Author: Michael Cook - In conversation with Sadaf Jaffer

A mixed bag! Useful but at times just plain wrong!
To gain insight into Michael Cook's lack of understanding of the matter of al-Husain Ibn Ali's stand, mentioned in the book and briefly brought up in the discussion too, by calling al-Husain's stand against Yazid Ibn Mu'awiya (at-Taleeq Ibn at-Taleeq) a side show, can be traced back to his equal lack of understanding of the Event of Saqeefah, when Abu Bakr got 'selected' (NOT elected, i.e. a kind of plebiscite - such an idea was unknown at the time), with the help of Banu Aslam, a NON-MADINITE tribe hostile to the Ansaar (natives of Madina, and in Ali's favour , the vast majority of whom NOT PRESENT at Saqeefah but waiting for the Prophet's burial, unlike Abu Bakr and Umar who ran off to Saqqefah!), brought in by Abu Bakr's friend and helper, Umar Ibn al-Khattab, to save the day. Cook writes:

"Our sources tell us that Muhammad died on a Monday in the third month of year 11—that would be in the early summer of 632—and was buried the next day*. On that same Tuesday, the Muslims assembled in the mosque and pledged their allegiance to Abū Bakr (ruled 632–34) as caliph. This seemed to make a lot of sense. Abū Bakr was a leading figure among the Muhājirs: a Qurashī and a very early convert, he had been the trusted friend who had accompanied Muḥammad during his Hijra, and most recently he had been appointed by the ailing Muḥammad to lead the prayer in the mosque."

*He was buried the SAME DAY - Cook is wrong about this too(!) - in line with Islamic custom. And no! His arguments for Abu bakr make no sense at all!

Firstly, the kinds of points he presents in favour of Abu Bakr and his legitimacy for succession to the Prophet apply EVEN MORE to Ali Ibn Abi Talib; something he (Ali) himself mentioned to Abu Bakr. Ali was the first male to accept Islam (the first female being the Prophet's wife, Khadijah). Ibn Sa'd in his voluminous work, at-Tabaqaat al-Kubraa, says that Abu Bakr was the fifth male [or later still] to accept Islam!).

Also, Ali was not just a leading 'muhaajir', but a member of the Ahlul Bayt, in whose praise we have the Quranic verses: Aayat-ul-Mubaahala, Aayat-ut-Tatheer, Aayat-ul-Ghadeer(!); apart from Hadeeth al-Manzilah, Hadeeth-ud-Daar (or Hadeeth-ud-Dawa't-il'Ashherah), Hadeeth-ul-Ghadeer, Hadeeth al-Thaqalain.

Abu Bakr was NOT named by the Prophet to be his successor, but Ali Ibn Abi Talib was. He was named at the Event of Ghadeer al-Khumm; this being the one event with the highest number of 'isnaad' (chains of narrations), all unbroken (muawaatir), and from MOSTLY SUNNI sources! This fact is not talked about much and is hardly known to Islam scholars in the West who carry on toeing the commonly understood and totally defective narrative concerning this event.

Abu Bakr usurping the caliphate, with Umar's crucial help, was challenged by many family members and close followers of the Prophet as they refused to give him oath of allegiance followiing Saqeefah. These included not just Ali but his wife Fatimah, the Prophet's daughter, who confronted Abu Bakr and decided in the end to never speak to him till the day she died, which was about six months later. She also broke contact with Umar at the same time, accusing them both of betrayal. As she lay dying, she said that these two (plus some others) should not be informed about her death and not invited to attend her funeral. Her wishes were carried out and neither Umar nor Abu Bakr were told when she passed away; her funeral conducted at night and very very few were invited to attend. Her grave remains unknown till this day!

You cannot understand Karbala (or its aftermath), entailing the slaughter of the Prophet's family members and their followers on 10th Muharram 61 AH (10th October 680 CE), unless you understand what took place at the Event of Saqeefah.

Cook seems oblivious of both, and doesn't seems to know the immediate aftermath of the Event of Karbala, just like many others, including, and especial, the Sunnis. The Battle of Harrah (26 August 683 CE), followed by the sacking, pillaging and rapine of Madina then Mecca are seriously important events that took place after Karbala. They also became a threat to the rule of Yazid Ibn Mu'awiyah, as did the rebellion by the Tawwabuub (the Tawwaabiin Uprising) later, in Rabii' al-thani of 65 AH (November/December 684 CE), led by the Kufan, Sulaiman Ibn Surad. He summoned men to join his army that had assembled at Nukhayla to challenge Umayyad rule. Some 4000 finally joined. Most killed after 3 days of fighting during the Battle of Ayn al-Warda (January 685 CE) against the Umayyad force of around 20,000.

Rebellions against Umayyad rule continued for a very long time after these events, even during the later Abbasid period. These drew their inspiration from the Event of Karbala, 10th Muharram, 61 AH (10th October , 680 CE).

If one thinks that all these are unimportant events, being just a series of 'side shows' then one hasn't understood that period of Islamic history, and should be seen as doing nothing else than toeing the official Sunni narrative - which is as defective as it is incomplete. This has proved to be a hurdle in understanding the early history of Islam. Cook has glossed over these events and therefore shown his lack of depth in understanding this important period of Islamic history!