Upon the passing of the Prophet (pbuh), his funeral had not yet been held, but his companions began to discuss who would be in power. Even after reading this sentence, we are likely to feel uneasy about this attitude. This is an emotional tendency. However, according to the reality of life, it is not feasible to have gaps in government and in my opinion, no other religion on earth takes the realities of life into consideration as much as Islam. This attitude is therefore entirely reasonable.The timing of this discussion was not problematic, given that Abu Bakr and Omar were the two most influential figures and closest to the Prophet (pbuh) in the ummah at the time. Instead, it demonstrates that they were capable of prioritizing the responsibility of governing the ummah over their immediate sentiments.
The discussion of whether Ali (ra) was present (or invited) at this meeting goes way over our head. For this reason, we have chosen to remain silent on this matter. However, it would be a mistake to assume that, according to the sources, every member of the Ansar and Muhajirin was indifferent to worldly power in this heated meeting in Saqifah of Beni Sa'idah. In fact, they were quite concerned with worldly matters and contrary to expectations, the meeting remained contentious until the very end, with each group striving to maintain its position of power. In accordance with our religious beliefs, the distinction between worldly and otherworldly matters is not absolute. I am aware that every endeavour has a dual aspect. The prevailing view is that matters such as politics and economics are worldly endeavours and engaging with them is not appropriate for a purely religious person. To obtain an understanding of this divided, secularised mentality, it is useful to recall the power debates experienced by ashab al-qiram (companions of the Prophet (pbuh)), the most ascetic, most pious and religious people of the ummah.
Ashab al-qiram emerged from this initial conflict with only minor setbacks. According to the available sources, although the seeds of the significant discord that would emerge in the future were planted in these initial power struggles, they did not become a criterion for faith or a basis for exclusion. Over time, new challenges emerged.
Every ruler desires absolute power. But absolute power also means absolute responsibility. In the eyes of people, the absolute power holder is responsible for everything. This is what happened during the caliphate of Uthman. Those who were disturbed by his rule, regardless of how far they were from the social morality of the reigns of Abu Bakr and Omar, blamed him for everything and murdered Uthman to bring order to the world. (At least, this was their stated purpose). Those who know, know the cost of the subsequent political struggles that formed the basis of today's religious sects for the Islamic world. For those who do not know, this is not the place to give further explanation. Those who are interested should read the political history of Islam and the history of the religious sects. On Muharram, we must acknowledge that these divisions have led to the killing of the grandchildren of the Prophet (pbuh) and wars where countless Muslims killed each other.
A Muslim, like every human being, is interested in politics, engages in politics, aspires for power, and has different political views. It's normal. It is not a situation that contradicts religiosity. What we want to emphasize here is that if we transfer the differences of political views and thoughts between us to religion and use them as a criterion for evaluating each other as more or less religious, we will add new ones to the divisions that have deepened throughout history.
It is impossible to bring back history and change it. But we can learn from it. It is an obligation. Especially those who work at any level of the administration should clearly remember as a basic principle not to do this by accusing each other of impiety when fighting against their political opponents (not doing so would be denying their own existence). Political struggle should be based on a program and method, not on faith.
Otherwise, we will search for content in religious texts in order to eliminate our religious fellows with whom we are politically (or commercially) rivals, as in the parts of our history written on the backs of the glorious pages that we cannot be proud of, and if we cannot find it, we will make it up and we will become the real losers.
