ABU BAKR WAS NOT PREVENTED FROM WRITING HIS WILL

With regard to your repeated claim that Abu Bakr and Umar were not prevented from writing their wills, I admit it is true. It is surprising, as all your historians and traditionists have recorded in their authentic books, that Caliph Abu Bakr, at the time of his death, asked Uthman Bin Affan to write down what he (Abu Bakr) was saying. It was his will. He wrote down whatever Abu Bakr dictated to him. Umar and others were also present on this occasion. No one objected. Umar did not say: "The Book of Allah is sufficient for us; we do not need Abu Bakr's will." But he did not allow the Holy Prophet of Allah to write his will.

This shows that all this insulting behavior and preventing the Holy Prophet from writing his will was nothing but political conspiracy.

Ibn Abbas was perfectly justified in weeping. The entire Muslim world should shed tears of blood. If the Prophet had been given the chance to write his will, the question of the caliphate would have been clearly resolved. The previous pronouncements of the Holy Prophet would have been confirmed. But the politicians revolted against him and stood in his way.

Sheikh: Why do you claim that the Holy Prophet wanted to say something about the caliphate?

Well-Wisher: Before the Prophet died, all essential religious laws were revealed. The verse of the "Perfection of Religion" made this clear. Of course the matter of the caliphate was such that he wanted to make certain that there would be no confusion regarding it. I have already told you that Imam Ghazali in his Sirru'l-Alamin (Maqala IV) has recorded that the Holy Prophet said: "Bring me ink and paper so that I may remove from your minds any doubts about the caliphate and that I may repeat to you who deserves that rank." His words "so that you may not go astray after me" prove that the aim of his will was the guidance of the community. In the matter of guidance, no emphasis was required except in regard to the caliphate and the imamate.

Apart from this we do not stress the point that the Holy Prophet wanted to say something about the caliphate or imamate. Certainly he wanted to write something concerning the guidance of the people so that they might not go astray after him. Then why was he not allowed to make his will? Even supposing that preventing him from doing so was proper, was it also necessary to insult and abuse him?

SO IT IS CLEAR THAT ALI WAS HOLY PROPHET'S IMMEDIATE SUCCESSOR

These things make it quite clear that Ali was the immediate successor of the Prophet of Allah. Although the latter repeatedly proclaimed this fact in the past, he wanted at this last stage to record it in his will so that the responsibilities of the Community might be made secure. But the politicians knew what he wanted to do, so they prevented him from doing so and insulted him.

The Holy Prophet had emphasized in many hadith that Allah Almighty appointed vicegerents for the holy prophets: Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and others, and that He appointed for him his vicegerent, Ali.

He also said, "Ali is my immediate successor (vicegerent) after me in my Ahle Bait and my community."

Sheikh: If these reports are taken to be true, they are not narrated with perfect continuity. How can you derive authority from them?

Well-Wisher: The unanimity of opinion concerning the Prophet's will according to us is proved by the statements of the Holy Progeny of the Holy Prophet. Moreover, you may recall that I told you on previous nights that your ulema regard a lone report as valid. Besides, in these reports, if there is no exact agreement of wording, there is certainly agreement of general meaning.

HADITH 'LA NURIS' REJECTED

Besides, you attach undue importance to continuity of reports. When you are silenced by our arguments, you take shelter behind the need for continuity. Can you prove the continuity of the hadith 'la nuris' (we leave no heirs)? You yourself admit that the narrator of this hadith was Abu Bakr or Aus Bin Hadasan. But millions of monotheists and sincere Muslims in every age have rejected this so-called hadith. The best proof of the falsity of this hadith is that it was rejected by the gate of the knowledge of the Holy Prophet, Ali, and by the entire progeny of the Holy Prophet. These people have proved that the hadith was concocted.

As I have already said earlier, the Holy Prophet said: "For every prophet there is a vicegerent and heir; verily, Ali is my vicegerent and heir."

CALIPHATE BELONGS TO THE HEIR OF KNOWLEDGE

If you say that their inheritance did not mean inheritance of wealth but that of knowledge (although it has been proven that they meant inheritance of wealth) my point of view becomes clearer. The heir of the Prophet's knowledge deserved the position of caliphate more than any one of those who were devoid of the Holy Prophet's knowledge.

Second, it has been proven that the Prophet made Ali his immediate successor and heir, according to the hadith narrated by your own ulema. Allah appointed him to this rank. Could the Prophet have neglected to tell his successor and heir ?

Moreover, it is very strange that in resolving questions regarding religious

laws Abu Bakr and Umar accepted Ali's decisions. Your own ulema and historians have recorded the judgments pronounced by Ali during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.

Hafiz: It is very strange that you claim that the caliphs did not know the

religious ordinances and that Ali used to remind them.

Well-Wisher; There is nothing strange about it. To know all the ordinances is very difficult. It would not be possible for a man to have such perfect knowledge unless he were the Prophet of Allah or the 'Gate of Knowledge' of the Holy Prophet. Your own great ulema have recorded these facts in their authentic books. I cite an example so that uninformed men may not think that we say these things to offend them.

ALI'S VERDICT CONCERNING A WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD AFTER A SIX-MONTH PREGNANCY

Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad; Imamu'l-Haram Ahmad Bin Abdullah Shafi'i in his Dhakha'ir-e-Uqba; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha; and Sheikh Sulayman Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Ch.56, quoting from Ahmad Bin Abdullah; Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Qala'i; and Ibn Saman report the following incident:

"Umar wanted to stone a woman because she had given birth to a child after a six-month pregnancy. Ali said, 'Allah says in the Holy Qur'an that the time, from conception till the prescribed time of suckling, covers a period of thirty months. Since the suckling period is for two years , the period of pregnancy is six months. This means that a birth of a child is possible after a pregnancy of six months.' So Umar set the woman free and said, 'If Ali had not been there, Umar would have perished.'"

In the same chapter he quotes from Ahmad Bin Hanbal's Manaqib: "When Umar faced a difficult problem and was unable to understand it, he relied upon Ali's understanding." A number of such events took place during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Uthman. When they became entangled in some difficulty, they called Ali as the real arbiter. They themselves acted according to his decision.

Now you may wonder why they did not accept Ali's evidence in the case of Fadak. Now in that case they chose to follow their own desires and snatched away the right of Fatima.

HADITH 'LA NURIS' NOT APPLIED TO OTHER PROPERTIES

The third argument to prove the falsity of this hadith is Caliph Abu Bakr's own statement and action. If the hadith were correct, whatever the Holy Prophet had left would have been confiscated. The heirs would have had no right over anything left behind, but Abu Bakr gave Fatima's apartment to her and also gave the apartments of the wives of the Holy Prophet, A'yesha, Hafsa, and others to them as their heritage.