Abu Dharr
Some well-meaning muslims are careful and hesitate to assert that Imam ‘Ali has preference over Abu Bakr as the latter was well-respected and well thought of by the Prophet (ﷺ). He was the Prophet’s second in the cave on their way to al-Madinah escaping the Makkan death posse.
Abu Bakr was also the one who led the congregational salat after the Prophet (ﷺ) passed on. Other well-meaning muslims are careful and hesitate to assert that Imam ‘Ali has preference over ‘Umar because of the latter’s stature, and because he was conscientiously chosen by Abu Bakr to lead the muslims. Obviously the committed Muhajireen/Ansar muslims were capable of contentedly agreeing on Imam ‘Ali becoming their leader after the Prophet (ﷺ) passed away knowing that ‘Umar tactfully recommended Imam ‘Ali as “he would set them (Quraish and a restive populace) straight.”
Imam ‘Ali was also known to be ethnically and communally “well connected” in the tribal makeup of Makkah and al-Hijaz on a level with ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf. Imam ‘Ali was a descendant of the larger Quraish tribe (the Hashimi lineage), he was an in-law of the Rabi‘ah and Yamaniyah tribes. He brought forth children from these tribes and that carried weight in a pre-to-post Islamic culture and tradition that was not totally and thoroughly expunged of its jahili customs and conventions.
Had Imam ‘Ali become the first leader/successor to the Prophet (ﷺ) before history played out as it did in the interceding years (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman’s khilafah) there definitely was an appreciable support base for him clearing things up by blunting the undercurrents of ‘asibiyyah [tribal and clannish self-centeredness] and consolidating Islamic internal affairs.
It appears that the solid Prophetic base of the Muhajireen and Ansar chose not to decide on Imam ‘Ali becoming the immediate successor to the Prophet (ﷺ) mainly due to some reservations and dynamics. The first one was the apprehension that the leadership position going from the Prophet (ﷺ) to Imam ‘Ali would be understood by the majority of muslims who had just come out of their deeply rooted jahiliyah to mean that Islam itself is tribal: power going from Muhammad (the father-in-law and cousin of Imam ‘Ali) to ‘Ali (the son-in-law and cousin of the Muhammad (ﷺ)) would in their view be unmistakably tribal and hereditary. Thus, all the talk of Islamic fairness, equality, justice, and impartiality sounded good in theory but disproved by practice!
In their blemished view, Bani Hashim (to whom the Prophet and Imam ‘Ali belonged) would become an Islamic dynasty. Later on, this potential popular notion was disproved as Imam ‘Ali did not appoint his sons to be the leaders of the muslims. Just like the Prophet (ﷺ) did not impose a leader upon the muslims, Imam ‘Ali likewise did not do so either. Rather, they wanted the muslims themselves to collectively sanction who their leader shall be with orientation from and reference to Allah (SWT) and His Prophet (ﷺ).
The second reservation and reluctance about Imam ‘Ali was his refusal of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf’s proposition that if he (Imam ‘Ali) was chosen to lead the muslims he would do so according to the Book of Allah, the course of action of the Prophet (ﷺ), and the modus operandi of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar without any discrepancy. Imam ‘Ali had his skepticism and worries about such a precondition as he could not guarantee the continuation of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’s methods and maneuvers as good intentioned as they were and Imam ‘Ali was keenly aware of Makkah’s attitude toward him as opposed to their attitude toward Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
Imam ‘Ali was unquestionably committed to the Book of Allah (SWT) and the methodology of the Prophet (ﷺ) but not so towards the trajectory plans and policies of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. With all the developments that were taking shape throughout the growing Islamic realm, Imam ‘Ali’s position would, from here on, begin to pick up popularity and gain more confidence among the general population. The average citizen in the muslim sphere of influence started to steadily appreciate Imam ‘Ali’s transparent honesty and genuine guardianship for the camaraderie of the Muhajireen and Ansar as well as the solidarity of the Islamic rank and file.
The moment when it came down to a choice between Imam ‘Ali and ‘Uthman among the potential mediators and conciliators for a full-fledged future Islamic Makkah was the defining moment that would set the future civil dissension events into motion. When Imam ‘Ali expressed himself conscientiously but courageously in response to ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf’s proposal he let the good faith mollifying policies of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar representing the concurrency of the Muhajireen and Ansar towards Quraish and Makkah run their course as they would eventually and tragically culminate in the heedless assassination of ‘Uthman.
‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf being placed in a delicate position of tipping the balance one way or the other between Imam ‘Ali and ‘Uthman may have sensed correctly or incorrectly a gesture of altruism ensuing from Imam ‘Ali. It appears that when ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf decided the outcome he did so without preferential treatment or prejudice. He turned to ‘Uthman and without bias expressed his bay‘ah [vow of leadership allegiance].
Events later on will prove that ‘Uthman was innocently incapable of ruling in the manner that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar ruled as he promised to do. ‘Uthman’s political decisions and administrative style were nothing like Abu Bakr and ‘Umar—his predecessors. What will come into focus is that when Imam ‘Ali eventually became the leader he outperformed and overshadowed both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar during his short-lived Imamate/Khilafat.
Imam ‘Ali’s conduct with the muslim citizenry was more stern and austere than ‘Umar himself. Imam ‘Ali in the best sense of the word was a “turbo-charged” version of ‘Umar with the distinction that ‘Umar ruled over more of the Prophet’s uniquely dedicated generation than did Imam ‘Ali. ‘Umar ruled with less internal threats than was the case during Imam ‘Ali’s rule, and ‘Umar ruled when Makkah and Quraish had not made their way into top positions in the Islamic government while Imam ‘Ali had to deal with them after some of them gained and others grabbed power and influence under an Islamic semblance.
Imam ‘Ali lived a simple, minimal and humble life both before the Islamic treasury was in a surplus state and after its coffers were full and overflowing. His whole life was sparse and ascetic, never stress-free and ornate. He wasn’t wealthy and rich. He got by with basic needs, he coped with hard times, and he managed hard situations. When he died he did not leave behind a fortune in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions like others. His son al-Imam al-Hasan disclosed that his father left behind 700 dirhams that were put aside to free a bondwoman (a person owned by another person).
During his Imamat/Khilafat, Imam ‘Ali used to wear thrift clothes and vintage clothing. He would “walk down the street” undistinguishable from an average pedestrian except for his whip. His presence among people is reminiscent of ‘Umar’s – if only “Muslim sectarians” could come to their senses.
And those who respond to their Sustainer, and standardize divine communion, and deliberate their [civic] affair through consultation among themselves, and spend out of what H provided for them [Surat al-Shura, 38].
The persons around the Prophet (pbuh) were the founding fathers of Islamic self-determination. While not all of the same ranking, they were ...
When the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode, the vast majority of Muslims were newcomers to Islam, hence not fully immersed in the value...
The third Khalifah, Uthman’s deviation from the policy established by the Prophet and his two successors (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) by apporti...
If the early Muslims had an opportunity to put in place a proper institutional framework, the tragedy that erupted during Uthman’s khilafa...
