الشقشقية (أي رغاء البعير)، وفيها يبيّن عليٌّ دعواه في الخلافة وأفضليته على أسلافه

[4] When `Umar was wounded by Abu Lu‘lu‘ah and he saw that it was difficult for him to survive because of the deep wound he formed a consultative committee and nominated for it `Ali ibn Abi Tãlib, `Uthmãn ibn `Affãn, `Abd ar-Raḥmãn ibn `Awf, az-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwãm, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqãs, and Ṭalḥah ibn `Ubaydillãh and bound them that after three days of his death they should select one of themselves as the Caliph while for those three days Suhayb should act as Caliph. On receipt of these instructions some members of the committee requested him to indicate what ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their light. `Umar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. He said that Sa`d was harsh-tempered and hot headed; `Abd ar-Raḥmãn was the Pharaoh of the community; az-Zubayr was, if pleased, a true believer but if displeased an un-believer; Ṭalḥah was the embodiment of pride and haughtiness, if he was made caliph he would put the ring of the caliphate on his wife’s finger while `Uthmãn did not see beyond his kinsmen. As regards `Ali he is enamoured of the Caliphate although I know that he alone can run it on right lines. Nevertheless, despite this admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative Committee and in selecting its members and laying down the working procedure he made sure that the Caliphate would take the direction in which he wished to turn it. Thus, a man of ordinary prudence can draw the conclusion that all the factors for `Uthmãn’s success were present therein. If we look at its members we see that one of them namely `Abd ar-Raḥmãn ibn `Awf is the husband of `Uthmãn’s sister, next Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqis besides bearing malice towards `Ali is a relation and kinsman of `Abd ar-Raḥmãn. Neither of them can be taken to go against `Uthmãn. The third Ṭalḥah ibn `Ubaydillãh about whom Prof. Muhammad `Abduh writes in his annotation on Nahj al-balãghah : Ṭalḥah was inclined towards `Uthmãn and the reason for it was no less than that he was against `Ali, because he himself was a at-Taymi and Abu Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate had created bad blood between Bani Taym and Bann Hãshim. As regards az-Zubayr, even if he had voted for `Ali what could his single vote achieve. According to at-Ṭabarī’s statement Ṭalḥah was not present in Medina at that time but his absence did not stand in the way of `Uthman’s success. Rather even if he were present, as he did actually reached at the meeting (of the Committee), and he is taken to be `Ali’s supporter, still there could be no doubt in `Uthmãn’s success because `Umar’s sagacious mind had set the working procedure that: If two agree about one and the other two about another then `Abdullãh ibn `Umar should act as the arbitrator. The group whom he orders should choose the Caliph from among themselves. If they do not accept `Abdullãh ibn `Umar’s verdict, support should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Raḥmãn ibn `Awf, but if the others do not agree they should be beheaded for opposing this verdict. (at-Ṭabarī, vol. 1, pp. 2779 — 2780; Ibn al-Athīr, vol. 3, p. 67). Here disagreement with the verdict of `Abdullãh ibn `Umar has no meaning since he was directed to support the group which included `Abd ar-Raḥmãn ibn `Awf. He had ordered his son `Abdullah and Suhayb that: If the people differ, you should side with the majority, but if three of them are on one side and the other three on the other, you should side with the group including `Abd ar-Raḥmãn ibn `Awf. (at-Ṭabarī, vol. 1, pp. 2725, 2780; Ibn al-Athīr, vol. 3, pp. 51, 67). In this instruction the agreement with the majority also means support of `Abd ar-Raḥmãn because the majority could not be on any other side since fifty blood-thirsty swords had been put on the heads of the opposition group with orders to fall on their heads on `Abd ar-Raḥmãn’s behest. Amīr al-mu’minīn’s eye had fore-read it at that very moment that the caliphate was going to `Uthmãn as appears from his following words which he spoke to al-Abbãs ibn `Abd al-Muttalib: “The Caliphate has been turned away from us.” al-`Abbas asked how could he know it. Then he replied, “`Uthmãn has also been coupled with me and it has been laid down that the majority should be supported; but if two agree on one and two on the other, then support should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Raḥmãn ibn `Awf. Now Sa`d will support his cousin `Abd ar-Raḥmãn who is of course the husband of `Uthman’s sister.” (ibid.) However, after `Umar’s death this meeting took place in the room of `A’ishah and on its door stood Abu Ṭalḥah al-Ansãri with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Ṭalḥah started the proceedings and inviting all others to be witness said that he gave his right of vote to `Uthmãn. This touched az-Zubayr’s sense of honour as his mother Safiyyah daughter of `Abd al-Muttalib was the sister of Prophet’s father. So he gave his right of vote to `Ali. Thereafter Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqãs made his right of vote to `Abd ar-Raḥmãn. This left three members of the consultative committee out of whom `Abd ar-Raḥmãn said that he was willing to give up his own right of vote if `Ali عليه السلام and `Uthmãn gave him the right to choose one of them or one of these two should acquire this right by with-drawing. This was a trap in which `Ali had been entangled from all sides namely that either he should abandon his own right or else allow `Abd ar-Raḥmãn to do as he, wished. The first case was not possible for him; that is, to give up his own right and elect `Uthmãn or `Abd ar-Raḥmãn. So, he clung to his right, while `Abd ar-Raḥmãn separating himself from it assumed this power and said to Amīr al-mu’minīn, “I pay you allegiance on your following the Book of Allāh, the sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of the two Shaykhs, (Abu Bakr and `Umar).” Ali replied, “Rather on following the Book of Allāh, the sunnah of the Prophet and my own findings.” When he got the same reply even after repeating the question thrice he turned to `Uthmãn saying, “Do you accept these conditions.” He had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance was paid to him. When Amīr al-mu’minīn saw his rights being thus trampled he said : This is not the first day when you behaved against us. I have only to keep good patience. Allāh is the Helper against whatever you say. By Allāh, you have not made `Uthmãn Caliph but in the hope that he would give back the Caliphate to you. After recording the events of ash-Shura (consultative committee), Ibn Abi’l-Ḥadīd has written that when allegiance had been paid to `Uthmãn, `Ali addressed `Uthmãn and `Abd ar-Raḥmãn saying, “May Allāh sow the seed of dissension among you,” and so it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other and `Abd ar-Raḥmãn did not ever after speak to `Uthmãn till death. Even on death bed he turned his face on seeing him. On seeing these events the question arises whether ash-Shura (consultative committee) means confining the matter to six persons, thereafter to three and finally to one only. Also whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs for caliphate was put by `Umar or it was just a hurdle put by `Abd ar-Raḥmãn between `Ali عليه السلام and the Caliphate, although the first Caliph did not put forth this condition at the time of nominating the second Caliph, namely that he should follow the former’s footsteps. What then was the occasion for this condition here? However, Amīr al-mu’minīn had agreed to participate in it in order to avoid mischief and to put an end to arguing so that others should be silenced and should not be able to claim that they would have voted in his favour and that he himself evaded the consultative committee and did not give them an opportunity of selecting him.