“Fortifying the Critiques: A Scholarly Analysis Refuting the Claim of the Legitimacy of the First Caliphs” (10): “The Usurped Pulpit, the Cry for Truth: Imam Hasan’s (a) Protest against Abu Bakr”

In the previous article, the claim that Abu Bakr was appointed by the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, to lead the prayer was discussed in detail. Through a precise analysis of the historical contradictions and narrative inconsistency, the fabrication of this claim was revealed. Continuing along the same analytical path, the present article offers a scholarly, documented examination of al-Hasan and al-Husayn’s, peace be upon them, objection to Abu Bakr’s usurpation of the Prophet’s pulpit—an objection that clearly calls the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s caliphate into question and proclaims the disgrace of usurping the station of the Messenger.

In the book Tuhfat al-Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dihlawi, by raising three objections—the young age of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, the abandonment of dissimulation (taqiyyah), and opposition to the Prophet’s practice—has sought to weaken this criticism. The late Sayyid Muhammad-Quli, in Tashyid al-Mata‘in, demonstrates through a documented and methodical critique that these objections are not only groundless and unacceptable, but themselves confirm the validity of al-Hasan and al-Husayn’s objection, peace be upon them.

In addition to criticizing these three objections, this article examines Dihlawi’s subsequent claim that the conduct of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, conflicted with the conduct of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him. It proves that not only was there no conflict, but that their objection continued the Commander of the Faithful’s resistance, peace be upon him, against Abu Bakr’s usurpatory caliphate.

By means of a documented analysis of the narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and a precise comparison of historical events, this study seeks to make clear that the cry of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, from the Prophet’s pulpit is a living document of the disgrace of usurpatory caliphate and an enduring testimony to the truth of the Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them.

The first criticism directed at Abu Bakr, which ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dihlawi sought to defend against, was an explicit event of al-Hasan and al-Husayn’s objection, peace be upon them, to the usurpation of the caliphate. According to a reliable report, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, peace be upon them, entered the mosque and saw Abu Bakr sitting atop the pulpit of the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. They then addressed him explicitly, saying:

This decisive and unvarnished statement clearly indicated that Abu Bakr was a usurper and demonstrated his lack of worthiness to occupy the position of the Prophet of Mercy, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. It was an objection that was not merely an ordinary criticism, but rather a cry from the heart of truth to expose a great deviation in the path of guidance.

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dehlawī, in an attempt to defend Abu Bakr’s caliphate, sought to weaken this reproach by raising various objections. In doing so, he did not refrain even from insulting the lofty station of the two grandsons of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family; in a brazen act, he likened their blessed words to childish speech.

This blatant insult provoked the strong reaction of the late Sayyid Muḥammad Qulī Nayshāpūrī. He regarded Dehlawī’s conduct as a manifestation of Nāṣibism and deeply rooted enmity toward the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, and protested it vehemently.

While Dehlawī sought, through baseless objections, to weaken this reproach and conceal the usurping nature of Abu Bakr’s rule, the late Sayyid Muḥammad Qulī, with firm proofs and clear exposition, established the strength of this reproach and demonstrated in detail that:

Consequently, Dehlavi’s attempt to exonerate Abu Bakr not only failed, but also made the undeniable reality of the usurpation of the caliphate more evident and revealed to all the true face of the highwaymen on the path of guidance.

In continuation of his efforts to defend Abu Bakr’s caliphate, Abd al-Aziz Dehlavi raised a new claim—a claim which, like his previous assertions, lacked any documentary support. Without observing the principle of ilzām, Dehlavi not only brought no proof from Shiʿi books, but did not even present any reliable citation from Sunni sources.

Dehlavi’s method here resembled that of an uninformed child who, without studying the sources or conducting historical analysis, substitutes his mental imaginings for established truth. On the basis of this illusion, he claimed:

The summary of Dehlavi’s claim was as follows:

The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, performed a Friday prayer led by Abu Bakr and affirmed his sermon; therefore, if al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, had objected to Abu Bakr, this objection would conflict with the conduct of Imam Ali, peace be upon him.

In response to this weak claim, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli, by inviting the audience to carefully consider and reflect upon the course of history, exposed the baselessness of Dihlawi’s statement. He pointed out that even a little reflection makes it clear that:

The objection of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, took place at a time when Abu Bakr’s caliphate had not yet been established; Abu Bakr’s rule at that point was still in its earliest days. No Friday prayer led by Abu Bakr had been held, nor had he delivered a sermon at which Imam Ali, peace be upon him, or others could have been present or which they could have affirmed.

To corroborate his statement, the late Nishapuri cited the words of the esteemed scholar Khwaja, may Allah have mercy on him. Khwaja explicitly states:

Accordingly, the censure of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, relates to the beginning of Abu Bakr’s caliphate and to the period before his caliphate had been fully consolidated, when he had not yet been able to stabilize his position.

In response to Dihlawi’s effort to weaken this censure and diminish the extent of the disgrace of Abu Bakr’s usurping rule, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri undertook to reinforce it. Through compelling arguments and precise analysis, he demonstrated that the statement of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, was not merely authoritative speech, but a clear sign of the legitimacy of their protest and of the validity of the claim of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them. By establishing this censure, the face of the usurping ruler was further exposed, and the way was closed to the justifications of those who obstruct the path of guidance.

In defending Abu Bakr’s caliphate, Abd al-Aziz Dihlawi claimed that the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, attended Abu Bakr’s Friday prayer, accepted his sermon, and thereby acknowledged the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s caliphate. This claim has been advanced without presenting any evidence from Shi‘i sources or even from Sunni sources; from a methodological perspective, it is a claim that is not only devoid of scholarly validity, but also reveals a glaring weakness in Dihlawi’s reasoning.

In response to this weak claim, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri confronted it while adhering to the principles of scholarly reasoning. Unlike al-Dihlawi, who had made unsupported statements, he drew upon the most authoritative Sunni sources—namely, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim—to establish his argument. This approach of Sayyid Muhammad Quli reveals two outstanding features of his critique:

The hadith is narrated as follows:

Based on this authentic narration:

With reference to the authentic narrations and their precise analysis:

Dehlavi’s claim that Imam Ali, peace be upon him, accompanied Abu Bakr is fundamentally baseless. During the first six months after the Prophet’s passing, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, neither was a Friday prayer led by Abu Bakr held nor was any sermon of his accepted by Imam Ali, peace be upon him. The objection of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, to Abu Bakr’s sitting on the pulpit of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was entirely in line with the principled stance of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, and had not the slightest conflict with it.

In critically analyzing the Sahih al-Bukhari narration concerning the allegiance of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, to Abu Bakr, it is necessary to consider several fundamental points—points that expose methodological weakness, fabrication of narrations, and distortion of historical truth.

First, it must be stated explicitly that the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri’s citation of the narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim was made on the basis of the principle of binding; that is, these sources were referred to solely in order to bind the opponent to what he himself accepts, not in the sense that these books possess inherent authority for the Shi‘a.

The principle of the rule of al-ilzām, based on the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt, entails the following:

On this basis, even if al-Bukhari and Muslim are not authoritative for us, they are the best means of compelling an opponent to accept his own claim.

In this narration of al-Bukhari, a period of six months is mentioned for the life of Lady Fatimah (peace be upon her) after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Yet this period is disputed among the Shiʿa, and some reliable Shiʿi sources have reported the time of her martyrdom as less than six months.

Therefore, although this length of time is accepted for the purpose of compelling an opponent, it is not unequivocally confirmed in Shiʿi sources and is not regarded as an internal Shiʿi basis.

The third fundamental point is that al-Bukhari, through a calculated presentation, implies that the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr after six months, whereas:

In fact, al-Bukhari has sought here, through deliberate ambiguity, to present a distorted and unreal image.

In other parts of al-Bukhari’s report, an attempt has been made to suggest that:

This depiction is an evident falsehood and an ugly distortion of the history of early Islam.

The reality is that:

Thus, the narration in al-Bukhari is not merely a childish distortion; rather, it is an open veil over the culture of fabrication and reversal of history by the opponents of the Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them.

Before entering into the detailed critique, attention must be drawn to a fundamental point: the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri, in the preceding sections of Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin, independently and with documentation established that the children of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, possess the rank of complete intellect and divinely bestowed knowledge from early childhood. Citing the sources of the opponents, he affirmed this truth and had made clear that the scholarly and intellectual rank of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, bears no relation to their outward age.

Now that ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Dihlawi has once again raised this issue in this section and has regarded the protest of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, as childish behavior, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli has once more been compelled to critique and refute this claim.

Continuing his defense in Tuḥfat al-Ithnā ʿAshariyya, Dihlawi claimed:

He then wrote the following in explanation of his claim:

🔵 In other words, Dehlavi claims that the objection of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, arose from the natural emotions of childhood and has no rational or religious validity.

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli critiques this weak claim through several fundamental points:

His first objection is that analogizing the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, to other people’s children is an invalid analogy arising from ignorance.

He writes:

Then, to establish this point, he cites the well-known hadith of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, who said:

This hadith is found in the following reliable sources:

The hadith continues as follows:

According to the explanation of the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli, this means:

Even in childhood, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (peace be upon them) possessed perfect intellect and divine knowledge. Therefore, their words are authoritative and valid at every age and in all circumstances. Likening the objection of the two Hasans (peace be upon them) to the foolish actions of children is the height of ignorance and enmity (hostility toward the Ahl al-Bayt).

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri, in criticizing Dehlawi's claim that had deemed the objection of Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (peace be upon them) invalid on account of their childhood, cited authoritative statements from Sunni scholars.

One of these sources is the book al-Fusul al-Muhimmah fi Ma'rifat al-A'immah, written by Ali ibn Muhammad, known as Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki. Ibn Sabbagh, an eighth-century AH Sunni scholar, writes, quoting earlier scholars:

(Al-Fuṣūl al-Muhimmah, introduction, pp. 14–25; see also Kashf al-Ẓunūn, vol. 2, p. 1271.)

Based on this account:

In this description, the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, are presented as those who:

Ibn al-Sabbāgh adds:

(Their knowledge in old age is no greater than their knowledge at birth.)

The late Sayyid Muḥammad Qulī, citing this clear admission by Ahl al-Sunnah, concludes:

Thus, it becomes clear that attributing the objection of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, peace be upon them, to childish states is both scientifically invalid and a sign of manifest rancor and hostility toward the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them.

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli, in completing his critique, cites a statement by Fakhr al-Razi in his book Nihāyat al-ʿUqūl. Fakhr al-Razi, while seeking to disprove the existence of an explicit designation (naṣṣ) for the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, writes:

(Nihāyat al-ʿUqūl, Fakhr al-Razi)

The gist of Fakhr al-Razi’s statement is this: it is reported that Imam al-Hasan, peace be upon him, objected to Abu Bakr and said, “Step down from my father’s pulpit.” It is likewise reported that Lady Fatimah, peace be upon her, disputed with Abu Bakr concerning Fadak. The delay of Ali, peace be upon him, al-Zubayr, and others in giving allegiance to Abu Bakr has also been reported.

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli rightly points out:

In the words of the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli:

In criticizing Dehlawi’s views and analyzing the reports that directly concern the interactions of the Ahl al-Bayt of infallibility and purity with Abu Bakr’s caliphate, it must be noted that many of his arguments in analyzing historical events—especially concerning Imam Hasan’s words, peace be upon him—are not only undocumented, but also contrary to reliable documents and reports. This part of the analysis addresses one report in which Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, says to Abu Bakr in the presence of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him: “Come down from the pulpit of our grandfather.” What is understood from the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, in this report is that he expressed no objection whatsoever to Imam Hasan’s statement, peace be upon him.

The greatest importance of this analysis lies in the fact that, although Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, was a child at that moment, the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, made no objection to his action and affirmed Imam Hasan’s words, peace be upon him. This point explicitly indicates that Imam Hasan’s action, peace be upon him, was not merely childish; rather, it was entirely correct and in accordance with the truth. In a more precise analysis, it should be noted that when the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, says, “By God, this is not from my opinion,” he does not mean that Imam Hasan’s words, peace be upon him, were mistaken. Rather, he explicitly states that this decision and action were taken solely by Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, and that there had been no instruction from him. This sentence can in no way be evidence of denying Imam Hasan’s words, peace be upon him; rather, it precisely shows that Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, acted according to his own judgment and opinion, and that his words were fully affirmed.

This point is of particular importance in response to Dehlavi’s attempt to diminish and discredit Imam Hasan’s actions, peace be upon him, by invoking his young age. While Dehlavi seeks to portray Imam Hasan’s words, peace be upon him, as childish justifications devoid of political and scholarly awareness, this very report and the emphasis of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, indicate that Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, possessed divine knowledge and insight from an early age and acted with complete independence and awareness in his decisions.

In this respect, the words of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, affirming Imam Hasan’s statements, peace be upon him, not only establish the legitimacy of those words but also demonstrate the continuity of the Ahl al-Bayt’s effort, striving, and courage in confronting oppression and the usurpation of the caliphate. This is particularly evident at the moment when Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, openly stands before Abu Bakr and defends his grandfather’s position in the mosque; it symbolizes the strong resolve and scholarly precision that are especially prominent in Islamic history on the part of the Infallibles.

Accordingly, this narration not only confirms Abu Bakr’s usurpation of the caliphate, but also emphasizes that the Ahl al-Bayt of Infallibility and Purity never compromised with his caliphate and, throughout every stage of their lives—even when they were children or adolescents—followed the path of truth and the preservation of the Prophet’s religion. This point reflects the courage and profound knowledge of the two Imams Hasan and Husayn, peace be upon them, who were able to stand against oppressive powers and to guide people, not only directly but also indirectly, toward the truths of Islam. These qualities are absent from all other non-infallible children and, particularly in the case of the Ahl al-Bayt of Infallibility and Purity, who were divinely nurtured, leave no room for doubt or ambiguity.

Consequently, a critical analysis of this narration clearly proves that Dehlavi’s claim, aimed at minimizing this historical reality, is fundamentally false and baseless. Imam Hasan’s words, peace be upon him, in defense of the Prophet’s rank and the rightful caliphate of the Ahl al-Bayt are in fact an affirmation of the knowledge, insight, and independence of judgment of the Infallibles—qualities that can never be discredited on account of young age or any other pretext.

In his effort to defend Abu Bakr, Dehlavi advances astonishing arguments, sometimes resorting to assertions that are contrary to fact and without foundation. One of these arguments, which is entirely weak from both scholarly and religious perspectives, is his claim that “before the age of forty, the office of prophethood has not been granted to anyone, except rarely, and what is rare is tantamount to nonexistent.” This claim is not only baseless but also wholly at odds with historical and religious evidence.

The late Muhammad Quli, in response to this claim, examined it precisely and scientifically and declared it invalid. The first criticism raised by the late Muhammad Quli is that al-Dihlawi merely made an unfounded claim and presented no evidence for it. He rightly points out that every claim must be accompanied by valid evidence. Here, al-Dihlawi has only made a claim without providing scholarly or transmitted documentation for it. In particular, he has offered no proof that no prophet becomes a prophet before the age of 40. Such a claim, lacking any scholarly support, certainly cannot be accepted.

The late Muhammad Quli’s second criticism of this argument by al-Dihlawi is that, even if we assume that no prophet attains the office of prophethood before the age of 40, this point has no connection whatsoever with the validity of the sayings and actions of the infallible Imams during childhood or youth. The late Muhammad Quli logically and scientifically explains that even if this assumption is accepted, it can in no way be used as evidence for the invalidity of the sayings and actions of the infallibles at a young age. For this would require us to regard all the sayings and actions of the infallibles in childhood and youth as invalid, an inference that is certainly false. In fact, this analysis explicitly shows that there is no necessary connection between the age of prophets at the beginning of their prophethood and the validity of the sayings and actions of the infallibles.

Therefore, al-Dihlawi’s arguments, which seek to invalidate the sayings and actions of the infallibles on the basis of their age—especially during childhood—are clearly devoid of logical and scholarly foundation. The analyses of the late Muhammad Quli clearly and demonstrably show that there is no logical connection between young age and the validity of the words and deeds of the infallibles. In truth, such arguments are merely an unsuccessful attempt to weaken and diminish the importance of the words of the infallibles at different stages of their lives.

Finally, it must be emphasized that such arguments not only cannot in any way be accepted as documented evidence, but are also entirely false according to religious and scholarly teachings. The words of the infallibles, regardless of their age, are always valid and authoritative, and their validity cannot be challenged through arguments of this kind.

In continuing the late Muhammad Quli’s criticisms of al-Dihlawi’s claims, it should be noted that al-Dihlawi, in attempting to weaken and invalidate the prophethood of prophets during childhood—especially Prophet Yahya and Prophet Isa, peace be upon them—resorts to baseless and dubious theories. One such claim is that the office of prophethood is not bestowed upon anyone before the age of forty, except rarely, and what is rare is treated as nonexistent. This statement is plainly and certainly contrary to history and the Qur’an. The late Muhammad Quli responded to this claim precisely.

The first point raised by the late Muhammad Quli is that the Holy Qur’an explicitly states that Prophet Yahya and Prophet Isa, peace be upon them, attained the office of prophethood during childhood. In Surah Al Imran, God says concerning Prophet Yahya: “وَآتَیْنَاهُ الْحُکْمَ صَبِیًّا” (Maryam, 12), which shows that Prophet Yahya attained wisdom and prophethood in childhood. Likewise, concerning Prophet Isa, peace be upon him, the Qur’an states: “قَالُوا کَیْفَ نُکَلِّمُ مَن کَانَ فِی الْمَهْدِ صَبِیًّا” (Al Imran, 46), meaning that the Children of Israel asked in astonishment how they could speak with someone who was still in the cradle. Prophet Isa replied: “قَالَ إِنِّی عَبْدُ اللَّهِ آتَانِیَ الْکِتَابَ وَجَعَلَنِی نَبِیًّا” (Al Imran, 51), which explicitly reports his prophethood during childhood.

The late Muhammad Quli rightly demonstrates that these statements are fully consistent with the Qur’an, and that the falsity of Dihlawi’s claim concerning the age at which Jesus and John attained prophethood is entirely clear. He states explicitly that even if some wish to argue that the prophethood of Jesus and John at an early age was temporary and was subsequently completed, none of these interpretations can invalidate the words of Jesus and John during their childhood. Especially since the book «Mawaqif» also explicitly states that Jesus attained prophethood in childhood.

The late Muhammad Quli also critiques Dihlawi’s remarks concerning "النادر فی حکم المعدوم". Dihlawi seeks, by appealing to a proverb, to establish that since the number of prophets who attained prophethood in childhood was small, it must be regarded as nonexistent. However, the late Muhammad Quli rightly shows that such reasoning is not only illogical but also contrary to scholarly and religious principles. He points out that if the number of prophets who attained prophethood in childhood is small, this can never invalidate their prophethood; rather, it should be regarded as a miracle and a special characteristic, for God, as the omnipotent and free chooser, is able to bestow prophethood at any age.

Finally, the late Muhammad Quli clearly emphasizes that a prophet’s prophethood, even if it occurs during childhood and youth, remains valid and authoritative. Referring to the well-known hadith, "النبی نبیون و لو کان صبیاً", he says that prophethood depends not on age, but on divine will and choice. Dihlawi’s assertion that prophethood during childhood and youth is futile and pointless is plainly mistaken and contrary to Qur’anic and religious truths.

Overall, the late Muhammad Quli’s critiques effectively and cogently refute Dihlawi’s claims and emphasize the importance of accepting the reality of prophethood at every age.

In his critique of Dihlawi’s arguments, the late Muhammad Quli responds specifically to the issue raised by Dihlawi concerning prophethood in youth and childhood. In this context, Dihlawi attempts to lend legitimacy to his arguments by using a fabricated proverb, thereby seeking to invalidate the prophethood of prophets at an early age. The late Muhammad Quli responds to this matter carefully and with documentation, raising several highly important points.

By emphasizing that «a prophet is a prophet, even if he is in youth and childhood», the late Muhammad Quli plainly shows that prophethood is never dependent on age. It is clear that prophethood is a divine choice and command bestowed by God upon any person who is worthy of it, whether in childhood or adulthood. Therefore, Dihlawi’s arguments, which seek to regard prophethood in childhood as invalid, conflict with religious and Qur’anic foundations.

The late Muhammad Quli then responds specifically to one of the fabricated proverbs cited by Dihlawi. Dihlawi unscientifically, and without any documented source, employs a proverb which says: “A child is a child, even if he is a prophet.” The late Muhammad Quli rejects this argument, stating that even if Dihlawi wishes to cite proverbs, he must use sound and reliable ones. In particular, he refers to Shaykh Sa‘di’s verses in the Golestan, where it is stated: “A child who is old in intellect is regarded as an elder by the people of wisdom.” The late Muhammad Quli rightly says that if someone possesses sound reason and understanding, then, even if he is a child, he is great in the eyes of the people of wisdom. This emphasis on the importance of reason and understanding at different ages underscores that age can never be a criterion for judging the correctness or incorrectness of a matter—especially in an issue such as prophethood, which is directly connected to divine guidance.

In other words, through a precise analysis of Sa‘di’s words, the late Muhammad Quli seeks to make clear that if a child possesses sound reason and understanding, he can be great and worthy of respect not only from the religious perspective but also from the social perspective. This view stands in clear contrast to Dihlawi’s attempt to diminish the status of prophets during their childhood.

Finally, the late Muhammad Quli responds to Dihlawi’s arguments with scholarly and documented criticism, emphasizing that reliance on incorrect and fabricated proverbs can never provide a scholarly or religious basis for denying the reality of prophethood during childhood. Rather, this matter must be considered according to Qur’anic and rational principles: prophethood is always dependent on divine station and will, not on a person’s age.

In his critique of Dihlawi’s views—especially regarding Abu Bakr’s caliphate and its effect on the legitimacy of the caliphate—the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli refers to narrations in which Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, responds to Umar ibn al-Khattab during the latter’s caliphate. In this connection, he carefully cites various Sunni narrations that indicate the opposition of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, to the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar.

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli states: “Know that it is mentioned in Sunni narrations that Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, also said to Umar ibn al-Khattab during his caliphate: ‘Come down from the pulpit of our noble grandfather,’ and he gave the same reply as Abu Bakr, as is mentioned in Tahdhib al-Kamal: حدثنی حسین بن علی علیه‌السلام قال أتیت عمر فقلت انزل عن منبر أبی و اذهب إلی منبر أبیک.” Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, relates that he said to Umar ibn al-Khattab: “Come down from my father’s pulpit (meaning the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him and his family) and go sit on your own father’s pulpit.” Umar ibn al-Khattab replied to Imam Husayn, peace be upon him: “لیس لأبی منبر” (“My father had no pulpit”). Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, then continues that Umar took him and seated him beside himself; and Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, further says in the narration: “فجعلت أقلب الحصی بیدی” (“I began playing with the pebbles that were on the ground in my hand”).

Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, then relates that when Umar came down from the pulpit, he took him home with him. Umar asked Imam Husayn, peace be upon him: “من علمک؟” (“Who taught you this?”). Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, replied: “وَ اللَّهِ مَا عَلَّمَنِی أَحَدٌ” (“By Allah, no one taught me this”). Umar then said to Imam Husayn, peace be upon him: “یَا بُنَیَّ لَا تَعُدْ” (“My dear son, please do not tell anyone about this matter; keep it concealed”).

This report is also found in "Kanz al-‘Ummal," as well as in the book "Izalat al-Khafa," transmitted by Wali Allah, the father of Dehlawi. This report is likewise transmitted by Ibn Hajar in "al-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqah"; after mentioning the story of Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, with Abu Bakr, the same matter is related from Imam Husayn, peace be upon him.

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli emphasizes that, in addition to underscoring the opposition of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, to Abu Bakr’s caliphate—especially at a time when Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, was a child—these reports also demonstrate his protest and opposition to Umar’s rule. By citing these reports from reliable Sunni sources, he clearly argues that there was no endorsement or acceptance whatsoever on the part of Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, regarding the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar; even at such a young age, Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, affirmed the rightfulness of the Ahl al-Bayt and the invalidity of the caliphate of the usurpers.

Consequently, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli presents these reports as clear evidence for the invalidity of Abu Bakr’s caliphate and its lack of legitimacy. These analyses not only critique Dehlawi’s views, but also show that the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, displayed strong and effective reactions to oppression and the usurpation of the caliphate from their childhood and youth onward.

In critiquing Dehlawi’s views, particularly regarding Abu Bakr’s caliphate, the late Muhammad Quli carefully examines Sunni reports and shows that these reports clearly establish Umar ibn al-Khattab’s admissions of the superiority of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, and of the invalidity of his own caliphate and that of Abu Bakr. In this connection, one important report narrated from Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, appears in "Tahdhib al-Kamal," where Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, said to Umar: "انزل عن منبر أبی" (Come down from my father’s pulpit) and go to your own father’s pulpit.

In this report, Umar ibn al-Khattab initially replies to Imam Husayn, peace be upon him: "لیس لأبی منبر" (My father did not have a pulpit). He then seats Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, beside him and takes him home with him. Here, Umar asks Imam Husayn, peace be upon him: "من علمک؟" (Who taught you this?), and Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, replies: "وَ اللَّهِ مَا عَلَّمَنِی أَحَدٌ" (By God, no one taught me this). Umar then says to Imam Husayn, peace be upon him: "یَا بُنَیَّ لَا تَعُدْ" (My dear son, please do not tell anyone this; keep this matter hidden).

The late Muhammad Quli rightly states that this report is found in "Kanz al-‘Ummal" and is also transmitted by Wali Allah, the father of Dehlawi, in "Izalat al-Khafa." In the version transmitted by Dehlawi’s father, there is an additional phrase in which Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, asks Umar why he has returned. The report states that, after seeing Umar with Mu‘awiyah and Ibn Umar, Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, decides to return along with Ibn Umar. Umar replies to him: "أنت أولى بالإذن من ابن عمر، فإن ما في رؤوسنا أول لله عز و جل ثم لكم" (You are more entitled to permission than Ibn Umar, for what is in our minds belongs first to God, Mighty and Majestic, and then to you, the Ahl al-Bayt).

The late Muhammad Quli clearly presents this report as evidence for establishing the superiority of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, over others, including ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab. ʿUmar’s acknowledgment of the special status of the Ahl al-Bayt and that God, Mighty and Majestic, granted priority first to the Ahl al-Bayt clearly indicates the invalidity of his caliphate and that of Abu Bakr. In particular, in this report, ʿUmar’s acknowledgment of the superiority of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, over himself indirectly shows that Abu Bakr’s caliphate lacked legitimacy from the outset.

These reports clearly show that ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab also emphasized the superiority of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, and this constitutes clear evidence of the invalidity of Abu Bakr’s caliphate. Therefore, the late Muhammad Quli concludes that these reports not only establish the invalidity of Abu Bakr’s caliphate, but also emphasize that ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab indirectly acknowledged this truth.

These analyses effectively offer a serious critique of al-Dihlawi’s arguments and show that, on the basis of these reports and acknowledgments, Abu Bakr’s caliphate lacked legitimacy and received no genuine endorsement from the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them.

This article has examined and analyzed, in a scholarly and documented manner, the objections of Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, peace be upon them, to Abu Bakr’s usurping caliphate. On the one hand, through a careful examination of al-Dihlawi’s claims and an analysis of his arguments, the article shows that his attempt to discredit these objections has failed, and that the statements of al-Hasanayn, peace be upon them, were valid and authoritative at every age and under all circumstances. On the other hand, drawing on reliable Sunni sources, this article shows that the objections of Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, peace be upon them, not only affirm their rightful position from legal and rational perspectives, but also constitute a historical document demonstrating the invalidity of Abu Bakr’s usurping caliphate. A precise analysis of these objections also effectively refutes al-Dihlawi’s historical and religious arguments, showing them to rest on a weak and baseless foundation. Overall, this article emphasizes the necessity of attending to reliable historical and religious sources and analyzing them correctly; finally, it stresses that the objection of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, to Abu Bakr’s caliphate will always remain one of the central subjects in Imami Shiʿi theology.