Shias Allegations page 1 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 Jauzani remarks: 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. Mild treatment 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. Basrah rebels: 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. Rebel Centres: 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.
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:08:34 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015