Friday, October 24, 2008

Companions after Mohammad [PBUH]'s Death - 15


العواصم القواصم

أبو بكر بن العربي‎

Death: 543H 1148


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

And he went to Makka.

Rather the just man testified to his integrity. Yahya b. Bukayr related from al-Layth b. Sa`d, "The Amir al-Mu’minin Yazid died on such and such a day." Al-Layth called him the "Amir al-Mu’minin," after their kingdom had departed and their state had ended. If he had not been an Amir in his opinion, he would only have said, "Yazid died." If it is said, "And if Yazid had not done anything else except murder al-Husayn b. `Ali," we said, "Alas for afflictions once and alas for the catastrophe of al-Husayn a thousand times. His urine spilled on the breast of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his blood was shed on the dust and it was not spared."
361. Bawgha’: the fine earth.

Oh Allah, Oh Muslims! The best model of what is related about him is that Yazid wrote to al-Walid b. `Uqba to tell him about Mu`awiya’s death and he ordered him to take the homage for him from the people of Madina although it had already taken place. He summoned Marwan and told him. He said to him, "Send to al-Husayn b. `Ali and Ibn az-Zubayr. See if they give allegiance. If they do not we will smite their necks." He said, "Glory be to Allah! You will kill al-Husayn b. `Ali and Ibn az-Zubayr?" He said, "What do I tell you?" He sent for them. Ibn az-Zubayr came to him and he told him about Mu`awiya’s death and asked him for allegiance. He said, "Someone like me gives homage here? I will mount the mimbar and give allegiance openly with the people." Marwan leapt up and said, "Strike his neck! He is full of sedition and evil!" Ibn az-Zubayr said, "You are there, Ibn az-Zurqa’ (son of a blueblack woman)!" They cursed each other. Al-Walid said, "Leave me." He sent to al-Husayn and he did not say a word to him about anything. They left him. Al-Walid laid an ambush for them. When morning was near, they left in haste for Makka and reached it. Ibn az-Zubayr said to him, "What keeps you from your party and the party of your father? By Allah, if I had the like of them I would go to them." This is not sound. The historians mention that the people of Kufa wrote and answered al-Husayn,

362. The first to write to him from the shaykhs of the party, according to what their historian Lut b. Yahya related, were Salman b. Surad, al-Musayyib b. Najba, Rif’a b. Shaddad and Habib b. Muzahir. They sent their letter with `Abdullah b. Sab’ al-Hamdani, and `Abdullah b. Wali. They came to Husayn in Makka on the tenth of Ramadan, 60 A.H. After two days, Qays b. Mushir al-Saydawi, `Abdu’r-Rahman b. `Abdullah b. al-Kadn al-Arhaji and `Umara as-Saluli went to him with fifty-three pages. After another two days, Hani’ b. Hani’ as-Subay’i and Sa`id b. `Abdullah al-Hanafi hurried to him. (at-Tabari, 6:197 has the texts of some of their letters and the names of some of its people). This continued until they would not meet with their Amir, an-Nu`man b. Bashir on Friday. They called al-Husayn to them. Then when he came, they would expel their Amir and hold him in Syria. They said to one of them, "So the fruits will grow. If you so wish, you will find a large army for you." Al-Husayn sent them his nephew Muslim b. `Uqayl to see if they would be loyal and gather so that he could come to them later. Muslim b. `Uqayl got lost on the way and those with him died of thirst. He wrote to al-Husayn asking him to relieve him of this task. He answered him, "I fear that only cowardice has led you to ask to be excused." Muslim continued until he reached Kufa and twelve thousand of them offered homage to him.

The Amir of Kufa, an-Nu`man b. Bashir, became aware of their movements. He spoke to them and forbade sedition and division. He told them, "I only fight the one who fights me. I will not punish by supposition or suspicion. If you show me your page and you break your pledge of homage, then I will strike you with my sword as long as it is firm in my hand." Yazid knew that an-Nu`man b. Bashir was a forbearing man of piety not suited to opposing a movement like this. He therefore wrote to `Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, his governor over Basra ordering him to take charge of Kufa as well. He commanded him to go to Kufa and to seek out Ibn `Uqayl as the pearl is sought until it is found. Then he should bind him and kill or exile him. `Ubaydullah appointed his brother over Basra and went to Kufa. He met its leaders and took hold of the crisis. It was not long before Muslim b. `Uqayl saw that the opinion of the twelve thousand who had given him allegiance was as thin as air. He found himself alone and cast out. Then he was taken and executed.

Al-Husayn had received the letters of Muslim b. `Uqayl before that, saying that twelve thousand had offered homage to him until death. At the end of the Hajj `Id, he left for Kufa. Ibn az-Zubayr was the only one to encourage him to go out because he knew that the people of the Hijaz would not give him homage as long as al-Husayn was with them. Al-Husayn was the heaviest of people for Ibn az-Zubayr, (At-Tabari, 6:196-197 and look at 6:216-217) and his nephew `Abdullah b. Ja`far b. Abi Talib (2:219). `Abdullah b. Ja`far asked the governor of Yazid over Makka, `Amr b. Sa`id b. al-`As, to write a letter of safe-conduct for al-Husayn to give him hopes of kindness and connection and to ask him to come back. The Governor of Makka granted all that he sought. He told him, "Write whatever you wish and I will seal the letter." He wrote to him and the governor sealed it. He sent it to al-Husayn with his brother Yahya b. Sa`id b. `Is. `Abdullah b. Ja`far went with Yahya. They tried to dissuade al-Husayn from travelling. He refused. (The Governor’s letter is in ‘The History’ of at-Tabari, 6:219-220). No one was above these counsellors in their intellect, knowledge, position and sincerity. `Abdullah b. Muti`, the agent of Ibn az-Zubayr, was one of his advisers who had intellect and sincerity (at-Tabari, 6:196). `Umar b. `Abdu’r-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hishan al-Makhzumi held this opinion (at-Tabari, 6125-126), and al-Harith b. Khalid b. al-`As b. Hisham did not neglect to give him counsel (6:216). Even al-Farazdaq the poet told him, "The hearts of the people are with you, but their swords are with the Banu Umayya." (at-Tabari, 6:218). None of this effort turned al-Husayn from this journey which was ill-omened for him, for Islam, and for the Islamic community until this very day and will be until the Last Day.

All of this was due to the crime of his party who encouraged him to rashness, delusion and desire for civil strife, division and evil. Then they disappointed him through their cowardice, baseness, treachery and perfidy. Their heirs were not content with what their ancestors did. They devoted themselves to clouding history and changing the truth and to reversing things. and he sent Muslim b. `Uqayl, his nephew, to them to take allegiance from them and to investigate his followers. Ibn `Abbas forbade him and told him that they had disappointed his father and his brother. Ibn az-Zubayr indicated to him that he should go out, so he went out. When he reached Kufa, Muslim b. `Uqayl had been slain and all of those who had invited him surrendered him. It is enough for you in this to have the warning of the one who is warned. He persisted and continued out of anger for the deen and to establish the truth. But he, may Allah be pleased with him, did not accept the good advice of the man with the most knowledge among the people of his time. That was Ibn `Abbas. He turned away from the opinion of the shaykh of the Companions, Ibn `Umar.
363. Well-being lay in what he preferred and his encouraging the unity of the muslims and their devotion to the spread of the call and conquest. He sought the beginning in the end and the straight in the crooked and the greenness of youth in the white hair of old age. His power was not like that nor did he have any helpers who guarded his right or who expended themselves for him. We wanted to purify the earth of the wine of Yazid,

364. By the claim of those who provoked the sedition who testified to something which they did not know. so we shed the blood of al-Husayn. A calamity came to us which the happiness of time cannot heal. No one came out to him except by using interpretation. They all fought him with what they had heard from his grandfather, the master of the messengers who mentioned the corruption of the situation and warned about getting involved in seditions. He said a lot about that. They included his words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

365. From the hadith of `Arfaja in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim: The chapter of ‘The Judgments of the One who Divides the Muslims when they are United’ (book 33, hadith 59, pt. 6, p. 22). "There will be defects and flaws. Whoever wants to divide the business of this community when it is united should be struck with the sword, whoever he is." People only presented this and things like it. Even if their leader and the son of their noble al-Husayn expanded his house, his estate or his camels, and even if people came to him to establish the truth and they included Ibn `Abbas, and Ibn `Umar, one should not turn to them. He should remember what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, warned about and what he said about his brother.

366. i.e "this son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims." He saw that it had left his brother while the armies of the land and the great men were seeking him out. How then could it return to him by the dregs of Kufa while the great companions forbade him and held aloof from him? I do not think that this is anything other than submission to the decree of Allah and sorrow for the grandson of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for all time. If it had not been for the fact that the shaykhs and notables of the community recognised that it was a matter which Allah had taken away from the people of the House and a state of civil strife which no one should become involved in, they would never have surrendered it.

Ahmad b. Hanbal, in spite of his asceticism and his immense position in the deen and his scrupulousness, still included Yazid b. Mu`awiya in ‘The Book of Zuhd’ and mentioned what he used to say in his khutba, "When one of you falls ill, is treated and recovers, he should look to the best action he has and cling to it. He should look to the worst thing he has done and leave it." This indicates his immense position with Ibn Hanbal since he included him among the men of Zuhd of the Companions and the Tabi`un whose words were followed and those who are not warned. Indeed, he included him in the group of companions before he proceeded to mention the Tabi`un. Where is this in relation to what the historians say about him and wine and types of corruption? Are they not ashamed? When Allah strips them of virtue and modesty, why do you not desist and hold back when they follow the rabbis and monks rather than the men of excellence of the community? You should reject the heretics and impudent men who are affiliated with the community. "This is a clarification for people and guidance and warning for the fearfully aware." Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."

Look at Ibn az-Zubayr after that and what he did when homage was given to him in Makka and when he had all of the land there. Look at Ibn `Abbas and his intellect and his concern for himself. Look at Ibn `Umar and his age and surrendering the business to this world and casting it away. If there had been a way to establish that, the one most entitled to that would have been Ibn `Abbas. It is mentioned that the sons of his brother, `Ubaydullah, were slain unjustly.

367. That was in 40 A.H. in the Yemen at the end of the governorship of `Ubaydullah b. `Abbas over Yemen for `Ali, Mu`awiya sent Busr b. Abi Arta’ to the Hijaz and the Yemen and he took homage for him from the people of the Hijaz. Then Busr went to the Yemen. When `Ubaydullah learned of his arrival, he fled to Kufa and left his sons in the Yemen. Busr killed both of them according to what is said. However, by his intellect, he saw that even `Uthman’s blood had not been spare, so how could the blood of the sons of `Ubaydullah be saved? The business was confused

368. i.e. its truth is immersed in its false. and they had left it in order to preserve the unity of the community which is the root, sparing the blood of the muslims and unity amongst them. Refrain from what the cut-off black one commits just as the master of the Shari`a, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, commanded us to refrain.

369. In ‘The Book of the Amirate’ of the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim from the hadith of Abu Dharr (book 33, hadith 36, pt. 6, p. 14). Each of them had immense worth and strove. Each of them is correct and rewarded. Whatever he did Allah has a judgment about it ,which He will carry out and He has a judgment in the next world which He has already judged and finished with. Measure these matters by their proper measures. See how Ibn `Abbas and Ibn `Umar dealt with them. Then deal with them like that. Do not join the fools who have unleashed their tongues and pens with what has no use for them. No one is independent of Allah nor can anything in this world dispense with Him.

Look at the best Imams and the fuqaha’ in the cities. Did they turn to these fables and speak about stupidities like these? They knew that this was ignorant partisanship and futile zeal. All it does is sever the bonds between people, scatter unity and create different sects. What happened, happened. The historians said what they said. One is either silent or follows the people of knowledge. Cast away the follies of the "Historians" and the men of letters. Allah will perfect His blessings on us and you by His mercy.


It is a wonder that people consider the Government of the Umayyads terrible when the first to appoint them to govern was the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. On the Day of the Conquest, he appointed `Attab b. Usayd b. Abi’l-`Is b. Umayya over Makka, may Allah sanctify it and bless its land - while he was a very young man, whether he had grown a beard or not. He made Mu`awiya b. Abi Sufyan a custodian of his revelation. Then Abu Bakr appointed his brother, Yazid b. Abi Sufyan, over Syria. After that, they continued to rise in the path of glory and go up in the levels of might and the positions of honour until their days were finished.

People relate baseless hadith about them. They include the hadith of the dream that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had about the Umayyads leaping on his mimbar like monkeys. It grieved him, so he was given the Night of Power, better than the thousand months in which the Umayyads ruled. If this had been sound, we would not have begun the state when he appointed them nor would he have appointed `Attab over the best area of earth, Makka. This is a root which you must grasp.

If it is said that Mu`awiya began to judge by what was not true in Islam and to decide what is not lawful when he attached Ziyad’s paternity, we said, "We made it clear elsewhere that the ascription of Ziyad’s paternity was based on sound things and correct action which we will clarify after we have mentioned their claim that he left the straight path. There is no way to arrive at their lie because the patch of the lie is not mended. They said that Ziyad was ascribed to `Ubayd ath-Thaqafi through Sumayya, the slave-girl of al-Harith b. Kalada.

370. Ibn `Asakir related in the biography of Ziyad from ‘The History of Damascus’ (5:409) from `Uwana b. al-Hakam al-Kalbi (the oldest of the shaykhs of al-Mada’ini) that Sumayya, the mother of Ziyad belonged to one of the Persian landowners. He complained of a stomach ache and feared that he was afflicted with dropsy. He summoned al-Harith b. Kalada ath-Thaqafi, the doctor of the Arabs, who used to attend Chosroes. He treated the landowner and cured him, so he gave him Sumayya. She bore him Abu Bakra (his name was Masruh or Nufay’), but he did not acknowledge him. Then she bore Nafi` and he did not acknowledge him. When Abu Bakra went to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, al-Harith b. Kalada said to Nafi`, "Your bother Masruh is a slave and you are my son." So he acknowledged him on that day. Al-Harith married her to a slave of his called `Ubayd and she bore Ziyad while she was married to him. Abu Sufyan went to Ta’if and stayed with a man called Abu Maryam as-Saluli. He said, "Abu Maryam brought Sumayya to him and he slept with her and she conceived Ziyad."

Ziyad purchased his father `Ubayd for one thousand dirhams and set him free.

371. In the biography of Ziyad from the history of Ibn `Asakir (5:406-407) there is the report which Zuhra b. Ma’bad b. Muhammad b. `Amr related about Ziyad coming when he was a child to the Amir al-Mu’minin `Umar from Abu Musa al-Ash’ari on the day of Jalala’. They both said, "When `Umar looked at him, he saw that he had a good form and fine white cotton clothes. He said to him, "What is this garment?" He told him that then `Umar said, "What did it cost?" He told him something small and he believed him. He told him, "How large is your gift?" He said, "two thousand." He said, "What did you do with the first gift you were given?" He said, "I purchased my foster father `Ubayd and I set him free." `Umar said, "You have been successful." He asked him about the shares of inheritance, the sunan and the Qur`an, and he found that he had knowledge of the Qur`an and its rules and the shares of inheritance." So he sent him back to Abu Musa and commanded the amirs of Basra to follow his opinion.

Abu `Uthman al-Hadi said, "We envied him." `Umar appointed him over part of the zakat of Basra. It is said that he was a scribe for Abu Musa.

372. Ibn `Asakir quoted from Abu Nu`aym that Ziyad wrote letters to Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and then to `Abdullah b. `Amr b. Kurayz, then to al-Mughira b. Shu`ba, then to `Abdullah b. `Abbas who were all in charge of Basra. The Amir al-Mu’minin `Ali wanted him to take charge of Basra. Ziyad indicated to him that he should appoint `Abdullah b. `Abbas, but he promised to help and advise him. When he did not give the testimony with the witnesses who testified against al-Mughira, `Umar flogged them and dismissed him. He told him, "I did not dismiss you for any disgrace, but I dislike to impose your excess intelligence on people." They related that `Umar sent him to the Yemen to put the corruption in order and he returned and made a speech whose like has never been heard. `Amr b. al-`As said, "By Allah, if this lad had been a Qurayshi, people would have held to his staff." Abu Sufyan said, "By Allah, I know who placed him in his mother’s womb." `Ali said to him, "Who?" He said, "I did." He said, "Easy, Abu Sufyan." Abu Sufyan recited some verses:

By Allah, if it were not for fear for my person,

373. i.e. `Umar.

`Ali, I should be seen among the enemies, to show Sakhr b. Harb his business. The statement is not from Ziyad. My cheating with Thaqif was long and I left the fruit of the heart with them. That is what Mu`awiya applied. `Ali appointed him over Persia, Hama, Juba, Fatha and Aslah. Mu`awiya corresponded with him, intending to corrupt him. Ziyad sent his letter to `Ali along with a poem. `Ali wrote to him, "I have appointed you over what I have appointed you. You are worthy of that in my opinion. What you want will only be obtained by patience and certainty in what you have. Abu Sufyan’s error was in the time of `Umar. You do not deserve either lineage or inheritance by that. Mu`awiya will come to the believer from in front of him and behind him." When Ziyad read the letter, he said, "Abu Hasan and the Lord of the Ka`ba have testified for me." That was what emboldened Ziyad and Mu`awiya to do what they did. Then Mu`awiya claimed him in 44 A.H. and Mu`awiya married off his daughter to his son, Muhammad. The news reached Abu Bakr, his brother by his mother. He swore that he would never speak to him again. He said, "This man committed adultery with his mother and he disowns his father. By Allah, Sumayya did not see Abu Sufyan at all. And how should he behave with Umm Habiba?

374. She is the Umm al-Mu’minin Habiba bint Abu Sufyan and the sister of Mu`awiya. Should he see her and then break the sanctity of the Messenger of Allah? If she is veiled from him, then she would disgrace him." Ziyad said, "May Allah reward Abu Bakra! He did not have good counsel in any situation!" The poets spoke about him. They related that Sa`id b. al-Musayyib said, "The first false decision in Islam was the false connection of Ziyad’s paternity. Qadi Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, said, "We made this report clear in another place. We spoke on it and it does not need to be repeated. However, what his meant by it must be made clear. We say, "We neither affirm nor deny all we mentioned because it is not used as a proof. That which we know to be true and which we clearly state as knowledge is that Ziyad was one of the companions by birth and sight,

375. Ibn Hajar gives his biography in the Isaba as does Abu `Umar b. `Abdu’l-Barr in the Isti’ab'. He stated that he was born in the year of the Conquest of Makka. It is said that it was the year of the Hijra and it is said that it was the day of Badr. Ibn Hajar said, "Ibn `Asakir stated that he lived in the time of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, but did not see him." not by fiqh and recognition. As for his father, properly speaking, we do not know that he had a father before the claim of Mu`awiya....

376. It is confirmed that al-Harith b. Kalada admitted to being the father of Nafi`, Ziyad’s brother by his mother. Therefore Nafi` was called Nafi` b. al-Harith b. Kalada. History does not say that either `Ubayd ath-Thaqafi or al-Harith b. Kalada acknowledged Ziyad. attributing his paternity to Abu Sufyan. There are jealous statements made by historians. As for his buying his foster father, that was because he had raised him. He was brought up by him when he came to him. He had lineage to him by virtue of this upbringing if that is what the situation was. As for their words that Abu `Uthman al-Hadi envied him for doing that, that was unlikely in Abu `Uthman’s case. There is no virtue in anyone buying his foster father or his father and then setting him free so that Abu `Uthman and his likes should envy him because this is a rank which is obtained by the rich and the poor, the noble and the low. If he were to spend an immense amount of money, that would give notice of his virtue in humbling the great man of great wealth by his connection to a close guardian. They used these stories in order to give him a father and to put him in the position of the one who denies his own father. As for `Umar appointing him, that is sound. That is enough for you as far as considering him to have integrity, honour and the deen. As for their statement that ‘Umar dismissed him because he did not bear false witness, on the contrary it is related that when his three companions testified,
377. The three Companions who testified against al-Mughira were his two brothers by his mother: Nufay’ and Nafi`, who is ascribed to al-Harith b. Kalada, and the third is Shibl b. Ma’bad. `Umar said to al-Mughira, "Your fourth is gone, your half is gone, and three-fourths of your side has gone." When Ziyad came, he said to him, "I see that you have a handsome face and I hope that Allah will not disgrace a man who was one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, at your hands." As for his speech which `Amr is said to have admired, he did not have excellent knowledge nor eloquence more than `Amr had, so who was below or above him? The slandering shaykh...

378. Perhaps he meant al-Jahiz. The greatest of his speeches which he quoted is in ‘The Clarification and Making Clear’. That is his speech which is called al-Bakra’. It is in the beginning of part 2. .....included a speech which was not of this measure. As for their words that Abu Sufyan acknowledged him and spoke some poetry about him, the one who has studied does not doubt that if Abu Sufyan had acknowledged him during the lifetime of `Umar, he would not have concealed anything because the situation had to be one of two things: Either `Umar thought that he was indeed connected to him,

379. i.e. his connection and attachment.

as others have related from him and that would have been carried out, or he would have rejected that. No punishment is required against Abu Sufyan for what he did in the time of the Jahiliyya. They mentioned this stupid broken and forged story which is outside of the limits of the deen and learning. It is meaningless. As for `Ali appointing him, that shows his integrity. As for Mu`awiya sending to him so that he would join him, it is sound in general. As for the details about what Mu`awiya wrote to Ziyad or wrote to `Ali or what `Ali used to reply to Ziyad, this is all fabrication. As for `Ali’s words, "It was an error from Abu Sufyan in the time of `Umar, so you do not deserve lineage by it.". If that had been true, that is a testimony as is related from Ziyad. That does not invalidate what Mu`awiya did because it is a question of ijtihad between the `ulama'. `Ali had one opinion and Mu`awiya and others had another opinion. As for the note in the discussion which is the statement about Mu`awiya giving Ziyad’s paternity and people blaming him for that, what is he blamed for in it if he did hear it from his father?

What fault rests with Abu Sufyan in attaching an illegitimate child when that came from something which happened in the time of the Jahiliyya. It is known that Sumayya did not belong to Abu Sufyan as Zum’a’s son did not belong to `Utba. However, `Utba had someone who disputed with him and judgment was accorded to that person. No one disputed Mu`awiya concerning Ziyad. Oh Allah, here is a point on which the `ulama' disagree. It is that when the brother claims to be connected to a brother saying "He is the son of my father," and no one disputes him and he is alone in that, Malik said, "He inherits and the lineage is not confirmed." Ash-Shafi’I used as a proof the words of the

Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "He is yours, `Abd. b. Zam’a. The child belongs to the household (where he was born) and the adulterer has stones." He decided that belonged to the household and that the lineage is given. We said that this is great ignorance. That is because his words that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, decided that he belongs to the household is true. As for his statement that the lineage is confirmed, that is false because `Abd claimed him by two reasons. One of them was by virtue of his being born in his household, and the second was by being his brother. If the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, "He is your brother and the child belongs to the household", that would have confirmed the principle and mentioned the cause. However, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not mention brotherhood nor go into it. He did not mention lineage nor make an explicit statement about it. In the Sahih it says, "He is your brother" and another version has, "He is yours," meaning you know him best. We made that clear in the questions of dispute.

Al-Harith b. Kalada did not claim Ziyad nor did he have any lineage with him. The son of his slavegirl was the child in his household. He belongs to whoever claims him, unless he is opposed by someone who is more entitled to him. There was no fault in Mu`awiya when he did that. He acted correctly in it according to the school of Malik. If it is said, "Why did the Companions reject it?" We said, "Because it is a question of ijtihad. Whoever thinks that lineage is not connected by the single heir, rejects it and thinks it terrible." If it is said, "Why did they curse him and use as a proof the words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "Cursed be the one who is ascribed to other than his father or ascribed to other than his ex-masters." We said: The one who cursed him cursed him for two reasons. One is because he stated that his lineage was by this path. Whoever does not think that he is cursed for this, cursed him for another reason. In their opinion, Ziyad deserved to be cursed when he innovated after Mu`awiya proclaimed his paternity.

380. The most important reason for that in their opinion lies in the execution of Hujr b. `Adi. That was already discussed. If it is said that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, held that fornication creates taboos of kinship, he established that principle when he said, "Veil yourself from him, Sawda."

381. In ‘The Book of the Judgments’ form the ‘Muwatta’’ of Imam Malik (chap. 21, p.740) from Ibn Shihab from `Urwas b. az-Zubayr from `A’isha. She said, "`Utba b. Abi Waqqas disclosed to his brother, Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas, that he was the father of the son of Zam’a’s slave-girl. He made him promise to look after him (after his death)." She said, "In the year of the Conquest of Makka, Sa`d took him and said, ‘He is my nephew. My brother made a covenant with me about him.’ `Abd b. Zam’a stood up and said, ‘He is my brother and the son of my father’s slave-girl. He was born on his bed.’ The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘He is yours, `Abd. Zam’a’. Then he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘The child belongs to the household and the adulterer has stones.’ Then he said to Sawda bint Zam’a, ‘Veil yourself from him.’ since he saw that he resembled `Utba b. Abi Waqqas. She said, ‘He did not see her until he met Allah, the Mighty, the Exalted.’" Al-Bukhari related it (book 34, chap. 3) and Muslim (book 17, chap. 10, hadith 36).

This indicates that adultery creates the same taboo-relationships as are created by intercourse in a valid marriage. That is similar to what the Kufans said. In the version of Ibn al-Qasim, Malik aided them in the question, but did not help them in the proof in this way. We made it clear in The Book of Marriage. Ash-Shafi’i said, "The reason that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, told Sawda to veil herself in spite of the confirmation of Zum’a’s lineage and the validity of him being her brother by the claim of `Abd, was in order to exalt the respect for the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, because they are not like any other women in their honour and excellence.

We said, "If he had been her brother by a firm lineage as you say and the words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "The child belongs to the household" confirms the lineage, then why did the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbid Sawda to be unveiled before him when `A’isha was not kept from the man about whom she said, "This is my brother by suckling." He said, "You can be seen by your brothers." As for what is related from Sa`id b. al-Musayyib, it is reported about his madhab that his claim to paternity is not sound. That is what some other Companions and Tabi’un thought.

The question led to dispute in the community and the fuqaha’ of the cities. It went beyond criticism to the level of a belief. Malik clearly stated his lineage in ‘The Book of Islam’ in the Muwatta’ referring to him. He stated during the `Abbasid state, "Ziyad b. Abi Sufyan." He did not state as the misguided person said, "Ziyad the son of his father." This is based on what he thought about the lineage being confirmed by a single statement. However, there is great fiqh in that, which no one realises. It is that since it is a disputed question and judgment is possible by either aspect, it is not retracted. The Qadi judged the disputed question by one of two statements which was implemented and there was no dispute about it. Allah knows best. As for this variant where `Umar said, "I dislike to enforce your superior intellect on people," this is an addition which is without any foundation made by one with a defective intellect. What intellect did Ziyad have more than people had in the days of `Umar?

382. Because when he came to `Umar, he was seventeen, according to what al-Bukhari transmitted in his ‘Middle History’ from Yunus b. Habib from the family of Ziyad. Every one of the Companions had more understanding and knowledge than Ziyad had. This is why everyone who has a fuller intellect more than someone else is more suited to mix with people. They said, "He was an old fox." That is a weak statement. Cunning and shrewdness is knowledge of the meanings and judging ends by the beginnings. Every single Companion and Tabi’ was above Ziyad (in this). Those versions which the historians related in their lies are from the tricks of war and assaulting people. Anyone today can do the like or more than them. The stratagem is amazing, mentioned and related when it is in harmony with the deen.

As for every story which is in opposition to the deen, there is neither good nor intellect in transmitting it. All people, the rulers of the Umayyads in particular, as we already mentioned, had more intellect and more eloquence than Ziyad. Do not look at falsehoods which are quoted.


Appointments and dismissals have meanings and realities which most people do not know. You know that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died among twelve thousand companions who are known. They included about two thousand men famous for majesty. From among them, Abu Bakr appointed Sa`d, Abu `Ubayda, Yazid, Khalid b. al-Walid, `Ikrima b. Abi Jahl and another group higher than him. He appointed Anas b. Malik over Bahrayn when he was twenty years old, imitating the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and what he did with `Attab.

383. `Attab b. Usayd b. Abi’l-’Is b. Umayya. When were the shaykhs all used up, so that he had to take the young men? `Umar also made appointments like that. He was quick to dismiss Khalid. All of that was due to great fiqh and wonderful recognition which is made clear in its place in ‘The Book of the Imamate’ and politics from the roots. Study other things. This topic is not part of something which the people of literature discuss. As for what is related from Mu`awiya that he summoned witnesses, As-Saluli and others

384. As-Saluli is Malik b. Rabi`a b. Maryam. That was in 44 A.H. Those who testified with him were Ziyad b. Asma’ al-Hirmazi, al-Mundhir b. az-Zubayr (according to what al-Mada’ini mentioned with his isnads), Jawayriyya bint Abi Sufyan, al-Miswar b. Quddama al-Bahili, Ibn Abi Nasr ath-Thaqafi, Zayd b. Nufayl al-Azdi, Shu`ba b. al-`Alqam al-Mazini, a man from the Banu `Amr b. Shayban and a man from the Banu’l-Mustaliq. They have testified for Abu Sufyan that Ziyad was his son, except for al-Mundhir. He testified that he had heard `Ali say, "I testify that Abu Sufyan said that." Mu`awiya gave a speech and attacked Ziyad. Ziyad spoke and said, "If what the witnesses have stated is true, then praise be to Allah. If it is false, I put them between me and Allah."

Forget the one who admitted what was related from as-Saluli. It was not that at all. Be fortunate by dropping what Sa`d or Sa`id related in the story. As for the words of Abu Bakra, his brother by his mother, about him, that does not injure him because that was the opinion of Abu Bakra and his ijtihad. As for their words in what Abu Bakra said, namely that he committed adultery with his mother, if that is true, what happened in the Jahiliyya does not harm her in the deen. Allah pardoned all the people of the Jahiliyya by Islam. He dropped wrong actions and shame from them. Only those who are ignorant of that mentioned this.

Qadi Abu Bakr, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: The people did not find any fault in anyone. Envy of him and their enmity of him overcame them, so they created faults for him. Accept the advice and only look at what is sound in reports. As I already told you, avoid the people with histories. They mentioned sound simple reports from the salaf in order to use that as a means to quote lies. As we already stated, they threw something which is unpleasing to Allah into their hearts. That was in order to demean the salaf and to weaken the deen. The deen is too mighty for that and the salaf are too noble for that. Allah is pleased with all of them.

Whoever looks at the actions of the Companions will clearly see the falseness of these disclosures on which the historians disagree and which they slipped into the hearts of the weak. This Ziyad had the good fortune to appoint Samura b. Jundub, one of the great Companions. He accepted his appointment with his position. How could he think that he would accept the appointment by an unjust man who lacked right guidance? He had what the Companions had. That was without any compulsion or dissimulation. This is the clear proof.

With whom would you like to be: with Samura b. Jundub or with al-Mas`udi, al-Mubarrad, Ibn Qutayba and their likes?

385. Qadi Abu Bakr gave this harsh judgment about Ibn Qutayba. He thought that ‘The Book of the Imamate and Politics’ was one of his books as will come. ‘The Book of the Imamate and Politics’ has some things in it which took place after the death of Ibn Qutayba. That indicated that it was foisted off on him by some foul person belonging to a sect. If the author had known the truth, he would have put al-Jahiz in the same place as Ibn Qutayba. This is the end of the clarification.


The Jahiliyya was based on partisanship and people acted with fervour in it. When Islam brought the truth and Allah showed His blessings to creation, He, glory be to Him! said, "Remember the blessings of Allah to you when you were enemies and He joined your hearts together so by the blessing of Allah you became brothers" (3:103). He said to His Prophet, "If you had gathered all that is in the earth you would not have joined their hearts together, but Allah has joined their hearts together" (Anfal:63). The blessing of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, joined them together and united them and made their hearts sound and wiped out their malice.

Allah took His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to Himself. Then selves became averse, but the outward form continued as long as the balance remained. When the balance was removed, as was already mentioned.

386. That is, the Fitnat all-Kubra.

In the story, Allah took the hearts away from harmony and spread a wing of separation until the two wings were level at the murder of `Uthman. It flew into the distance and the bloodshed will continue until the Last Day. People became gangs,

387. The plural of ‘iza, a party of people. wandering in every valley full of bigotry. Some of them were for Abu Bakr, some for `Umar, some for `Uthman, and for `Ali and for `Abbas. Each claimed that they were right and the one whom they supported was right and that the rest were unjust, miserly tyrants who lacked any good. That is not a madhab nor is there any statement for it. Those are stupidities and ignorance, or intrigues designed to lead people into misguidance so that the Shari`a will disappear and the heretics will be able to make fun of the religion while Shaytan plays and jokes with them. He takes them outside of any path or madhab.

The Bakris said: "Abu Bakr has a clear text from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the prayer, and the community was pleased with him for this world. He had the highest virtue and sincere love with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He was appointed and was just. He chose and did well. However, he erred about `Umar, and his command was a mistake. `Umar’s boorishness dominated, and they mention faults (in `Umar). As for `Uthman, what he did is not hidden. It is the same with `Ali. Al-`Abbas is not mentioned." The `Umaris said, "As for Abu Bakr, he was an excellent weak man, while `Umar was a strong just Imam, praised by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the hadith of the vision, the bucket, and the ingenious person as was already stated.

388. The author is emphasising the folly of partisanship, viewpoints removed from rightaction. As for `Uthman, he left the path. He did not choose a ruler nor did he give anyone his due, nor restrain his relatives. He did not follow the sunan of those before him. As for `Ali, he dared to take blood." I heard in certain assemblies that Ibn Jurayh

389. `Abdu’l-Malik b. `Abdu’l-`Aziz al-Makki, one of the notable men, died in 150 A.H. used to put `Umar ahead of Abu Bakr. I heard at-Tartushi

390. One of the author’s shaykhs.

say, "If anyone says that `Umar, is put ahead, I will follow him." The ‘Uthmanis said, "`Uthman had previous antecedents, virtues and superfluity in himself and in his property. He was killed unjustly." The `Alids said, "`Ali was the son of his uncle and his in-law and the father of the grandson of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the foster son of the Prophet." The `Abbasids said, "`Abbas was the father of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the one who most deserved to be put ahead after him." They spoke at length about that with things so vile it is not necessary to mention them.

391. Most of that was in the time of their dynasty.

They related hadith which it is not lawful for us to mention because of the terrible forgery in them and the baseness of their transmitters. Many heretics connected themselves to the people of the house,

392. They used them as a means and attacked many of their best men. They alluded to men like Imam Zayd. Then they opposed the clear Shari`a of the ancestor of the people of the House with the claim of infallibility and actual deification which certain individuals among them articulated. and put `Ali above all people. The Rafidites were divided into twenty groups. The most harmful of them were those who said that `Ali was Allah. The Ghurabiyya said that he was the messenger of Allah, but that Jibril turned away from him with the message and went to Muhammad due to his enthusiasm for him. You only heat cold kufr by the heat of the sword.

As far as the warmth of debate is concerned, it has no effect on it.


I have told you this so that you will be careful about people, especially the commentators, the historians and the people of literature. They are the people who are ignorant of the sacred things of the deen or who persist in their innovations. Do not pay any attention to what they related, nor accept any riwaya unless it comes from the Imams of the hadith. Do not listen to the words of any historian except at-Tabari.

393. In addition to that, at-Tabari mentioned the sources of his reports and named their transmitters so that there would be a clear proof in the business. He said at the end of the preface of his book, "Whatever reports my book has which the reader does not like because he is unsure of its soundness should know that that has not come from me. It came from some of those who transmitted to me."

Anyone else is the red death and the great disease. They create hadith in order to diminish the Companions and the Salaf and to make light of them. They invested lengthy forgeries in the words and actions which they ascribed to them. Their goals lead out of the deen to this world and from the truth to sects. If you cut off the people of lies and content yourself with the transmissions of just men, you will be safe from these snares and will keep away from these spectres. One of the most terrible things for people is an ignorant man of intelligence or a cunning innovator. As for the ignorant man, he was Ibn Qutayba. He did not leave any trace of the Companions in ‘The Book of the Imamate and the Politics’ if all that is in it is truly from him.

394. Nothing in it is from him. If the ascription of this book had been truly from the firm Imam, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim b. Qutayba, he would have been as Ibn al-`Arabi stated because ‘The Book of the Imamate and Politics’ is full of ignorance, stupidity, foolishness, lies and falsities. When I published the book of "Gambling and Divining Arrows" by Ibn Qutayba more than twenty-five years ago and prefaced it with his full biography and enumerated his works, I mentioned (pp. 26-37) the source of the `ulama' for ‘The Book of the Imamate and Politics’, and their proofs that it was not by Ibn Qutayba. I now will add to what I mentioned in "Gambling and Divining Arrows" that the author of ‘The Imamate and Politics’ related a lot from two of the great `ulama' of Egypt. Ibn Qutayba did not go to Egypt and he did not take anything from these two `ulama'. All of that indicates that the book was foisted off on him.

There was also al-Mubarrad in his literary book.

395. Al-Mubarrad adopted some of the opinion of the Kharijites and he inclined to them. His being an Imam in language and literature does not obscure his weakness in the science of riwaya and isnad. In spite of his majesty in the sciences of the Shari`a and his intellect, the `ulama' did not overlook the weakness of Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali in the sciences of isnad. Moreover, you should be careful not to overlook the like of that in al-Mubarrad. In any case, every report about the past or the future, in our community or in any other community can be thought of as being either true or false until the truthfulness or falsity is established by the touchstone of experience and by scientific investigation.

Where is his intellect in respect to the intellect of Tha’lab, the Imam who preceded him in his dictations. He wrote it in a literary manner, free of attack on the men of virtue in the community. As for the cunning innovator, that was al-Mas`udi. He brought something close to atheism in what he related. As for his innovation, there is no doubt about it.

396. `Ali b. al-Husayn al-Mas`udi. The Shi`a consider him to be one of their shaykhs and great men. In the Tanqih al-Maqal (2:272-273), al-Mamqani mentioned the books about guardianship and the infallibility of the Imam and other things which show his bias and his keeping to a path which is not that of the people of the Muhammadan Sunna. Part of the nature of the Shi`a partisanship and fanaticism is that it takes a person far from equity and justice.

If you close your ears and eyes so that they do not read or listen to lies, and do not listen to anything about a khalif from anyone who ascribes something unfitting to him, and who
mentions what it is impossible to quote, then you will travel on the path of the salaf and turn away from the path of the false. Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, used the judgment of `Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwan as a proof in his Muwatta’ and put it among the rules of the Shari`a.

397. Part of that is what came in ‘The Chapter of Raped Women’ in ‘The Book of Judgments’ in ‘The Muwatta’’ (p.734), "Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that `Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwan gave a judgment that the rapist had to pay the raped women her brideprice." In ‘The Book of the Mukatab’ in ‘The Muwatta’’ (p. 788), there is another judgment by `Abdu’l-Malik. ‘The Book of Bloodwits’ in ‘The Muwatta’’ (p. 872) has another judgment by him. As for his father, Marwan b. al-Hakam, there are many of his judgments and fatwas in ‘The Muwatta’’ and other books of the Sunna which are in use by the Imams of the Muslims who act by them. Look at the scrupulousness of Marwan and his son `Abdu’l-Malik in the hadith of Malik from Ibn Abi `Abla in ‘The Book of Marriage’ of ‘The Muwatta’’ (p. 540).

He said in his riwaya, "From Ziyad b. Abi Sufyan." He gave him that lineage and he knew his story. If he had considered what the common people believe to be the truth, he would not have been content to give him that lineage or to mention him in his book which he made a foundation for Islam.

398. `Amir b. Shurahil ash-Sha`bi was one of the Imams of the muslims as well. Malik thought of him as one of his Imams. Ibn `Asakir related in the biography of Ziyad from ‘The History of Damascus’ (5:406) that ash-Sha`bi said, "A case came to Ziyad regarding a man who died and left a maternal aunt and a paternal aunt. He said, ‘I will decide between you by a decision which I heard from `Umar b. al-Khattab. That was to put the paternal aunt in the position of the brother, and the maternal aunt in the position of the sister. All of that was compiled in the days of the `Abbasids and their government when they were in power. They did not make him change it nor dislike that because or the excellence of their sciences and their recognition that the question of Ziyad was a question in which people disagreed. Some of them allow it and some forbid it. There is no way for them to object to it.

Similarly they were amazed to find that when the Khalif read ‘The Muwatta’’ to Malik, he mentioned `Abdul’l-Malik b. Marwan in it and he mentioned his judgment because when the `ulama’ use someone’s judgment as a proof, he will also use his judgment as proof in a similar case. When he attacks it, he will attack it in a similar way.

399. Some of those who related from `Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwan included al-Bukhari in his book, ‘The Unique Adab’, Imam az-Zuhri, `Urwa b. az-Zubayr and Khalid b. Ma’dan from the fuqaha’ and the worshippers of the Tabi’un, and Raja’ b. Hawya, one of the notable men. Nafi`, the client of Ibn `Umar said, "I saw Madina, and there was no youth in it who worked harder nor with more fiqh nor who read the Book of Allah more than Sa`id b. al-Musayyib, `Urwa by. az-Zubayr, Qabisa b. Dhu`ayb and `Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwan before he became the Amir. Ash-Sha`bi said, "I did not sit with anyone but that I found that I was better than him except for `Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwan. I did not mention any hadith to him, but that he gave me more of it, nor any poem but that he gave me more of it." (The Beginning and the End, 9:62-63).
Al-Bukhari quoted
400. In ‘The Book of the Judgments’ of his ‘Sahih (book 93, chap. 43, pt. 8, p. 122). Look at the Greater Sunan by al-Bayhaqi (8:147). that `Abdullah b. Dinar said, "I saw Ibn `Umar when the people gathered to `Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwan." He wrote, "I confirm obedience to `Abdu’l-Malik, the Amir al-Mu’minin, in the sunna of Allah and the sunna of His Messenger as much as I can. My sons confirm the like of that." Al-Ma’mun used to say that the Qur`an was created as did al-Wathiq. They proclaimed their innovation and the question became known, i.e. that when the Qadi or Imam innovates, is his Government sound and are his judgments carried out or are they rejected. That is a well known question. This is much worse than the indifference of the historians when they say that so-an-so the khalif drank wine or sang or was corrupt or committed adultery. This statement about the Qur`an is either innovation or disbelief (kufr) - according to the disagreement of the `ulama' regarding it. However, these men were known for that. They did not feign acts of rebellion when they did them, so how can one confirm the words of the singers and indifferent historians regarding them when they used that in order to make acts of rebellion easy for people.

That was to make people say, "If our khalifs do this, it is not difficult for us to do it." The leaders helped them to spread these books and read them because they wanted to act in this way, so that the correct would be considered disliked, and the disliked considered correct. They even allowed al-Jahiz to read his books in the mosques although they contain lies, falsehoods, and disliked things. In respect of the Prophets, they produced things without right guidance, as was said about Ishaq, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the ‘Kitab ad-Dalal wa’t-Tadlal.’ Reading the books of philosophy enable people to deny the doer and invalidate the Shari`a due to the corrupt desires and false goals which their ministers and elite had. If a faqih errs or an `alim speaks badly: What is bad to the fire is at the top of Kabkab.

401. Kabkab: A mountain behind `Arafat which overlooks it. The poem is by al-A`mash. It ends, Whoever is in exile from his people continues to see the battlegrounds of the wronged in course and flow. Good actions are buried in it. If he is bad, what is bad to the fire is at the top of Kabkab. If you understand these matters, your intentions will be excellent and your hearts will be free of alteration toward the earlier men. I have made it clear to you that you should not devote yourselves to a dinar or even a dirham unless it is just and free of suspicion and free from appetite. How can you accept anything, about the states of the salaf and what happened before among the first ones, from those who have no rank in the deen? How can you accept what they say about integrity?

May Allah show mercy to `Umar b. `Abdu’l-`Aziz! When they were speaking about what had happened between the Companions, he said,

تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَلَكُم مَّا كَسَبْتُمْ وَلاَ تُسْأَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

"That is a community which has passed. They have what they earned and you have what you earned. You will not be questioned about what they did." (2:134).

Praise be to Allah, by whose favour right actions are perfected


No comments: