of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), for his saying:

“Fatima is a part of me; whoever angers her has angered me.”

Source: al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 3714.

• The anger of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) necessitates the anger of Allah, exalted is He, and His curse; the Exalted said:

“Indeed, those who harm Allah and His Messenger — Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter.” (Al-Ahzab: 57)

The burial by night and the concealment of the grave is the enduring historical document that al-Zahra (AS) left standing before the generations, to affirm to every seeker of truth that the era of the Saqifa was built upon usurping the lights and the deviation of the nation.

---

9. The Quranic Reading of the Event of the Coup

The Shia are not surprised at the occurrence of this deviation and this circumvention of the prophetic testament; for the noble Quran itself set out the possibility clearly and warned the Muslims against political and practical apostasy the moment the guiding leader was absent.

The study cites His saying, exalted is He:

“Muhammad is but a messenger; messengers have passed on before him. So if he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels? And whoever turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all.” (Al Imran: 144)

The verse is explicit that the claimed companionship is not a divine deed that prevents deviation, and that the nation is exposed to relapse and turning back on its heels. The “turning back” here is a turning back against the divine system for managing society, the sidelining of the second weighty thing — the Household (AS) — and the giving of precedence to the calculations of tribal interest over the texts of heaven and the commands of Allah and His Messenger (PBUH).

---

Summary of the Study and the Pivotal Conclusion

It becomes clear, from the convergence of the narrated, historical, and rational proofs, that the nation — represented by its ruling authority at that time — deviated in the first test after the absence of the Prophet (PBUH). The consultation invoked to establish the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman is a collapsed and fabricated thesis; for it began with an arbitrary “slip” that sidelined Imam Ali (AS) and the Banu Hashim, turned into a direct “appointment” of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and ended with a “steered committee” that imposed Uthman under the threat of the sword.

This rebellion against the divine text and appointment was not merely an error in managing a state; it was the actual disobedience from which branched all the doctrinal and monotheistic deviations the nation later witnessed. While the infallible line of the Household (AS) preserved the reality of pure divine oneness, the other course caused the distortion of concepts and the loss of the prophetic testament, so that the grievance of al-Zahra (AS), her anger, and her grave concealed by night remain the greatest historical witness that the nation turned back and did not keep the covenant.