1

Sayyidunā ʿAlī I Pledging Allegiance to Sayyidunā Abū Bakr I

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious the most Merciful. Peace and salutations on the Prophet H,
seal of the Prophets, is family and His beloved Companions.

Unwarranted accusations and tall claims have always been the predilection of the unscrupulous. And
while it is not uncommon to find them hurling such accusations at their counterparts, the reality is that
even the Prophets and the Almighty Creator of the Universe Allah E have been the target of such
falsities. These accusations take on various shades and their unjustifiable criticisms cover a range of
topics. A poet has summed this up quite eloquently:

‫لم يسلم المرء من قال ومن قيال‬...‫والله لو صاحب اإلنسان جبريال‬

ً ‫قد قيل فى الله أقوا‬

‫تتلى إذا رتل القرآن ترتيال‬...‫ال مدبج ًة‬

‫زور ًا عليه و بهتان ًا وتضليال‬...‫قـد قـيـل أن لـه ولد ًا وصاحب ًه‬

‫فكيف لو قيل فينا بعض ماقيال‬...‫هذا قولهم فى الله خالقهم‬

By Allah! If a man were to accompany Jibrīl S, he still would not be saved from criticism.

Arguments have been made against Allah, which are heard when the Qur’ān is recited.

They said that He has offspring and a wife, a lie, slander, and disparagement against him.

This is their statement regarding Allāh who created them, so how is it [shocking] when they say
something about us?

When criticism is made based upon one’s personal prejudices and biases, then no one can be safe. Thus,
finding unfounded criticism being levelled on the honourable Ṣaḥābah of the Prophet H comes
as no surprise, even though they were the ones who accompanied the Prophet H, assisted him,
and defended him.

Amongst the Ṣaḥābah is Sayyidunā Abū Bakr I, whose sincerity of companionship is attested to
by the noble Qur’ān1, but he too has not remained unscathed from the tongues and pens of the those
lacking faith.

Before we begin addressing the allegation which is the subject of this article, let us spare a moment to
delve into the status of Sayyidunā Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq I as articulated by none other than Sayyidunā
ʿAlī I. An objective analysis of these authentic narrations will clear any misgivings, provided one
frees his mind of his preconceived biases.

1 Allah E says, “If you do not aid him [i.e., the Prophet H] then Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven
him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he [i.e., Muḥammad H] said to his Companion [Abū Bakr I],
“Do not grieve; indeed Allāh is with us.” And Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and supported him with soldiers [i.e., angels] you
did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might
and Wise. [Sūrah al-Tawbah: 40]

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
 2
Sayyidunā Ḥasan I reports that Sayyidunā ʿAlī I said:

When Rasūlullāh H passed away we reflected over our affairs. We realised that he had instructed
Abū Bakr to lead the congregation in ṣalāh. We were, thus, pleased for our worldly affairs with
the person who Rasūlullāh H was pleased with for our religious affairs. We, therefore, gave
precedence to Abū Bakr.1

Nazzāl ibn Sabrah narrates:

One day we found ʿAlī in a very elated mood so we said, “Tell us about your companions.”

He said, “All the Ṣaḥābah of Rasūlullāh are my companions.”

We demanded, “Then tell us about the Ṣaḥābah of Rasūlullāh.”

“Ask me,” he replied.

We said, “Tell us something about Abū Bakr.”

He said, “That is a person who was named al-Ṣiddīq via Jibrīl and Muḥammad H. And was the
deputy of Rasūlullāh H in leading the congregation in ṣalāh; Rasulullah H had chosen him
for our religious affairs, thus we were pleased that he took charge of our worldly affairs as well.”2

Ḥasan al-Baṣrī V reports from ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib I:

Rasūlullāh H sent forth Abū Bakr to lead the prayer whereas I was not absent, rather present,
and not ill, but in sound health. If he would have wanted to give me preference he would have done
so. We were thus happy for our worldly affairs with he, whom Allah is happy with for religious
matters.3

Sayyidunā ʿAlī I and the rest of the Ṣaḥābah had deduced from his Imāmah (leadership) in ṣalāh
his eligibility for leadership as the Khalīfah. The abovementioned narrations make it crystal clear that
ʿAlī I saw Abū Bakr I to be more worthy than himself for the post of Khilāfah, as he had been
appointed by the Prophet H to lead the ṣalāh even though he was present. There is not a single
authentic narration that states he felt otherwise.

The critics of Sayyidunā Abū Bakr I raise much hue and cry over Sayyidunā ʿAlī’s I alleged delay
in pledging allegiance to Sayyidunā Abū Bakr I, claiming that he was displeased with Sayyidunā
Abū Bakr I. An analysis of the authentic sources, however, reveals the hollowness of their claims.
Mawlanā Muḥammad Nāfiʿ has addressed this allegation in detail in his magnum opus, Ruḥamā’ Baynahum,
he writes:

ʿAlī I had pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr I after the demise of Rasūlullāh H without any
delay, i.e. he had pledged allegiance to him within three days from the death of Rasūlullāh H.

1 Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd, 3/130.

2 Usd al-Ghābah, 3/216.
3 Usd al-Ghābah, 3/221.

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
 3
The claims that ʿAlī I had not pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr I at all, or that he only pledged
allegiance to Abū Bakr I six months after the demise of Fāṭimah J, or that he had—because
of being coerced by others—outwardly pledged allegiance without any willingness from his side
are erroneous. These claims are contrary to reality and are the result of the additions of some of
the narrators. Furthermore, those who have raised these claims have dramatized them a great deal
before popularising them among the people.

Ahead I shall present before you a few narrations that appear in the books of ḥadīth and the books of
history. These narrations have been cited by the scholars in substantiation of the immediate bayʿah
of ʿAlī I.

All the Ṣaḥābah, including ʿAlī and al-Zubayr, had unanimously accepted the Khilāfah of Abū Bakr
I. The proof of this is the narration cited by Imām al-Bayhaqī which reads as follows:

Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī narrates that after the demise of Rasūlullāh H the people had
convened at the residence of Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah. Amongst them were Abū Bakr and ʿUmar
as well. A person from the Anṣār stood up and said, “Do you realise that the Rasūl of Allāh
H was from the Muhājirīn, and we were his Anṣār, supporters, therefore, we shall be the

supporters of his successor as well.” ʿUmar thereupon stood up and remarked, “Behold! Your
speaker has spoken the truth. If you (the Anṣār) said anything other than this we would never
have pledged allegiance to you.” He then held the hand of Abū Bakr and said, “Here is your
Companion! So, pledge your allegiance to him.” Hence, ʿUmar pledged his allegiance to him
and so did the Muhājirīn and the Anṣār.

Abū Bakr then came to the masjid settled on the pulpit and glanced at the congregation. He
did not find Zubayr. He thus called for him. Zubayr came. Abū Bakr said to him, “You are the
son of the aunt of Rasūlullāh and his close companion, do you intend to destroy the unity of
the Muslims?”

He responded, “O Khalīfah of Rasūlullāh! I am not to be reproached (for I have come to pledge

my allegiance).”

He thereafter stood up and pledged his allegiance to Abū Bakr I. Abū Bakr again gazed at
the congregation and did not find ʿAlī I. He summoned him, and when he came, said to him,
“You are the son of the uncle of Rasūlullāh and his son-in-law, do you wish to destroy the unity
of the Muslims?”

ʿAlī said, “O Khalīfah of Rasulūllāh! I am not to be reproached.”

He then stood up and pledged his allegiance to Abū Bakr.1

Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Naysābūrī mentions, “I heard Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Khuzaymah say, ‘Muslim
ibn Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī came to me and asked me about this narration, so I wrote it for him on a piece
of paper and read it to him. He remarked, ‘This ḥadīth is as valuable as a camel of sacrifice.’ I said,
‘Instead it is as valuable as a bag filled with a hundred silver coins.’”2,3

1 Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, chapter regarding fighting the rebels, 8/143; al-Iʿtiqād ʿalā Madhab al Salaf, p. 178; al-Bidāyah, 5/249.
2 Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 8/143; al-Bidāyah, 5/249.
3 Ruḥamā’ Baynahum, 1/156.

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
 4
Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī has mentioned the following in his book, Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī:

Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit narrates, “ʿAlī was at home when he was informed that Abū Bakr was
sitting to accept the bayʿah of the people. He very quickly emerged from his house with
nothing but a long garb in order not to delay in pledging allegiance; hence, he pledged his
allegiance to Abū Bakr and subsequently sat in his gathering. He then asked for his additional
clothing to be brought, clad himself with them, and remained seated.1,2

It can be clearly understood that ʿAlī I pledged his allegiance very soon after Abū Bakr I became
the Khalīfah. He was not forced to pledge allegiance as is alleged by some nor did he delay in pledging
allegiance.

However, one might ask, why have some claimed that he delayed his pledge for six months?

The answer is quite simple, as elucidated in Ruḥamā’ Baynahum:

From amongst the narrations that reject the immediate bayʿah, the narrations which state that ʿAlī
I did not pledge allegiance as long as Fāṭimah J was alive—i.e. six months—are of crucial
importance. Furthermore, in some narrations it is stated that none of the Banū Hāshim had also
pledged their allegiance to Abū Bakr I. Hence, it would be apt to firstly clear the contention
around these narrations.

The narrations that suggest that the bayʿah took place after six months appear in the following
books:

• Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī

• Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim

• Musnad Abī ʿAwānah

• Al-Sunan al-Kubrā

• Tārīkh Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī

• Ansāb al-Ashrāf, and many other books as well.

The link of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī is found in each of the chains of transmission of the narrations which
appear in the above quoted references. By contemplating over these narrations, one comes to realise
that additions had been made in them by some of the narrators. One such addition is the aspect
of ʿAlī I not pledging allegiance as long as Fāṭimah J was alive. And in some narrations, it is
mentioned to this extent that none of the Banū Hāshim pledged allegiance as well. These narrations
are presented below:

3
‫فلما توفيت فاطمة استنكر علي وجوه الناس فالتمس مصالحة أبي بكر ومبايعته ولم يكن يبايع تلك األشهر‬

1 Tārīkh Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, chapter regarding Saqīfah, 3/201.

2 Ruḥamā’ Baynahum, 1/163.
3 Al-Bukhārī, vol. 2, at the end of the discussion of Khaybar; Muslim, vol. 2, chapter regarding the ruling of Fayʾ.

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
 5
1
‫لم يبايع علي ابا بكر حتى ماتت فاطمة بعد ستة اشهر فلما ماتت ضرع الى صلح ابى بكر‬

2
‫فقال رجل للزهرى افلم يبايعه على ستة اشهر قال ال وال احد من بنى هاشم حتى بايعه على‬

‫قال معمر قلت للزهري كم مكثت فاطمة بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ستة اشهر فقال رجل للزهرى فلم‬
3
‫يبايعه علي حتي ماتت فاطمة قال وال احد من بنى هاشم‬

The crux of all the above quoted narrations is that ʿAlī I had reunited with Abū Bakr I and
pledged allegiance to him only after the demise of Fāṭimah J and that was six months after the
demise of the Rasūl H. The Banū Hāshim had likewise not pledged their allegiance in this period.

Contemplate over the wording of the different variations of the incident. The texts quoted above are
portions from the narration of ʿĀ’ishah J. Whilst the narrator (al-Zuhrī) is reporting the narration
he is asked a question to which he responds from his own side and says, “No, nor did any of the Banū
Hāshim pledge allegiance in those six months”. This is most certainly not the words of ʿĀ’ishah J.
This is the assumption of the narrator and his addition. There is a distinct difference between ‘he
said’ and ‘she said’. There is no need for any other proof in this regard.

The only difference between the variations of al-Bukhārī and Muslim and the other sources, viz.
Musnad Abū ʿAwānah, Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, etc., is that in the former the words “a person
said to al-Zuhrī” or “I said to al-Zuhrī” have been omitted due to the narrator wanting to condense
the narration; and in the latter these words are explicitly mentioned which make it clear in no
uncertain terms that the aspect of the delayed bayʿah is the assumption of al-Zuhrī.4

A number of scholars have classified this particular addition of al-Zuhrī to be weak, to which no
consideration should be given. The views of some of the scholars will be presented as evidence:

1. Imām al-Bayhaqī has stated the following in his epic work al-Sunan al-Kubrā:

‫قول الزهرى في قعود علي عن بيعة ابى بكر رضي الله عنه حتى توفيت فاطمة منقطع و حديث ابى سعيد‬
.‫الخدرى في مبايعته اياه حتى بويع بيعة العامةبعد السقيفة أصح‬

The statement of al-Zuhrī regarding ʿAlī not pledging his allegiance to Abū Bakr till the demise of
Fāṭimah is inconsistent. And the narration of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī in which mention is made of his
immediate pledge is sounder…5

Note: The narration of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī I to which reference is being made in the text
above has already been cited in the first chapter on the authority of al-Bidāyah, Mustadrak, etc.
Imām Muslim and Ibn Khuzaymah have classified it as sound.

1 Ansāb al-Ashrāf, 1/586.

2 Tārīkh Ibn Jarīr: Discussion of Saqīfah; Musnad Abī ʿAwānah, 4/142.
3 Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6/300: chapter regarding the distribution of Fayʾ and Ghanīmah.
4 Ruhamā’ Baynahum.
5 Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6/308: chapter regarding the distribution of Fayʾ and Ghanīmah.

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
 6
It should also be remembered that Imām al-Bayhaqī has clarified this matter in much more
unequivocal terms in his book al-Iʿtiqād. He has stated therein that this statement of Ibn Shihāb is
inconsistent and it is not part of the narration of ʿĀ’ishah J. He writes:

‫والذى روي ان عليا لم يبايع ابا بكر ستة اشهر ليس من قول عاءشة انما هو من قول الزهري فأدرجه بعض الرواة‬
‫في الحديث عن عائشة في قصة فاطمة و حفظه معمر بن راشد فرواه مفصال وجعله من قول الزهري منقطعا من‬
‫الحديث و قد روينا في الحديث الموصول عن ابي سعيد الخضري و من تابعه من اهل المغازي ان عليا بايعه في‬
.‫بيعة العامة بعد البيعة التي جرت في السقيفه‬

And that which is narrated that ʿAlī had not given his bayʿah for six months is not the statement of
ʿĀ’ishah J, rather it is the statement of al-Zuhrī. One of the narrators have included it as part of the
narration of ʿĀ’ishah regarding the story of Fāṭimah. And Maʿmar, on the hand, secured the narration
with all its details and clarified that this is the statement of al-Zuhrī which is totally separate from
the narration of ʿĀ’ishah. And we have narrated the consistent narration of Abū Saʿīd wherein it is
mentioned that he had given his bayʿah with everyone else after Saqīfah.1

2. In Fatḥ al-Bārī (vol. 7), the battle of Khaybar, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī had stated the following:

‫و قد صحح ابن حبان و غيره من حديث ابي سعيد الخدري و غيره ان عليا بايع ابا بكر في اول األمر و اما ما وقع‬
‫في مسلم عن الزهري ان رجال قال له لم يبايع علي ابا بكر حتي ماتت فاطمه قال ال وال احد من بني هاشم فقد‬
.‫ضعفه البيهقي بان الزهري لم يسنده و ان الرواية الموصولة أصح‬

Ibn Ḥibbān and many other scholars have authenticated the narration of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī in
which mention is made of his immediate pledging of allegiance. As for the narration which appears in
Muslim which states that someone said to al-Zuhrī, “ʿAlī did not pledge his allegiance till the demise
of Fāṭimah?” to which he responded by saying, “No and nor did any of the Banū Hāshim.” Imām al-
Bayhaqī has classified the narration as weak because al-Zuhrī has not narrated it with consistency.
Thus, the consistent narration is sounder.2

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr V has summed up the entire discussion aptly, with which we will conclude:

‫هي مبايعة علي بن ابي طالب إما في أول اليوم أو في اليوم الثاني من الوفاة و هذا حق فان علي بن أبي طالب لم‬
‫يفارق الصديق في وقت من االوقات ولم ينقطع في صلوة من الصلوات خلفه كما سنذكره و خرج معه الي ذي‬
.‫التصة لما خرج الصديق شاهرا سيفه يريد قتال اهل الردة‬

1 Al-Iʿtiqād ʿalā Madhhab al-Salaf, p. 180.

2 Fatḥ al-Bārī, 7/ 399. Mawlānā Shams al-Ḥaqq al-Afghānī has stated the following:
The narration of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī is sounder due to these reasons:
1. Because it is consistent and the narration of al-Zuhrī is inconsistent and the former always takes precedence
over the latter.
2. Because it is a statement of a Ṣaḥābī and al-Zuhrī is a junior Tābiʿī. The Statement of a Ṣaḥābī naturally takes
precedence.
3. ʿAlī I had accepted the Imāmah of Abū Bakr in ṣalāh due to the order of the Rasūl H so why would he
be tentative in accepting his khilāfah?
4. After the assassination of ʿUthmān I he had reluctantly accepted khilāfah whereas there was no one parallel
to him in merit, so why would he be desirous of it in the presence of Abū Bakr I?
Irshād al-Sārī, 8/ 158.

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
 7
ʿAlī had pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr either the first or second day after the demise of the Rasūl
H; this is the sheer truth because he had not parted from Abū Bakr at any time, not had he
missed any ṣalāh behind Abū Bakr as we will mention ahead. Similarly, he had accompanied him to
Dhī al-Qiṣṣah when he left with his sword unsheathed in order to combat those who had denounced
Islam.1

Even if for arguments sake we were to, hypothetically, accept that Sayyidunā ʿAlī I did not offer
his pledge of allegiance immediately, contrary to all the evidence indicating that he did, and only did
so after six months then too it will have no consequence, as this too attests to the undeniably truth,
namely that Sayyidunā ʿAlī I—may Allah’s choicest blessings descend upon him—at the end of the
day also pledged allegiance to Sayyidunā Abū Bakr I and recognised him as the rightful Khalīfah
after Rasūlullāh H. If only the critics were capable of freeing themselves from their prejudices,
they too would come to see the futility of their entire line of argument.

May Allah E make the truth apparent to us and grant us the ability to adhere to it, and make
falsehood clear to us and save us from it.

1 Al-Bidāyah, 5/248-249, Discussion regarding Saqīfah.

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM