Ibn Hubayrah (1) interpreted the hadith as meaning that the administration of the realm rests on twelve figures, such as the vizier, the judge, and the like. This interpretation has no merit. Rather, the hadith is to be understood according to its apparent meaning, without any strained interpretation.

Others, such as Abū al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzī, offered weak interpretations of it. Still others, such as Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī, said, “I do not understand its meaning.”

As for Marwān and Ibn al-Zubayr, neither of them (2) exercised general rule over the community. Rather, each ruled during a period of civil strife, when Islam did not attain the might, nor was jihad waged against its enemies to the extent, described in the hadith.

For this reason, some people placed ‘Alī’s caliphate in the same category, saying, “It was established neither by an explicit text nor by consensus.” Imam Ahmad and others rejected their position, saying:

“Whoever does not acknowledge ‘Alī as the fourth caliph is more astray than his family’s donkey.”

He supported the legitimacy of ‘Alī’s caliphate with the hadith narrated by Safīnah from the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—who said:

“The prophetic caliphate will last thirty years; thereafter it will become kingship.”

The narrator was told, “The Umayyads say that ‘Alī was not a caliph.” He replied:

“The sons of al-Zarqā’ have lied through their backsides!” (3)

A detailed discussion of this issue belongs elsewhere.