Before I touch on the topic, I would like to unveil the facts which are hidden not only from the common run of people, but also from the will-informed persons. One of the facts is that ‘suppressio veri’, suppression of truth or lying is a Shia way of life. They have elevated ‘suggestio falsi’ to the level of a full-fledged faith. They have sanctified a mere tissue of lies by conferring on it the label of "Taqiyyah"; but a lie is always a le whether one presents it baldly or wraps it up in multi-coloured gift paper. To identify a self-concocted prescription with divine revelation is simply inconceivable and only a psoturemaster or a Jack pudding could conceive such an equation. No sensible or sensitive person or group of people can transform sheer flap-doodle into religious faith because it lacks both divine sanction and rational expectance. But the Shias have performed this impossible feat by turning their Punic faith into a divinely guaranteed philosophy of life which relies mainly on the projection of lies and ‘supercherie’, quackery and charlatanism, bluff and mummery. Their attitude towards "Taqiyyah" is characteristic of their whole mentality: it is a reflection of the collective Shia psyche which is suffering from a chronic moral and spiritual jaundice. The Shias observe (any one who does not observe Taqiyyah – adopts dissimulation as a way of life – is not a believer).
And the painful irony of it is that, as a practical demonstration of their penchant for dissimulation, these stool-pigeons have imputed the statement to Imam Muhammad Baqir.
Hadhrat Ali and his family members protested almost invariably against the Shia propensity towards falsification and equivocation. These Imams expressed their displeasure at the Shia habit of misrepresenting facts and always complained against their clap-trap charlatanism. Kashi, one of the most distinguished Shia experts of human psychology, has related on the authority of Ibn Sanam:
"Abu Abdullah remarked that there is no doubt that we Ahl-i-Bait are in the right but we are not immune against the lies of the impostors who may impute some bouncer to us and damage our veracity by spreading humbug about us as the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the most truthful among mankind but Musailmah Kazab attributed lies to him. Similarly, after him, Hadhrat Ali was the most truthful among mankind but Abu Abdullah Hussain bin Ali. Then he mentioned Harith Shami and Banan and pointed out that they blurted lies about Ale bin Hussain. Then he cursed Mughirah bin S’aid, Bazigha, Siri, Abul Khatab, Mu’amar, Bashar-ul-Ashari, Hamza Yazidi, and S’aid Nahdi and said: we are not immune against these liars; they impute fabrications to us. May God protect us against the evil of each liar and send him to hell".
The other fact is that he people, who roll the rosary of allegations and accusations against Hadhrat Uthman, were in fact the people who caused his martyrdom and flung open the gate of dissension among the Muslims. The majority of these traditionalists are Shias. They have magnified microscopic details and transformed Lillipution realties into Brobdignaggian monsters, and the historians have further doubled up the confusion by uncritically accepting the packet of lies handed down to them through the prejudiced traditionists. The result is that it is almost a Sisyphian labour to sort out fact from fiction and reality from phantasy. The writers and historians have followed a highly whimsical line of action; they have included every insignificant and cooked-up detail genuineness of their borrowed plumes; but they have ignored and excluded even the significant details that clash with their highly volatile priorities and scoff at their spurious thesis.
The third fact is that these traditionists have not based their perverse findings on the evidence of the direct or firsthand witnesses. They are mostly based on derivative evidence and they have reproduced mere hear-say and baseless observations without caring to test their veracity, creating a jumble of unassorted evidence. Some of the examples are glaring violations of ten years between the events and the reporters of these events. The matter will be discussed at length in the subsequent pages.
The fourth fact is that these impassioned blankety-blank defenders of their putid faith make no effort to hide their partisan stance in the projection of events. They ignore the claims of truth and side with the group of people who set ablaze the fires of dissension among the Muslims by blowing into the ash of half-dead embers. It is clear that these people are working for the mission of the rebel group and are actively engaged in keeping alive the flames of disunity flared up initially by their forefathers. Therefore it is morally binding on every person who likes to dig out truth that he should not accept their statements blindly and uncritically. He should especially find out for himself if these statements are also endorsed by more trustworthy and reliable reporters which is not unanimously supported by Abu Mikhnaf, Waqdi and the two Kalbis.
It is, however, unfortunate, that their account of companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is generally considered reliable through they are the worst successors of their ancestors. They were leaders of the rebels and agents of Judaism and Zoroastrianism. It is possible that they had fallen into their trap against their better judgement and had adopted their convictions as a consequence of unconscious deception. They were thoroughly steeped in their scampish beliefs. They strictly followed the strategy practised by Goebbles in the last days: they juggled and embroidered facts in such a shameless manner and they increased the volume and quantum of lies to such a stupendous degree that people almost quantum of lies to such a stupendous degree that people almost started lapping up their spoofy interpretations as unvarnished truth. They in fact crossed all bounds and limits of exaggeration and misrepresentation and out-heroded Herod in their wily and devilish misprojectiosn.
Since my ‘modus operandi’ is to rely on facts alone, and to prove my point of view on the basis of logical reasoning and substantive evidence and to quote only those sources whose authenticity is irreproachable, therefore I would like to substantiate my statements with the help of following arguments.
Abu Mikhnaf: Mohsin writes in his book "Ayyan-ush-Shia" in a chapter on Shia writers: "Abu Mikhnaf is Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi. Najashi believes that he was one of the historians of Kufah. He complied a number of books. The most noteworthy books are the ones dealing with the conquests of Syria, Iraq, Khorasan, Jamal, Safin, Nahr and Gharat and the book dealing with the murder of Hussain. Ibn Nadim in "Al-Fehrist" has recorded the comments of Ahmad bin Harith Khazzaz who thinks that Abu Mikhnaf is more will-in-formed than others about the conquest of Iraq, Madaini is more well-informed about Kharasan, India and Persia while Waqidi excels them in his grasp of facts about Hijaz and a psychological understanding of people. The information about Syria is evenly distributed among them and they can not claim any edge over one another. But it should be noted that two of these three i.e., Abu Mikhnaf and Waqidi are Shias".
As is well known, Najashi has rated him among the Shia authors and, besides the list furnished by Mohsin, he is also supposed to have complied the following books: "Kitab-us-Saqifah", the book of Shura, the book on the murder of Uthman, Kitab-ul-Hikmin, the murder of Amir-ul-Momini, the murder of Hussain, the murder of Hajr bin Adi, Akhbareul-Mukhtar, Akhbar-uz-Ziyat, Akhbar Muhammad bin abi Bakr and the murder of Muhammad etc. He has also mentioned that he was one of the distinguished historians and writers of Kufah. He derived a great deal of consolation from relating his traditions. He has also borrowed a number of traditions from Jafar bin Muhammad.
Tusi is of the opinion that his father was included among the companions of Hadhrat Ali. Tusi has therefore mentioned him in his study of men. Hilli states in Thaqat that his father was one of the companions of Baqir and he himself was one of the companions of J’afar.
Qummi refers to him in his book: "Lut bin Yahya bin S’aid bin Mikhnaf bin Salim Azdi was a tutor of historians in Kufah. He died in 157 A.H. Hishman Kalbi attributes it to Imam J’afar that his grand father Mikhnaf bin Salim was a companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who was one of the companions of Hadhrat Ali during the battle of Jamal and he was carrying the flag of the tribe of Azd. He drank the cup of martyrdom in the same battle in 36 A.H. Abu Mikhnaf was one of the most distinguished Shia historians. Though he had a gook reputation among the Shias, Tabri and Ibn Athir, the two Sunni scholars, have also acknowledged the credibility of his reporting. Abu Mikhnaf has written a number of books on history and biography of which the murder of Hussain is especially noteworthy. Therefore, even the most distinguished scholars have reported from it and relied on its veracity".
Thus the Shia scholars themselves have confirmed his existence and the list of books provided by Najashi clearly establishes his Shiaism and extremism.
Abu Mikhnaf and Sunni Scholars:
Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani has summed up the attitude of Sunni scholars towards Abu Mikhnaf. He observes that he is an uncultured, unreliable and unveracious historian. Imam Abu Hatim etc. have called him obsolete and outdated. Imam Dar Kutni calls him a weak source. Yahya bin Mu’in considers him unauthentic and disparages him as if he is a nonentity. Ibn ‘Adi regards him an extremist Shia and a historian. Hafiz Ibn Hajr is of the opinion that he has followed his authority. He died before the advent of the year 170 A.H. Abu Ubaid Ajri relates that when he asked Abu Hatim about him, he rubbed his hands and said that there was hardly any need to inquire about him (which reflected his insignificance as a reporter). ‘Uqaili has placed him among the weak sources of information.
Allama Zahbi in his book "Mizan" has mentioned him in the same strain and in the abridgement of "Minhaj-us-Sunnah" by Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Yaimiyah which is known as "Muntaqa", he has identified him with those who are notorious for palming off fibs. He has also referred to a statement by Ashhab bin Abdul Aziz Qaisi which he made in response to a question put to Imam Malik about the Rafidhis. He replied that they should neither be conversed with nor reported from because they are liars. Hurmilah bin Yahya has quoted Imam Sharfi’I that he never found anyone who excelled the Rafidhis in cooking up the evidence. Momil bin Wahab Ribi is reported to have heard from Yazid bin Harun that, with the exception of Rafidhis, the traditions of each innovator can be recorded as long as he does not force or persuade people to accept his innovation. The traditions of Rafidhis cannot be recorded because they speak lies. Muhammad bin S’aid Isfahani heard it from Sharik bin Abdullah Nalhfi that knowledge should be gained from each and every person except the Rafidhis. Knowledge should not be gained from them because they invent the traditions and raise them to the level of hadith. Abu Mu’awiyyah is reported to have heard from Amash that people generally regarded the Rafidhis as liars. Then, following the authority of Shaikh-ul-Islam, he believes that any one who cares to study well-reasoned and cogently-argued books on the subject will be automatically led to the conclusion that the Shias are comparatively greater liars than other groups and sects. When a Rafidihi stresses Yaqiyyah, he indirectly confesses his lie".
These are the opinions of the leading scholars about Abu Mikhnaf. These scholars have made a comparative study of the sources of information and have backed up their conclusions with logic and reasoning. And similar and the views of the traditionists and religious scholars about the reliability of the Shias as vehicles of information.
The gist of the matter is that both Shias and Sunnis believe that Abu Mikhnaf was a Shia, that he was unveracious and untruth-worthy and Qummi’s words that Tabri and other Sunni scholars have relied on him inspite of his being a Shia, are nothing but a basket of bubbles and it is quit consistent with their nature which finds its exclusive nourishment in stringing up lies and fibs. Any one who had studied Tabri knows that he has nowhere indicated the option to stress only the veracious traditions. It is a mixed bag and he has explained the hodge-podge complexion of the book in his preface:
"There are certain traditions in this book which have come down to us from people who are disliked by the readersand the audience alike. These traditions are neither valid nor have they any link with realith. It should, however, be noted that these traditions are not invented by us but have been reportedby people who have conveyed htem to us. We have recorded them verbatim without making any alterations in them, and as they have been communicated to us".
Ibn Athir has also explained in the preface of his book that he has reported them from Tabri and relied on his authority: He observes:
"I have collected materials in my book that lay scattered and was not accessible in the form of a single book. Any one who cares to reflect will soon grasp the truthfulness of my statement. First of all I have picked up "Tarikh-I-Kabir" written by Imam Abu Jafar Tabri because all people depend in this book and they revert to it when differences crop up among them, and I have relied on all the various translations and left out not a single one-of them".
This is the reality behind the trust of Tabri and Ibn Athir on Abu Mikhnaf. As far as Waqidi is concerned, the comments of Mohsin Shi’I about him are highly pertinent:
"Referring to Muhammad bin Umar Waqidi, Ibn Nadim has commented that he was a Shia and declared Taqiyyah obligatory for them. He has originated the tradition that Hadhrat Ali was the miracle of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as the rod was the miracle of Moses and raising the dead was the miracle of Christ. Waqidi was a scholar of social convulsions, conquests and history. When he died, he left behind six hundred bags packed with books, Two persons could barely lift each one of the bags, though some time back some of his books had been sold for a sum of two thousand dinar. Two of hired slaves wrote books for him day and night. Among his writings are Ar-Tarikh-ul-Kavir, Al-Maghazi, Al-Mabath, Akhbar Makkah, Futu-ush-Sham, Futuh-ul-Iraq, Al-Jamal, Maqtal-I-Hussain, and a number of books on men and history".
Qummi has mentioned this fact in the following words:
"Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Umar bin\ aqidi Mandi was a scholar of international repute. He wrote a number of books dealing with intellectual controversies and conquests of cites. He is also the author of Kitab-ur-Ridah. He is rated Al-Mughazi’ and his other inter pretations have also been dubbed in English. His scribe Muhammad bin S,aad and may other scholars have pointed ouut that, inspite of his extensive knowledge and scholarship, he could not memorize the holy Quran. It is related that once Mamun asked him to lead the Friday prayer. He apologized and tried to wriggle out of it. But when Mamun insisted, he explained: By God! O Amir-ul- Mominin, I can’t lead the prayers because I have not been able to memorixxe even half of Surah Juma. Mamun told him to commit it to memeoty. But when he memorized the first part, the second part slipped out of his memory, and when he memorized the second part, the first part slipped out of his memory. When Mmamun asked Ali bin Sabah to help him commit it to memory, he also replied that it was beyond his capacity to memorize it. Mamun said to him: Go and lead the Friday prayer and reite whatever Surah you like. Anan reports that he also offered the Friday prayer behind Waqidi and he recited the last two verses of Surah Ali.
He was a practising Shia. He declared Taqiyyah obligatory and believed that Hadrat Ali was the miracle to the Prophet (peace be upon him) as ht erod was the miracle of Christ, He had also concocted a number of other lies and traditions".
Khu Ansari in his book has conferred on him the title of "the most leading scholar". Thus the Shias have them-selves acknowledged that Waqidi was a Shia, that he had the worst possible memory, that he lacked a sense of retraint and self-discipline and both his mind and heart were allergic to Quran.
Waqidi and the Sunnis.
Now I shall try to reproduce the views of the Sunni scholars and biographers about Waqidi invented the traditions".
"He used to relate inverted and dubius traditions from authentic traditionalists. Ahmad bin Hanbal controverted him and Ali bin Madini declared that waqidi invented traditions".
Zahbi believes that the scholars have unanimously rejected him. Imam Nisai declared that he cooked up the traditions. Hafix ibn Hajr Hajr has compiled the whole gamut of views and opinious about him in the form of a book. He relates on the authority of Imam Bokhari that Waqidi was a madani, he lived in baghdad and his traditions are obsolete. Ahmad Ibn Mubarik, Ibn Numair and Ismail bin Zikriyyah have declared him out of use and circulation. Mu’awiyyah bin Saleh reports Imam Ahmad bin Hambal to have said:
"Waqid is a liar"
Yahya bin Munin Stated:
"He is weak"
Sometimes he declared,
"He is nothing" (he is a nonentity-he does not carry any weight) Ibn Madini said:
"Haitham bin ‘Adi is more reliable to me than Waqidi and as a reporter of traditions he possesses greater popularity and credibility".
Imam Shafi’i affirms:
"All the books of Waqidi are bundle of lies ".
Imam Nisai comments in his book "Adh-Doafa".
"Four liars are nototious for imputing bogus traditions to Prophet (peace be upon him) (1) Waqidi in Madinah (2) Muqati in Kufah (3) Muhammad bin Said Maslub in Syria and then he also mentioned the forth one:
Ibn ‘Adi asserts:
"The traditions reported by him are untrust-worth".
Ibn Madini declares:
"I know twenty thousand traditions which are baseless (which have no authentic origin). Ibrahim bin Yahya is a liar also but he is better than Waqidi in my view". Imam Abu Daud declares:
"I neither record any tradition reported by him nor do I relate it nor have I any doubt about his capacity for inventing traditions". Binder says:
"In my view he is one of those who cooked up tradintions".
Ibn-ul-‘Arabi has cited a statement made by Imam Shafi’i.
"There were seven persons in Madinah who invented traditions: one of them was Waqidi"
Imam Abu Zar, Abu Bashir Dulabi and Uqaili are collectively of the opinion that "his traditions were obsolete"
Imam Abu Hatim Razi remarks:
"The scholars in Madinah disacknowledge the validity of his traditions".
Ibn Jauzi has quoted the statement made by Abu Hatim Razi:
"He fabricated the traditions".
Hafiz Ibn Hajr has related an episode which revels the extent of his audacity in telling lies. Umro Naqid told me that he asked Waqidi: Do you remember any hadith about the curse of visiting graves through Thauri, through Ibn Khaitham, through Abdur Rahman bin Nabhan, through Abdur Rahman bin Hitham bin Thabit? He replied in the affirmative and qoted Sufiyan as its source. I asked him to dictate it and he started dictating it on the authority of Abdur Rahman bin Thauban. I said: all praise is to God Who has made you slip! you claim to be an expert on the geneo-logy of Jinns but you don’t remember its authentic source! Safi is of the opinion that it refers to a tradition which other people besides him have reported from Sufiyan. Imam Navi says;
"By the unanimous opinion of Muhaddithim, Waqidi is weak"
Allama Zahbi writes in Mizan:
"A consensus has been achieved on Waqidi’s weakness" Imam Dar Qutni says:
"His hadith reflects weakness"
"He did not reply on moderation in inventing hadith"
These are the opinions of the Sunni scholars about Waqidi. The Shias have themselves acknowledged that he is not just a plain Jane of a Shia but is also one o those hard-shell Shias who declare lying obligatory as part of their Taqiyyah and for whom the art of lying is a sure passport to salvation!
Mohsin Amin has included a reference to Muhammad bin Saib and his so Hisham in his grading of Shia historians. Ibn Nadim, who is himself a Shia, has mentioned him in his "Fehrist" Najashi comments on Hisham bin Muhammad:
"Hisham bin Muhammad bin Saib bin Bashir bin Zaid bin Umro bin Harith bin Abdul Harith bin Azzi bin Umra-ul-Qais Amir bin N’oman bjn Amir bin Abdu bin ‘Auf bin Kinanah bin Auf bin Zaid-ul-lat Raqidah bin Thaur bin Kalb bin Vibra Manzir was a geneologist and a historia-grapher. He was a distinguished scholar in his field and was a sincere follower of our faith. Once he was suffering from a serious follower of our faith. Once he was suffering from a serious illness. As a result of the disease he lost his memory and knowledge. Then he sought the kind patronage of J’afar bin Muhammad who made him quaff a tumbler of knowledge which restored his memory and scholarship. Abu Abdullah also patronized him. He composed a number of books of which Mathalib-Thaqif, Mathalib-i-Hussain, and Kitab Akhbar Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah are especially not worth.
Imam Daud Hilli has stated in the fist part of his study of men that his father was one of the companions of Imam Baqir. He has also observed that his son Hisham was much patronized by Imam J’afar Tusi has included Muhammad bin Saib among the companions of Sadiq and Baqir. He was an extremely fanatic Shia and his lapses are immeasurable.
The Shia scholar, Abbas Qummi observes:
"Kalbi, who is also known as Ibn Kalbi, was a geneologist. His name was Abul Manzir Hisham bin abi Nafr Muhammad bin Saib bin Bashr Kalbi Kufi. He was an expert in tracing pedigree. Some of the knowledge relating to the geneological tree he had obtained from his fater Abu Nafr Muhammad bin Saib who was one of the companions of Sadiq and Baqir. Abu Nafr had gathered information about Quraish pedigree from Saleh who had collected it from ‘Aqil bin abi Talib. Ibn Qatibah observes that Bashr was his grandfather, and his two sons Said and Ubaid-ur-Rehman had participated in the battles of jamal and Safin on Ali’s side. Saib received martyrdom along with Musab bin Zubair and Muhammad bin Said Kalbi participated in may battles along with Ibn Rashat. He was a geneologist and an exegete. He died in Kufah. Samani, in an account of muhammad bin Saib, writes that he was an exegete. He was a native of Kufah and believed in the return’. His son Hisham was a man of high stature and was an extremist Shia. It is recorded in "Ar-Rijal-ul-Kabir" that Hisham bin Muhammad bin Saib Abul Manzir was a geneologist of international fame. He was paragon of knowledge and scholarship, and a historian of great reputation. He was a true devotee of our faith. It is also recorded that once he fell into the clutches of sanguine disease. As a consequence, his memory was completely washed out. He approached J’afar bin Muhammad (to seek and antidote against the disease). J’afar offered him a glass (of some liquid) to drink which totally restored his knowledge and memory. Abu Abdullah patronized him a great deal. He was also an enviable semasiologist and, on account of his stupendous memory, had memorized the holy Quran within a span of only three days. And three is nothing to feel dazed about. A man who quaffs a glass (of any liquid etc.) at the hands of Imam Sadiq, and memorize the Quran within the span of even less than three days". Kalib died either in 206 A.H. or in 204 A.H.
I believe that the account of Hisham and his father Muhammad is quite adequate and which is enough to establish his credentials as a Shia of old vintage.
Kalbi and Sunni Scholars:
Iamam Ibn Asqalani has mentioned the views of Sunni scholars about Kalbi in his account of Muhammad bin Saib. He refers to a statement made by Mu’amar bin Suleiman. His father had stated that there were two liars in Kufash. One of these liars was Kalbi. Layth bin S’add has endorsed the view and said that the other liar was Sudu. Dauri relates on the authority of Imam Yahya bin Mu’in that it is flimsy and lacks the ballast of reality. Mu’awiyyah bin Saleh reports from Imam Yahya that it is a weak tradition. Abu Musa says he has no evidence that either Yahya or Abdur rahman had heard it from Sufiysn. Imam Bokhari i8s o fhte Ipinion that Yahya and Ibn Mehdi have declared it obsolete. Dauri relates it on the authority of Yahya bin Yala Muharibi: When Zaida was asked why had not he reported form Ibn abi Layla, Jabir J’ofi and Kalbi, he replied he did not remember much about Ibn abi Layla but Jo’fi was a liar and believed in the ‘return’: I also visited Kalbi off and on but I heard from him that his mind had been drained of all knowledge as a result of some disease but was eventually restored through the pouring of some liquid into his mouth by one of the descendants of Muhammad, I gave him up and stopped visiting him.
Asma’I reports frm Abu Awanah: I had heard certain things from Kalbi which turn a believer into an infidel but when I asked him about it, he simply back-tracked. Abdul Wahid bin Ghiyyath relates on the authority of Ibn Mehdi that abu Jaz’ came over and sat with us at Abu Umro bin ‘lla’,s gate and declared: I withness that Kalbi is an infidel. When I mentioned it to Yazid bin Zuray, he also confirmed he had heard him saying that Kalbi was an infide. When he was asked to explain it, he replied: I have heard him saying that once Gabriel came over to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to reveal to him the divine message. The Prophet went out to do some errand. Hadhrat Ali was sitting there at that time. So Gabriel conveyed the divine revelation to him. Yazid does not confirm hearing it from him buthe withnessed that he used to beat his chest with his hands and repeatedly declared: I am a Sabai, I am a Sabai. Uqili believes that Sabais are a group of Rafihis and are the companions of Abdullh bin S aba. Fudhail reports from Mughirah’. Zayd Habab has heard from Thauri That he doubted the sanity of a person who relied on Kalbi as a source of his information.
Ibn abi Hatim says: I asked my father why did Thauri report from Kalbi? He replied: His object is not to report from Kalbi but to vent his senseof shock and outrage by quoting his statements, but the audience have mistaken it for a tradition.
Ali bin M’asher reports from Abu Janab Kalbi that Abu Saleh had declared on oath he had not learnt the art of exegesis from Kalbi at all. Abu Asim attributes to Sufiyan Thauri that Kalbi had told him to discount whatever he had reported from Abu Saleh who had in this turn reported it on the authority of ibn Abbas because it was web of lies and therefore should not be passed on as authentic tradition.
Asam’I reports from Qurrah bin Khalid the opinion of the enlightened scholars who believed that he was a liar. Yazid bin Harun relates that when Kalbi grew up, he fell a prey to amnesia. Abu Harim is of the opinion that people had unanimously discarded his hadiith. His traditons are not reliable and can not be entertained by any sane and sensible person. Ibn ‘Adi states that, in addition to what has been already expressed, some good traditions have been ascribed to him, especially the ones he had reported from Abu Saleh. He had carved a name for himself in the art of explication. No one has compiled a longer exegesis than him. Some confirmed traditioists have also relied on his reports. He is a likeable figure in the field of exegesis but he is notorious for his excesses in the field of hadith. His hadith can, at least, be relied upon as it is reputed to walk on crutches.
Ibn abi Hatim states that Imam Bokhari has recorded somewhere that Muhammad bin Bashr heard from Umro bin Abdullah J’afar who passed it on to Muhammad bin Ishaq. Ibn Hatim has confirmed him to be Kalbi. Muhammad bin Abdullah Jafri states that he died in Kufah in 146 A.H. Ibn S’aad has traced his lineage down to Kalb bin Vibrah. His grandfather was Bashr. His sons Saib, Ubaid and Abdur Rahman had fought in the battle of Jamal on Ali’s side. Muhammad bin Saib also appeared in Jamajam with Ibn Ash’at. He was an exegete, a historian and an expert on Arab pedigree. He died in Kufah in 146 A.H. I have gathered all this information from his son Hisham. The scholars call him a nonentity and his traditions are lame ducks.
Ali bin Junaid, Hakim, Abu Ahmad and Imam Dar Qutni declare his traditions obsolete. Jouz-Jani identifies them as a bag of fibs. Ibn Haban believes that his lie is so glaringly obvious that it hardly needs any gloss or commentary. He has reported his exegetical explications from Abu Saleh but Abu Saleh’s dependence on Ibn Abbas has not been confirmed. Therefore his exegesis is utterly unreliable.
Saji again beats out the drum of his out-datedness and unreliability. On account of his hideous extremism, his traditions are reduced to paper props. The scholars unanimously condemn his reports as obsolete. imam Abu abdullah Hakim says that he has reported the traditions from Abu Saleh".
The status of Kalbi has been amply substituted by the views and opinions of the scholars and he is found to be a fabricator of the lowest brand whose fibs and fictions spin out like the devil’s intestine. As far as his son Hisham is concerned, he is also stamped with the same insignia of concoction. Therefore he is also a Rafidhi and a liar as has been attested by Zahabi and other scholars of his status who specialize in the art of comparison based on logic and reasoning. This Kalbi has also churned out a book on the companions which has been referred to by Ibn Mathar Hilli in this book "Minhaj-ul-Karamah".
Shaikh-ul-Islam, Imam Ibn Taimiyah has mentioned his in his book and has also quoted the views of the distinguished Imamas to support his findings:
"Hisham Kalbi was the most scabby liar. He belonged to the Shia community. He relied for his reports on his father and Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya. Both of them are obsolete and are crusty liars. Imam Ahmad is of the opinion that nobody can rely on his reports because he was only a geneolgist and a teller of fictitious tales. Imam Dar Qutni states that he was out of circulation. Ibn ‘Adi remarks that he usually indulged in fantasy and had no role in the compilation of hadith. His father was also a spat on liar and therefore thoroughly unreliable. Zaida, Layth and Sulaiman Tamimi have called him a taleteller and a shammer. Yahya has labeled him a trickster and an impostor. Ibn Haban states that his legerdemain is obvious that it hardly needs any explanation.
These are the four traditionists on whom the historians have based their conclusions. They appeared during the reign of Hadhrat Uthman. They have given a detailed account of the battles fought between them and Hadhrat Ali and they insisted on the revenge of the blood of Hadhrat Uthman. The historians have depended on these discredited, disgraced, grovelling and spurned reporters for recording events right up to the martyrdom of Hussain and the conclusions based on these events. These four spivvish reporters had looked at events through their prejudice-tinted goggles and relied on the support and backing of history to disseminate Sabaism and to propagate their catchpenny views. At first these mealy-mouthed swindlers played false with the people in the name of people’s love of the Ahl-i-Bait and then opened a new conduit to shoot the arrows of their spite and malice at the pious and virtuous companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to insinuate the measly innovations of Abdullah bin Saba into the faith of the simple and innocent Muslims. That is why I have unfolded the background of these reporters before I actually embark on the events and circumstances which they exploited for their insidious purposes. The object is to help the readers guage the veracity of the episode in relation to the credibility of its reporter. It need hardly be stressed that any episode on which the Sabais have built a consensus is sperious and unreliable.
How I would like to submit that these ignominous people had spread a network of caddish conspiracies to create rift among the Muslims, shatter their unity into bits and pieces, scramble their sense of collectivity, dismantle the impregnable fort of Islam and to polish off the Islamic Caliphate.
First of all they spread alien, un-Islamic and Jewish beliefs and views among the Muslims, and then circulated false and self-in-vented rumours about the rulers. I would like here to reaffirm the words of Ibn Jarir Tabri which I have reality of the allegations they had levelled against Hadhrat Uthman bin Affan, the third Caliph of the Messenger of Allah. It was the same Uthman who valued self-respect above everything else, who was an embodiment of magnanimity, piety and modesty, who was the son of the Prophet’s aunt, who was the husband of two of the Prophet’s daughters and who was all praise for the Ahl-i-Bait, for Ali for Ali’s children.
I’ll try to explain why a net-work of conspiracies was spread against him, who were the people who prepared the wrap and woof of the net-work and who were those hideous creatures who stoked up the embers of hatred and dissension against him. Tabri’s comments are pertinent to a resolution of the tangle woven by these questions. According to him, Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew among the natives of Sana who was the son of a jet-black slave-maid. He put on the mask of Islam during the reign of Hadhrat Uthman and he roamed through various cities to lead the Muslims astray. He launched his campaign from Hijaz and then visited Basrah, Kufah and Syria. When the Syrians cold-shouldered him and drove him out of their country, he left for Egypt. His pet slogan revolved around the issue of the Prophet’s return. He was shocked by the attitude of people who affirmed the return of Christ but denied the return of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
(Hadhrat Muhammad has a better claim over resurrection that Christ). His slogan spread like an epidemic and he gave birth to the concept of ‘return’ or resurrection: And then he started parroting out that there had been at least one thousand prophets who were each blessed with an executor or a successor. In the same way Hadhrat Ali was an executor of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Later on he insisted that if Hadhrat Muhammad was the last prophet, then Hadhrat Ali was the last executor. He added further spice to his over-peppered slogan that no one could be a bigger tyrant and a greater oppressor that the one who blocked the execution and implementation of the Prophet’s will and persecuted his executor and successor and took over the rein of power in his own hand. Explaining his thesis he proposed that Hadhrat Uthman was a usurper. He had illegally possessed the Khilafat because the executor of the Prophet was alive. Therefore he prompted the people to raise against him and to mobilize their energies in order to throw away his unlawful regime. He instigated them to cast aspersions on their rulers and dissociated themselves from their acts in order to attract the sympathies of the people. In order to achieve his heinous objective, he spread his agents throughout the country and dispatched letters to the insurgents in different cities. He carried on his conspiracies clandestinely. In his letters he peeked at the Muslims rulers. His companions also followed him and initiated an almost unending chain of letters criticising the Muslim officials. The agents in various cities were in touch with one another to pick up the latest information. They read out these letters to the residents of each city and kept them abreast of the new developments. Their nefarious activities ultimately spread to Madina. Their exteriors never betrayed their intentions. They never let out their real feelings and the outward appearance always clashed with the inward reality. The citizens of each town claimed that they were free from the troubles faced by people in other towns. Only the residents of Madina enjoyed comparative inmunity. They dispatched Muhammad and Talha to Hadhrat Uthman. They said to him: O Amir-ul-Mominin! Have you received the news from people which we have received? He replied in the negative and added: I have received only good news. They said that they had received certain news and then they conveyed the news to him which they had fabricated themselves. He replied: you are my companions, you know the state of the believers. Therefore you should advise me what to do under the circumstance? They replied: We advise you to despatch trustworthy and reliable persons to different places to size up the state of affairs and submit their reports in the light of their findings. Accordingly he dispatched Muhammad bin Muslimah to Kufah, Usamah bin Zayd to Basrah, Ammar bin Yasir to Egypt and Abdullah bin Umar to Syria. Besides them, he also despatched a number of other people to survey the situation in different parts of the country. All of them returned with the exception of Hadhrat Ammar and reported: O people! We have not come across any unpleasant incident or circumstance which is disliked by the ordinary or the extra-ordinary persons. The situation is completely in the control of the Muslims. The rulers are dispensing justice to the people and are helping them in the realization of their rights. The people severely felt the delay of Hadhrat Ammar and apprehended that he had been martyred. Meanwhile a letter from Abdullah bin S’aad bin abi Sarh was received which conveyed the news that the people in Egypt had brainwashed Ammar and they had rallied round him. Among them Abdullah bin Sauda’, Khalid bin Malhim, Saudan bin Himran and Kinanah bin Bashr are in the vanguard.
Tabri has related the response of Hadhrat Uthman to this episode which I am citing below for the enlightenment of my readers.
"Then Hadhrat Uthman despatched a letter to various cities. In the letter he wrote: whenever the administrators come to see me during the period of pilgrimage, I hold them to the process of accountability. Since my induction into the office of Khilafat I have made the positive virtues pervail over the negative vices and established the superiority of right over wrong, justice over injustice and good over evil. Wherever complaint is registered against me or my officials will not go unheard. Neither my family nor myself have complained to me that some of them are abused and beaten up some one. If any excess has been committ4ed against anyone, he should come to me during the season of the pilgrimage and secure his right to forgive, and if you forgive, your reward is certainly with God.
When Hadhrat Uthman’s letter was read out to the people, they burst into tears in a surge of excitement. They said the nation seemed to be in for some inauspicious time. Hadhrat Uthman called his officers from different places. Thus Abdullah bin Amir, Mu’awiyyah and Abdullah bin S’aad cam over to see him. He also called S,aid and Umar for consultations with them. He said: what is the nature of the complaints that are pouring in against you. I fear these complaints may turn out to be true to me discredit. They replied: Didn’t you send us away to size up the situation in different places and didn’t we submit the reports to you on out return that no one had raised any protest of lodged any complaint in the face-to-face dialogue? By god! The people who bring to you such news are neither pious nor righteous. These things have no basis in reality. You catch hold of any one of them, and he will not be able to substantiate his complaint. These are mere rumours and it is unjust to believe in them. Had hrat Uthman then sought their advice to resolve the complication.
S’aid bin As replied: It is a well-calculated conspiracy which has veen clandestinely hatched. The innocent people fall prey to it who, on account of their ignorance, talk in this strain in various gatherings. Uthman : What remedy do you suggest? S’aid replied: Any one who talks on these lines should be called and examined, and if found guilty, should be duly penalized.
Abodullah bin S’aad suggested that to con cede people their rights and to induce them to do good was better than calling them over. Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah proposed: you have mad me the administrator and you’ll always hear of good news from the areai administer. But there are two persons who harbour separatist ideas. Hadhrat Uthman asked: what should be done about them. I suggest that they should also be treated fairly and leniently. Then he asked: Umar, what is you opinion? He replied: you attitude is too soft. You are just being lazy. You have beaten even Hadhrat Umar Faruq in doing out concessions to them. I would suggest that you should follow the policy of your former companions. You should be stiff where softness is required. It is quite in order to treat a person harshly who spares no effort to harm and torture others, and it is equally in order to treat other gently and affectionately. But you treat everyone softly.
Then Hadhrat Utheman stood up, praised the Lord and said: I have listened to your views. Each matter has some door, and the matter about which the entire nation has apprehensions has an ominous ring about it. It is mildness, fair treatment and kindness alone that have kept the door locked so far. Of course, I am quite strict in imposing the divine limits and no man is justified to relax or tone down their severity. But it is my soft attitude alone that has kept the door of dissension jammed in the past. But, by God, the door is bound to fling open though no one will have and solid cause against me. God knows I have always banked on good wishes and pious motives and have treated people with utmost affection and kindness. By God! The wheel of sedition I revolving. It would be most fitting for Uthman to die than to escalate the movement to seditious wheel. Try to restrain people, concede them their rights and condone their lapses but you should not make any concessions to those who trample over the rights of Allh".
Later, Hadhrat Uthman counted the allegations one by one that the Sabais had levelled against him and in his famous address he refuted all these charges, a fact unanimously recorded by all the historians.
"Theses people have raised certain objections against me though they know the reality as much as you know it. But they talk about these things to the innocent people and like to taint the climate of public opinion against me. One of their objections is that I offer full prayer is not offered during a journey. They fact is that I went to a city where my family lives. There I offered a full prayer. Am I not telling the truth? All of them chanted: yes! Another objection is that there are special pastures special which had been declare special before me. I swear by God that I have declared only those pastures special which had been declared special before me, and I ordered them to tone up only those pastures which carried the consensus of all the natives of Madinah. I never stopped anyone to graze animals and converted them into gifts for the Muslims to prevent any dispute between the people and the superintendent of a pasture. I did not check any one no t push out any one except those who were guilty of bribe. At this time there are only two camels in my possession. I own neither a she-camel not a goat, though at the time of my accession to the Khilafat, I owned the largest number of camels and goats in whole of Arabia. But today I own neither a camel nor a goat. There are only two camels left which I use during pilgrimage. Isn’t it correct? All of them replied. Yes, it is correct.
They also accuse me of assembling the Quran, which comprised many volumes, into one volume. The only answer to the objection is that it is the same Quran which has been revealed from God and I have only followed the practice of my former companions: Isn’t it true? All of them replied: yes, it is quite true. They not only endorsed his statement but also demanded that the insurgents, who had levelled false allegations against him, should be properly penalized.
Similarly they accuse me of recalling Hakam. The fact is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had himself extradited him. Hakam was a native of Makkah. The messenger of Allah had exiled him to Taif and later he himself had called him back. It means the Prophet (peace be upon him) had extradited him and then recalled him. Isn’t it true? The people replied: yes, undoubtedly.
One of their objections is that I have appointed young mea as my administrators. The plain answer to this objection is that I have appointed only those men as administrators who are competent, popular and cool-minded. Ask the people they administer and who live in the cities they rule. A young man had been appointed administrator in the early days. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed Usamah as the administrator, people shot at him a greater volley of objections than they have raised against me. Didn’t it happen exactly as I have said? The people replied: yes, undoubtedly. Ah! These people pop objections they cannot prove.
Then he pointed out an other objection they had raised against him. They have objected that I have made a special present to Ibn abi Sarh out of the spoils. The answer to this objections is that I gave him one-fifth out of the fifth portion of the spoils as a reward which amounted to one tenth of a million. Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar had initiated the practice (and I was only following a precedent established by them). But when the army did not like it, I recovered the amount from him and distributed it among them, though they could not claim it as their right. Isn’t it the factual position? All of them replied: yes, undoubtedly, it happened the way you mention it.
Another reason they snipe on me is that I love the members of my family and parcel out rewards among them. It is a fact that I have never tortured anyone on account of my love for my family. I concede them only their rights and make presents to them out of my personal possessions. I believe the property of the Muslims is not lawful for myself or for any one else. Even during the period of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar I disbursed considerable charity out of my personal property, though I was young at that time and tended to be rather niggardly and financially stringent. But now when I have grown old and my life is fast eroding and I am leaving all my belongings to the members of my family, these heretics have started imputing to me such baseless motives. By God! I have never acquired any spare possessions in any town to trigger the adverse comments of the people against me. The fact is that I always returned to them the extra goods and kept for myself only the fifth portion, and even out of that I never kept anything exclusively for myself. The Muslims distributed the goods among the people of the area and I did not claim any share in it. Therefore not a penny was aimlessly squandered out of the goods of Allah and I eked out an existence purely on my personal possessions.
Another objection hurled at me is that I have conferred land on some people as a gift. The simple answer is that this land was distributed among the natives and the refugees who had conquerred it. Therefore any one who was physically present at the time of those conquests is virtually an owner of the conquerred lands. But the land of those, who had returned to their families, was not transferred. I therefore deliberated on this form of property and, with the consent of the actual owners, it was exchanged with Arab land. Thus these lands are in their possession and do not belong to me.
Just distribution of land:
Hadhrat Uthman distribute his lands and possessions among the members of Banu Umayyah and his children had a share in them like other members of the tribe. He initiated the distribution with the sons of Abul ‘As and gave ten thousand to each one of the children of Hakam. Thus, collectively, they had received one-tenth of a million. He apportioned the same amount of money among his own sons. Besides, he distributed his goods among Banu al-As, Baun al-ls, and Banu Harb also.
However, Hadhrat Uthman treated those provocateurs mildly, though the Muslims generally opposed it and favoured a harsh treatment of the seditionist. But Hadhrat Uthman insisted that they should be pardoned. Therefore they returned, but as they returned, they warned that they would come back to fight in the guise of pilgrims. On their return they wrote on e another to gather in the precints of Madinah in the month of Shawwal.
Leadership of four rebel chieftains:
When the month of Shawwal dawned in 35 A.H., the natives of Egypt set off in the shape of four caravans. They were being led by four rebel chieftains. Their minimum number was six hundred and their maximum number was one thousand. The ring-leaders of these insurgents were as follows: (!) Abdur Rahman bin ‘Adis Balvi (2) Kinanah bin Bashr Laythi (3) Saudan bin Himran Sukuni and (4) Qatirah bin Fatan Sukuni. The leader-in-chief of these caravans was Ghafiqi bin Harb’Aski.
Participation of Abdullah bin Saba:
They lacked the courage to warn the Muslims directly that they were marching to fight with them. They pretended that they were going to perform pilgrimage. Ibn-us-Sauda’ (Abdullh bin Saba) also accompanied them.
Caravan of the natives of Kufah:
The natives of Kufah also came out in four caravans. They were being led by the following persons: (1) Zayd bin Saudan Abdi (2) Ashtar Nakhfi (3) Ziyyad bin Nadhr Harithi and (4) Abdullah bin Asm who belonged to the family of Amir bin Sasa. Their number equalled that of the Egyptians and their cimmader-in-chief was Umro bin Asm.
The rebels of Basrag also set out in four caravans. They were being led by the following: (1) Hakim bin Jiblah Abdi (2) Zarig bin Ibad Abdi (3) Bashr bin Shairh al-Hatm bin Dhaba Qaisi and (40 Ibn-ul-Mahrish bin Abd Umro Hanafi. Their number also equalled the number of the Egyptians and their leader-in-chief was Marqus bin Zubair S’ad. Some other people also joined them on the way.
Groups of diverse views:
The Eqyptians supported Hadhrat Ali; the natives of basrah were with Hadhrat talha and the natives of Kufah took the side of Hadhrat Qubair. They unanimously opted for rebellion though they shared divergent views. Each group was convinced of its victory and the defeat of other groups.
All of these insurgents marched towards Madinah. When Madinah was only three stages away, some of the people of Basrah stayed at Zukhasb. A few of the natives of Kufah stayed at Aus. Some egyptians also joined them. They had left their companions at Zul-Marwah. Ziyyad bin Nadhr and Abdullah bin Asm came over to the Egyptians and the Basris and told them: You should neither show impatience yourselves not should you compel us to be impatient and act snappily. As soon as we enter Madinah, we’ll inform you. We have learn that the people in Madinah are ore organizing themselves to fight with us. By God! If the natives of Madinah have grown suspicious of us and have declared it lawful fight with us even when they are unaware of out real intentions, they will turn into out deadly enemies when they learn about out real designs and our entire plan will crumble into the dust. If they don’t want to fight us. And the information we have received is incorrect, then let us fetch back the correct information.
Meeting with prominent people:
They left them go and fetch bank the latest information. Both of them reached Madinah and held meetings with the pure wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Talha and Hadhrat Zubair. They expressed support of his family and wished that the caliph should suspend some of the administrators. That was the main object of their visit and they enjoyed the approval and support of the Muslims. But each one of them refuse to cooperate with them and opposed it and declared chicks could not be hatched out of addled eggs.
Meeting with their Candidates:
Some of them met Hadhrat ali. A few persons from Basrah came over to see Hadhrat Talha while the Kufis came to Hdhrat Zubair. Each group insisted that if the other parties did not pledge fealty to their leader, it would launch a campaign of conspiracy against those parties and dissociate itself from them.
Meeting with Hadhrat Ali:
The Egyptians came over to see Hadhrat Ali. He was camping near Ahjar-uz-Zayt. He wore red Yemeni scarf and a sword dangled from his neck. He had dispatched Hadhrat Hassan to a gathering arranged by Hadhrat Uthman. Thus Hassan was with Hadhrat Uthman and Ali was in the vicintiey if Ahjar-uz-Zayt. The Egyptians saluted Hadhrat Ali and place before him their submission, but he lost his temper with them and pushed them out of the place. He said all the pious people knew that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had cursed the armies of Zulmarwas and Zu Khushb. He told them to return and seek divine protection against their company. They responded positively and left the place.
Hadhrat Talha’s response:
The natives of Basraah approached Hadhrat Talha. He was also camping with another party not far from Hadhrat Ali. He had despatched both of his sons to Hadhrat Uthman. The Kufis saluted him and placed their submission before him. He, too, lost his temper and shoved them away. He said the Muslims know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had cursed the armies of Zul Marwah, Zu Khushb and Aus.
All of them returned and pretended that they were retracing their steps. They pushed away from the spots of Zu Khushb and Aus and reached their army camps which were three stages away from Madinah. These rebels waited for the natives of Madinah to disperse. After their dispersal they would return and attach them. At last things happened the way they had planned. The natives of Madinah dispersed as they saw them beating a retreat. When they had reached their homes, the rebels staged a come-back and landing in Madinag they startled the residents with their sudden and unexpected slogans. The besieged Hadhrat Uthman on all sides and settled down by erecting cramps. They promised protection to people who did not wield weapons against them.
Reasons for return:
Hadhart Uthman led the prayers for a few days and the Muslims were mainly confined to their homes. They did not shut down the door of negotiations. Some of the people including Hadhrat Ali came over to the rebels. They told them that they had changed their minds and gone back. What had made them return? They replied they had intercepted a letter carried by a messenger which contained orders for their execution. Hadhrat Talha also came to them and the natives of Basrah spoke in the same strain. Hahdhrat Zubair came to see them and the natives of Kufah stressed the same reason. The natives of Kufah and Basrah jointly promised that they would help and protect their brothers.
It seemed they were carrying out a pre-planned conspiracy. At this Hadhrat Ali said: O natives of Kufah and Basrah! How did you come to know the Egyptians after you had covered a number of stages and turned to us? I swear by God that this plan has been hatched in Madinah. They replied: You may look at it from any angle you like. We don’t need a person who keeps on cheating us. It is in his interest that he should leave us.
Fare-well to the natives of Madinah:
These people clamped an impregnable siege around his house. When Hadhrat Zubair along with their sons came forward to defend him, he addressed them in these words:
"O natives of Madinah, I entrust you to God and pray to Him that He should bless you with a pious Caliph after me. I shall not come to any one of you from today until God decides otherwise about me. I shall not have any links with these people nor with those who are lurking behind my gate. And I shall not suggest to them anything which they may exploit for worldy religions benefit. But let God decide whatever He prefers."
Command for return:
He commanded the natives of Madinah to return. They followed his command and went back to their homes. However Hassan bin Ali, Muhammad bin Talha and Ibn Zubair etc kept watch at the gate in accordance with the commands of their partents. Hadhrat Uthman confined himself within the house.
Opposition to battle:
Hadhrat Uthman remained besieged for twenty two days. Then the rebels burnt down the gate. At that time a number of persons were present in the house which also included Abdullah bin Zubair and Marwan. They were pressuring him to allow them to fight with the rebels. But he replied: The Prophet (peace be upon him) had told me something to which I am patiently clinging. These people are not, in fact, burning the gate but are demanding something even greater. Therefore I forbid you to fight. At this all those people left his house.
Recitation of Quran:
He asked someone to bring the Quran and started reciting it. At that time Hadhrat Hassan was with him. He said to him: your father at this time is involved in some stupendous affairs. Therefore I swear to you that you must leave.
Protection of Bait-ul-Mal:
He commanded Abu Karb, a member of the Hamadam tribe, and a native of Madinah to keep watch at the gate of Bait-ul-Mal and safeguard it. At that time the Bait-ul-Mal treasured only two sacks filled with silver coins.
Abdullah bin Zubair and Marwan put up a resistance to the enemies. Muhammad bin Abi Bakr threatened them and marched into the house. When they reached Hadhrat Uthman, both of them took to their heels.
Muhammad bin abi Bakr’s insolence:
As Muhammad bin abi Bakr comes close to Hadhrat Uthman, he gripped his beard. He said: let go of my beard. Your father never clutched at it. At this he loosened his grip on the beard. Then a number of people filtered in. Some of them hit him with the sword, the others just beat him up. Another picked up a spear and attacked him with it.
The blood gushed out and spilled over the Quran. Inspite of it, they were scared of murdering him. On account of his advancing years, he fell unconscious as blood dripped from the wounds. Meanwhile, some more reprobates thundered in. When they found him unconscious, they clasped him by the foot and dragged him (on the floor). At this Hadhrat Naila and her daughters screamed and wailed. Tujaibi pulled out his sword and tried to jab it into his belly. But Hadhrat Naila parried the blow, as a result of which her fingers were snipped off. Then the lout struck the sword against his chest and Hadhrat Uthman drank the cup of martyrdom before sunset.
Looting the Bait-ul-Mal:
At that time some one proclaimed that he should neither be killed nor his property be looted. But these butchers looted every thing. Then they marched towards the Bait-ul-Mal. Both the guards threw away the keys and ran away. Then someone shouted: "run, run", and this is what they wanted.
Abdur Rahman bin Muhammad reports that Muhammad bin abi Bakr climbed the wall of Hadhrat Uthman’s house from the side of Umro bin Hazm’s house. He was accompanied by Kinanah bin Bashr, Saudan bin Himran and Umro bin Hamaq. They found Hadhrat Uthman besides his wife Naila. The Quran was spread before him and he was reciting Surah Baqarah. Muhammad bin abi Bakr moved forward and caught hold of Hadhrat Uthman’s beard and said: "O old and stupid person, Allah has disgraced you". Hadhrat Uthman replied: I am not old and stupid. I am God’s creature and Amir-ul-Mominin. Muhammad bin abi Bakr taunted: Muawiyyah and others are not of any help to you. Hadhrat Uthman said: O my nephew! Let go of my beard as even your father never clutched at it. Muhammad bin abi Bakr replied: If my father had witnessed your deeds, he would have definitely disliked them, and now what we intend to do with you will be even severer than the act of gripping your beard. Hadhrat Uthman said: I seek only Gods help against your evil designs:
Further details of Martyrdom:
Then Muhammad bin abi Bakr infincted a blow on his forehead with his lance and Kinanah bin Bashr shoved it into his throat through the ear, and martyred him with the sword.
Abdur Rahman relates: I have heard form Abu Aun that Kinanah bin Bashr inflicted a blow on his forehead and the front part of his head with an iron bar. He fell down on his forehead as a result of the below on his forehead as a result of the blow. As he fell down, Saudan bin Himaran Maravi struck him another blow and martyred him.
Muhammad bin Umar states that Abdur Rahman bin abi Az-Zanad told him on the authority of Abdur Rahman bin Harith that he received martyrdom at the hands of Kinanah bin bashr bin Itab Tujaibi. The wife of Manzur bin Ziyyar Fazari relates that they were on pilgrimage and were absolutely unaware of the martyrdom of Hadhrat Uthman until they reached Arj and heard some one reciting the verse (undobtedly, the man who was the best after the Prophet (peace be upon him) Siddidque and Faruq has been martyred by Tujaibi who had come from Egypt).
Stupidity of Umro bin Hamaq:
Umro bin Hamaq climbed over Hadhrat Uthman’s chest. He was still struggling between life and death. This damned person inflicted nine blows on his chest with a spear. And, on top of that, the rascals used to boast that he had inflicted three wounds for the pleasure of God and the other six wounds to extinguish the raging fire of jealously in his ches!
Success of Sabai movement:
This is the story of Hadhrat Uthman’s martyrdom which I have reproduced from Tabri’s history and from "Muruj-uz-Zahb" by Masudi,, a Shia writer, without any lexical or semantic modification or alteration. From this account of the martyrdom of the third Caliph one can easily guage the success of the Sabai movement in tearing into shreds the unity of the Muslims and in creating a permanent wedge among them which may stick out like a sore thumb till the end of the world, and which is attested by the words of Hadhrat Uthamn himself. Addressing Ashtar he had predicted:
"By God! If you murder me, you will never live in peace and amity after me, you will never offer your prayers together and you will neer be in a position to wage Jehad under one leader."
The Sabais succeeded in their mission. I have entered these details because they have a direct bearing on the theme of our discussion. They reveal the nature of the allegations the Sabais had levelled against Hadhrat Uthman in order to manipulate and maneuver administrative changes to their own advantage. A list of these allegations is furnished by Ibn Mathar Hilli who was a sprig of the lousy Sabais.
Allegations against Hadhrat Uthman:
Hadhrat Uthman had entrusted the affairs of the Muslims to people who lacked the competence and the ability to dispense them. Some of them were not only incompetent, but also corrupt and dishonest. He had distributed the high administrative offices among his friends and relatives. He was reprimanded a number of times but he persisted in his calculated whimsicality. He appointed Walid bin Uqbah as the governor though he was a boozer and had once led the prayers in a state of intoxication. He appointed S’aid bin As as the governor of Kufah but the natives of Kufah drove him out of their city on account of some of his hideous deeds. He appointed Abdullah bin abi Sarh as the ruler of Egypt and he committed heinous excesses against the Egyptians. When the Egyptians protested against his highhandedness he, in a clandestine letter, pressed him to tighten his grip over Egypt, though in the letter meant for public consumption, he had snubbed him. He also ordered him to execute Muhammad bin abi Bakr.
Similarly Hadhrat Uthman appointed Mu’awiyyah as the ruler of Syria and the number of rows he kicked up are public knowledge. He appointed Abdullah bin Amir as the chief administrator of Iraq whose outrageous acts had broken all previous records. Marvan was his closest favourite who seemed to preside over all the affairs of the state. He had entrusted him even with his ring. He was the root cause of his martyrdom as he fanned the flames of an unprecedented dispute among the Muslims. He preferred to distribute the funds of Bait-ul-Mal, which were exclusively reserved for the Muslims, among his blood relations. He had distributed four lac dinars out of the public treasury to his Quraishi sons-in-law. He also doled out once one million dinar to Marvan. Ibn Mas’ud used to criticized and condemn him for his foul deeds. He beat him black and blue until he expired. He clapper-clawed Hadhrat Ammar to the extent that his belly ripped apart and he ignored the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who had called him the darling of eyes. He had predicted that he would be martyred by a rebel party which would lose his recommendation on the day of judgement. Hadhrat Ammar also used to criticize him.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) had extra-dited Hadhrat Uthman’s uncle Hukm bin Abi al-As and Marvan out of Madinah; and they remained in exile during the period of the Prophet (peace be upon him) Abu Bakr and Umar Faruq. But when Hadhrat Uthman took over as the Caliph, he recalled them to Madinah. Not only that , he appointed Marvan as his scribe and closet advisor which was a clear violation of the Quranic injunction:
(People who believe in God and in the Last Day, you will never find them be-friending those who are the enemies of God and His Messenger).
Similarly, he extradited Hadhrat Abu Zar to Rabzah and beat him to a jelly, though the Prophet (peace be upon him) had remarked that the earth and the sky had not seen a blunter man than Abu Zar. He had also added: God has revealed to me that He loves four persons among my companions and He has also commanded me to love them. People asked him: O Messenger of Allah! Who are those four persons? He replied: (1) Ali, who is the leader of these four persons (2) Salman (3) Miqdad and (4) Abuzar.
Hadhrat Uthman also failed to observe the limits imposed by God. He failed to impose the Hadd on Ubaidullah bin Umar though he had killed Hurmazan, a slave of the Amir-ul-Mominin, after he had embraced islam. Amir-ul-Mominin had called him to impose Qisas on him but he esscaped it by seeking Mu’awiyyah’s protection. Similarly Hadhrat Uthman suspended the Hadd imposed on Walid bin Uqbah until it wa reimpised by the Amir-ul-Mominin who stressed that the Hadd of Allah could not be waived or quashed as long as he was on the scene. He made certain additions in the Adhan of Friday though it was an unwelcome innovation which has now acquired the stature of Sunnat though all the Muslims opposed it till he was martyred.
This is the heritage of the Sabais which the Shias have claimed without any break in the chain of continuity. The presentday Shias have shaped their religion on the lines laid down by their children. Their over-professed and overstressed love of Ali and his family is only a hoax to throw dust into the eyes of the gullible people as will shortly be demonstrated in the following pages.
The rebuttal of these allegations and exportations framed by the Sabais had been mad by Hadhrat Uthaman himself which I have already explained with reference to Tabri’s account and the statements of other scholars and historians. Some of these inculpations are so baseless that they are liked auchorless fantasies woven by diseased imagination. They have no roots in reality and the sap of fact runs dry in them. These accusations and inoculations have been vociferously reputed by a large number of Muslims historians and scholars who have a reputation for unjaundiced objectivity. For example Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiya has offered a well-reasoned and highly cogent condemnation of these nebulous charges. Allama Zahbi, who has abridged his book "Minhaj-us-Sunnah",has also knocked the bottom out of these charges. Similarly, in addition to Abu Bakr Bin al-Arabi, a host of other scholars and jurists have shown the fallacy of their baseless concoctions. They have clearly established that the cock of ht Sabais won’t fight as it is a paper cock and synthetic doll and instead of genuine spurs, it is fitted with fake hooks and counterfeit projections.
Even in the Indo-Pak sub-continents, a large number of scholars have given the charges of the Sabais a set-down. They have exposed the petti-fogging quiddity of their reasoning and proved that they are reasoning in a circle. Their arguments are only the meshes and cobwebs of sophistry and they are trying to cut blocks with a razor. The services of Hadhrat Shah Wali Ullah Dehlve (among whose writings "Hujjat-Ullah al-Baligahah", "Qurrat-ul-Aynain fi Tafdhilush-Shaykhin" and Azalat-ul-Khafa’ ‘and Khilafat-ul-Khulafa’ are particularly note-worthy) and if his son Hadhrat Shah bdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlvi whose book has been abridged by Allama Alusi junior, are highly commendable. These people are not only stubborn liars but also insist on their strategically ploys to tell lies with epidemic frequency so that the innocent people are over-whelmed and flabber-gasted by the sheer rush of the propagandistic tide and eventually fall into their evil clutches.
Sabai Objections and out refutations
I have already discussed the conceptual basis of Sabaism and the Shia sects which have sprung from it and I have stated that the views and beliefs of present-day Shias do not derive from their early ancestors but from the Sabais. Now I would like to take up the objections the Sabais and raised against Hadhart Uthman. I’ll try to expose the fallacious base of these imputation in my characteristic style, relying exclusively on the data and statistics available in the literature of the Shias themselves. My main object is to perform the sacred task of defending Islam and the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and to win the pleasure of the Lord that invariably accompanies the performance of all sacred acts. I love the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) from the core of my heart because the Prophet himself loved them immeasurably and they in turn loved him with the same intensity. May God enable me to perform the deed to His total satisfaction and accept it as humble token in His service.
The first objectionof the Sabais against Hadhrat Uthman was that he preferred his close blood relations over others. The will-known Shia historian Y’aqubi has pointed it out:
"In the sixth year of Hadhrat Uthman’s Khilafat, the people started picking holes. They said he preferred his close blood relations to others".
The objection should be analysed to determine whether Hadhrat Uthman had distributed public offices among his relatives or it was just a flagrant mis-statement against him? It was in fact a pure and unadulterated fabrication of the Sabais and the Shias have never doubted its veracity as a practical demonstration of their loyalty to the Sabais and as an expression of their loyalty to the Sabais and as an expression of their undiluted support of the rebellion staged trators Hadhrat Uthman had appointed in different parts of the country.
"Hadhrat Uthman appointed Yala bin Ummayyah Tamimi as the governor of Yemen, Abdullah bin Umro Hadhrame of Makkah, Jarir bin Abdullah Bajli of Hamadan, Qasim bin Rabi Thaqafi of Taif, Abu Musa Ashari of Kufah, Abdullah bin Amir Kariz of Basrah, Abdullah bin S’aad bin abi Sarh of Egypt and Mu’awiyyah bin abi Sufiyan bin Harb of Syria".
Tabri and Ibn Athir have also mentioned the names of other officials who held high offices during his tenure. They observe:
"He appointed Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid in Hams, Habib bin Musalma in Qanserin, Abu Umur Sulama in Jordan, IIqummah bin Hukm Kinani in Palestine, Abdullah bin Qays Fazari in Bakr, Abul Darda in Syria, Jabir bin Falan Mazni for tax and revenue, Q’aq’a bin Umro for defense, Jarir bin Abdullah Bijli in Qarqisiyyah, Ashath bin Qays Kundi in Azerbaijan, Utaibah bin Nihas in Hulwan, Malik bin Habib in Mah, S’aid bin Qays in Ri, Saib bin Iqra in Isfaham, Hubaish in Masabzan, Uqbah bin Amir for the public exchequer and Zayd bin Thabit as chief justice".
During pilgrimage, once Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Auf acted on his befalf while during his last year Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas acted in this capacity, as has been stated by Y’aqubi in his history". Ibn Saad in "Tabaqat", Ibn Kathir and Ibn Athir in their respective "history", Ibn Abdul Bar in "Istiyyab" and other historians have also mentioned these appointments.
A bird’s eye view of this list exposes the lie of the Sabais wheher they are the unashamed and uninhibited practitioners of Sabaism or happen to be its invisible followers who hide their true faces behind masks to escape dis grace and humiliation. Though the world is clogged with lies, truth has its own sparkle and its glittering rays ultimately penetrate even the thickes mask of posture and pretense and reveal its hideous curves and contours in the flook of its sheer luminosity and fluorscence.
The list of various offices and the persons who held these offices is in front of you. Their offices are clearly spelled out. History and Sabai and Shia literature bear testimony to the names of the persons who were appointed to these offices. A break-down of the important offices during his Khilafat is as follows:
Office of the Chief Justice:
None of his relatives was over appointed to this august office. It was held by Hadhrat Zayd bin Thabit Ansari, a person of the highest integrity of character.
Uqbah bin Amir was the chief executive of this office.
The ministry of Hajj:
Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas held the prot-folio of Hajj.
The department of tax and revenue collection was entrusted to Jabir, Muzni and Samak Ansari.
Q’aq’a bin Umro was the minister of defence.
Some historians have pointed out that the port-folio of police was held by Abdullah bin Qunfuz who belonged to the tribe of Tim.
These are six of the highest publice offices to which neither a member of the tribe of Ummayyah nor a close relative of Hadhrat Uthman was ever appointed.
Officers appointed in different areas
The list of a large number of officers appointed in different parts of the country included only three persons who belonged to Banu Ummayah and even one of these three had been appointed by Hadhrat Abu Bakr and not by hadhrat Uthman. Hadhrat Umar also retained him in office though he was more inclined towards shuffling officers. The officers was Hadhrat Mu’asiyyah bin abi Sufiyan. It should be noted that the Shia historian Y’aqubi has also included him among the governors of Hadhrat Umar. Hadhrat Abu Bakr had conferred of him the office as a successor of his brother Yazid bin Abi Sufiyan who had been appointed by the Prophet as the governor of Tima’. Again it was the Prophet himself who had appointed his father Hadharat Abu Sufiyan as the governor of Hanjran.
The other two governors were (1) Abdullah bin Saad bin abi Sarh and (2) Abdullah bin Amir bin Kuraiz. It is to be noted that Abdullah bin S’aad bin abi Sarh was not a member of the tirbe of Ummayyah; on the contrary he is related to Bani Amir. The only factor that linked him with Hadhrat Uthman was that his mother had suckled Hadhrat Uthman. But even if they are closely related to him, does it provided his critics with any reasonable base to fling dirt on him? The presence of just two relatives among a host of non-relatives is just like a sprinkling of salt in a tub of flour.
Is it illegal from the point of vies of Sariah for a Caliph to entrust any one of his relatives with a high office when his competence, efficiencey and impeccability of character make him the most suitable person for the office? Is there any prescription to the contrary in the Quran and the Sunnah? Have the companions of the Prophet, (peace be upon him), the Ahl-i-Bait, Hadhrat Ali or his children ever barred the relatives of a Caliph from holding high offices? Besides, it defies all laws of logic and rationality. If the function of a viable administration is to dispense justice and promote decency, it becomes the moral obligation of the chief executive to appoint only those persons to the highest offices whose integrity is unquestionable. Their family background is quite immaterial as Islam also stresses the actual worth of the individual and not his potential family status. These prejudiced critics in a way did a disservice to Islam by restraining the hands of Hadhrat Uthman. Had they given him a free option, he would have come out with a better collection of administrators? He would not have hesitated to select officers from his own tribe who were second to none in competence and intelligence and who would perhaps have made better administrators.
But if this is really objectionable, then Hadhrat Ali also falls within its ambit because during his tenure he had appointed Quthm bin Abbas as the governor of Makkah and Abdullah bin Abbas as the governor of Yemen. He had also appointed Ubaidullah bin Abbas as the governor of Basrah and Muhammad bin abi Bakr as the governor of Egypt. Similarly he appointed his nephew and son-in-law J’aad bin Hubairah as the governor of Khorasan and his son Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah as the commander-in-chief of the army.
Abdullah bin Abbas in 36 A.H., Quthm bin Abbas in 37 A.H. and Ubaidullah bin Abbas in 38 A.H. acted as leaders of the pilgrims of his behalf.
In the light of these irrefutable historical facts I publicly condemn those who raised objections against him that he had exclusively reward his kinsmen in the distribution of high public offices. The facts reveal that their objection is a transparent lie. The interesting thing is that their argument in favour of Hadhrat Ali’s succession is based on the logic of consanguinity, and the succession of Ali’s children to their father is also similarly based and defended. These lie-lickers and fib-furbishers are therefore the victims of their own perverse reasoning as the loop-holes and flaws in their argumentative procedure are quite obvious and can not escape the attention of any discernible reader.
If I were not facing spatial constraints, I would have established with incontrovertible facts and irrebuttable arguments that acts performed by Hadhrat Uthman were closer to the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) than the acts of those who followed him. This is the main reason that none of the Prophetic companions raised even the slightest objection against his administration and administrators. Neither Hadhrat Ali himself, nor any one among the Hashmis, nor even the inhabitants of the towns ruled over by his officers had ever raised the finger of objection against them as has been amply substantiated by the documented evidence of history. This is the most whopping objection which right from the times of the Sabais down Hadhrat Uthman. In the old days the Sabais rolled this baseless allegation and in the contemporary world the Shias are venting it out with the maximum of carbonized air in their lungs, but I have already elucidated the nature of this objection and the feather weight it carries.
Below are cited the words of Allama Zahabi with reference to "Ali-Muntaqa" which serve to refute the objection raised by these people.
"the governor appointed by Hadhrat Ali ndulged in greater disobedience and embezzlement as compared to those appointed by Hadhrat Uthman. Some of them had even hobnobbed with Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah. Hadhrat Ali had appointed Ziyyah bin abi Sufiyan abu Ubaidullah bin Ziyyah—who subsequently proved to be the murder of Hadhrat Hussain – and Ashtar as his governors. Similarly he had appointed Muhammad bin abi Bakr as one of his administarators though Hadhrat Muawiyyah excelled them all. It is pretty strange that the Shias make Hadhrat Uthman the butt and target of these lapses which were found in greater quantity in Hadhart Ali. Those people object that Hadhrat Uthman had conferred high offices on his close relations in the tribe of Ummayyah, but the same objection applies to Hadhrat Ali as well. Isn’t it true that Hadhrat Ali had distributed some of these offices among his paternal and maternal relatives: his cousins Abdullah bin Abbas, Ubaidullah bin Abbas, Quthm bin Abbas, and Thamamah bin Abbas? Similarly he had appointed Muhammad bin abi Bakr-whom he had brought up as a son-the governor of Egypt. The son of Um Hani’, his nephew, also served as one of his administrators. The lmamiyyah rather claim that Khilafat is restricted only to the children of Hadhrat Ali. If the appointment of cousins to public offices is a condemnable act, the appointment of one’s children is even more condemnable. If Hadhrat Ali’s acts are justifiable, then Hadhrat Uthman’s acts are even more justifiable because he was committing only an act or ‘ljtihad’ by following the precedent established by his predecessors.
"Hadhart Uthman’s mode of action in appointing officers from among his own tribes-men (Members of Banu Ummayyah) was quite compatible with the practices of the Prophet (peace be upon him) because he had appointed Atab bin Usaid Amwi as the governor of Makka and Abu Sufiyan among the Arabs. He pointed toward a young man standing beside him that she should give it to him (This young man was S’aid bin As who is a fighter as well as a conqueror but the foultongued Rafidhis accuse Hadhrat Uthman of appointing him the governor of Kufah). If the Rafidhis don’t put much premium on the fact that he had helped in hand-printing the Quran at the time of its compilation, they surely should have no hesitaion in crediting to his account the evidence of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he is the most respectable of all the Arabs. His only fault was that he was one of those who had liberated Iran from the clutches of Zoroastrianism and brought it within the fold of Islam. History vociferously proclaims that he is the conqueror of Tabristan and he headed the army in the battle of Jirjan which include a number of veteran companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The traditions relating to Hadhrat S’aid bin As are found in Sahih Muslims, Sunan Nisai and Jami Tirmizi but the Rafidhis attach no importance whatsoever to Sahih Muslim and other collections of traditions because they exclusively depend on "Al-Kafi", an absolute hot-plate of lies. Another matter of pride for S’aid bin As (and which gives hiccups of jealousy to the Rafidhis) is the tradition related by Imam Tabrani" routed through Muhammad bin Qani, bin Jabir bin Mutam. He attributes it to his father and grandfather Jabir bin Mutam who say the Prophet (peace be upon him) consoling S’aid bin As during his illness and massaging him with a piece of cloth"
Some of them have diverted it to his grandfather S’aid bin As because his name was also S’aid bin As. But this is possible only if the episode had taken place in the Makki period before the migration, as the grandfather of Hadhrat S’aid bin As a disbeliever; that is, if it is proved authoritatively that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had made a display of his affection towards the grandfather of S’aid bin As Amvi who was a disbeliever, it would be interpreted as an expression of affection for the close relations because both of them belonged to Bani Abd Munaf.
Rafidhis’ castigation of Amvis from among the members of Abd Munaf is an expression negation of the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) which stresses a display of affection towards close relations. It has already been discussed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to offer gifts and presents to Abu Sufiyan during his period of ignorance out of family affection. The narration of the shawl episode also stresses the same reality. When a lady companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) vowed that she would give the shawl to the person who was the most respectable among the Arabs, the Prophet (peace be upon him) had commanded her to give the shawl to S’aid bin As who a young man at that time. The tradition forms part of the Prophetic signs. The Prophet (peace be upon him) had discovered in the light of the divine illumination that S’aid would soon beat all the Arabs in respectability. Ibn abi Khaithama has related through Yahya bin S’aid that Muhammad bin ‘Aqil bin abi Talib once asked his father: who is the most superior among the people? He replied: Me and the one who is my brother from the mother side. Yes, S’aid bin As is the most superior of all the persons. Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah has stated that S’aid bin As is the most respectable among the Quraish. He was well-known for his piety and generosity. When a needy person solicited something from his at a time when he didn’t have it, he used to write it down for his (so that he could claim it later). When he died, he was in dept for eight thousand dinar on account of his over-generosity. The dept was paid by his son Umro Ashdaq. It was this mountain to respect and courage whom the Rafidhis used as a pretext to tear a strip off Hadhrat Uthman because he had appointed him the governor of Kufah. Hadhrat S’aid bin As died at Aqiq in his palace in 53 A.H.
The relations between S’aid bin As and Hadhrat Ali
The nature of relationship between S’aid bin As and Hadhrat Ali is quite illuminating. Hadhrat S’aid often sent presents to Hadhrat Ali which he accepted out of love and affection. Ibn S’aid remarks in "Tabaqat".
"Hadhrat S’aid bin ‘As came over to Madina to pay respects to Hadhrat Uthman. He despatched a number of gifts to the refugees and the natives. He also despatched a number of gifts to Hadhrat Ali which he willingly accepted."
If Sabais and Shias are correct in their surmise, then there is hardly any point in Ali’s acceptance of these gifts. The significance of gifts is enhanced when we learn that this S’aid bin As sent his marriage proposal to Um Kulthum bint Ali who was born out of the pure womb of Fatimat-uz-Zohra and had been married to Hadhrat Umar which she accepted".
Allama Zahbi has very appropriately portrayed the generosity and magnanimity of the officers of Hadhrat Uthman:
"When S’aid bin As his marriage proposal to Um Kulthum bint Ali after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Umar and also despatched a sum of one lac for her, her brother Hadhrat Hussain came over to her and with tears in his eyes requested her not to marry him. But Hadhrat Hussain intervened and said: I am in favour of this marriage. Therefore you should make the preparation. When all the people had gathered for the wedding ceremony, Hadhrat Hassan replied: I alone am sufficient. He said: Perhaps he doesn’t like this weeding. When Hadhrat Hassan replied in the affirmative, he explained that he would not do a thing that he had disliked. On saying this he returned and did not get back a farthing out of what he had give her".
Abdullah bin Amir:
Hadhrat Abdullah bin Amir was the governor of Iraq appointed by Hadhrat Uthman. He was brought to the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he was just a child. The Prophet (peace be upon him) commented: This child resembles me. He recited some verses over his saliva and Abdullah swallowed the Prophet’s saliva. Then he remarked: this will prove beneficial for you. Whenever you dig up the soil, water will gush out of it. The prediction of the Prophet (peace be upon him) came true.
Ibn S’aad has also recorded the words:
"Among all of you this son of ours resembles me the most".
The Prophet (peace be upon him) referred to him as his son because his paternal grandmother, daughter of Abdul Mutlib bin Hashim, was the Prophet’s aunt".
Hadhrat Abdullah bin Amir was a generous and couragous person who treated the members of his family as well as the individuals of his community with deep affection. He was highly popular among the people and his heart over-flowed with the milk of humanity. He was appointed the governor of Iran at the age of twentyfive. He conquerred the whole of Khorasan and also vanquished Persia, Sajistan, Kirman, Zablistan and some of the adjoining territories. He despatched his armies to Komas, Nassa, Abr Shahr, Jam, Tus, Isfrain, Sarkhas, Marv, Bu Shanj and Zar Naj as well. He murdered Kisra in his own country. He also despatched his forces to Karian, Fishajan, Nashib, Buhrat, Bayhaq, Takharistan, Januzjan, Farian, Taliqan, Balakh, Khawrzam, Badghis, Isbahan and Hulwan. All these towns were made to kiss the dust under his command and by his soldiers. He is the first administrator who ordered the construction of water-tanks in ‘Urfah’, made springs gush out of the soil and improved water-supply in the area under his jurisdiction. The arrangements he made have survived the vagaries of time. That is why Shaikh-ul-Islam has remarked:
"No one can deny the good deeds of Abdullah bin Amir, and the immensity of love people have for him in their hearts".
No one among the Shias can out-rival and out-class him in the field of Jehad, battles conquests, humanity, good deeds and doling out presents to others.
I’ll give myself a little more latitude to discuss the character of Marvan on account of the frequency and intensity with which he has been criticized. He has not been spared by any Sabai and Shia. They have showered on him the arrows of their spite and malice without applying themselves any brakes and without realizing the sheer monstrosity of their unreasonable attack.
He is generally blamed for abusing Hadhrat Ali, for misappropriating one-fifth or the soils of Africa, for extraditing his father and for dashing off a forget letter to Muhammad bin abi Bakr etc. But all these traditions have come to us through Waqidi, Muhammad bin Saib Kalbi, Hisham or Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya. I have already discussed at length that these emperors of lies are in fact the unashamed spokesmen of the Sabais and the Shias and their traditions also display a streak of discontinuity as they had never met the people from whom they are supposed to have heard these traditions nor is there any indirect testimony to affirm the veracity of their reports. Therefore these traditions deserve no attention as they are the concoctions of a febrile imagination. Tabri and Ibn S’aad have recorded these traditions from Hisham Kalbi and Ibn Mikhnaf, and the other historians, too, have relied on these bogus and unreliable Sabai and Shia reporters. This is the reasons that Qadhi Abu Bakr bin al-Arabi, Ibn Hajr Haithmi, Ibn Taimiya and Zahabi have remarked:
"Most of the traditions bearing on this issue are self-fabricated and none of them is valid and viable".
The experts on Hadith have also clarified that the traditions relating to Hadhrat Muawiyya Umro bin As, Banu Umayyah, Walid, Marvan are all self-concocted because they have been invented by the unprincipled Machiavellian Shias, whose religion is tissue of lies and who have conferred on lying and fib-telling the highest form of sanctity. Mulla Ali Qari has explained it in his "Kitab Maudhuat… Those who like to seek further clarification on th issue are advised to refer to "Al-Israr al-Munif fis Sahi was Saqim" by Ibn Qaym etc.
These are one set of allegations leveled against Marvan. The other set of allegations are rebutted by the historians themselves. For example, they have come out with a rebuttal of the allegation that Marvan wrote a letter on behalf of Hadhrat Uthman and then affixed his seal on it to give it an air of authenticity, which he kept in his own possession. The historians have refuted it publicly and regarded it as a bogus charge against the companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The historians observe:
"All these letters are a packet of lies. They have been erroneously (viciously) imputed to the companions of the Prophet, as a numberr of letters had been erroneously imputed to Hadhrat Ali, Talha and Zubair".
Ibn Khaldun writes:
After they had gone over a short distance, the Sabais and the Balwais turned on their heels. They carried a self-fabricated letter with them. They claimed that they had snatched the latter from a messenger who was carrying it to the governor of Egypt. The letter contained the message that all of them should be executed. Hadhrat Uthman swore that he had written no such letter. They insisted that, if he had not written the latter, he should hand over Marvan to them because he was his scribe. Marvan also swore that he had not inscribed the letter. Hadhrat uthman explained that nothing more could be done about it as Marvan had taken the oath that he had not inscribed the latter".
Hadhrat Ali had also pointed out the spurious nature of these baseless letter and it was a measure of his understanding and intelligence that he had sized up the tricks and strategies of the Sabais and had no illusions about them as I have already qquoted his words which I am reproducing here, not to pad up my thesis but to drive home Ali’s wisdom to those who underrate his intelligence, either out of malice or out of a sense of self-aggrandizement.
"O natives of Kufah and Basrh! How did you come to Know the designs of the Egyptians while you had covered a great deal of distance and now you have jointly come to me. By God! It is a conspiracy hatched against the residents of Madinah. The Sabais replied tha he could interpret it as he liked but it was their wish that he should give up the Khilafat."
These words are quoted by way of explanation and clarification. But as far as the authenticity of the allegation is concerned, it is impossible that a man of dubious credentials could serve as Hadhrat Uthman’s scribe and escape the piercing glance of companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the flag-beare of the Messenger of Allah on the day of Khyber. These companions also included S’aad bin abi Waqas, the conqueror of Iran, Hadhart Zubair, the cousin and supporter of the Messenger of Allah, Talha who had protected the Prophet (peace be upon him) by breaking the intensity of the arrows of the arrows of disbeliveers at his hand and a number of other venerated Muslims. If Marvan had answered the image painted by the Sabais and the Alvis, the companions would never have remained dumb spectators as it was absolutely inconsistent with their character.
If Marvan had really fitted the mould into which his enemies had cast him, it is sensible to presume that Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain would not have asked their father to put in a word to him for a prisoner. The details of this episode have also been mentioned by the Shias.
"Marvan bin Hukm had arrested a man. Hadhart Hassan and Hussain asked the Amir-ul-Mominin to recommend him to Marvan to secure his release. He recommended him to Marvan and he released him".
All these three personalities, Hadhrat Ali and his sons Hadhrat Hassan and Hadhrat Hussain, are innocent in the eyes of the Shias, and Hadhrat Ali held the status of God for the Sabais, therefore can God make a recommendation about a prisoner to a person who is an embodiment of all the negative virtues the Shias have ascribed to him out of spiteful exaggeration!
A great Shia scholar Majlisi has recorded a tradition of Imam J’afar on the authority of Musa bin J’afar in his book that Hassan and Hussain offered prayer behind Marvan bin Hukm. People asked Musa or J’afar if their father repeated the prayer when he returned home! They replied: No, he never repeated the prayer. Ibn Kathir has endorsed it in his exegesis and Imam Bukhari has quoted the tradition of Shur-jail bin S’aad who saw Hassan and Hussain offering their prayer behind Marvan.
Do these clarifications and substantiations leave further scope for any doubt that these are false allegations invented by vested interests? If there had been even a grain of truth in these allegations, Hadhrat Ali and his family would not have retained the contact with Marvan which I have already pointed out, and which is recorded in the books by Shia experts and scholars. The historians have recorded a number of similar episodes which contradict the mush-professed vulgarities and obscenities of the Sabais. The historians have mentioned that Hadhrat Ali bin Hussain who is popularly known as Zain-ul-Abidin and who is the fourth innocent Imam of the Shias – Borrowed six lac dinar and one lac dirham from Marvan, but Marvan told his son Abdul Malik not to claim even a penny out of the loan Ali bin Hussain had taken from him.
It is also a fact that Hadhrat Ali’s daughter Ramlah was married to Marvan’s son. A number of genealogists and pedigree specialists have referred to this marital alliance. A writer of the Quraish tribe remarks:
"Ramlah, daughter of Ali, was married to Abul Hiyyaj Hashmi Abdullah bin Sufiyan bin abi al-Harith bin Abdul Mutlib. She gave birth to children but the children of Sufiyan bin Harith are no more. After the death of Abul Hiyyaj Hashmi, this lady was married to Mu’awiyyah bin Marvan bin Hukm".
Similarly Zainab, daughter of Hassan, was married to Walid bin Abdul Malik, the grandson of Marvan. This lady was Hassani on father’s side and Hussaini on mother’s side. Her mother was Fatimah bint Hussain bin Ali. A number of geneologists have mentioned this marriage. Allama Zubairi remarks:
"Zainab bint Hassan bin Hassan bin Ali was married to Walid bin Abdul bin Marvin while he was the Caliph."
Another lady with Hashmi and Alvi bona fides was also married to Walid bin Abdul Malik. She was Nafisah bint Zaid bin Hassan bin Ali bin abi Talib. Nafisah’s mother was Lubabah bint Abdullah bin Abbas bin Abdul Mutlib. A well- known Shia genealogist has pointed out this marriage:
"Zaid had a daughter whose mother’s name was Nafiash who had gone to Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marvan. She also gave birth to his children."
Similarly there are a number of other links and contractual bonds which have been mentioned by experts of the family tree. It is the stentorian testimony of history which is reinforced equally clamorously by the testimony of the Shias themselves who unmincingly state that the Fatimi and Alvi women had married the sons and grandsons of Marvan.
Now, the questions is if Marvan’s picture had fallen into the slot created by the lying Shias, then these material links and bonds do not make any sense. I ask these tricksters if they have any evidence to refute these irrefutable facts!
People with judicious temperaments at once presume that these foundationless tales invented by the Sabai knaves and sharpers have no roots in reality. If Marvan had been as the Sabais have made him out to be, the children of Ali would never have married their daughters to the sons and grandsons of Marvan!
Patronage of relatives:
The Sabais had accused Hadhrat Uthman of distributing the goods in the public exchequer among his relatives. It is, however, a lame duck as it is not supported by facts and is without the legs of truth to stand upon. Hadhrat Uthman refuted this allegation the day it was hurled against him. He explained as has been quoted earlier: "These people say I distributive wealth and good among the members of my family. The fact is that I give them gifts and presents out of my own belongings, because I believe what belongs to the Muslims is unlawful for others (whether it is me or my relatives). I used to give presents out of my personal goods even during the period of the Messenger of Allah, and that was the period of my youth. And now I have grown old and I am heading into decline and leaving all my capital for the members of my family".
Even his opponents acknowledged the truth of his statement when he told them in his address:
"When I was appointed the Caliph, I owned the largest number of sheep, goats and camels among the Arabs. But now I own nothing excepts two camels which I use during the pilgrimage. Isn’t it true? The people replied: yes".
In the face of these facts, the allegations of the Sabais are nothing but webs of lies. These Sabais are not only accustomed to lying but also insist on the truthfulness of their lies to propagate the fire of spite and malice against the humane companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), his sons in law, his friends, his pupils, and his relatives.
It should be noted that these baseless charges have been circulated by those who imputed similar spineless statements to the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They have derived these traditions from Waqidi, the notorious Rafidhi historian, and from Lut bin Yahya, Abu Mikhnaf, the Shia historian. They have not relied on any authentic reporter among the Sunnis as I have stated in the beginning of the book: The credibility of these historians is dbious; they are completely unreliable. Therefore their bogus and cooked-up traditions do not carry any weight.
Hadhrat Uthman had not committed any foul deed, neither in the beginning of his career nor towards the end of his tenure. The companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) had not committed any foul deed either. Therefore any rumour or statement that tends to malign these pious people is inspired by jealousy and revulsion and lacks even the tiniest particle of truth. Hadhrat Imam Bukhari has related a tradition of Hadhrat Hassan bin Ali:
"Hadhrat Uthman spent the twelve years of his khilafat in a way that no one could dare raise his fingers against any of his acts."
Muhammad bin Muslimah, Usamah bin Zayd, and Abdullah bin Umar bore testimony to the fact that none of his acts triggered any objection. Whatever happened was the results of a conspiracy which Abdullah bin Saba, the Jew, had hatched against him in complicity with Khalid bin Malhim, Saudan bin Harman, and Kinanah bin Bashr etc. These conspirators had secured the support of those unconscientious opportunists who had turned against the government of the times on account of personal frustrations. They felt frustrated because they had failed to wangle for themselves the jobs or the officers they coveted. They also managed to win the support of those who were smoldering with jealousy and had joined the bunch of conspirators on account of scarcity of faith, fragility of conviction, and preference for the temporary over the eternal world.
It is worth mentioning that Hadhrat Umar during his tenure consciously avoided Saudan bin Hamran and Khalid bin Maljim. When he was asked about them he replied that they appeared to him the most hideous of all the Arabs.
The allegation that he beat up Ibn Masud and Ammar and extradited Hadhrat Abu Zar is absolutely baseless. He had, of course, a difference of opinion with Ibn Masud. Hadhrat Uthman wanted to forge the entire nation into an impermeable unity over one Quran but Hadhrat Ibn Masud was opposed to the proposal. The entire nation, headed by the companions of Prophet (peace be upon him) was on the side of Hadhrat Uthman. But no authentic and reliable reported has related that he beat Hadhrat Ibn Masud to death. Even the Sabais have no dwelt upon this repulsive allegation; it is in fact the exclusive invention of the Shias.
The historians relate that a diference cropped up between Hadhrat Ammar and Abbas bin Utbah bin abi Lahb. Hadhrat Uthman imposed on them a slight punishment to fulfil certain legal requirements. But he had no personal grouse against Hadhrat Ammar. This is the reason that Hadhrat Uthman had dispatched Hadhrat ammar to Egypt on a fact-finding mission as has already been stated. Obviously he could not have trusted an enemy with the delicate assignment.
The Sabais, of course, zeroed in on his presence and rallied round him and tried to convert him to their point of view. When he returned to Madinah, Hadhrat Uthman expressed his displeasur at his inclination towards the Sabais. He said:
"O Abu Alyaq Zanl I have punished you as I have punished Ibn abi Lahb. You are annoyed with me just because I have returned you right to you and their right to them. O Allah! I shall impose your Hudud on every one. I don’t care who that person might be and I seek your pleasure and approval by implementing your Hudud".
Hadhrat Abu Zar:
An excerpt from Ibn Kahldun’s history will serve to clarify the misunderstanding related to Hadhrat Abu Zar: One of the alleagations against Hadhrat Uthman was that he first extradited Hadhrat Abu Zar to Syria and then from Madinag to Rabzah. What had actually compelled Hadhrat Uthman to take such a drastic action was Hadhrat Abu Zar’s stark piety, his readiness to induce people to face hardships and his missionary zeal to force people to lead the life of a recluse in this world of noise and bustle. It was one of his pet lines that no one was entitled to hoard more than a day’s stock of previsions. He used to deliver fire and brim-stone sermons against hoarding silver and gold. His harangues were based on virtue and piety but Ibn Saba capitalized on his simplicity. He visited him frequently and provoked him against Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah. He used to din into his ears Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah’s catch-phrase that everything belonged to Allah was only a diplomatic ploy to grap goods for personal use and to wriggle out of his commitment to spend them on the Muslims. Hadhrat Abu Zar snubbed Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah and objected to his slogan. He apologized and promised that in future he would replace it by the slogan that all goods belonged to Muslims. Hadhrat Abu Zar snubbed Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah and objected to his slogan. He apologized and promised that in future he would replace it by the slogan that all goods belonged to Muslims. Ibn Saba also tried to poison the mind of Hadhrat Abu Aldard and Hadhrat Ubadah bin Samit but they reprimanded him. Hadhrat Ubadah caught hold of him and took him to Hadhrat Ubadah caught hold of him and took him to Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah and told him that he was the man who had provoked Hadhrat Abu Zar against him. When Hadhrat Abu Zar intensified his maligning campaign against Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah, he lodged a complaint with Hadhrat Uthman who summoned him and told him: What’s the matter? The natives of Syria complain against you. After Abu Zar had tendered his explanation, Hadhrat Uthman said: People cannot be force to live like recluses. It is my duty to arbitrate among them in accordance with divine commands and to persuade them to lead moderate lives. Hadhrat Ahu Zar replied: I’ll be pleased with the affluent only when they spend all their wealth on good deeds, treat their Muslims brothers and neighbours humanely and show mercy to them. On hearing this K’aab Ahbar replied that anyone who fulfilled his duties in fact fulfilled his obligations. At this Abu Zar clubbed him so harshly that his head was injured. He also said to him: O son of a Jewish woman! What do you know about these matters? Hadhrat Uthman apologized to K’aab and begged him to condone the injury which he readily condoned. Then Hadhrat Abu Zar sought Hadhrat Uthman’s permission to leave Madinah and explained that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had commanded him to leave Madinah when the buildings in the town extended as far as the mountain of Sila.
Hadhrat Uthman gave him permission to leave. He confined himself to a spot at Rabzah and constructed a mosque there. Hadhrat Uthman despatched him a number of camels and appointed two slaves to serve him, and also fixed from the public exchequer a stipend for him. Hadhrat Abu Zar also visited Madinah off and on. This is the reality but the Sabais have given it the complexion of an allegation against Hadhrat Uthman.
The details illuminate different facets of the problem:
. Hadhrat Abu Zar fell into the trap laid by Abdullah bin Saba on account of his piety and simplicity and became susceptible to provocation a his hands.
Hadhrat Abu Zar invited people to do things which had been done neither by the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor by Muslims rulers. Even Hadhrat Ali during his tenure failed to act out these eccentricities. In other words, Hadhrat Abu Zar was asking people to do the impossible.
Hadhrat Uthman always treated him mildly and at a friendly level.
The views and opinions of Hadhrat Abu Zar were marked by a rare degree of violence. A practical demonstration of his violent nature was the amount of beating he inflicted on K’aab Ahbar.
Hadhrat Uthma intervened and asked K’aab not to demand the Qisas for the thrashing he had received.
Hadhrat Abu Zar himself had sought Hadhrat Uthman’s permission to leave Madinah to implement the command of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Hadhrat Uthman had not extradited him but he had willingly left Madinah to settle down at Rabzah.
It has been propagated by the adversaries that Rabzah was a jungle or a desert, but it is not so. Rabzah was in fact inhabited area where he also constructed a mosque.
Hadhrat Uthman gave him a drove of camels and two slaves to serve him. He also fixed a stipend for him from the public exchequer.
Hadhrat Abu Zar was not living in exile but visited Madinah occasionally.
It is noteworthy that Rabzah was not situated at a remote distance from Madinah. There was only a distance of three miles between the two towns. Yaqut is of the opinion that Rabzah was the best spot on the way to Madinah. Abu Bakr bin al-Arabi writes that Hadhrat Uthman had not extradited Hadhrat Abu Zar. He had left of his own sweet will. No one had forced him because no one could dare force him to do so on account of is most venerated stature. Zahabi relates on the authority of Hassan Basri that it was simply inconceivable for Hadhrat Uthman to turn Hadhrat Ahu Zar out of Madinah. His wife also endorses it by swearing that Hadhart Uthman had not forced Abu Zar to lead the life of an exile in Rabzah.
Ubaidullah bin Umar:|
The Shias have charged Hadhrat Uthman that he had failed to receive Qisas from Ubaidullah bin Umar for his murder of Hurmuzan. It is a strange allegation shooting forth from the mouths of the Shias who do not tire of boasting their loyalty to Hadhrat Ali and who have condemned almost every person who insists on the Qisas of Hadhrat Uthman’s murder. Therefore the allegation raised by the Shias is hardly rooted in principle and is simply the product of their irrepressible hatred for Hadhrat Uthman.
It is now an established fact that Hurmuzan was one of those persons who had prepared the dastradly conspiracy to kill Hadhrat Faruq-i-Azam. Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin abi Bakr Siddique relates the events of the morning when Hadhrat Umar was attacked with a lancet. Last evening I passed by Abu Lulu’. Jufainah and Hurmuzan were sitting with him and they were talking in whispers to took to their heels. One of their daggers fell down. It had two heads and the blade was stuck in the middle. So you can see the daggers with which Hadhrat Umar has been wounded. The members of Banu Tamim went out in search of Abu Lu’lu’. He caught hold of Abu Lu’lu’ and murded him, and came back with the dagger that Hadhrat Abdur Rahman had mentioned.
Qumazban bin Hurmuzan had pardoned Ubaidullah for the murder of his father Hurmuzan. It is supported by Abu Mansur’s account: I heard Qumazban relating the episode of his father’s murder. Feroz, a non-Arab, happened to meet my father. He held the dagger used by others. My father took it form him and asked him why did he need the dagger in that town? He explained. It was spotted by another person as well. When Hadhrat Umar was attacked, the other man told the people that he had seen the dagger in Hurmuzan’s hand and he had given it to Feroz. On hearing this, Ubaidullah had killed Hurmuzan. When Hadhrat Uthman was elected the Caliph, he sent for me and furnished me the opportunity to take revenge. He said: my son! Here is the murderer of your father. His case is now in your hand. All the people are with me but they demand that I should take revenge against him. I replied: please wait. I shall have him murdered. The people replied: We will wait. They also started abusing Ubaidullah. I said: Can’t you stop it! But the people refused and kept on abusing him. I left them but they picked me up and I arrived home perched on the heads and arms of people.
Hadhrat Uthman paid his blood-money from his own property and said: I am his legatee; therefore I pay
the blood money out of my own goods. Is there any doubt left after this explanation?
Second Azan on Friday:
The allegation of the second Azan by the Shias against Hadhrat Uthman is not a new allegation. It had been parrotted out by their forefathers, the Sabais and rehearsed with mechanical regularity by their successors, the Shias. I would like to ask: if this was objectionable, had Ale put an end to it during his tenure? The fact is that the second Azan was issued through the entire period of Hadhrat Ali’s Caliphate. The question is why did Hadhrat Ali keep quiet or connive at it if the Azan was unlawful, and if this is objectionable then why should Hadhrat Uthman alone be made the butt to of their criticism when Hadhrat Ali is equally guilty of the crime? (if it is a crime at all!) Allama Zahbi writes:
"When he added the second Azan of Friday, Hadhrat Ali was one of those who had agreed with him on the issue. Therefore it continued to be practised during his tenure as well, though it was far easier to terminate the Azan than to pick up a fight with Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah. If it is objected that Hadhrat Zli did not terminate the Azan because the people were opposed to its termination, I would like to cite it as an argument for people’s agreement with Hadhrat Uthman on the issue, though these people included among others Hadhrat Ammar, Sahl bin Hanif and the former as well as the latter ones. If anyone did object to it, he was within his legal rights because it was essentially a problem related to ljtehad".
These were the objections of the Sabais which they raised against the innocuous personality of Hadhrat Uthman, and made him the target of their villainous attacks. They provoked the people against him until they killed him through deceit, duplicity and betrayal, though Hadhrat Ali, Hassan, Hussain, talha, Zubair, Zayd bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Umar, Abu Hurairah, abdullh bin Zubair and a large number of companous of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were determined to fight on his side and defend him. Hadhrat Zayd bin thabit went to him and submitted: the natives are at you door and they insist that they are once again ready to play the role of the natives of Allah". Hadhrat Uthman replied: "I don’t need it. Therefore I ask you not to fight".
Ibn abi Hadid, a Motazili Shia, has recorded:
"Hassan bin Ali, Abdullah bin Zubair, Muhmmad bin Talha, Marvan, S’aid bin As and a group of the sons of the natives tried to restrain the insurgents but Hadhrat Uthman replied that he did not need their help, and told them to go away. However, that group fo loyal followers refused to leave".
Hadhrat Ali, before the martyrdom of Hadhrat Uthman, ticked off the Egyptians and other and told them not to kill him. He held them up with his hand, snubbed them with his tongue and dispatched his children to help and defend him against the evil of the insurgents.
The Shia historian Mas’udi has spelled out some of the details of this episode which I have already mentioned. I requote his words at the end of the discussion as they are pregnant far-reaching implications.
When Hadhrat Ali came to know that the Sabais wanted to kill Hadhrat Uthman, he despatched both of his sons, Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain, as well as some of his slaves to Hadhrat Uthman. They were laced with arms and Hadhrat Ali had sent them with the express command to defend Hadhrat Uthman against the insurgents. Hadhrat Zubair despatched his son Abdullah, Talha despatched his son Muhammad, and following their example, a number of companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) also despatched their sons to help and assist Hadhrat Uthman. They pushed the rebels away from the resdence of Hadhrat Uthman but the rebels rained down arrows on them and a pitched battle started. Hadhrat hassan was wounded, Qumbar received a head injured, Muhammad bin Talha also sustained some injuries. They were scared lest a fight should break out between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah. So they stole away, leaving the insurgents fighting at the door. Some of them sneaked into the house of a native. The insurgents now had an easy access to Hadhrat Uthman. The first persons to reach him were Muhammad bin abi Bakr and two others. His wife was with him. The members of his family as well as his slaves were busy outside fighting with the rebels. Muhammad bin abi Bakr caught hold of his beard as he approached him. He said" I swear by God, O Muhammad, if your father sees you in this condition, he would not like it. On hearing these words his grip on the beard loosened and he ran out of the house. The other two men, who had entered the house with him, murdered him. At the time of the martyrdom the Quran lay open before him and he was reciting it. After his martyrdom, his wife climbed the roof of the house and wailed and shouted at the top of her voice to tell the people that the Amir-ul-Mominin had been martyred. Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain and some members of Banu Umayyah came into the house and saw that he had expired. At this sight all the people started crying profusely. When Hadhrat Ali, Talha, Zubair, S’aad and other refugees and natives heard the news, they were simply stunned and recited
When Hadhrat Ali came to his house, he looked extremely sad and crestfallen. He asked Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain how did the rebels manage to murder the Amir-ul-Mominin when they were posted at the door. He even slapped Hadhrat Hassan and struck at Hadhrat Hussain’s chest, abused Muhammad bin Talha and cursed Abdullah bin Zubair.
Won’t these people give up their stubbornness after learning these facts! Alas!
(If you were addressing a living person, you could have certainly conveyed your meaning to him. But the person you are addressing is drained of life and what can be done about him?)
At the end of the chapter I would like to reproduce a tradition which Imam Bokhari has cited through Hadhrat Ans. Once the Prophet (peace be upon him), Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthman climbed the mountain of Uhd. The mountain started rocking. He commanded: Uhd, stop trembling. On you stand at this moment one Prophet, one truthful and two martyrs".
Another hadith is recorded in Bokhari and Muslim which is reported by Abu Musa Ashari: I was with the Prophet (peace be upon him) in a garden of Madinah. Somebody knocked at the door. He commanded: open the door and give the visitor the glad tiding of his entry into paradise. When I opened the door, I found Hadhrat Abu Bakr standing there. I gave him the tiding of his entry into paradise in accordance with the command of the Prophet (peace be upon him). As Hadhrat Siddique heard the tiding, he thanked God for it. Then another man came. He also knocked at the door. For him he repeated the same words, commanded me to open the door and covey to him the tiding of his entry into paradise. When I opened the door, I found Hadhrat Umar Faruq standings there. According to the Prophetic command I also communicated to him the tiding of his entry into paradise. He, too, thanked God for it. Then another man knocked at the door. He said: open the door and give him the glad tiding of his entry into paradise but he will be in trouble in this world. According to the Prophetic command I conveyed to him the tiding of his entry into paradise as well as a premonition of the trouble he would face in the world. He thanked God for the tiding of his entry into paradise and when he heard the warning about trouble he declared that God was his protector.
To wrap the discussion, I would like to quote a tradition which Tirmizi and Ibn Majah have reported from Marrah bin K’aab. I heard the Prophet talking about seditions. He said that the period of seditions was about to set in. Meanwhile a person passed by him who was wrapped up in a sheet of cloth. He said: this man will be truly guided in the age of sedition. I stood up and looked at the man. He was Uthman bin Affan. I asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) if he was referring to Uthman. He said: yes.
I have offered a sketch of Hadhrat Uthman who was highly praised by no less a person than the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. The treatment he received at the hands of the Sabais, the insurgents and the misguided people has already been sketched out at length. The bogus charges they raised against him have been discussed. The main purpose of these allegations and accusations was to put in jeopardy the Islamic system of administration that was based on the principles of justice and equity, create dissension among the Muslims, distort and disfigure their true beliefs and convictions, disrupt the chain of their conquests and place barriers and speed-breakers in the path of the enlightenment that Islam was spreading in the darkest niches and corners of the world. They achieved success in the first phase of their seditions campaign and put an end to the glowing career of Amir-ul-Mominin. They smashed the unity of Muslims into million smitherens by throwing a spanner among them. In the second phase of their campaign they set a chain of internecine wars among the Muslims by sowing the seeds of suspicion and dissension among them. Then they brainwashed the Muslims of true Islamic beliefs and convictions and filled their hearts and minds with um-Islamic views and opinions. They braced success in the second phase as well. The Muslims drifted into the jungle of conflict and war. Instead of fighting for the pleasure of God against the infidels, they chopped off one anothers’ necks and alas! the Muslims who performed impossible feats of bravery in their holy war against the citadels of ignorance, oppression, idolatory and infidelity started shedding their own blood. In the next chapter I will take up the issue that not an inch of territory was added to the boundaries of the Islamic state during the tenure of Hadhrat Ali while its limits were immeasurably extended during the Siddiqui, Faruqi and Uthmani periods. Hadhrat Ali regrets the shrinkage of the Islamic empire and raises a wail of protest bordering on sheer agony against the pathetic state of affairs:
"O creatures of God, I advise you to adopt piety and this is the best advice. God also likes it most of all. But alas! now the door of war is flung wide open between you and the Ahl-i-Qiblah".
Alas! The swords of the Muslims, which were meant for use against the enemies of Islam, started shedding their won blood, and this is what the damned and cursed jews had planned. The measure of success they achieved in their plans was reward of their consistent efforts to stigmatize Islam and malign the Muslims in the eyes of the world. The next chapter will deal with the anti-Islamic jewish designs and the extent to which they were crowned with success.