Showing posts with label Companions of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Companions of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. Show all posts

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Personal Preferences of Jamat-e-Islami - 11

Taseer wrote:

Dear aukab Siddique

Your shia buddy is calling Syedna Muawiyah as "Maloon", what you have to say now since you are the guardian of Hadith and busy jihading against the mutazila.

aijaz alamdar

I pray to Allah Mansoor be Mehshoor with Yazid Bin Mauwiah Maloon ibn-e-Maloon & He should receive same mercy which he sought for Yazid Bin Mauwiah.AMIN.
======================================================

Dear Mr. Taseer,

Isn't it amazing the our Shia friends here reject Tabari's History when it narrates Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]'s intoxication [not at all a fault when Liquor was not declared unlawful] whereas the same Tabari is quoted by our Shia borthers regarding the differences amongst them.

Hadiths of Bukhari, Muslim, Timridhi, Nisai, Ibn-e-Maja, Musnad Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal, Mawatta Imam Malik are accepted when they narrate the Virtues of Ahl Al Bayt and the same Hadith are rejected when Virtues of Non-Ahl Al Bayt are found.


إِلاَّ تَنصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللَّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِى الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لاَ تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا فَأَنزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَّمْ تَرَوْهَا وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ السُّفْلَى وَكَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِىَ الْعُلْيَا وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ


Translation in English:

“If you help him (Muhammad) not (it does not matter), for Allaah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of the two; when they (Muhammad and Abu Bakr) were in the cave, he said to his companion (Abu Bakr): ‘Be not sad (or afraid), surely, Allaah is with us.’ Then Allaah sent down His Sakeenah (calmness, tranquillity, peace) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while the Word of Allaah that became the uppermost; and Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Tawbah 9:40]


لَّقَدْ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُونَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِى قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأنزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَثَـبَهُمْ فَتْحاً قَرِيباً


English Translation:

Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave the pledge to you under the tree, He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down As-Sakinah upon them, and He rewarded them with a near victory. [Surah Al-Fath Chapter 48 Verse 18]


وَالسَّـبِقُونَ الاٌّوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَـجِرِينَ وَالأَنْصَـرِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِىَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواْ عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّـتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الأَنْهَـرُ خَـلِدِينَ فِيهَآ أَبَداً ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ

English Translation:

And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness - Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph. [AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION) Chapter 9 - Verse 100]


مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّآءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعاً سُجَّداً يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلاً مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَاناً سِيمَـهُمْ فِى وُجُوهِهِمْ مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُودِ ذَلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِى التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِى الإِنجِيلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ فَآزَرَهُ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوَى عَلَى سُوقِهِ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ الصَّـلِحَـتِ مِنْهُم مَّغْفِرَةً وَأَجْراً
عَظِيماً


Translation:

Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. Thou (O Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel - like as sown corn that sendeth forth its shoot and strengtheneth it and riseth firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers - that He may enrage the disbelievers with (the sight of) them. Allah hath promised, unto such of them as believe and do good works, forgiveness and immense reward. [AL-FATH (VICTORY, CONQUEST)Chapter 48: Verse 29]


and read the Hadiths by the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] on his companions he [PBUH] didn't specify his [PBUH] companions [May Allah be pleased with all of them]

1- The Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]said : "The best of my nation is my generation then those who follow them and then those who follow them." [Saheeh Bukhari]

2- And he also said, "Do not abuse my Companions, for if any of you were to spend gold equal to (mountain of) Uhud in charity, it would not equal a handful of one of them or even half of that" [Bukhaaree and Muslim].

3- Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] advised us: "When my Companions are mentioned then withhold" [Saheeh, at-Tabaranee].

4- Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] said, "Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people" [Saheeh, At-Tabaranee].

5- "The sign of faith is love of the Ansar and the sign of hypocrisy is the hatred of Ansar" [Bukhaaree and Muslim].


therefore we must be very careful when through History [Unreliable] we discuss the companions [May Allah be please with everyone of them] of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. Rather it is obligatory [Farz] upon us that whenever anybody [i mean anybody even the Four Sunni Imam] try to quote history to malign the Companions then he/she will be rejected through Quran and Hadith and no history is valid before Quran and Hadith.

Hazra Ameer Muawiya Bin Abu Sufiyan Bin Harb [May Allah be pleased with him]:

1- The Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] prayed for Mu’awiyah more than once. In one of them, the Prophet is quoted to have said: “My Lord, give him guidance and make him a source of guidance.” (Related by Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Tabarani).

2- In another prayer for Mu’awiyah the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] said: “My Lord, teach him the Book (i.e. the Qur’an) and arithmetic, and protect him against suffering.” (Related by Al-Bukhari in his Al-Tareekh).

3- Such was the love Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had for him that he was given the following beautiful and concise Dua by Nabi : 'O Allah! make Muáwiya (Radhiallaahu Anhu) a means of hidaayat and make him one who is himself on hidaayat and give people hidaayat through him.' (Majmaú Zawaaid)

4- Prophet Mohammad {PBUH] made Dua for the knowledge of Muáwiya (Radhiallaahu Anhu) where he said, 'O Allah endow Muáwiya with the special knowledge of the Qurân and save him from punishment.' (Musnad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal).

5- Muáwiya (Radhiallaahu Anhu) was even privileged to be the brother-in-law of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] since Umme Habiba (Radhiallaahu Anha), the sister of Muáwiya, was one of his [PBUH]'s wives. Once Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] came home to find Muáwiya (Radhiallaahu Anhu) with his sister. He asked her whether she loved him. To this Umme Habiba (Radhiallaahu Anhu) declared that he was her brother and therefore she definitely loved him. It was then that Muáwiya (Radhiallaahu Anhu) received tremendous gladtidings from Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] , where he said, 'Allah and His Rasul definitely love Muáwiya.' (Tabrani).

Ashra al Mubasharra [10 Blessed and Heavenly Ones]

1- Ashra Al Mubashara:

Those who were informed by the Holy Prophet [PBUH] about the award of Paradise fot them during their life time, are known as Ashra Mubashara. They are ten in numbers:

1. Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

2. Hazrat Umar Farooq (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

3. Hazrat Usman Ghani (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

4. Hazrat Ali (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

5. Hazrat Abu Talha (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

6. Hazrat Zubair Ibn Awan (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

7. Hazrat Abu Obaida Ibn Al-Jarah (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

8. Hazrat Abdur Rehman Ibh A'uf (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

9. Hazrat Sa'ad Ibh Abi Waqas (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)

10. Hazrat Saeed Ibh Zaid (Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha)


The Messenger, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, clearly stated that ten of his Companions would be in Paradise. Ahmad reports from Sa`id ibn Zayd, and Tirmidhi reports from `Abdul-Rahman ibn `Awf, that the Prophet, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, said:

"Abu Bakr will be in Paradise, `Umar will be in Paradise, `Uthman will be in Paradise, `Ali will be in Paradise, Talhah will be in Paradise, Al-Zubayr will be in Paradise, `Abdul-Rahman ibn `Awf will be in Paradise, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas will be in Paradise, Sa`id ibn Zayd will be in Paradise and Abu `Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah will be in Paradise." Its isnad is sahih. [Sahih al-Jami` as-Saghir, 1/70, no. 50]

Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and Al-Diya' reported a slightly different version from Sa`id ibn Zayd:

"Ten will be in Paradise: the Prophet will be in Paradise, Abu Bakr will be in Paradise, `Umar will be in Paradise, `Uthman will be in Paradise, `Ali will be in Paradise, Talhah will be in Paradise, al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam will be in Paradise, Sa`d ibn Malik will be in Paradise, `Abdul-Rahman ibn `Awf will be in Paradise and Sa`id ibn Zayd will be in Paradise. Its isnad is sahih. [Sahih al-Jami` as-Saghir, 4/34, no. 3905]

The books of the Sunnah tell us that one day the Prophet, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, was sitting at the well of `Ariis, with Abu Musa al-Ash`ari acting as his gatekeeper. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq came and asked permission to see him, and the Messenger, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, said, "Let him in, and give him the glad tidings of Paradise." Then `Umar came, and he said, "Let him in and give him the glad tidings of Paradise." Then `Uthman came and he said, "Let him in, and give him the glad tidings of Paradise because of an affliction that will befall him." [Reported by Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Tirmidhi. See Jami al-Usul, 8/562, no. 6372. The hadith is lengthy, so we have shortened it here and quoted only that which is relevant to the current discussion.]

Ibn `Asakir reported with a sahih isnad from Ibn Mas`ud that the Prophet, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, said: "My successor will be in Paradise, his successor will be in Paradise, and the third and fourth will be in Paradise." [Sahih al-Jami` as-Saghir, 4/149, no. 4311.] The "successor" refers to the one who would take over the reins of leadership after his death. These four are Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman and `Ali, may Allah be pleased with them all.

Tirmidhi and al-Hakim reported with a sahih isnad from `A'ishah, radhiallahu `anha, that the Messenger, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, said to Abu Bakr: "You are free from the Fire." [Sahih al-Jami` as-Saghir, 2/24, no. 1494]

Personal Preferences of Jamat-e-Islami - 10




syed-mohsin naquvi wrote:

You cannot be friends with Allah and Sahytan at the same time.

Some of the great Sunni scholars are confused about Muawiyyah and Ali. The great Hanafi interpreter named Abu BAkr Jassaas wrote (when he was discussing the Battle of Siffeen) that between the two parties one of them is MUNAAFIQ, but we do not know which one. But, the problem with you is that you will go half-way through the discussion and then suddenly you would throw your arms in the air and scream: But all reports are written by the Shia and they are unlreliable. So I am saving my time and effort and let you continue on your sweet dreams.


Syed-Mohsin Naquvi
============ ========= ========= ===

Dear Syed Sahab,

Abu Bakar Jassas or even 4 Sunni Imams are not Hujjat [Proof] if they are in any way discuss the Companions [both Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah - May Allah be pleased with them] which tarnishes the image of companion. If you insist on relying on Hanafi or any other School of thought's opinion then I wonder how would you define this opinion and there is no confusion in the text below. Dr Kaukab and your's favourite scholar first:

Abul-A'la Maududi: wrote an introduction to the book, "Ar-Riddah bain al-Ams wa al-Yaum" In it was written, regarding the Imami Ja'fari Shia, "despite their moderate views (relative to other shi'ia sects), they are swimming in disbelief like white bloodcells in blood or like fish in water."


Imam Abu Haneefah: It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the Raafidi Shia; "Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief."

Imam Ash-Shafi'i: On one occasion Imam Shafi'ee said concerning the Shia, "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi* Shia." and on another occasion he said; "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the Raafidi* Shia, because they invent ahaadeeth and adopt them as part of their religion." (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah)

Imam Malik: Once when asked about the Raafidi Shia, Imam Malik said; "Do not speak to them or narrate from them, for surely they are liars." During one of Imam Malik's classes, it was mentioned that the raafidi Shia curse the sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." (48:29) He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahâbah are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks." (Tafseer al-Qurtubi)

Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi: He said of the raafidi Shia doctrine of cursing the Sahâbah, "If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet SAWS know that he is a disbeliever.

Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi: During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm would often debate with the Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of the original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out the Shia claims that the Qur'an has been distorted and altered, Ibn Hazm informed them that Shia claims were not valid evidence because the Shia were not themselves Muslims.

Imam Al-Alusi: He declared the raafidi Shia disbelievers because of their defamation of the Sahaba. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars. In response to their claim to be followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet's SAWS family) Al-Alusi said, "No, they are really followers of the devils and the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent of them."

Muhammad Rasheed Rida: This scholar was among those who worked sincerely for rapproachment between the shia and the sunni, and they in turn pretended moderation for his benefit. However, in the midst of his efforts, they caught him by surprise by presenting him with a number of their books which slander Islam. He then replied in a paper called As-Sunnah wa Ash-Shia in which he exposed their false doctrines and idolatrous practices.

Not only me but every Muslim should throw his arms in the air when the Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] are discussed in a derogatory way because they were not ordinary men they were the men of Best Generation. One should throw his arms in the air because these blessed men have passed away [May Allah be pleased with everyone of them that Includes Ali and Muawiyah] and I dont want to be amongst Naasibis [who hate Ahl Al Bayt], Rafidhi [who hate Abu Bkar, Ayesha, Omar, Uthman and Muawiyah] and Khawarijs [who declare both the group of Companions as Infernal and Apostate]. They are no longer with us and Quran says...


تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَلَكُم مَّا كَسَبْتُم وَلاَ تُسْـَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ


English Translation:

Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do. [AL-BAQARA (THE COW) Chapter 2 - Verse 141]

Personal Preferences of Jamat-e-Islami - 9


syed-mohsin naquvi wrote:

You wrote to me saying most historians are Shia and all history is unlreliable. How come you are now quoting from the same unreliable history that has been mostly written by the Shia to support any of your arguments?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Syed-Mohsin Naquvi
========================

Dear Naquvi Sahab,


Yes I did write that and let me repeat it again I right that in the context that most of the narrators who are used by Tabari in his history and tafseer particularly in respect of differences amongst Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] and Hazrat Muawiyah [May Allah be pleased with him], Siffin, Jamal, and Karbala were Shias. And some narrations by the same narrtors are quoted by Salaman Rushdie in his book Satanic Verses [this was also discussed by Shahid Masood in one of his program in GEO and earlier ARY Views on News, when Salman Rushdie was given the tilte of Sir]. Behind this liquor controversy I myself have seen three narration by Tabari one is alleging that Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], consumed the Liquor, another is of Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf [May Allah be pleased with him], and in the third narration there was no name.

Salaf Al Saleheen [Pious Predecessors i.e. Three Blessed Generations after Prophet Mohammad PBUH ] didn't insult the Companions [May Allaah be pleased with them] of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. Mawdoodi for insulting the Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] in his so-called Research Books quoted the following Liars [Kazzab] and they were far from Salaf Al Saleheen [Pious Predecessors]

Unreliable Historical References of Mawdoodi which he used in his books to insult the Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]:

1 - Abu Mukhnif Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi,
2 - Muhammad bin Umar Waqidi,

3 - Hisham bin Muhammad Kalbi,
4 - Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutayibah

"QUOTE"

1 - Abu Mukhnif Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi:

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 Taimiyah 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.

2 - 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 of 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!

4- Hisham bin Muhammad Kalbi:

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 is of the opinion 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.

4 - Kitab "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" is attributed to Ibn Qutayibah Al-Daynoori, for the following reasons:

1. The scholars who wrote the biography of Ibn Qutayibah did not mention any book of Ibn Qutayabah named "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah". Ibn Qutayibah’s books include "Al-Ma'arif", and the books that is mentioned by the author of "Sahib Al-Dhonoon".

2. If a person reads Al_Imamah wa Al-Siyasah, he would notice that Ibn Qutayabah lived in Damascus and Maghrib, whereas in reality he did not leave Baghdad but to Daynoor.

3. The method and the course that the real author of "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" used, differs completely from the method and the course of Ibn Qutayabah in his books that we have. One of the main characteristics in the methods of Ibn Qutayabah is that he writes long prefaces or introductions explaining his method and the reasons for the writing of the book. In the opposite side, we see the author of "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" has a very short preface, not more than 3 lines..

4. The real author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrated from Ibn Abi Layla in a way that you feel he got it from him personally, that the authoer met Abi Layla face to face (Talaqa a'anhu). The full name of Ibn Abi Layla is Muhamed bin Abdulrahman bin Abi Layla the jurisprudent, the judge of Kufah, who died in 148H, and it is known that Ibn Qutayabah was born in 213H, after the death of Ibn Abi Layla by 65 years.

5. Even the orientalists questioned the true identity of the book’s authoer First of them was De Gainjose in his book "The history of the Islamic rule in Spain", then Dr. R. Dozi supported him in his book "The Political and the Lecture History of Spain", and the book mentioned Brokilman in "Tareekh Al-Adab Al-Arabi", the Baron De Slan in the index of the "Arabic manuscripts" in Paris Library under the name of "Narrations of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah", and Margholios in "Dirasat a'an Al-Mu'arekheen Al-Arab", and they all decided that the book is falsly attributed to Ibn Qutayabah and that he could not be the real author.

6. The narrators and the Sheikhs that Ibn Qutayabah usually narrates from in his books were never mentioned in any place in the book of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah.

7. It seems from the book that the author tells the news of the invasion of the Andulus orally from people who contemporaried the invasion period, like "I was told by a Muwla for Abdullah bin Musa" and it is known that the Fath of Andulus was in 92H, before the birth of Ibn Qutayabah by about 120 yrs.

8. Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah contains horrible historical mistakes, like making Aba Al-Abbas and the Saffah (The Slayer) two different people, making Haroon Al-Rasheed the immediate successor to Al-Mahdi, saying that Haroon Al-Rasheed gave Wilayat Al-A'ahd for his son Al-Ma'moon then to Al-Ameen, but if we go back to Ibn Qutayabah book "Al-Ma'arif" we find that he gaves us correct infiormations about Al-Saffah and Haroon Al-Rasheed which disagrees with what the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah said.

9. In the book, there are many narrators that Ibn Qutayabah never narrated from, e.g. Abi Maryam, and Ibn A'feer.

10. In the book, there are sentences that are not in the writings of Ibn Qutayabah, like "Qal Thuma Ina", "it was mentioned about some cheifs", and "some cheifs told us" and like these structures which are far from the methods and sentences of Ibn Qutayabah and were never mentioned in any of his books.

11. It is obvious that the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah does not care about arrangements, organization, and order, for he states the information, then goes to another one and jumps to complete the first information. This chaos does not agree with the method of Ibn Qutayabah who looks for organization and order.

12. The author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrates from two of the biggest Egyptian scholars, and Ibn Qutayabah never entered Egypt and never was a pupil for these two scholars.

13. Ibn Qutayabah has a very high rank among the scholars, for he is from Ahl Al-Sunnah and Trust (Thiqah) in his knowledge and religion. Al-Salafi said: "Ibn Qutayabah was from the Thiqat and Ahl Al-Sunnah, Ibn Hazm said: "he was thiqah in his religion and knowledge", Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi said the same, Ibn Taymiyah said about him: "ibn Qutayabah belongs to Ahmad, Ishaq and one of who supports the famous Sunni schools", and he is the Speaker for Ahl Al-Sunna as Al-Jahidh is the speaker of Mu'atazilah. A man in this rank among the great scholars could not be the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah which changed the history and attributed to the Companions what is not true.

14. In Ibn Qutayabah’s book "Al-Ekhtilaf fi Al-Lafd wa Al-Rad ala Al-Jahamiyah wa Al-Mushabiha" he said that the Rafidah are kafirs because they slandered the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), then he says: "and I saw them too when they saw the Rafida's exaggeration in the love of Ali and prefer him on who the Prophet (pbuh) preferred, and their claims that Ali was a partner of Muhamed (pbuh) in his prophethood, and the knowledge of the unknown is for the Imams from his sons and these talks and the secret matters that consolidated to the lies, kufr, extreme ignorance and stupidity, and they saw them slandering the best Companions and their hatred towards them", then can someone attribute Al-imamah wa Al-Siyasah to him which is full of slanders against the great Companions?

Source: Kitab Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah fi Meezan Al-Tahqeeq Al-Elmi, Dr.Abdullah Aseelan

1- Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk or Tarikh al-Tabari

2- Al-Musamma Jami al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an or Tafsir al-Tabari

Veracity of Sunni Tabari:

"QUOTE"

Tafsir al-tabari and Tarikh al-tabari(history compiled by Tabari) are just a bunch of reports that Imam Tabari has complied. He says in the beginning of the books(either both or one of them) that he has just merely compiled all the reports that have cone to him, and that he will leave it up to future scholars to decide which ones are authentic.

Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol. 1 p. 24) declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him. "

Laymen like us looking through Tabari is the worst thing in the world. Tabari is not for people like us. The orientalists translated the entire Tarikh Tabari, and now, any non muslims goes and looks in it and thinks that it is authentic. Imam Tabari just collected everything that came to him and he said that he will leave it up to future muhaditheen [Traditionalists] to look for the authenticity of the reports.

Why Tabari is important for Rafizis?

It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians present these words about Mu’awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories? In addition, most of these historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told.”

[Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13]

Abu Makhnaf narrates this story. Abu Makhnaf’s full name is Loot bin Yahaya Al-Azday Al-Koufay [Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.232, and year of 51H]. Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar said about him: “Ekhbaray Talif” (This is a phrase for the Scholars of hadeeth. Ekhbaray is the person who narrates stories, and talif is the one who lies when he narrates stories) [ Meezan Al-E’tidal by Al-Thahabi, vol.3, p.419 #6992 and Lisan Al-Meezan by Ibn Hajar, vol.4, p.492] Abu Hatim and others did not take him, and Al-Darqutnay said: “He is weak,” Ibn Mu’een said: “Not a trustworthy,” Marrah said: “He is nothing,” and Ibn Uday said: “A burned Shia!”) [Meezan Al-E’tidal, vol.3, p.419-420] and Al-Aqeelay accounted him as a weak [Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeelay, vol.4, p.18-19 #1572]. Therefore, this story is false and hence is not an argument.


Tareekh at-Tabari was a voluminous text compiled by Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (may Allah be pleased with him). Imam at-Tabari followed the classic methodology of early Islamic historians, a process which differed greatly from modern day historical writers. Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them.

Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate, whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. As such, we find that it is ignorant of the enemies of Islam that they assume that we Sunnis accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari as valid, when in fact this is not the case nor has any Sunni scholar ever accepted this–not even Imam at-Tabari himself! Imam at-Tabari clearly says in the introduction of his book that the narrations found in his book are only as good as the people who narrate them. If the compiler of the book does not view all of the narrations as authentic, then it is indeed absurd for the Shia
to assume that we accept each and every single narration in Tareekh at-Tabari. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:

I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I have merely reported it as it was reported to me.

(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

Imam at-Tabari’s book was simply an attempt to place Hadiths into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, Tabari–like Ibn Ishaq–did a wonderful job of creating one of the first books which placed Hadiths in a chronological order. However, Imam at-Tabari only placed them in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.

The most authentic book of Shia Hadith is Al-Kafi, compiled by Imam al-Kulayni, i.e. “Thiqat al-Islam”. Yet, many times the Shia will adamantly deny Hadiths found in that book, and even go as far as to say that the book contains thousands of unauthentic Hadith. If this is the Shia attitude towards the book they claim is the most authentic, then it is absurd for the Shia to expect us to accept every narration found in at-Tabari’s book, when in fact we Sunnis view Imam at-Tabari’s book with less honor than the Shia view Imam al-Kulayni’s book. In Al-Kafi there are narrations from the mouths of the Shia Imams that mention how Ali ibn Abi Talib wed his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Yet, the Shia will claim that these are falsely attributed to the Imam; then why do the Shia balk when we say that not every narration in Imam at-Tabari’s book is authentic?

What we have stated above applies to books written by Islamic historians in general; as for Imam at-Tabari in particular, then it should be known that he was specifically criticized for his over-reliance on weak and unauthentic narrators. Imam at-Tabari wished to create a well-balanced book, which would contain both Sunni and Shia narrations. He felt that his book would be incomplete if he only included one side to the exclusion of the other. In fact, Imam at-Tabari used so many Shia narrators and included so many Shia narrations that he was accused of being a Shia Rafidhi. Furthermore, the rumors that Imam at-Tabari did not recognize the jurisprudential superiority of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal further fueled the discontent towards Imam at-Tabari amongst the ranks of the Sunni orthodoxy. The Hanbalis–whom the Shia of today would refer to as the founding fathers of the “Wahabis”–rioted outside Imam at-Tabari’s home in protest.
Franz Rosenthal of Yale University writes:

He [Tabari] was denounced by Abu Bakr b. Abi Dawood to the influential chamberlain of al-Muqtadir, Nas al-Qushoori. He [Tabari] was accused of Jahmite inclinations and extremist [Shia] Rafidhi views and was forced to issue a denial…[of the] general accusations of dogmatic heresy and extremist Shi’ah sympathies which we hear about mainly in connection with quarrels with the Hanbalites…They [the Hanbalites] propagated the idea that he was a Shi’ah extremist and, ultimately, a heretic…Enraged Hanbalites thereupon stoned his residence and caused a serious disturbance which had to be subdued by force.

(Franz Rosenthal, General Introduction to “The History of al-Tabari”)

According to some sources, Imam at-Tabari issued a formal apology to the Hanbalis before his death; we read:

Tabari secluded himself in his house and produced his well-known book containing his apology to the Hanbalis. He mentioned his own legal views and dogmatic beliefs. He declared unreliable those who thought differently about him with respect to those matters…He extolled Ahmad ibn Hanbal and mentioned his legal views and dogmatic beliefs as being correct. He continued to refer to him constantly until he died.

(Irshad, Vol.6, p.437)

Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Tareekh at-Tabari would contain some narrations that the Shia would use against us; this was a consequence of Imam at-Tabari’s decision to compile both Sunni and Shia narrations, without commenting on their authenticity. Of course, the accusations against Imam at-Tabari that he was a Shia Rafidhi were one hundred percent incorrect; there is no doubt that Imam at-Tabari was a very respectable Imam of the Sunnis. He merely included Shia narrations/narrators based on the tradition of Islamic historians to simply compile Hadiths and to leave the authenticating to the Muhaditheen. So while we do not question the “Sunni-ness” of Imam at-Tabari, we bring up the point that people accused him of being a Shia Rafidhi to prove that the narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were never accepted by the mainstream Muslims as being one hundred percent authentic, and whoever would claim such a thing is a liar. The Shia narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were rejected back then, as they are now.

Not only did Imam at-Tabari include Shia narrations in his book, but he also included Christian and Zoroastrian accounts. This was in line with his belief of compiling a “balanced” book that would document all the various accounts from a variety of segments of the society. It is for this reason that some of the narrations in his book with regards to the story of Creation are not in line with the Islamic belief. Indeed, as we have stated repeatedly, not all the narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari can be accepted.

The Shia are allied with the other enemies of Islam when they use weak narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari in order to attack the mainstream Muslims. It was, after all, Salman Rushdie who used a narration in Tareekh at-Tabari to prove the story of the “Satanic verses.” And yet, we know that even though this narration is found in Tareekh at-Tabari, it is unauthentic as mentioned by Ibn Katheer and others. The methodology the Shia use to attack the mainstream Muslims is very similar to that employed by the apostates and avowed enemies of Islam. If the Shia propagandist would mock us when we doubt the authenticity of Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us mock them when they doubt the authenticity of their most authentic book of Hadith (i.e. Al-Kafi). If they insist that we accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari, then we insist that they accept every narration in Al-Kafi, that book which is full of Shirk, Kufr, and utter blasphemy. If they seek to weaken the Sunni position by bringing up narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us respond by toppling the Shia position by bringing up narrations in Al-Kafi.

To conclude, we say as Ibn Katheer said:

In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak.

(Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208)


“QUOTE”

Mawdoodi and Tabari:

1) Syed Abul 'Ala Mawdudi in, Khilafat o Mulukiyat, states:

"One more dis-liked innovation (bid'at) that reigned in the time of Hadhrat Muawiya [ra], that he himself (khud), and by his orders all (tamam) his governers, in their sermons (khutboon) through the pulpit reviled and insulted (sab o shatm) Hadhrat Ali [ra]. Even yet, in the mosque of the Prophet (S), through the pulpit (minbar) before the rawdah e nabawi, the dearest of the Prophet's (S) relatives were villified (gal'ian) and Hadhrat Ali's (ra) children and the nearest of his kin bore witness to these villifications (gali'an)."

The references from Mawdudi are to al Tabari, Tarikh, v4, p188, Ibn al Athir, al Kamil, v3, v4, p154, Ibn Kathir, al Bidaya, v8, p259, v9, p80.

2) Al Tabari writes in his work on history, they were,

"al Hasan had already made peace with Muawiyah on condition that he concede to him what was in his treasury plus the revenue of Darabjird and that 'Ali not be reviled in his hearing." (The History of al Tabari, Between Civil Wars: The Caliphate of Muawiyah, Section: The Rendering of Allegiance to al Hasan b. Ali).

3) "Marwan the architect of Umayyad dynastic rule, clearly recognized the importance of cursing as a tool of the government. He told 'Ali's grandson Ali b. al Husayn privately: 'No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate (akaff) towards our master than your master'. The harmless son of al Husayn asked him: 'Why do you curse him then from the pulpits? 'He answered: 'Our reign would not be sound without that (la yastaqimu l-amru illa bi-dhalik)". (Baladhuri, AnsabII, 184-5 and ; Ibn Asakir, 'Ali, III, 98-9).

4) "Particularly useful for Muawiyas purpose was the public cursing of Ali in Kufa where he hoped it would bring out into the open the latent opposition of the Umayyad rule, thus facilitating his measures of repression. When he appointed al Mughira b Shuba governer of Kufa in Jumada 41/September-October 661, he instructed him: 'Never desist from abusing and censuring 'Ali, from praying for God's mercy and forgiveness for Uthman from disgracing the followers of Ali, from removing them and refusing to listen to them, and never cease praising the partisans of Uthman, may God be pleased with him, bringing them close to you and listening to them". (Tabari, II, 112).

“UNQUOTE”

Answer:

When believers fight against each other, Allah did not call that act as "disbelieve" if the two warring factions had somehow valid arguments. Allah says in Surat Al-Hujurat, verse 9, “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).”

Allah called the two warring factions as believers although they fought each other. Therefore, Muslim scholars had concluded that a Muslim is not a disbeliever if he committed a sin as the Khawarij did when they attributed disbelieve to Muslims when they commit a sin. However, to fight against a Muslim is a major sin, but it does not lead to disbelief. If affliction and different interpretation to events lead to the fighting, then it’s not disbelief.

If fighting is not disbelief, then how could slander and libeling is considered to be disbelief?

In Saheeh Al-Bukhari, the Prophet was giving a sermon while Al-Hasan was with him on the pulpit. Then the Prophet was looking to Al-Hasan, then to the listeners, and said, “My son (Al-Hasan) is a noble man, and perhaps Allah may establish peace between two great factions of Muslims through him.” And it happened as the Prophet predicted; Allah made peace between the people of Sham and people of Iraq after exhaustive years of wars and afflictions.

All of the above is on the occasion that Mu’awiyah did really slander and libel Ali bin Abi Talib. However, the truth is that Mu’awiyah never slandered Ali, and no one is able to prove otherwise with a valid argument.

History books are full of unbelievable stories. They contain both; true and false stories. These stories are examined by studying their narrators to distinguish the true stories from the false ones.

Most of history scholars who came after Al-Tabari like Ibn Katheer and Ibn Al-Atheer relied on Tareekh Al-Tabari as a source for their stories. The latter scholars narrate the stories without their chain of attribution. Thus, to know the authentic stories, we should refer back to Tareekh Al-Tabari because Al-Tabari is the one who narrated the stories by writing down the names of the narrators.

Let us look at the course of Al-Tabari in his books. Al-Tabari did not take an oath to write down only authentic stories, but he took an oath to write down the stories with their chain of narrators, false or true stories. Al-Tabari had handed over the task of examining the stories to the scholars. Al-Tabari says in his introduction, “Let the reader be aware that whatever I mention in my book is relied on the news that were narrated by some men. I had attributed these stories to their narrators, without inferring anything from their incidents …” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, 1/7-8]

The history of the affliction between the Companions is a very sensitive issue. Historical incidents relating to these times were filled with emotions and differences in political theories. Hence, it became difficult for historians to authenticate a particular story. Then, to issue a final judgment on a certain incident would be a very complex matter.

Therefore, Al-Tabari went on collecting all the different views of different stories, but he had mentioned the names of the people who narrated the stories. Al-Tabari says, “If a certain man gets horrified by a certain incident that we reported in our book, then let him know that it did not come from us, but we only wrote down what we received from the narrators.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, 1/8]

Al-Astath Al-Mowdawi is an Islamic “thinker” (mufakir) and a mujahid. It had not known that he was a scholar in the fundamental of Islam, however. Hence, it is inappropriate to take him as a valid argument in these sensitive scholastic subjects. Al-Mowdawi did not authenticate the relevant stories; perhaps he was not aware of the course of the historians in narration.

The Peace stories between Mu’awiyah and Al-Hasan contain both authentic and false stories. The peace that occurred between Mu’awiyah and Al-Hasan is of great importance in the history of Islam due to the following reasons:

• Al-Hasan was a grand scholar.

• As a result of this treaty, Muslim bloods had been spared and Muslims united under one leader after years of disunity.

• That Al-Hasan became the first caliphate to relinquish his position without force and at the same time being on a strong foothold just to make peace between Muslims.

• That Al-Hasan believes in Mu’awiyah's faith and in his Islam. Otherwise, he would have not given him the leadership of Islam. This is a refutation to Shia’s claims.

"UNQUOTE"


Personal Preferences of Jamat-e-Islami - 8



latinomuslims wrote:

Dr. K. Sidiquee is 100% correct. Trinitarian kings in Muslim Spain were supported in wars against Muslims by Muslims. There were many schools of thought back then but they were unabled to maintain unity against the common enemy.

========================================

Dear Sir,

Since Dr Kaukab Sahab is very fond of Hisotry that malign the Companions [May Allah be pleased with everyone of them] of Mohammad [PBUH] so let me quote the same History

"QUOTE"


Between 640 – 655 Hijri Abdullah Bin Mustansir aka Mostasim Billa {Abbassaid Caliph} was the powerless ruler of Baghdad, he was also Faqih and Mohaddis {Sunni Religious Scholar} but extremely superstitious sometimes he was even afraid of ‘cats’ his Prime Minister was Moiduddin Ibn-e-Alqami Rafzi {Extremist Shia} and due to his incompetence there was Sectarian War going on in Baghdad amongst Shias and Sunnis and Hanbalites and other sects of Muslims. Shias were majority in an area called Karkh in West Baghdad and Ibn-e-Alqami used to live there. Day in day out Shia-Sunni used to fight each other in that particular neighborhood. The Caliph Mostasim sent his two sons Abu Bakar and Rukunuddin Dawadar to crush the Shia rebellion and ordered them to loot Shia houses in Karkh, which they did successfully, Mostasim’s haste step angered Ibn-e-Alqami but he preferred patience. Ibn-e-Alqami strategically and very cunningly started sending the army troops from Capital Baghdad to all over the place on the context of confronting the invading Hordes of Mongols. Around 653 Hijri Halaku Khan attacked Iraq besides conquering Isphahan, Hamdan and several Forts of Ismailis including Qila Al Amut of Hassan Bin Sabbah (Ismaili Shia) aka the Assassins or Hasheeshain. On his way to Baghdad Halaku received letters from Ibn-e-Alqami, he was encouraging Halaku Khan to annex Baghdad. Earlier Halaku was reluctant and afraid to annex Baghdad because it being a Centre of so-called Muslim Ummah but was pursued by one Khwaja Naseeruddin Toosi {another Shia} to go ahead and don’t worry about Ummah. Therefore when he reached Baghdad the Prime Minister Ibn-e-Alqami approached Halaku in the Military Camp of Mongols outside Baghdad and requested peace from Halaku for himself and returned back to Caliph Mostasim Billa and said lets go to Halaku as I {Alqami} have granted peace and government of Baghdad for you. Mostasim Billa with his Ministers, Advisers, Clerics and Qazis visited Halaku. Halaku Khan instantly put all of them to sword and very ruthlessly too, later Halaku ordered that the Caliph be covered in a carpet and the be attached to the feet of an elephant so that Mostasim be thoroughly dead and annihilated. Afterwards Ibn-e-Alqami desecrated the dead body of Mostasim saying that he got his revenge and the revenge of the blood of the followers and descendents [Ahlul Bait] of Holy Prophet Mohammad {PBUH}. Halaku and his army for 6 months after that looting, killing, burning, raping and pillaging Baghdad and in total more than 1 Million people were put to sword. That is not the end when Ibn-e-Alqami was getting out of his boots he too was put to death by the Mongol Army. {Tareekh Ibn-e-Khaldun {Volume 3 & 4 Khilafat-e-Banu Abbas}

Muslim historian Ibne-Aseer in his history [and Ahmed Hafiz in Kitabud Daula Al Khwarzimi Wal-Maghol and Muqraiazi in his Kitabul Saulook-ul-Marifa Daulul Malook have seconded Ibn-e-Aseer] had written a detailed account as to how Genghis Khan and his Mongol Army thoroughly sacked, thrashed, and butchered the so-called Muslim Ummah in 13th Century and that is not the end the mongol army invaded the Muslim Kindom of Samarkand and Bukhara which were overwhelmingly 'Muslim' having Muslim King with powerful army and finished the Kingdom of Khwarzam Shah. Genghis Khan was instigated by Khwarzam's arrogance and his violation of oath which he himself signed with Tartar King Genghis Khan. Khwarzam's governor had murdered the Mongol traders who used to trade with Central Asian Muslim State as per the Trade Treaty signed by Genghis and Khwarzam. There was another reason as well of Mongol Attacks on Muslim states and that was the ambitions of Khwarzam Shah to be a King of Baghdad as well and be called Commander of the Faithful. On hearing the ambitions of Khwarzam the Baghdad Caliph Sultan Nasiruddinullah started secret correspondence with Genghis Khan and instigated him to attack the state of Allauddin Shah Khwarzam and the rest is history.


In the 8th century (h), some of the Tatar Kings converted to Islam and some became Rawafids. Among those who became Rawafids was Ghyiathuddin Khuda Muhammad who was far harsher in treatment to Muslims than his ancestors. He allied himself with the Jews and the Crusaders against the Muslims, and during his reign the Jews assumed the highest positions in Baghdad, al-Moosel and Ibn Amr Island. In that they had all the authority to oppress the Muslims in any shape or manner. Furthermore, he (Ghyathuddin) allied himself with the Pope and Kings of England and France to fight the Muslims of Ahlul Sunnah. However when his son Abu Sa'eed Bahader Khan 716 (h) (who was following Ahlul Sunnah wal-Jamaa'a unlike his father) came to power he cut all relations with the Crusaders and removed all Jews from their positions and forced all Ahl-e-Kitaab to wear a special uniform to distinguish them from Muslims. Muslims were finally at ease; their joy did not last long due to the assasination of Abu Sa'eed by the Jews in 736 (h) may Allah bestow His mercy upon him.

In the 10th century (h), the Shiias had a state known as the Safawi State. Again, the Jews had attained the highest ranking positions and took a good advantage of it by instigating the Safawis to declare war on the Sunni Ottoman State. They arranged a treaty with the Portuguese who at the time were controlling the Arabian ( Persian ) Gulf and colonized Hormuz Island for use as a base for their fleet during the reign of Ismael the 1st, in the year 930 (h). Under the reign of his successor Tamasif, the relations between the Safawis and the Portuguese became even stronger and he went further into negotiations with Rome and Queen Elizabeth of England (962 h.) to enter into a 'defense alliance' between the Safawis and the British to declare war against the Ottomans. During his reign Ismael the 1st (995 h.) brought British experts to train his army and sought assistance of the British Fleet to conquer Bahrain, a battle that ended with the victory of the Ottomans. At the end of the Battle, the Commander of the Ottoman forces wrote to the Khalifa a report in which he said in describing the battle and the Shiia : "They are a group of hideous idiots, athiests KUZULBASH." Kuzulbash means that they wore a distinctive red turban which differentiated them from Ahlul Sunnah. The turban was made of 12 rounds in symbolism of their sect of 12 Imams. As to the red color, it was to symolise the bloody hatred they had in their chests towards the Sunnis.

"UNQUOTE"

For more details:

Tareekh Ibn-e-Khaldun {Volume 3 & 4 Khilafat-e-Banu Abbas by Allama Abdul Reham Ibn-e-Khaldun.

‘Ala’ al-Din ‘Ata Malik Juvayni (A History of the World-Conqueror Ghengis Genghis Khan, rashid-ad-din-juwayni ‘Ala’ al-Din ‘Ata Malik Juvayni)

Juvaynî, Alâ al-Dîn Atâ Malik, 1226-1283. Genghis Khan: The History of the World-Conqueror [Tarîkh-I jahângushâ. English] (Seattle : UWashington Press, 1997) tr. John Andrew Boyle, ISBN: 0295976543.

A Compendium of Chronicles: Rashid al-Din's Illustrated History of the World [Jami al-Tawarikh] (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1995) The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, Vol. XXVII, ed. Sheila S. Blair, ISBN: 019727627X.

Tabib, Rashid al-Din. The Successors of Genghis Khan (New York : Columbia University Press, 1971) tr. From the Persian by John Andrew Boyle, [extracts from Jami’ Al-Tawarikh], UNESCO collection of representative works: Persian heritage series, ISBN 0231033516.

Further reading

Cable, Mildred and Francesca French. The Gobi Desert (London : Landsborough Publications, 1943).

Man, John. Gobi : Tracking the Desert (London : Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1997) hardbound; (London : Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1998) paperbound, ISBN 0753801612; (New Haven : Yale, 1999) hardbound.

Stewart, Stanley. In the Empire of Genghis Khan: A Journey among Nomads (London : Harper Collins, 2001) ISBN 0-00-653027-3.

Personal Preferences of Jamat-e-Islami - 7



syed-mohsin naquvi wrote:


Muawiyyah and ALi fought each other in the battle field. In other words, they tried to kill each other. You are out to prove that they were both equal in status. Any person with the slightest bit of intelligence would see that that is an untenable situation. You either accept ALi as the rightful Imam (which the Shi'a do) or you reject him as a rightful Imam and accept Muawiyyah as a rightful Sahabi (which many Sunnis do, but not all).

Syed-Mohsin Naquvi
=================================

Dear Naquvi Sahab,

More details from the same History of Jareer Tabari and Others.

"QUOTE"

After Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]'s Martyrdom:

The Rafidites said that it was entrusted to al-Hasan and then al-Hasan surrendered it to Mu`awiya. Therefore, he was called "The one who blackened the faces of the unbelievers."

One of the elements of the creed of the Rafidites, rather the first element of their belief was their belief that al-Hasan, his father and his brother were infallible as were nine of the descendants of his brother. From this infallibility of theirs - and al-Hasan is at the front of it after his father - it follows that they do not err. All that comes from them is the truth, and the truth is not contradicted. The most important thing that al-Hasan b. `Ali did was to offer allegiance to Mu`awiya. Therefore they are obliged to enter into this homage and believe that it is the truth because it was done by someone whom they considered to be infallible. However, we see that they rejected it and opposed their infallible Imam in it. This must arise from one of two reasons: either they are lying when they claim infallibility for their twelve Imams - so their deen is demolished at its foundation because belief in infallibility is their foundation and their only
foundation, or they believe that al-Hasan was indeed infallible and that his offering allegiance to Mu`awiya came from the action of someone who is infallible.

However, they attacked their deen and opposed the one whose opinion is infallible and opposed that with which he wanted to meet Allah. They advised each other to attack the deen, generation after generation, class after class, so they persisted in opposing the infallible Imam out of wilfulness, obstinacy, arrogance and disbelief. We do not know which of the two reasons was the most responsible for taking them into the abyss of destruction. There is no third reason. Those of them who said that al-Hasan was "the one who blackened the faces of those of the believers" only have this applied as meaning, "blackened the faces of those who believed in idols." As for those who believe in the prophecy of the grandfather of al-Hasan, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, they thought that his making peace with Mu`awiya and offering him allegiance was one of the signs of prophecy because it carried out what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had spoken about regarding his grandson, the master of the youths of the Garden. He said that Allah would use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims, as will be made clear. All those who rejoiced in this prophecy and this peace consider al-Hasan to be the one "who brightened the faces of the believers." One group of Rafidites declared that he was a deviant and another group said that he was a kafir because of that.

"As for the statement of the Rafidites that it was entrusted to al-Hasan, that is false. It was not entrusted to anyone.

Imam Ahmad related in his ‘Musnad’ (1:130, p. 1078) from Wukay’ from al-A`mash from Salim b. Abi’l-Ja’d from `Abdullah b. Sab’ who said, "I heard `Ali say (and he mentioned that he would be killed) that they said, "Appoint someone over us." He said, "No, but I leave you what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, left you." They said, "What will you say to your Lord when you come to him?" He said, "I will say, ‘Oh Allah, You left me what is clear to You among them. Then You took me to You and You are still among them. If You wish, You will put them right, if You wish, You will corrupt them.’" Ahmad related the like of it (1:156, no. 1339) from Aswad b. `Amr b. from al-A`mash from Salama b. Kathir in ‘The Beginning and the End’ (5:250-251) from Imam al-Bayhaqi from the hadith of Husayn b. `Abdu’r-Rahman from Imam ash-Sha`bi from Abu Wa`il, the brother of Ibn Salama al-Asadi, one of the masters of the Followers, that `Ali was asked, "Won’t you appoint someone over us?" He said, "The Messenger of Allah did not appoint so that I should appoint. but if Allah desires good for the people, He will join them to the best of them after me as He joined them to the best of them after the Prophet." This hadith has an excellent isnad. Ibn Kathir also transmitted (7:323) from al-Bayhaqi the hadith of Habib b. Abi Thabit al-Khalil al-Kufi from Tha’laba b. Yazid al-Hamdani (who was one of the Shi`ites of Kufa and an-Nasa’i considered him to be reliable) that he said to `Ali, "Won’t you appoint someone?" He said, "No. I will leave you as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, left you." Look at ‘The Greater Sunan’ of al-Bayhaqi (8:149).

However, homage was given to al-Hasan. He was worthier than Mu`awiya and many others. He went out for the same thing that his father had gone out for - to call the attacking group to surrender to the truth and to enter into obedience. Mediation resulted in him leaving authority in order to protect the community and avoid shedding their blood.

The story of the mediation between al-Hasan and Mu`awiya and their making peace is related by Imam al-Bukhari in ‘The Book of Peace’ of the ‘Sahih’ (book 53, chap. 9, pt. 3, p. 169) from Imam al-Hasan al-Basri. He said, "By Allah, al-Hasan b. `Ali sent regiments like mountains against Mu`awiya.". `Amr b. al-`As said, "I think that regiments will not turn back until you kill their fellows." Mu`awiya said to him, (and by Allah, he was the better of the two men, i.e. `Amr), "If these kill those, and those kill these, who will I have to be in charge of the affairs of people? Who will I have for their women? Who will I have for their property?" He sent two men of Quraysh from the Banu `Abdu Shams to them: `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Samura and `Abdullah b. `Amir b. Kurayz. He said, "Go to this man (i.e. to al-Hasan b. `Ali) and give to him (i.e. what he wants) and tell him what pleases him and ask him (i.e. what you think has the best interests) and you have full authorisation." They came to him and went in to see him. They spoke to him and questioned him. Al-Hasan b. `Ali told them, "We are the Banu `Abdu’l-Muttalib. We have been injured by this property and the blood of this community has been wasted (i.e. there must be satisfaction for their blood by a lot of money). They said, "He offers you such-and-such, and asks you and requests you." He said, "Who do I have as surety for this?" They said, "You have us for it." He did not ask them for anything but they said, "You have us for it." So he made peace with him. It confirmed the words of the Prophet of a battle which he spoke on the mimbar, "This son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims."

Al-Bukhari related with the previous hadith from al-Hasan al-Basri that he heard it from Abu Bakr and that Abu Bakr saw the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, while he was on the mimbar with al-Hasan b. `Ali at his side. He said that al-Bukhari also related it in the Virtues of al-Hasan and al-Husayn from ‘The Book of the Virtues of the Companions’ in his ‘Sahih’ (book 62, chap. 22, part 4, p. 26). Look at ‘The Beginning and the End’ (8:17-19) and Ibn `Asakir (4:211-212).

The promise was carried out. The homage offered to Mu`awiya was valid. That realised the hope of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Mu`awiya was a khalif. He was not a king.

If it is said that it is related from Safina that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The Khalifate is thirty years. Then it will become a kingdom." When we count the rule of Abu Bakr until the time when al-Hasan surrendered, that was thirty years, no more and no less, not even by a single day."

As the poet says:

Take what you think and leave something you heard. When the full moon rises, you can do without Saturn This hadith regarding al-Hasan and the good news for him and praise of him is due to his bringing about peace and surrendering authority to Mu`awiya. It is a pledge from al-Hasan to Mu`awiya.

i.e. the Contract of the homage given by al-Hasan to Mu`awiya. That was in a place called "Maskan", at the river, Dajil in Rabi’ al-Awwal, 41 A.H. That year was called the year of the Group (`Am al-Jama`a) since the muslims gathered together after having been separated and they devoted themselves to external wars, conquests, and the spread of the call of Islam after the murders of `Uthman had kept the swords of the muslims from this task for about five years. The muslims were able to record glories in it whose like no one has been capable of in five centuries. Allah has a wisdom in everything.

i.e. the hadith of Safina.

...is a hadith which is not sound.

Because the one who transmitted it from Safina was Sa`id b. Juhman. They disagreed about him. Some of them said that there is no harm in him and others thought that he was reliable. Imam Abu Hatim said about him, "A shaykh who is not used as a proof." His isnad has Hashraj b. Nabata al-Wasiti in it. Some considered him to reliable. An-Nasa’i said on him, "He is not strong." `Abdullah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal related this report from Suwayd at- Tahan. Ibn Hajar said in the Taqrib at-Tadh-hib that he is "soft in hadith". This threadbare hadith is opposed by the sound clear explicit hadith in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim (book 33, hadith 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, part 6, pp.3-4) from Jabir b. Samura. He said, "I came with my father to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and I heard him say, ‘This business will not be finished until twelve khalifs have passed among you.’" He said, "Then he spoke some words which I could not hear. I asked my father, ‘What did he say?’ He aid, ‘All of them are from Quraysh.’" Look at it in ‘The Book of the Judgments’ from the ‘Sahih’ of al-Bukhari (book 93, chap. 51, pt. 8, pp. 125-127), in ‘The Fath al-Bari’ (13:162 and what is after it), in ‘The Sunan’ of Abu Da`ud (book 35, hadith 1), ‘The Collection’ of at-Tirmidhi (book 31, chap. 46) and in ‘The Musnad’ of Imam Ahmad (1:398 & 406, no. 3781 & 3859) from the hadith of ash-Sha`bi from Masruq b. al-Adja’ al-Hamdani, the model Imam. He said, "We were sitting with `Abdullah b. Mas`ud while he was reciting the Qur`an to us. A man said to him, Abu `Abdu’r-Rahman, did you ask the messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, how many khalifs would rule this community?’ `Abdullah b. Mas`ud said, ‘No one has asked me this question since the time I came to Iraq before now.’

Then he said, ‘Yes, we asked the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he said, ‘Twelve like the number of the Chiefs of the Banu Isra`il.’" The hadith is in the Collection of az-Zawa’id (5:190), in ‘The Musnad’ of Ahmad (5:86 & 87 with three variants, 88, 89 & 90 with three variants, 92 with three variants, 93 with two variants, 84, 95 & 96 with two variants, 97 with two variants, 98 with four variants, 99 with three variants and 100, 101 with two variants, 106 with two variants, 107 with two variants and 108), and in ‘The Musnad’ of Abu Da`ud at-Tayyalisi (hadith 967 &1278).

If it had been sound, it would contradict this peace which they agreed on. So one must refer to that peace.

Refer to the contract that al-Hasan gave to Mu`awiya. They agreed on it. The good news from the Prophet accorded it his praise and pleasure. Ibn Taymiyya said in ‘The Path of the Sunna’ (2:42), "This hadith makes it clear that making peace between two groups is praiseworthy and that Allah and His Messenger love that. What al-Hasan did in that was one of his greatest virtues and excellent qualities for which the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, praised him. If fighting had been obligatory or recommended, the Prophet would not have praised him for not doing something which was obligatory or recommended, etc." If it is said, "Wasn’t there any Companion more suited to rule than Mu`awiya?" We said, "Many".

Like Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas, the conquering fighter, one of the ten who were promised the Garden, `Abdullah b. `Umar b. al-Khattab, the scholar of the Companions who was firm in the footsteps of the Chosen one, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in both great and small things, and other men of this class and those who were near to it. After the Battle of Siffin they left the business of the Imamate to the two arbiters: Abu Musa and `Amr, they were to look into it. When they saw that all of the community had gathered to Mu`awiya, they entered into his Imamate and offered him allegiance after they had withdrawn from the civil strife after `Uthman’s death. Look at ‘The Fath al-Bari’ (13:50). Mu`awiya himself recognised people’s worth. In ‘The Beginning and the End’ (8:134), it has come from Ibn Darid from Abu Hatim from al-`Utbi that Mu`awiya said, "Oh people, I am not the best of you. Those of you who are better than me include `Abdullah b. `Umar, `Abdullah b. `Amr and other excellent men. But it may be that I am the one who will be the most useful in ruling for you and the most harmful of you to your enemy and the one to give you the most abundance." Ibn Sa`d related it from Muhammad b. Mus’ab from Abu Bakr b. Abi Maryam from Thabit, the client of Mu`awiya, who heard Mu`awiya say that." However, Mu`awiya did have certain qualities. They were that `Umar had united all of Syria under him and singled him out for that,

Under his leadership and by his good management, it became the strongest force in Islam. It was at the forefront of the armies of jihad and victorious conquest, calling to Allah with its qualities, behaviour, the wisdom of its leaders, and the sincerity of their Islam. when he saw his good conduct,

The hadith of al-Layth b. Sa`d, the Imam of the people of Egypt, was already given with his firm isnad up to Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas, the conqueror of Iraq and Iran and the one who destroyed Chosroes’ state, that after `Uthman, he did not see anyone who judged by the truth more than Mu`awiya did. There is the hadith of `Abdu’r-Razzaq as-Sa’ni with his isnad to the sage of the community, Ibn `Abbas, that he did not see a man more suited to rule than Mu`awiya. There are the words of Ibn Taymiyya on p. 68, "The behaviour of Mu`awiya with his people was the best behaviour in any ruler. His people loved him." The words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were confirmed in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim (book 33, hadith 65 & 66), "The best of your Imams is the one you love and who loves you, he gives to you and you give to him." In at-Tabari (6:188) he had the variant of Mujalid from ash-Sha`bi that Qubaysa b. Jabir al-Asadi said, "Shall I tell you whom I accompanied? I accompanied `Umar b. al-Khattab and I did not see a man with more fiqh or better study than him. Then I accompanied Talha b. `Ubaydullah and I did not see a man who gave more generously when being asked than him. Then I kept the company of Mu`awiya and I did not see a man who was a better comrade nor whose secret was more like his outward than him."

His himma and great concern for that was such that he began to threaten the Byzantine King while he was in the thick of the fight with `Ali in Siffin. It reached him that the Byzantine King was drawing near to the border with a large army. He wrote to him saying, "By Allah, if you do not stop and return to your lands, I and my nephew will make peace and come against you and oust you from all your lands. We will make the land which was wide narrow for you. The Byzantine King was afraid and withdrew, (’The Beginning and the End’ [8:119]).

putting the army in order, attacking the enemy,

In the land and sea. The banners of Islam went in all directions in the hands of his exemplary army. They carried the might which Allah desired for His deen, the message of the Messenger and those who believed in it. Egypt was conquered and entered into Islam and the Arabs by the action of `Amr b. al-`As alone. The foundations of the Islamic fleet and their first naval conquest came from Mu`awiya’s action alone. The one occupied with the history of the Arabs and Islam must learn that Mu`awiya naturally possessed the character of mastery and leadership and the craft of rule. Ibn Kathir transmitted in ‘The History’ (8:135) from Hushaym from al-`Awwam b. Hawshab from Jabala b. Suhaym that `Abdullah b. `Amr b. al-`As said, "I have not seen anyone with more mastery than Mu`awiya." Jabala b. Suhaym said, "I said, ‘And `Umar?" He said, "`Umar was better than him, but Mu`awiya had more mastery than him." They related words like these regarding Mu`awiya from`Abdullah b. `Umar b. al-Khattab. The statement of `Abdullah b. `Abbas was already given. "I have not seen a man more suited to rule than Mu`awiya."

and managing the people.

Ibn Taymiyya said in ‘The Path of the Sunna’ (3:185), "None of the kings of Islam was better than Mu`awiya nor were the people in the time of any of the kings better than they were in the time of Mu`awiya when his days are compared to any of the kings after him. When his days are compared to the days of Abu Bakr and `Umar, then there is rivalry." Abu Bakr al-Athram related (and Ibn Batta related it by way of him) that Muhammad b. `Umar b. Hanbal related from Muhammad b. Marwan from Yunus from Qatada who said, "If you had come upon work like that of Mu`awiya, most of you would have said, ‘This is the Mahdi.’" Ibn Batta related with his firm isnad from two directions from al-A`mash that Mujahid said, "If you had met Mu`awiya, you would have said that this is the Mahdi." Al-Athram said, "Muhammad b. Hawash related to us from Abu Hurayra the scribe who said, "We were with al-A`mash and we mentioned `Umar b. `Abdu’l-`Aziz and his justice. Al-A`mash said, ‘How would it have been if you had met Mu`awiya?’ They said, ‘In his forbearance?’ He said, ‘No, by Allah, in his justice.’" `Abdullah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal said, "Abu Sa`id al-Ashajj informed us from Abu Usama ath-Thaqafi from Abu Ishaq as-Subay’i that he mentioned Mu`awiya and said, "If you had met him (or you had been in his time), you would have said that he was the Mahdi."


This testimony from these notable Imams for the Amir al-Mu’minin Mu`awiya is an echo of the answer of Allah, the Mighty, the Exalted, to the supplication of His Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for this right-acting khalif on the day when he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Oh Allah, make him guiding and guided and guide him." It is one of the signs of prophecy.

There is testimony to that effect in the Sahih. The hadith has fiqh.

In ‘The Book of the Virtues of the Companions’ from the ‘Sahih’ of al-Bukhari (book 62, chap 28, pt. 4, p. 219), there is the hadith of Ibn Abi Mulayka that Ibn `Abbas was asked, "Do you have something on the Amir al-Mu’minin Mu`awiya?" He only had one. He said, "He is faqih." In ‘The Book of Virtues’ from ‘The Collection’ of at-Tirmidhi (book 46, chap. 47) there is the hadith of `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi `Umayra al-Muzni from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he said to Mu`awiya, "Oh Allah, make him guiding and guided. Guide him." At-Tabarani related it by way of Sa`id b. `Abdu’l-`Aziz at-Tanukhi (and he was for the people of Syria as Imam Malik was for the people of Madina) from Rabi`a b. Yazid al-Ayyadi, one of the notable Imams from `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi `Umayra that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to Mu`awiya, "Oh Allah, teach him the Book and the Reckoning and guard him from the punishment." Al-Bukhari related it in his ‘History’. He said, "Abu Mushir (and he mentioned him with the isnad) told me that the hadith of `Umayr b. Sa`d al-Ansari was already given regarding his retiring from the governship of Hums during the khalifate of `Umar and the fact that Mu`awiya was appointed." He testified that the Prophet had made a supplication that Allah would guide him.

Imam Ahmad related it from the hadith of ‘Irbad b. Sariyya as-Sulami. Ibn Jarir related it from the hadith of Ibn Mahdi. Asad b. Musa, Bishr b. as-Sari and `Abdullah b. Salih related it from Mu`awiya b. Salih with his isnad. He added in the version of Bishr b. as-Sari, "and make him enter the Garden." Ibn `Adi and others related it from Ibn `Abbas. Muhammad b. Sa`d related it with his isnad to Maslama b. Mukhallad, one of the conquerors and governors of Egypt. The Companions who transmitted this prophetic supplication for Mu`awiya are too many to be counted. (Look at ‘The Beginning and the End’, 8:120-121). Look at the biography of Mu`awiya under the letter Mim in ‘The History of Damascus’ by Ibn `Asakir.

Whoever does not confirm this hadith, rejects all that is confirmed in the Sunna of the Shari`a of Islam. Among the Shi`a who hate Mu`awiya and curse him, there are those who claim that they are related to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. So do you see them harbouring hatred for their ancestor, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, since he was pleased with Mu`awiya and asked for help for him and made supplication for him? If you are not ashamed, then do whatever you like!

There is testimony to the fact that he was a khalif in the hadith of Umm Hiram when she related that some people from the Prophet’s community would ride the middle of the green sea like kings on thrones. That happened while he was khalif.

Umm Hiram bint Milham, a companion of the Ansar from the people of Quba’. When the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to Quba’, he rested in her house. She was the maternal aunt of his servant Anas b. Malik. Al-Bukhari related in ‘The Book of Jihad’, from his ‘Sahih’ (book 33, hadith 160) from Anas that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, slept in her house at midday. Then he woke up laughing because he had dreamed of some of his community raiding in the way of Allah, riding the middle of the sea, like kings on thrones. Then he put his head down and slept. He awoke and he had seen the same dream. Umm Hiram said to him, "Ask Allah to put me among them." He told her, "You are among the first." Ibn Kathir (8:22(0 said that he meant the army of Mu`awiya when it raided Cyprus and conquered it in 27 A.H. in the days of `Uthman b. `Affan under the leadership of Mu`awiya after he had established the first Islamic fleet in history). Umm Hiram was with him. She was accompanying her husband `Ubada b. as-Samit. Abu’d-Darda’, Abu Dharr and other Companions were with the, Umm Hiram died in the way of Allah and her grave is still in Cyprus. Ibn Kathir said, "The general of the second army was Yazid b. Mu`awiya in the raid on Constantinople. He said, "This was one of the greatest signs of prophecy."

There can be degrees in rule: Khalifate, then kingdom. The rule of the khalifate belonged to four, and the rule of the kingdom began with Mu`awiya.

331. The khalifate, kingdom and the amirate are technical designations which are used in history according to their actual usage. Consideration is always given to the behaviour and action of man. Mu`awiya was appointed over Syria for the rightly-guided khalif for a period of twenty years. Then he took on the task of all Islam for another twenty years in the greatest Islamic land and after al-Hasan b. `Ali offered him allegiance. In both cases, he safeguarded justice and was good to people of all classes. He honoured the people of talent and helped them to advance their talents. He had great forbearance towards the rashness of the ignorant men and so he cured their imperfections through that means. He made the judgments of the Muhammadan Shari`a binding on everyone with resolution, compassion, diligence and belief.

He led them in their prayers and directed them in their gatherings and institutions. He led them in their wars. In ‘The Path of the Sunna’ (3:185) there is the statement which the lofty Companion Abu’d-Darda’ made to the people of Syria, "I have not seen anyone with a prayer more like the prayer of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, than this Imam of yours," meaning Mu`awiya. You already saw what al-A`mash said to those who mentioned `Umar b. `Abdu’l-`Aziz and his justice, "How would it be if you had met Mu`awiya?" They said, "In his forbearance?" He said, "No, by Allah, in his justice!"

His integrity in the path of Islam was so great that men like Qatada, Mujahid and Abu Ishaq as-Subay’i, who were all notable Imams, said about him, "Mu`awiya was the Mahdi." The one who studies the biography of Mu`awiya in his judgment will see that his government in Syria was an exemplary government in Justice, mellowness, and indulgence. When he was given a choice between the good and the better, he chose the better over the good. If this was how he acted for forty years, then the muslim Amir was suited to be Khalif over the muslims. They were content with him because of that and envied him, so he was the Khalif over the muslims. Whoever calls him a king cannot contradict the fact that he was the most merciful and correct of all the kings of Islam.

Mu`awiya used to say about himself according to what Khaythama related from Harun b. Ma`ruf from Damra from Ibn Shawdab: "I am the first of the kings and the last of the khalifs." We already gave the hadith of Ma`mar from az-Zuhri, "Mu`awiya acted for two years as `Umar had acted and did not alter it." Here we indicated the difference in the environment and its effect on the organisation of the government. Mu`awiya himself used that excuse to `Umar when `Umar came to Syria and Mu`awiya met him with a great retinue.

`Umar disliked that. Mu`awiya excused himself saying, "We are in a land where there are many enemy spies. We must display the might of power in which the might of Islam and its people lie. We will frighten them by that." `Abdu’r-Rahman b. `Awf said to `Umar, "How excellent is what resulted from what you did in it, Amir al-Mu’minin!" `Umar said, "Because of that, we endured what we endured of it." (’The Beginning and the End’ [8:124-125]). Mu`awiya tried to act by the behaviour of `Umar for two years. That was the highest example in his house. Yazid himself spoke about keeping to it. Ibn Abi’d-Dunya related from Abu Kurayb Muhammad b. al-`Ala’ al-Hamdani the hafiz, from Rushdin al-Misri from `Amr b. al-Harith al-Ansari al-Misri from Bukayr b. al-Ashajj al-Makzumi al-Madini, then al-Misri that Mu`awiya said to Yazid, "How do you think that you should act if you are appointed?"

He said, "By Allah, father, I would act in it as `Umar b. al-Khattab acted." Mu`awiya said, "Glory be to Allah, my son! By Allah, I have striven in the path of `Uthman as far as I was able. How can you have the behaviour of `Umar then?" (Ibn Kathir 8:229). Those who do not know the life of Mu`awiya think it strange when you tell them, "He was one of the people of zuhd and purity and one of the men of right action." Imam Ahmad related on ‘The Book of Zuhd’ (p. 172, Maddan edition) from Abu Shibl Muhammad b. Harun from Hasan b. Waqi` from Damra b. Rabi`a al-Qurayshi from `Ali b. Abi Hamala from his father who said, "I saw Mu`awiya speaking to the people on the mimbar in Damascus, wearing a patched garment."

Ibn Kathir quoted (8:134) from Yunus b. Maysar al-Himyari az-Zahid (who was one of the shaykhs of Imam al-Awza’i), "I saw Mu`awiya riding in the Damascus market with his servant behind him. He was wearing a shirt with a patched pocket, going along in the Damascus markets. Mu`awiya’s generals and his great companions used to ask for his clothes to seek blessing from them. When any of them came to Madina wearing one of these garments, they recognised it and went to great extremes to obtain it." Ad-Daraqutni related from Muhammad b. Yahya b. Ghassan that the famous general ad-Dahhak b. Qays al-Fihri came to Madina. He went to the mosque and prayed between the grave and the mimbar wearing a patched cloak which he had gotten form Mu`awiya’s general. Abu’l-Hasan al-Barrad saw it and recognised that it was Mu`awiya’s cloak. He haggled with him over it, thinking that he was a common bedouin until Abu’l-Hasan al-Barrad was ready to pay him three hundred dinars for it. Ad-Dahhak b. Ways took him to the house of Huwaytib b. `Abdu’l-`Uzza and put on another cloak and gave that cloak to al-Hasan al-Barrad for nothing. He told him, "It is ugly for a man to sell his cloak. Take it and wear it." Abu’l-Hasan took it and sold it. It was the first money that he ever got (Ibn `Asakir 7, p. 6).

We quoted these examples so that people will know that the true form of Mu`awiya is different from the false form which his enemies created. Whoever then wishes to call Mu`awiya the khalif and Amir al-Mu’minin, knows Sulayman b. Mahram al-A`mash, one of the notable Imams and huffaz who was called the Mushaf because of his truthfulness, used to prefer Mu`awiya to `Umar b. `Abdu’l-`Aziz, even in his justice. Whoever did not have a full look at Mu`awiya and wants to withold this title from him, should know that Mu`awiya went to Allah, the Mighty, the Exalted, with his justice, forbearance, jihad and correct action.

While he was in this world, he did not care whether he was called a king or a khalif. In the Next World, he has the greater zuhd because of the zuhd which he had in this world.

Allah said about Da`ud who was better than Mu`awiya.

Da`ud in his prophecy, as the muslims know in their deen, was better than Mu`awiya. "Allah gave him kingdom and wisdom" (2:251) so he made prophecy a kingdom. Do not look at hadith which have weak isnads.

If the situation demanded that certain things be investigated - and Allah knows best – most people had different opinions. However, allegiance was given to Mu`awiya in the way which Allah desired in the form which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had promised out of praise for him and pleasure with him. He hoped that there would be peace through al-Hasan as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "This son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of Muslims."

The `ulama' have spoken about someone less excellent being the Imam when someone better than him is present. The question does not reach the point to which the common people take it. We made that clear in its place.

From his other books. This is one of the fortifying questions contained in Islamic fiqh. Its rules are clear by texts and the sunan about the roots of the Shari`a on which the deen is based in the area of finding the best interests, repelling corruption and determining the measure of necessities. Qadi Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi did not mention any opponent in "The Rules of Power" (p.5) about the permission for the Imam to be one less excellent - except for al-Jahiz. What harm comes to the Imams of the deen if al-Jahiz opposes them? Were the Abbasids whom al-Jahiz knew, since he ingratiated himself with them while they were alive, better than their contemporaries? As for most of the fuqaha’ and the mutakallimun, they said that it is permitted that the Imam be someone less excellent and it is valid to offer him allegiance. The existence of someone better does not prevent someone less excellent being the Imam as long as he does not lack the preconditions for the Imamate. Similarly, when undertaking judgment, it is permitted to imitate the less excellent although something better exists because greater excellence is excess in choice. That is not considered to be a precondition of worthiness. We refer the reader to the Book, "The Imamate and Rivalry" by Abu Muhammad b. Hazm included in part 3 of his book, al-Fisal, especially the section in it devoted to the Imamate of the less excellent (pp. 163-167, published in Egypt, 1320).

If it is said that he killed Hujr b. `Adi although he was one of the Companions who was famous for being good, and put fetters on him as a prisoner because of what Ziyad said. `A’isha sent to him about Hujr and she found that he had already killed him. We said, "We all know about the execution of Hujr, but we disagree. Some say that he was killed wrongly and some say that he killed him by a right.

Hujr b. `Adi al-Kindi. Al-Bukhari and others considered him to be one of the Tabi`un. Others considered him to have been a Companion. He was one of the party of `Ali in the Camel and at Siffin. Ibn Sirin related that Ziyad, the Amir of Kufa, gave a very long khutba. Hujr b. `Aki called out, "The prayer!" Ziyad continued to speak. Hujr and some others with him threw pebbles at him. Ziyad wrote to Mu`awiya to complain about Hujr’s aggression against his Amir in the House of Allah. He considered that to be part of corruption in the earth. Mu`awiya wrote to Ziyad telling him to send Hujr to him. When he was brought to Mu`awiya, he ordered that he be executed. Those who think that Mu`awiya killed him justly say, "There is no government in this world which could give a lesser punishment than that against the one who throws pebbles at his Amir while he is giving the Khutba on the mimbar of the General Mosque and rushes into the calamity of partisanship and
bias."

Those who oppose them mention Hujr’s virtues and say that Mu`awiya should not have left his quality of forbearance and patience towards his opponents. Others answered them saying that Mu`awiya had forbearance and patience when he himself was attacked. When the community was attacked in the person of their ruler while he was on the mimbar of the mosque, Mu`awiya could not tolerate that, especially in a place like Kufa which had produced the greatest number of the people of sedition who had attacked `Uthman for his tolerance. They inflicted losses on the community in their blood, their reputation, their peace of mind and the positions of their jihad. These were precious sacrifices which could have been dispensed with if the awe of the state had been maintained through disciplining the small party of the people of rashness and levity at the appropriate time. As `A’isha wished that Mu`awiya would include Hujr in his patience, `Abdullah b. `Umar wanted the same thing. It is true that Mu`awiya had some of the forbearance and qualities of `Uthman. However, in political situations, he saw how `Uthman had ended and what had come about through the persistence of those who were audacious towards him.

If it is said that his execution was basically unjust unless something was proven against him which demanded his execution, we say that the basis is that the Imam kills by the right. Whoever claims that it is done unjustly must have proof. If it was pure injustice, then there would have been no house in which Mu`awiya was not cursed. Written on the doors of the mosques in the city of peace, the abode of the khalifate of the Abbasids, was "The best of people after the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were Abu Bakr, then `Umar, then `Uthman, then `Ali, then Mu`awiya, the uncle of the believers, may Allah be pleased with them."

The author lived in Baghdad in the time of the `Abbasids as we already mentioned in his biography. He knew its mosques with his own eyes. Mu`awiya is the uncle of the believers because he is the brother of the Umm al-Mu’minin Rabla bint Abi Sufyan, famous by her kunya, Umm Habiba. This is in spite of what existed (of ill feeling) between them and the Umayyads which was not hidden from people. However, according to what is said, Hujr saw some objectionable things in Ziyad.

Ziyad was one of the governors of `Ali when he was khalif. Hujr b. `Adi was one of Ziyad’s friends and helpers. He did not object to anything he did. When he became one of Mu`awiya’s governors, he began to object to him and dashed into the calamity of partisanship and bias. Hujr acted in the same way with whoever had been appointed over Kufa for Mu`awiya before Ziyad. Mu`awiya had an excuse for thinking that Hujr was one of those who strove to work corruption in the earth.

He threw pebbles at him and deposed him. He wanted to lead the people to sedition. Therefore Mu`awiya considered him one of those who strove for corruption in the land. `A’isha spoke to him about his affair when he went on Hajj. He told her, "Leave me and Hujr alone until we meet before Allah." Therefore you, company of muslims, should leave them alone until they meet before Allah with their just chosen firm companion. How can you go on where you have no awareness? Why don’t you listen?

It is said that he intrigued against al-Hasan in order to poison him.

We said that this is impossible for two reasons. One of them is that he did not fear any force from al-Hasan once he had surrendered authority. The second is that it was an unknown business. Only Allah knows it. How can you assume it without proof and ascribe it to any of His creatures in a distant time when we do not have any sound transmission about it?

Moreover, this occurred in the presence of the people of sects who were in a state of sedition and rebellion. Each of them ascribed what he should not ascribe to his companion. Only the pure is accepted in it. Only the determined just man is listened to in it.

Ibn Taymiyya spoke in ‘The Path of the Sunna’ (2:225) about the Shi`a claim that Mu`awiya poisoned al-Hasan, "That was not established by any clear proof in the Shari`a nor by a considered statement nor by a clear transmission. This is part of what it is not possible to know. This is a statement without knowledge." He said, "In our time, we saw people among the Turks and others who said that he was poisoned and died of poison. People disagree about that and even where the place was where he died and the fort where he died. You will find each of them relating something different from what the other related." After Ibn Taymiyya mentioned that al-Hasan died in Madina while Mu`awiya was in Syria, he mentioned the possibilities of the report, assuming it to be sound. One of them is that al-Hasan was divorced and did not remain with a wife.

If it is said: He gave it to Yazid, but he was not worthy,

If the gauge of worthiness for that is that he reach the level of Abu Bakr and `Umar in all their qualities, this will never be reached in the history of Islam nor was it done by `Umar b. `Abdu’l-`Aziz. Even if we desire the impossible and suppose that it is possible for another Abu Bakr and another `Umar to appear, we will never have a milieu like the milieu which Allah granted to Abu Bakr and `Umar. If the gauge of worthiness is being upright in behaviour and establishing respect for the Shari`a, acting by its judgments, being just to people, looking after their best interests, jihad against their enemies, expanding the horizons of its call and compassion for their individuals and groups, the reports of Yazid can be closely examined and people know his actual state as he was while alive. That will make it clear that he was not less than many of those whose praises have been sung by history and who have been abundantly praised.

And something took place between him and `Abdullah b. `Umar, ibn az-Zubayr and al-Husayn which the historians have related from Wahb b. Jarir b. Hazim from his father and from others. He said that when Mu`awiya decided that allegiance should be given to his son Yazid, he went on Hajj. He came to Makka with about one thousand men. When they were close to Madina, Ibn `Umar, Ibn az-Zubayr and `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi Bakr went out. When Mu`awiya came to Madina, he mounted the mimbar and praised and glorified Allah. Then he mentioned his son Yazid and said, "Who is more entitled to rule than him?"

There were many young men of Quraysh who were contemporary with Yazid among those who thought that they could undertake to rule by certain points which they knew that they possessed. Indeed, even Sa`id b. `Uthman b. `Affan and those who were less then Sa`id, wanted to undertake to rule after Mu`awiya. The principle of a council to elect the khalif was much better than the principle of rule by contract. However, Mu`awiya knew that opening the door of consultation to choose someone to succeed him would cause carnage in the Islamic community and that blood would not cease to flow until all the worthy men of Quraysh, capable of taking charge of the affairs of this community, were annihilated. Mu`awiya was too judicious not to have seen the virtues which those young men of Quraysh had. When any of them was distinguished by something over his peers, there was another one among them who was distinguished by something else. However Yazid, although he shared with the others in their accomplishments, was distinguished over them by the greatest thing that the state requires - military force to support him in the khalifate which makes it a force for Islam.

This was shown when Shaytan sowed sedition among those who competed for this throne so that it developed into a situation abhorrent to every muslim. If Yazid had only had his uncles of Quda`a and their allies in the Yemeni tribes, by that he would have possessed what would not have allowed the one with foresight to leave him out of the reckoning when he reflects on these matters. Add to this what Ibn Khaldun stated when he spoke about al-Husayn’s journey to Iraq to attack Yazid when he said in the section, ‘The Rule of Contract’, in the preface of his history, "As for zeal, he erred in it, may Allah have mercy on him, because the partisanship of Mudar was in Quraysh and the partisanship of Quraysh was in Abdu Munaf and the partisanship of `Abdu Manaf was in the Banu Umayya." Quraysh and all people recognised that this was theirs. They did not deny it. That was forgotten at the beginning of Islam when people were distracted by astonishment at the miracles of the revelation. When the business of prophecy and awesome miracles stopped, then judgment returned to normal after a short time. The partisanship became as it had been and went to those who had had it before. Mudar began to obey the Banu Umayya rather than others.

Then Mu`awiya left and went to Makka and finished his tawaf. He went into his house and sent for Ibn `Umar. He said the Shahada and said, "Ibn `Umar, you used to tell me that you would not like to spend a dark night without an Amir over you. I am cautioning you lest you sow dissension among the muslims and lest you try to corrupt what they have." When he was silent, Ibn `Umar spoke and praised and glorified Allah. Then he said, "There were khalifs before you who had sons. Your son is not better than them. They did not want for their sons what you want for your son. They gave the choice to the muslims since the muslims know best. You caution me in case I sow dissension among the muslims when I have not yet done it.

I am a muslim man. When they agree on a business, I am with them." Then Ibn `Umar left. 342. This report contradicts what is in ‘The Book of Raids’ of the ‘Sahih’ of al-Bukhari (book 64, chap. 29, pt. 5, p. 47) from Ibn `Umar that his sister, the Umm al-Mu’minin Hafsa advised him to go quickly and offer his homage. She said, "The truth is that they are waiting for you. I fear that there will be divisions if you hold back from them." Look at p. 166.

He sent to `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi Bakr. He said the shahada and then began to speak. He interrupted him and said, "By Allah, you want us to give you authority to give power to your son, for Allah. By Allah, we will not do it. By Allah, you will refer this business to a council of the muslims or the business will be taken back to the beginning for you.

i.e. it will bring about civil strife in its worst states against you. He noted that the people who ascribed arrogance against Mu`awiya did not attack the adequacy and worthiness of Yazid because it was the last thing which they doubted in him during the lifetime of Mu`awiya. Those who fabricated these reports and ascribed them to Wahb b. Jarir b. Hazm have lied disgracefully. Then he leapt up. Mu`awiya said, "Oh Allah, restrain him as You like." Then he said, "Oh man, calm yourself! Do not look to the people of Syria. I fear that they will beat me to you until it is reported this evening that you have offered homage. After that, you can do whatever seems best to you in your affair."

Then he sent to Ibn az-Zubayr and said, "Ibn az-Zubayr, you are a wily fox. Whenever it leaves a hole, it goes to another. You have relied on these two men and I have blown up their noses." Ibn az-Zubayr said, "If you have wearied of being Amir, then leave it and bring your son and we will offer him homage. If I give your son homage along with you then which of you two do you think we should listen to and which should we obey? The homage cannot ever be for both of you."

Ibn az-Zubayr was too intelligent to miss the fact that the homage to Yazid was after Mu`awiya and that both homages were not effective while Mu`awiya was still alive. Those who fabricated these reports and ascribed them to Wahb b. Jarir have made a disgraceful lie. Then he got up. Mu`awiya went out and ascended the mimbar. He said, "We found that people’s conversations contain faults. They claim that Ibn `Umar, Ibn az-Zubayr and Ibn Abi Bakr did not offer homage to Yazid. They have heard and obeyed and they have offered homage."

The people of Syria said, "No, by Allah, we will not be content until they offer homage before witnesses. If not, we will cut off their heads." He said, "Shame! Glory be to Allah! How quick people are to treat Quraysh badly! I will not hear these words from anyone after today!" Then he descended. People said, "They offered homage." They said, "We did not offer homage." People said, "You offered homage." Wahb related by another means, "Mu`awiya spoke and mentioned Ibn `Umar. He said, ‘By Allah, he will give homage or I will kill him.’ `Abdullah b. Abdullah b. `Umar went to his father and he travelled to Makka in three days and told him about this.

This report from Wahb b. Jarir b. Hazim shows that Mu`awiya made his speech while he was in Madina, coming there from Damascus, before he had reached Makka and that Ibn `Umar was in Makka on that day. His son rode to him to meet him in Makka and tell him about this speech. In the report before this, which is also related from Wahb b. Jarir b. Hazim, he clearly states that Ibn `Umar was in Madina when Mu`awiya arrived there from Damascus and that he was among the notable men who went out to meet him. The two reports contradict each other and refute each other, although they are from the same man. I do not know where the author got them. At-Tabari did not relate them even though he was concerned with the reports of Wahb b. Jarir because he was reliable. Wahb died in 206 A.H. and his father died in 180 A.H. after he had become confused. Between these two and these reports are other transmitters, and between the two of them and at-Tabari and other historians there are many transmitters. I believe that these reports are not sound since they contradict each other. If we knew their transmitters up to Wahb and after Wahb, we would know where the lie came from.

Ibn `Umar wept. The news reached `Abdullah b. Safwan. He went to Ibn `Umar and said, ‘Did that man say that?’ He said, "Yes.’ He said, ‘What do you want? Do you want to fight him?’ He said, ‘Ibn Safwan, patience is better than that.’ Ibn Safwan said, ‘By Allah, if he means to do that, I will fight him.’

`Abdullah b. Safwan, the grandson of Ummaya b. Khalaf al-Jumahi. He was killed with Ibn az-Zubayr in 73 A.H. Mu`awiya came to Makka and alighted where he would spend the night. `Abdullah b. Safwan went to him and said, ‘Do you claim that you will kill Ibn `Umar if he does not offer allegiance to your son?’ He said, ‘Me kill Ibn `Umar? By Allah, I will not kill him!’" Wahb related by a third path....

This report is not in at-Tabari. I think that it was fabricated in the book from which the two previous reports came. ....that he said: When Mu`awiya left Batn Marr on his way to Makka, he said to the master of his guard, "Do not let anyone go with me until I give him a mount." He went out alone until he was in the middle of Al-Arrak, al-Husayn b. `Ali met him. He stopped and said, "Welcome, son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and master of the young muslim men. A beast for Abu `Abdullah to ride! " He was brought a mule and shown it. Then `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi Bakr came.

We know from the first report from Wahb himself that `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi Bakr was in Madina. He was one of those who met Mu`awiya when he came there from Damascus. What took him to Makka so that he was among those who met Mu`awiya when he arrived there? Truly those who made lies against Mu`awiya are naive, and do not act well, even in the craft of lying.

He said, "Welcome, son of the shaykh of the Quraysh and its master and the son of the Siddiq of this community. A beast for Abu Muhammad to ride!" He was brought a mule and rode it. Then Ibn `Umar came. He said, "Welcome to the Companion of the Messenger of Allah and the son of the faruq and the master of the muslims." He called for a beast and he rode it. Then Ibn az-Zubayr came. He said, "Welcome to the son of the Companion of the Messenger of Allah and the son of the aunt of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." He called for a beast for him and he rode it. Then he began to go between them.

He did not let any of them leave until he had entered Makka. He was the first to enter and the last to leave. Every morning they received gifts and honour. He did not mention anything to them about Yazid until he had finished his Hajj rites and loaded his baggage and was bout to leave for Syria and his mounts were ready to go. Then the people turned to each other and said, "People do not be deceitful! By Allah, he has not done this for your love or your honour. He only did what he wanted. Prepare and answer for him." Then they went to al-Husayn and said, "Abu `Abdullah, you!" He said "While the shaykh and master of Quraysh is among you? He is more entitled to speak." They said to `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi Bakr, "You, Abu Muhammad," He said, "I am not the one to speak when you have the Companion of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the son of the master of the muslims, among you." (i.e. Ibn `Umar) They said to Ibn `Umar, "You!" He said, "I am not your man, but let Ibn az-Zubayr speak. He will be enough for you." Then they said, "You, Ibn az-Zubayr." He said, "Yes, if you give me your contracts and your pledges that you will not oppose me, then I will deal with this man for you." They said, "You have that." Permission was sought and Mu`awiya gave them permission and they came in.

Mu`awiya spoke and praised and glorified Allah. Then he said, "You know my behaviour with you, my connection to your kin, my indulgence to you and my enduring what you do. Yazid, the son of the Amir al-Mu’minin, is your bother and the son of your uncle and the person with the best opinion for you. I want you to give him the name "Khalif" and for you to be those who depose and appoint and oblige and divide, although none of that is yours." The people were silent. He said, "Won’t you answer me?" The people remained silent. He said, "Won’t you answer me?" They remained silent. He turned to Ibn az-Zubayr and said, "Come. Ibn az-Zubayr, by my life, you speak to the people!" He said, "Yes, Amir al-Mu’minin. I will give you a choice between three qualities. Whichever you take, the choice is yours." He said, "Your father belongs to Allah, present them!" He said, "If you wish, you can do what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did. If you wish, you can do what Abu Bakr did. He was the best of the community after the Messenger of Allah. If you like, you can do what `Umar did. He was the best of the community after Abu Bakr." He said, "Your father belongs to Allah, what did they do?" He said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died and did not appoint anyone. The muslims were content with Abu Bakr. If you like, you can leave the business of this community until Allah decides what He decides in it. The muslims will choose for themselves." He said, "Well, you do not have anyone among you today like Abu Bakr. I do not think that you will be safe from dispute." He said, "Then do as Abu Bakr did.

He delegated a man from the far part of Quraysh who was not one of the children of his father and appointed him." He said, "Your father belongs to Allah! And the third?" He said, "Do what ‘Umar did. He made the business a council with six men of Quraysh. None of them was his relative." He said, "Is there anything else?" They said, "No." He said, "And you?" They said, "We as well." He said, "No, I wanted to meet you. Whoever is warned is excused. If any of you rises against me and rejects me in front of witnesses, I will take him for that. I have a statement. If I am truthful, I have my truthfulness. If I lie, the lie is mine. I swear by Allah, if any of you refutes me, his words will not come back to him before I have his head." Then he called for the Captain of the Guard and said, "Put two of your guards over each of these men. If any man begins to repeat something, true or false, then strike him with your swords.:"

The author quoted these disgraceful reports which were falsified in order to expose them. Compare them with the hadith of al-Bukhari regarding the sound position of Ibn `Umar in this event so that people would know that the truth lay in one valley and those lying transmitters lay in another valley. Then he left and they left with him. He went up the mimbar and praised and glorified Allah. Then he said, "These are the party of the masters of the muslims and the best of them. We do not act independently in anything without them nor do we decide any business without consulting them. They are satisfied and have given homage to Yazid, the son of the Amir al-Mu’minin, after him. They gave homage in the Name of Allah. They have shaken his hand."

Then he sat on his camel and departed. The people met them and said, "You claimed and you pretended. Then you were satisfied and presented yourselves and acted." They said, "By Allah, we did not do it." They said, "What kept you from answering the man when he lied then?" Then the people of Madina and the people in general gave homage. Then Mu`awiya went to Syria. Qadi Abu Bakr, may Allah be please with him, said, "We do not lack knowledge nor are we ignorant. We have not been moved by ignorant rashness nor do we have any rash zeal for the right. We do not have nay malice towards any of the Companions of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We say, ‘Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in belief. Do not put malice in our hearts towards those who believe. Our Lord, you are forgiving, merciful.’ We do not say, ‘Mu`awiya abandoned the best course of action when it had been a council. He should not have singled out any of his kin, let along a son, for it, and he should have followed what `Abdullah b. az-Zubayr indicated by either not acting or acting by what he said.

350. Mu`awiya knew Ibn az-Zubayr better than Ibn az-Zubayr himself. Al-Baladhuri related in ‘The Lineage of the Nobles’ (4:"2":53-54) from al-Mada`ini from Maslama b. `Alqama from Khalid from Abu Qilaba that Mu`awiya said to Ibn az-Zubayr, "Avarice and eagerness will make you enter a narrow entrance. I wish that I could be with you at that time so that I could rescue you." When Ibn az-Zubayr was near death, he said, "This is what Mu`awiya said to me. I wished that he had been alive." He inclined to appoint his son. He then gave him the homage and the people gave him homage and those who did not act did not act.

He turned from the best form when he feared seditions and slaughter if he were to make it a council. Homage is effected in the Shari`a because it can be effected by one, or it is said that it can be effected by two people. If it is said, "Only for the one possessing the preconditions of the Imamate", we said, "Age is not one of its preconditions, nor is it confirmed that Yazid lacked them.". If it is said, "Justice and knowledge are among its preconditions, but Yazid was neither just nor was he a man of knowledge," we said, "How do we know that he lacked knowledge or lacked justice"

As for justice, Muhammad b. `Ali b. Abi Talib testified in his favour when he was arguing with Ibn Muti` when he rebelled against Yazid in Madina. He said about Yazid, "I did not see him do what you mentioned. I was present with him and I stayed with him. I saw him persevere in the prayer and I saw him eager for good. He asked about fiqh and kept to the sunna (Ibn Kathir 8:233), "As for knowledge, it was not necessary for someone like him in a place like this. He was in a position of approval and beyond approval in it. Al-Mada’ini related that Ibn `Abbas came to Mu`awiya after the death of al-Hasan b. `Ali, Yazid came to Ibn `Abbas and sat with him to console him. When Yazid left him, Ibn `Abbas said, "When the Banu Harb depart, then the `ulama' of the people will depart (Ibn Kathir, 8:228).

Does he lack them by the statement of three excellent men who indicated that he should not do it? They alluded to a fault of judgment. They wanted it to be a council." If it is said that there were men who were worthier than him and men with greater knowledge - there were some hundred men, perhaps even a thousand - then we said, that the subject of the less excellent being Imam is a disputed topic among the `ulama'. The `ulama' have mentioned that topic as we already mentioned it.

What follows clarifies the narration above.

Al-Bukhari completed the chapter and pursued an excellent course. In his ‘Sahih’, he related what will render all of this invalid. That is that Mu`awiya gave the khutba while Ibn `Umar was present during that khutba. According to what Al-Bukhari 354. Book 64, chap. 29, pt. 5, p. 48. related from `Ikrima b. Khalid, Ibn `Umar said, "I came to Hafsa and her locks were dripping.

i.e. her locks were dripping water. Locks are called "nawsat" because they shake, i.e. move. I said, "The matter is as you have seen. None of the command has been given to me." She said, "True. They are waiting for you. I fear that there will be divisions if you hold back." She would not leave him alone until he went. When the people parted, Mu`awiya spoke. He said, "Whoever wants to speak about this matter should raise his head. We are better for him than himself and his father." Habib b. Maslama....

Habib b. Maslama al-Fihri of Makka. He was a child at the death of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Then he went to Syria for jihad. He was famous for his might and he is considered to be the conqueror of Armenia. It is said that he was the general of the relief army which went from Syria to rescue `Uthman from the hands of his attackers. The news reached him that he had been martyred while he was on his way. Therefore he went back. ....said, "Won’t you answer him?" `Abdullah said, "I got up and I wanted to say, ‘The one who fought you and your father for Islam, but I feared that I would say something which would split up the community and cause bloodshed and it would be understood other than how I meant it, so I remembered what Allah has prepared in the garden." Habib said, "You remembered and were protected."

Al-Bukhari related....

In ‘The Book of Seditions’ from the ‘Sahih’ (book 92, chap. 21, pt. 8, p. 99). ....that when the people of Madina deposed Yazid b. Mu`awiya, Ibn `Umar gathered his servants and his children together. He said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, ‘A banner will be set up for every traitor on the Day of Raising.’ We gave homage to this man according to the homage of Allah and his Messenger.

This luminous report which al-Bukhari relates in his ‘Sahih’ shames those who lied about Wahb b. Jarir in those contradictory reports that Ibn `Umar and others did not offer allegiance to Yazid and that Mu`awiya appointed people to cut off their heads if they refuted him when he lied against them, saying that they had given homage to his son. Now it is clear that he did not lie against them. Ibn `Umar announced in the most critical situation – during the rebellion of the people of Madina against Yazid at the instigation of Ibn az-Zubayr and his agent, Ibn Muti` - that the homage of the Shari`a to their Imam based on the homage to Allah and His Messenger was on his neck as it was on their necks and that it was one of the greatest sort of treachery that the community should give homage to an Imam and then fight him. Ibn `Umar did not limit himself to that in that rebellion against Yazid. Muslim related in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ of his
‘Sahih’ (book 33, hadith 58, pt. 6, p. 22) that Ibn `Umar came to Ibn Muti`, the agent of Ibn az-Zubayr and the instigator of this rebellion. Ibn Muti` said, "Give a cushion to Abu `Abdu’r-Rahman." Ibn `Umar said, "I have not come to sit with you.

I have come to you to relate a hadith to you which I heard from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ‘Whoever takes a hand back from obedience will meet Allah without any proof on the Day of Rising. Whoever dies and does not have a homage on his neck, has died a death of ignorance.’" Muhammad b. `Ali b. Abi Talib (known as Ibn al-Hanafiyya) had a similar position with the agent of the rebellion, Ibn Muti`, which the reader will see in another place when the life of Yazid is discussed. I do not know of any greater perfidy than to give homage to a man according to the homage of Allah and His Messenger and then to start fighting him. I do not know of any of you who dismisses him nor gives homage in this matter except that there will be a sharp sword between him and me.

Company of muslims, look at what al-Bukhari related in the Sahih and at what we have already mentioned from him in the variant where `Abdullah b. `Umar did not offer homage and that Mu`awiya lied and said that he had given homage and then told his guards to cut off his head if he refuted him. He said in the version of al-Bukhari’s, "We gave homage to him according to the homage of Allah and the Messenger." There is conflict between the two of them, you yourselves can take the most likely statement in pursuing soundness and sincerity between the Companions and the Tabi’un. When you have not seen them - may Allah protect you from their sedition - do not be one of those who jump into their blood with their tongue and lick the rest of the blood on the earth like dogs after the horseman has removed his lance. The dog only gets the remainder of the blood which has fallen on the earth. A reliable just man related from `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Mahdi from Sufyan from Muhammad al-Munkadir. He said, "Ibn `Umar said when he gave homage to Yazid, ‘If he is good, we are pleased. If he is evil, we will be patient.’"

It is confirmed that Hamid b. `Abdu’r-Rahman said, "We came to one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when Yazid b. Mu`awiya was appointed. He said, "You say that Yazid b. Mu`awiya is not the best of the community of Muhammad nor does he have the most fiqh among them nor is he the greatest of them in honour. I say that. However, by Allah, I prefer that the community of Muhammad be united rather than split. Do you think that a door which the community of Muhammad can enter and which is wide enough for them will be unable to cope with a single man if he enters it?" They said, "No." He said, "Do you think that if the community of Muhammad said that no man among them should shed the blood of his brother, nor take any of his property, would that be enough for them?" They said, "Yes." He said, "That is what I say to you." Then he said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Only good will come to you from modesty.’"

All of these sound reports show you that Ibn `Umar submitted in the business of Yazid and that he gave homage to him, gave him a pledge, and held to what the people held to. He entered into what the muslims entered. He forbade himself and those connected to him after that from leaving or breaking that contract. It is clear to you that whoever says that Mu`awiya lied when he said, "Ibn `Umar gave homage" since he did not give homage and that Ibn `Umar and his companions were asked and said, "We did not give homage," has lied. In his riwayats, al-Bukhari supported Mu`awiya’s words on the mimbar, "Ibn `Umar gave homage" since Ibn `Umar himself affirmed that.

[Courtesy: DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER by QADI ABU BAKR IBN AL-`ARABI Accurately Determining The Position Of The Companions After The Death Of The Prophet, May Allah Bless Him And Grant Him Peace AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM]

"UNQUOTE"