“Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin: A Scholarly Analysis Refuting the Claim of the Legitimacy of the First Caliphs” (9) (Abu Bakr Exposed by Imam Hasan [PBUH]; the Myth of the Prayer Was Disproved)

Continuing the preceding studies and relying on the method of Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin, the present article seeks to examine, through an analytical and critical approach, one of the most important aspects of the historical dispute: the claim concerning Abū Bakr’s leading the prayer and its attribution to the command of the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. By carefully considering the inconsistency of the reports, comparatively critiquing the transmissions, and evaluating them in accordance with the principles of Imāmī theology, this analysis will constitute a further step toward clarifying the historical truth of the caliphate and establishing the authentic foundations of divinely ordained Imamate.

In Imāmī Shiʿi theology, the Imamate is not only a pillar of religious identity but also the criterion for assessing political legitimacy in the history of early Islam. Within this framework, documented criticism of the earliest rulers serves as a means of discovering the truth and establishing the legitimacy of the divinely ordained Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them. In this rationally oriented tradition, the concept of maṭāʿin is presented not as personal invective, but as an indicator for evaluating the justice, designation by text (naṣṣ), and fitness of rulers.

In the preceding articles, the foundations of this analysis were explained step by step: from the scholarly clarification of the meaning of criticism [article: “An Analysis of Maṭāʿin in Shiʿi Theology”] and the demonstration of its inseparable connection with the principle of Imamate [article: “Maṭāʿin and Imamate”], to the critique of the claim that Abū Bakr was the Messenger’s caliph [article: “The Fabrication of the Caliphate”], the establishment of the evidentiary authority of the Imams’ words in childhood [article: “Imam al-Ḥasan, Peace Be Upon Him, Bringing Down Abū Bakr”], and the refutation of the doubt concerning dissimulation in stating the truth [article: “Imam al-Ḥasan, Peace Be Upon Him: Exposing Abū Bakr, Without Need for Dissimulation or Justification”].

Now, in continuation of this scholarly path, the direct critique of the views of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dihlawī in his book Tuḥfat al-Ithnā ʿAshariyyah has been placed on the agenda—a book in which, through a combination of distortion, fallacy, and improper readings of history, he sought to defend the legitimacy of the earliest rulers and undermine the foundations of Shiʿi Imamate.

The principal reference in these critiques will be the monumental work of the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri, Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin; a book which, through scholarly precision, cogent reasoning, and reliance on reliable sources, exposes Dihlawi’s errors one by one. Following Sayyid Muhammad Quli’s scholarly method, this article will analyze and evaluate Dihlawi’s views on a documented basis, so that the reader may gradually become acquainted with Dihlawi’s objections, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli’s rational and transmitted responses, and the solidity of the foundations of Imamate.

Mental preparation for engaging with these critiques requires careful attention to the distinction between polemical fallacies and documented arguments. The path we shall follow will uncover the hidden aspects of these distortions and reveal the truth of Imamate in the mirror of Shiʿi discourse.

The first condemnation, which is the focus of the present discussion, has been reported as follows: One day, Abu Bakr mounted the pulpit of the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, in order to deliver a sermon. At that moment, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, peace be upon them, addressed him:

This objection clearly indicates, from the perspective of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, the illegitimacy of Abu Bakr’s caliphate and establishes the usurpatory nature of his occupation of the position of Prophethood.

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dehlawī, in Tuḥfat al-Ithnā ʿAshariyyah, raises three objections in response to this criticism:

With regard to the first two objections, reasoned answers have already been presented:

🔎 (For further detail, see: [ Analysis of the Imams’ Knowledge in Childhood ] and [ The Reality of Taqiyyah and the Objection of al-Hasan and al-Husayn ]).

We now examine Dehlawi’s third objection precisely and in detail. This objection constitutes the principal محور of the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri’s criticisms in Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin, and it is especially important in exposing the historical and narrational contradictions of the opponents.

In his third objection, Dehlawi claims that the protest of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, against Abu Bakr’s sitting on the pulpit was contrary to the command of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him and his family. This is because he alleges that, in the final days of his life, the Prophet (ṣ) had appointed Abu Bakr to lead the congregational prayer for the people. Dehlawi writes:

On this basis, Dehlawi concludes that the act of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, in protesting against Abu Bakr amounts to a kind of conflict with the Prophet’s command (ṣ).

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishaburi, in Tashyid al-Mata'in, rejects this claim through a documented and critical analysis. His first criticism is that:

Since Dihlawi, on the basis of the principle of ilzam, was obliged to rely only on evidence that was also valid in the view of the Shi'a, his appeal to this invalid narration is itself a violation of the scholarly principles he claimed to uphold.

Another key point is that:

Reports concerning Abu Bakr’s leading the prayer suffer from severe inconsistency, chronological contradictions, and striking discrepancies.

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli demonstrates with historical precision that:

According to al-Bukhari’s report, the intensification of the illness of the Noble Prophet (PBUH) occurred on Thursday. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Maghazi, Bab Marad al-Nabi) Therefore, Abu Bakr’s succession in leading the prayer could not have begun on Wednesday; the claim advanced by al-Dihlawi is historically false.

In response to various objections, al-Dihlawi has made differing and contradictory statements:

At one time, he claimed that Abu Bakr had been leading the prayers since Wednesday; elsewhere, he said that the illness became severe at the end of Wednesday and on Thursday night, and that the imamate was entrusted to Abu Bakr; and in yet another place, he wrote that Abu Bakr led the prayers from Thursday night until Monday morning.

❗ These three contradictory reports clearly establish the invalidity of al-Dihlawi’s claim.

Furthermore, the late Sayyid Muḥammad Qulī, citing the book *Rawḍat al-Aḥbāb*, notes:

Since the Prophet’s death on Monday is certain, the three days preceding it begin on Saturday. Therefore, the duration of the Prophet’s absence from prayer was only three days, and this is wholly incompatible with al-Dihlawī’s claim concerning Abū Bakr’s Friday prayer during the Prophet’s lifetime (PBUH).

Based on this evidence:

✅ Therefore, Dehlavi’s third objection not only fails to provide a convincing answer to the criticism of al-Hasan and al-Husayn (peace be upon them), but itself constitutes evidence exposing the historical falsehoods concerning the caliphate of Abu Bakr.

The first essential point is that the reports claiming that the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, appointed Abu Bakr to lead the prayer not only have no standing in Shi‘i sources, but are also regarded, in a critical analysis of Sunni sources, as inconsistent, suspicious, and unreliable reports.

The late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishaburi states explicitly that these reports are among the fabrications and forgeries produced by the apparatus of the caliphate: a deliberate effort to make Abu Bakr’s caliphate appear legitimate in the minds of the Muslim community.

In the introduction to Tuhfat al-Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, Dehlavi had pledged to argue only with proofs that were also valid in Shi‘i thought (the principle of ilzam). Yet here, by relying on a report that is fundamentally rejected within the Shi‘i intellectual framework, he has violated that commitment.

❗ Citing evidence rejected by one’s opponent itself violates the principle of binding argument and nullifies the value of the reasoning.

The late Muhammad Quli carefully notes, with scholarly precision, that the narrations concerning Abu Bakr’s leading the prayer:

This degree of historical inconsistency and glaring contradiction in transmission clearly indicates that the story was fabricated. No authentic historical event is narrated in such a confused and contradictory manner.

According to the more reliable Sunni narrations:

During the Prophet’s severe illness, Aisha, without his permission, proposed Abu Bakr to lead the prayer. When the Prophet regained consciousness, he entered the mosque with difficulty, assisted by Amir al-Mu’minin Ali, peace be upon him, and al-Fadl ibn al-Abbas; he moved Abu Bakr aside and personally led the prayer.

✅ This explicit conduct of the Prophet (PBUH) proves his dissatisfaction with Abu Bakr’s leadership of the prayer and his practical rejection of that action.

Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, peace be upon them, who were manifestations of knowledge, rationality, and divine inspiration, would never have cried out from the pulpit had they seen even the slightest legitimacy in Abu Bakr’s caliphate:

This explicit protest clearly declares the invalidity of the claim that Abu Bakr was appointed and the usurpatory nature of his caliphate.

✅ The claim concerning Abu Bakr leading the prayer is invalid both from the perspective of the principle of ilzām and from that of historical criticism.

✅ The severe inconsistency, manifest contradictions, and reliable historical evidence all prove that this report was fabricated.

✅ The meticulous analysis of the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli Nishapuri in Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin clearly lifts the veil from this historical distortion and reveals the truth.

✅ Finally, the cry of al-Hasan and al-Husayn (peace be upon them) from the heights of history is an everlasting document of the disgrace of the usurping caliphate and of the fabricated lies surrounding it.

One of Abd al-Aziz Dihlawi’s most important claims in Tuḥfat al-Ithnā ʿAshariyyah in defense of Abu Bakr’s caliphate is that the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) appointed Abu Bakr as his successor in leading the congregational prayers. Dihlawi presents this claim as part of his response to the objection of al-Hasan and al-Husayn (peace be upon them).

However, the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli, through a careful historical and hadith-based examination in Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin, shows that this claim is not only incompatible with sound principles, but that the glaring contradictions in Sunni reports themselves testify to the fabrication of this story.

First, it should be noted that, according to Sahih al-Bukhari, the illness of the Noble Prophet (PBUH) intensified on Thursday. As Ibn Abbas is reported to have said in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of al-Maghazi, Chapter on the Illness of the Prophet:

That is: “Thursday—and what a Thursday! On that day, the Prophet’s illness became severe.”

Therefore, it is clear that the intensification of the illness and the Prophet’s inability to lead the prayer concerned Thursday, not Wednesday.

🔵 Conclusion: In light of this report, Abu Bakr’s appointment to lead the prayer on Wednesday (as Dehlawi has claimed) is fundamentally meaningless and unacceptable.

Dehlavi himself has fallen into contradiction in various passages of his book Tuhfa:

❗ These three differing reports from Dehlavi himself demonstrate the inconsistency and confusion of his transmission.

Another report from the book Rawdat al-Ahbab also states:

This report in Rawdat al-Ahbab is likewise clearly at odds with Dehlavi’s claim; for according to this account, the Prophet was unable to go to the mosque only during the final three days of his life, not that he had appointed an official successor from Wednesday or Thursday.

🔵 Conclusion: The contradictions in Dehlavi’s reports and their discrepancies with other sources show that the story of Abu Bakr’s succession in leading the congregational prayer is a fabrication produced through forgery and distortion.

A precise chronological analysis also disproves this claim:

Accordingly:

Consequently, the claim that Abu Bakr led that week’s Friday prayer in place of the Prophet (PBUH) is fundamentally false and baseless.

❗ Conclusion: The Friday prayer that Dihlawī claims Abu Bakr led during the Prophet’s lifetime has no historical reality and is certainly fabricated.

A review of the various reports and the contradictions of Dehlavi and other Sunni scholars concerning this incident indicates one undeniable truth: the narrative of Abu Bakr leading the people is a disturbed, inconsistent, and fabricated account, forged to consolidate his usurped caliphate.

The words of the late Muhammad Quli on this matter are precise:

The report that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) appointed Abu Bakr to lead the prayer has long been one of the propagandistic pillars used to consolidate the legitimacy of his caliphate in Sunni thought. Yet a precise historical and theological analysis, as the late Sayyid Muhammad-Quli demonstrated in Tashyīd al-Maṭāʿin, shows that this report is not only devoid of soundness, but is clearly founded on fabrication and historical inconsistency.

The first glaring point is the severe inconsistency in reports concerning the time and manner of Abu Bakr’s appointment:

Such glaring discrepancies concerning the most important decision about the Prophet’s succession—had it truly occurred—would never have been transmitted in such a confused and contradictory manner. An established principle of historical criticism is that: “Inconsistency in reports is among the signs of fabrication and of the event’s not having actually occurred.”

❗ Therefore, the first conclusion is this: the story of Abu Bakr’s appointment is, fundamentally, a historical fabrication intended to justify the usurpation of the caliphate.

A precise chronological analysis showed that the Noble Prophet (PBUH) passed away on a Monday. The severity of his illness began on Thursday. If we take into account the final three days of the Prophet’s life (Saturday, Sunday, and Monday), it becomes clear that on the Friday before his passing, the Prophet was still alive and active.

According to a reliable narration, while the Prophet (PBUH) had been rendered weak by the severity of his illness, he reached the mosque supported by two men (Ali, peace be upon him, and al-Fadl ibn Abbas), and removed Abu Bakr from the prayer niche.

Therefore, the claim of Dehlawi and others that Abu Bakr led the Friday prayer as the Prophet’s deputy is plainly contrary to history and fundamentally false.

❗ Second conclusion: Abu Bakr did not lead any Friday prayer as the Prophet’s deputy; the claim is a lie.

In his book, Dehlawi had undertaken to remain committed to the rule of ilzam in criticizing Shiite beliefs; that is, to cite only evidence accepted by the Shiites. Yet the narration concerning Abu Bakr’s appointment to lead the prayer is not only unacceptable to the Shiites, but they regard it as one of the manifest fabrications.

This violation of the rule of ilzam not only undermines the scholarly credibility of Dehlawi’s argument, but also shows that, when confronted with historical facts, he knowingly resorted to distortion and deception.

❗ Third conclusion: Citing this narration is a clear violation of the principles of scholarly debate and is itself a sign of the weakness of the opponents’ argument.

The conduct of al-Hasan and al-Husayn (peace be upon them) and their address to Abu Bakr—“Come down from the pulpit of our grandfather”—is itself a living proof of the invalidity of Abu Bakr’s appointment. Had there been any sign of the Prophet’s approval of Abu Bakr, these two pure lights, who had been raised in the lap of revelation, would not have made such an objection.

Rather, this cry of al-Hasan and al-Husayn was an official declaration of the invalidity of Abu Bakr’s usurping caliphate, exposing all the fabricated tales constructed around him.

❗ Fourth conclusion: The cry of al-Hasan and al-Husayn from the pulpit was the final seal upon the falsehood of the caliphate of Saqifah.

✅ This analysis shows that Dehlawi and those like him, in seeking to establish the legitimacy of Abu Bakr, relied neither on sound reasoning nor on reliable reports; rather, they spoke on the basis of fabrication, distortion, and fallacy. ✅ This itself is the best proof of the Shi'a insistence on the explicitly designated, divinely ordained Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (peace be upon him).

In continuing the examination of Dehlawi's objections and the analysis of the critique by the late Sayyid Muhammad Quli, another highly important point arises, one that exposes the boundless depth of the contradictions in the claim of Abu Bakr's caliphate.

First, attention must be paid to the fact that the opponents themselves admit that the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) made no clear statement concerning succession after himself. This claim is repeatedly stated in their sources: that the Prophet made no definitive testament regarding the caliphate. Now, even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument—although it has been proven that this claim is false at its root—that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had appointed Abu Bakr as his deputy to lead the prayers on several occasions, there would still be no necessary connection between leading the prayer and being qualified for political caliphate and the general Imamate of the Muslims.

Even under this impossible supposition, the objection of Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, peace be upon them both, with the explicit statement:

“O Abu Bakr, descend from the pulpit of our grandfather” would be entirely justified and rightful.

For assuming a limited act of worship (such as leading a few prayers) to constitute proof of political caliphate is an invalid analogy and corrupt reasoning. In Islamic tradition, succession to the Prophet in religious and worldly affairs requires a divine designation and qualities such as infallibility and God-given knowledge—matters found in none of the first three caliphs.

Moreover, within the very narrations known as “Yawm al-Khamīs” (“the Day of Thursday”), which al-Bukhari recorded in seven different reports, there lies a horrifying point: these reports state that when the Prophet (PBUH), on his sickbed, wished to write a testament for his community and said:

“Bring me a shoulder blade and an inkpot, so that I may write for you a document after which you will never go astray.” A group of those present, especially Umar ibn al-Khattab, replied with utter disrespect and insolence: “Indeed, the man is delirious” (this man is speaking incoherently!), or, in some reports: “Pain has overcome him” (the pain has overwhelmed him).

Here, a sensitive point in historical and theological analysis opens up:

Here, a decisive conclusion is reached:

Whoever attributes delirium to the Messenger of God denies prophethood, opposes the Qur’an, and is in fact a disbeliever.

Can one rely on the reports of such people and use their dubious and distorted statements to establish the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s caliphate?! Never.

In fact, this very inconsistency and conflict among the reports, along with these unjust attributions to the Noble Prophet (ص), is the best evidence that the report concerning Abu Bakr’s leading the prayer is fabricated.

A documented and analytical examination of the narration attributing Abu Bakr’s appointment to lead the prayer by the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, relying on the method of historical criticism and the principle of ilzām, has shown that this narration lacks any scholarly or narrational validity. The severe inconsistency in the reports, the chronological and substantive contradictions, and the clear conflict with the accepted principles of Imamate all indicate that this claim was fabricated.

Abdulaziz Dehlavi’s reliance on this narration, in violation of the principle of ilzām and through citation of sources considered unreliable by the Shi‘a, is methodologically untenable and itself constitutes evidence of the weakness of his theological foundations in defending the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s caliphate. An analysis of Imam Hasan’s and Imam Husayn’s, peace be upon them, conduct in their explicit objection to Abu Bakr—based on their divinely bestowed knowledge and the authority of their words—provides conclusive evidence establishing the invalidity of any appointment or legitimacy for Abu Bakr.

On the other hand, the unjust attribution of “delirium” to the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, in the incident of Yawm al-Khamis—which itself is the clearest sign of deviation within the Saqifa apparatus—shows that relying on the words of such currents to determine the Prophet’s successor is not only unacceptable, but also contrary to the explicit text of the Qur’an and the definitive teachings of Islam.

In light of this analysis, it becomes clear that:

Therefore, the approach of Tashyid al-Mata‘in in exposing historical distortions is an authentic and enduring model for reconstructing theological discussions and reviving truth in the face of distorted historiography: a truth that neither wears away with the passage of time nor is silenced by the dust of distortion.

Knowledge is our only weapon against the distortion of history. History has been written by the victors—by hands that have concealed the blood of truth and by pens that have rubbed salt into the wounds of justice. If today we do not seek the truth through the dust of prejudice and lies, tomorrow we will be buried beneath the rubble of ignorance.

Every step on the path of research, every question, every critical analysis is an arrow aimed at the heart of a distortion that has cast its shadow over the truth for centuries. Neither prejudice nor blind imitation, but only free reasoning and deep research can lead us to the light of truth.

Let us learn, read, ask, and analyze; for every question that arises sincerely in the pursuit of truth is a leaf falling from the tree of deception and distortion.

Share this message... so that everyone may know: history must once again be rewritten; this time with the pen of the aware, not with the sword of the claimants.

keep the truth alive