Accusation: Sayyidah Aisha harboured enmity for Sayyidina ‘Uthman and commanded, “Kill Na’thal as he has disbelieved.”

Chapter Four – Discussion Concerning Fadak
January 30, 2018
Accusation: Sayyidah Aisha narrated that the Jinn wept over ‘Umar prior to his demise
February 14, 2018

BACK Return to Table of contents

 

Accusation: Sayyidah Aisha harboured enmity for Sayyidina ‘Uthman and commanded, “Kill Na’thal[1] as he has disbelieved.”

 

The Rawafid substantiate their belief that Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha harboured enmity for Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and commanded his killing by what Saif ibn ‘Umar[2] has reported in his book al Fitnah wa Waq’at al Jamal regarding Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha:

 

لما انتهت إلى سرف راجعة في طريقها إلى مكة لقيها عبد بن أم كلاب و هو عبد بن أبي سلمة ينسب إلى أمه فقالت له مهيم قال قتلوا عثمان رضي الله عنه فمكثوا ثمانيا قالت ثم صنعوا ماذا قال أخذها أهل المدينة بالاجتماع فجازت بهم الأمور إلى خير مجاز اجتمعوا على علي بن أبي طالب فقالت و الله ليت إن هذه انطبقت على هذه إن تم الأمر لصاحبك ردوني ردوني فانصرفت إلى مكة و هي تقول قتل و الله عثمان مظلوما و الله لأطلبن بدمه فقال لها ابن أم كلاب و لم فوالله إن أول من أمال حرفه لأنت و لقد كنت تقولين اقتلوا نعثلا فقد كفر قالت إنهم استتابوه ثم قتلوه و قد قلت و قالوا و قولي الأخير خير من قولي الأول فانصرفت إلى مكة فنزلت على باب المسجد فقصدت للحجر فسترت و اجتمع إليها الناس فقالت يا أيها الناس إن عثمان قتل مظلوما و والله لأطلبن بدمه

When she reached Saraf on her way back from Makkah, ‘Abd ibn Umm Kilab – who is ‘Abd ibn Abi Salamah; he is attributed to his mother – met her.

She asked him, “What is the matter?”

He said, “They killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and then waited eight days.”

She enquired, “Then what did they do.”

He replied, “The people of Madinah gathered to decide and matters led them to the best option; they agreed on ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”

She said, “By Allah! If only this was compatible with this. If the matter reaches conclusion, I will accompany you. Take me back! Take me back!”

She thus returned to Makkah and she was shouting, “By Allah, ‘Uthman has been unjustly killed. By Allah, I will most definitely avenge his death.”

Ibn Umm Kilab asked her, “Why? By Allah, the first to incline to it was you! You used to say, ‘Kill Na’thal as he has disbelieved.’”

She explained, “They made him repent and then killed him. They made a statement and I made one. My last statement was better than my former.”

She thus reached Makkah and alighted at the door of the Masjid. She moved towards the hijr and was veiled. The people gathered around her.

She then addressed them saying, “O people! Indeed, ‘Uthman has been unjustly murdered. By Allah, I will most definitely avenge his death.”[3]

 

This accusation is debunked in a number of ways:

 

Firstly, this narration is a fabrication and a lie, due to the following:

 

1. It is the narration of Saif ibn ‘Umar al Asadi al Tamimi.

 

Saif ibn ‘Umar al Asadi al Tamimi

  • Yahya ibn Ma’in says about him, “Da’if (weak).”[4] He also said, “There is no goodness from him.”[5]
  • Abu Hatim says, “Matruk al Hadith (suspected of hadith forgery).”[6]
  • Abu Dawood says, “He is worthless.”[7]
  • Al Nasa’i[8] says, “Da’if (weak).”[9]
  • Ibn Hibban[10] says, “He narrates fabrications… Saif would fabricate ahadith. He has been suspected of heresy.”[11]
  • Al Daraqutni says, “Matruk (suspected of hadith forgery).”[12]
 

2. Nasr ibn Muzahim al ‘Attar, Abu al Fadl al Munqari al Kufi is another narrator in this chain. He lived in Baghdad.

 

Nasr ibn Muzahim al ‘Attar

  • Al Daraqutni has recorded him in al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (weak narrators and those suspected of hadith forgery).[13]
  • Hafiz Abu al Fath Muhammad ibn al Hussain says, “Nasr ibn Muzahim is an extremist in his religion and not praiseworthy in his hadith.”[14]
  • Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al Juzajani says, “Nasr ibn Muzahim al ‘Attar was deviant and wayward from the truth.”[15]
  • Al Khatib al Baghdadi explains, “I say: He intends by this his extremism in Rifd.”[16]
  • Salih ibn Muhammad says, “Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from the du’afa’ (weak narrators) and narrates munkar ahadith (reports which contradict sahih ahadith).”[17]
  • Al ‘Uqayli says, “Shia. There is idtirab (inconsistency) and plenty mistakes in his hadith.”[18]
  • Abu Khaythamah says, “He was a kadhab (great liar).”[19]
  • Abu Hatim says, “Wahi al hadith (weak narrator), matruk (suspected of hadith forgery).”[20]
  • Al ‘Ijli says, “He was an extremist Rafidi. He is neither reliable nor trusted.”[21]
  • Ibn Hajar and al Dhahabi say about him, “Extremist Rafidi. They have suspected him of forgery.”[22]
  • Yaqut al Hamawi[23] says, “Nasr ibn Muzahim Abu al Fadl al Munqari al Kufi: He was acquainted with history and news. He was among the extremist Shia and fanatical as well. A group of muhaddithin have suspected him of forgery while others have labelled him da’if (weak).”[24]

3. One of the narrators say: from Asad ibn ‘Abdullah from the men of knowledge who met Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha

Who are these persons who narrated from Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha? Since when has the history of our din been based on the narrations of unknown persons?

 

 The mere presence of this narration in some books of the Ahlus Sunnah does not make it a proof against them due to the following:

 

a) This narration does not appear in the primary books of the Ahlus Sunnah which are authentic and relied upon like Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the four Sunan and other well-known books.

b) This narration appears in the books of history which generally gather all types of narrations, from authentic to fabricated. It is common knowledge that the historians generally concentrate on gathering ahadith rather than scrutinising them.

c) This narration has appeared as Musnad (with a joint isnad) in some history books like Tarikh al Tabari. One of the familiar rules is that whoever mentioned an isnad has passed on the responsibility over and is free from accountability.

d) The Ahlus Sunnah have not remained silent about these narrations but have scrutinised them extensively and explained the reason for its du’f (weakness) and baselessness.

 

Al Alusi[25] has said:

 

و ما زعمته الشيعة من أنها رضي الله تعالى عنها كانت هي التي تحرض الناس على قتل عثمان و تقول اقتلوا نعثلا فقد فجر كذب لا أصل له و هو من مفتريات ابن قتيبة و ابن أعثم الكوفي و السمساطي و كانوا مشهورين بالكذب و الافتراء

What the Shia believe that she would encourage the people to kill ‘Uthman by instructing, “Kill Na’thal as he has transgressed,” is nothing but a baseless lie. It is one of the fabrications of Ibn Qutaybah, Ibn A’tham al Kufi, and al Samsati – who are notorious for lying and forgery.[26]

 

Ibn Taymiyyah while debunking Sheikh al Rawafid Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli[27] remarks about this narration:

 

فيقال له أولا أين النقل الثابت عن عائشة بذلك

و يقال ثانيا المنقول الثابت عنها يكذب ذلك و يبين أنها أنكرت قتله و ذمت من قتله و دعت على أخيها محمد و غيره لمشاركتهم في ذلك

Firstly, he will be asked: Where is there an established report from Aisha of this?

Secondly, he will be told: What is established from her debunks this and proves that she disapproved of his killing, censured those who killed him, and cursed her brother Muhammad and others for their involvement in the murder.[28]

 

He then highlights in an impressive manner that which reveals the contradiction of the Rawafid who disparage both Sayyidah Aisha and Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma yet make the former’s criticism of the latter a defect in her:

 

و يقال إن هذا المنقول عن عائشة من القدح في عثمان إن كان صحيحا فإما أن يكون صوابا أو خطأ فإن كان صوابا لم يذكر في مساوئ عائشة و إن كان خطأ لم يذكر في مساوئ عثمان و الجمع بين نقص عائشة و عثمان باطل قطعا و أيضا فعائشة ظهر منها من التألم لقتل عثمان و الذم لقتلته و طلب الانتقام منهم ما يقتضي الندم على ما ينافي ذلك كما ظهر منها الندم على مسيرها إلى الجمل فإن كان ندمها على ذلك يدل على فضيلة علي و اعترافها له بالحق فكذلك هذا يدل على فضيلة عثمان و اعترافها له بالحق و إلا فلا

It will be said: If what is reported from Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha of her disparagement of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is authentic, then it is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, it cannot be used to indict the former and if it is incorrect, then it cannot be used to indict the latter. To merge disparagement of both is totally erroneous and improper. Furthermore, she displayed deep remorse at the death of ‘Uthman, reproached his killers, sought revenge from them, and was ashamed of such a happening. Similarly, she expressed regret for proceeding to al Jamal. If her shame in the latter shows the virtue of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and her acknowledgement of his right, then similarly her shame in the former shows Sayyidina ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu virtue and her acknowledgement of his right. Otherwise, not.[29]

 

Secondly, what appears in this narration is extremely unconvincing from Umm al Mu’minin in relation to the third Khalifah Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is due to the following:

 

Sayyidah Aisha’s radiya Llahu ‘anha stance was in strict polarity to the killers of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. She demanded justice from his killers. The books of history bear testimony to this.

 

Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha said:

 

استتابوه حتى تركوه كالثوب الرحيض ثم قتلوه

You forced him to make tawbah until you left him like a washed[30] garment and then killed him.[31]

 

She said:

غضبت لكم من السوط و لا أغضب لعثمان من السيف استعتبتموه حتى إذا تركتموه كالقلب المصفى قتلتموه

I supposed to be angry over your lashing, but not angry over ‘Uthman’s murder? You sought happiness from him [i.e. by coercing him to repent]. And then when you left him like a clean heart, you murdered him.[32]

 

She said:

 

أيها الناس إن الغوغاء من أهل الأمصار و أهل المياه و عبيد أهل المدينة اجتمعوا على هذا الرجل المقتول ظلما بالأمس و نقموا عليه استعمال من حدثت سنه و قد استعمل أمثالهم قبله و مواضع من الحمى حماها لهم فتابعهم و نزع لهم عنها فلما لم يجدوا حجة و لا عذرا بادروا بالعدوان فسفكوا الدم الحرام و استحلوا البلد الحرام و الشهر الحرام و أخذوا المال الحرام والله لإصبع من عثمان خير من طباق الأرض أمثالهم و والله لو أن الذي اعتدوا به عليه كان ذنبا لخلص منه كما يخلص الذهب من خبثه أو الثوب من درنه إذ ماصوه كما يماص الثوب بالماء أي يغسل

O people! Indeed, the mob of the cities, the Bedouins, and the slaves of the residents of Madinah gathered against this man who was unjustly killed yesterday. They censured him for appointing young men as governors whereas their like was appointed before, and criticised him for various pastures which he allotted for them. He agreed with them and removed the governors from their posts. When they found no proof or excuse, they resorted to enmity and spilt inviolable blood. They violated a sacred city and a sacred month and usurped haram wealth. By Allah, ‘Uthman’s one finger is superior to the earth filled with their like. By Allah! If the things they condemn him for were sins, he would have been purified from them just as gold is purified from its scum and clothes are purified from their dirt for they washed him like a garment is washed with water.[33]

 

Masruq reports from Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha that she said when Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was martyred:

 

تركتموه كالثوب النقي من الدنس ثم قربتموه تذبحونه كما يذبح الكبش هلا كان هذا قبل هذا فقال لها مسروق هذا عملك أنت كتبت إلى الناس تأمرينهم بالخروج إليه قال فقالت عائشة لا والذي آمن به المؤمنون و كفر به الكافرون ما كتبت إليهم بسوداء في بيضاء حتى جلست مجلسي هذا قال الأعمش فكانوا يرون أنه كتب على لسانها

You left him like a purified garment from dirt and then brought him close, slaughtering him like a ram is slaughtered. Why was this (killing) not before this (demanding tawbah from him)?

Masruq said to her, “This is your doing. You wrote to the people commanding them to rebel against him.”

Aisha said, “No. By the Being in whom the believers believe and the disbelievers disbelieve, I did not write to them with ink on paper until I sat at this spot right now.”

Al A’mash[34] says, “They understood that it was forged in her name.”[35]

 

Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha has reported an abundance of ahadith on the virtues of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which are well-known and famous. One example is what Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha and Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu have reported:

 

أن أبا بكر استأذن على رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و هو مضطجع على فراشه لابس مرط عائشة فأذن لأبي بكر و هو كذلك فقضى إليه حاجته ثم انصرف ثم استأذن عمر فأذن له و هو على تلك الحال فقضى إليه حاجته ثم انصرف قال عثمان ثم استأذنت عليه فجلس و قال لعائشة اجمعي عليك ثيابك فقضيت إليه حاجتي ثم انصرفت فقالت عائشة يا رسول الله ما لي لم أرك فزعت لأبي بكر و عمر رضي الله عنهما كما فزعت لعثمان قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إن عثمان رجل حيي و إني خشيت إن أذنت له على تلك الحال أن لا يبلغ إلي في حاجته

Abu Bakr sought permission to Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam house while the latter was lying on his bed wearing Aisha’s shawl[36]. He afforded Abu Bakr permission while in that condition. Abu Bakr completed his work with him and left. Thereafter, ‘Umar sought permission and he granted him the same while in that condition. He completed his work with him and left.

‘Uthman says, “Thereafter, I sought permission to enter. He sat up and said to Aisha, ‘Wear your clothes properly.’ [I entered] and completed my work with him and then left.”

Aisha enquired, “O Messenger of Allah! Why did I not see you get alarmed for Abu Bakr and ‘Umar the way you were alarmed for ‘Uthman?”

Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Certainly, ‘Uthman is a man who possesses excessive modesty. I feared that if I allowed him to enter in that condition, he would not be able to accomplish the work he had with me.”[37]

 

Another example is what she said after hearing some people censure Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

لعن الله من لعنه لعن الله من لعنه لقد رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و هو مسند فخذه إلى عثمان و إن الوحي ينزل عليه و لقد زوجه ابنتيه إحداهما بعد الأخرى و إنه ليقول اكتب عثيم قالت ما كان الله لينزل عبدا من نبيه بتلك المنزلة إلا عبد كريم عليه

May Allah curse the one who curses him! May Allah curse the one who curses him! Certainly, I saw Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam supporting his thigh on ‘Uthman while revelation was descending upon him. He married two of his daughters, one after the other, to him. He would say, “Write ‘Uthaym.” Allah will not grant such a lofty status in the eyes of His Messenger except to a noble servant of His.”[38]

 

We will suffice on this much. The ahadith which Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha have related in his favour are countless. Nonetheless, we simply wished to present an example of it.

They allege that there was dislike between her and Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and that one day she indicated to Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam robe while Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was delivering a khutbah and said:

 

يا معشر المسلمين هذا جلباب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لم يبل و قد أبلى عثمان سنته

O gathering of Muslims! This is the robe of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which has not become worn out, whereas ‘Uthman has worn out his Sunnah.[39]

 

Answer:

This is one of the sole narrations of al Ya’qubi[40] whose creed and faith is well-known. He was a Shia Imami, and presented history from a Shia perspective. He also reported vile narrations concerning Sayyidah Aisha, Muawiyah, ‘Amr ibn al ‘As, and Khalid ibn al Walid[41] radiya Llahu ‘anhum.[42] A person who has such an approach, his narrations which support his false creed are rejected.

In addition, yet another contradiction of the slanderers becomes apparent here. They do not fabricate anything but then forge something to the contrary.

They assert that she rebelled against Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, refused to pledge allegiance to him, and urged the people to fight him in support and defence of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu while at the same time they affirm that she instigated the people to kill him. This is a despicable contradiction. How can they ever be reconciled? First she instigates his killing and then seeks to avenge his blood?

Whoever possesses an iota of intelligence, prior to even analysing the isnad of this narration, will throw such a fabrication at the face of the fabricator and use it as evidence to expose the latter’s shallow understanding before it is used as evidence to display the shallowness and feebleness of his faith. No intelligent man has used greater evidence to display the distortion of a man’s intelligence that what can be used to show the waywardness of these fabricators.

 

NEXT⇒ Accusation: Sayyidah ‘A’ishah accused Sayyidah Mariyah al Qibtiyyah of fornication and consequently the verse of ifk was revealed


[1] Na’thal: Name of a man from Egypt who had a long beard. Al Na’thal means an old fool. It is said: a male hyena. (Gharib al Hadith of Abu ‘Ubaid vol. 3 pg. 426; al Fa’iq fi Gharib al Hadith of al Zamakhshari vol. 4 pg. 52; al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith wa al Athar vol. 5 pg. 79)

[2] Saif ibn ‘Umar, al Dabbi. One of the historians. He was a cognisant (ikhbari) reporter except that he was matruk (accused of forgery). Majority of his ahadith are munkar (reports which contradict sahih ahadith). He has also been suspected of heresy. Some of his works are: al Fitnah wa Waq’at al Jamal and al Riddah wa al Futuh. He died in 200 A.H. (Mizan al I’tidal vol. 2 pg. 255; Tahdhib al Tahdhib vol. 2 pg. 470)

[3] Al Fitnah wa Waq’at al Jamal pg. 115. Bihar al Anwar vol. 32 pg. 49 quoting from the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Tarikh al Tabari vol. 4 pg. 458, 459; al Futuh of Ibn A’tham vol. 2 pg. 437; al Kamil fi al Tarikh of Ibn al Athir vol. 2 pg. 570.

[4] Tarikh Ibn Ma’in Riwayat al Duri vol. 3 pg. 459.

[5] Al Kamil fi Du’afa’ al Rijal of Ibn ‘Adi vol. 4 pg. 507.

[6] Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil of Ibn Abi Hatim vol. 4 pg. 278.

[7] Su’alat al Ajurri of Abu Dawood vol. 1 pg. 214.

[8] Ahmed ibn Shu’ayb ibn ‘Ali, Abu ‘Abdul Rahman al Nasa’i. The Imam and Hafiz. He was born in 215 A.H. A critic of hadith and distinguished in this field. He possessed recognition, proficiency, and lofty isnad exclusively. He has authored al Sunan and al Khasaʾis. He passed away in 303 A.H. (Siyar A’lam al Nubala’ vol. 14 pg. 125; Tahdhib al Tahdhib vol. 1 pg. 27).

[9] Al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukun pg. 50.

[10] Muhammad ibn Hibban ibn Ahmed, Abu Hatim al Basti. The Hafiz, Mujawwid (master of tajwid), Sheikh of Khorasan, and one of the Fuqaha’ of Din. He authored many books and assumed the rank of judge in Samarqand etc. He was knowledgeable in medicine, astronomy, and other sciences. He wrote Sahih Ibn Hibban and al Thiqat and passed away in 354 A.H. (Siyar A’lam al Nubala’ vol. 16 pg. 94; Shadharat al Dhahab vol. 3 pg. 16)

[11] Al Majruhin of Ibn Hibban vol. 1 pg. 346.

[12] Su’alat al Burqani pg. 34.

[13] Al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukun vol. 3 pg. 134.

[14] Tarikh Baghdad vol. 13 pg. 284.

[15] Ahwal al Rijal pg. 132.

[16] Tarikh Baghdad vol. 13 pg. 284.

[17] Tarikh Baghdad vol. 13 pg. 284.

[18] Al Du’afa’ vol. 4 pg. 300.

[19] Al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukun vol. 3 pg. 160.

[20] Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil vol. 8 pg. 468.

[21] Lisan al Mizan vol. 6 pg. 157.

[22] Mizan al I’tidal vol. 4 pg. 253, 254; Lisan al Mizan vol. 6 pg. 157.

[23] Yaqut ibn ‘Abdullah, Abu ‘Abdullah al Rumi al Asl al Hamawi. He was imprisoned when young. A businessman from Baghdad bought him whose name was ‘Askar al Hamawi. When he grew up, he learnt syntax and classical Arabic. His master kept him busy by making him travel for business. He wrote Mu’jam al Udaba’ and Mu’jam al Buldan. He passed away in 626 A.H. (Tarikh al Islam vol. 45 pg. 266; Shadharat al Dhahab vol. 5 pg. 120).

[24] Mu’jam al Udaba’ vol. 6 pg. 2750.

[25] Mahmud ibn ‘Abdullah al Hussaini, Abu al Thana’ al Alusi, Shihab al Din. He was born in 1217 A.H. The Mufassir, Muhaddith, and Author. He assumed the task of ifta’ in Baghdad. He visited al Astanah and was honoured by Sultan ‘Abdul Majid. Some of his books are: Ruh al Ma’ani, al Ajwibah al ‘Iraqiyyah wa al As’ilah al Iraniyyah and other celebrated works. He passed away in 1270 A.H. (al A’lam vol. 7 pg. 176).

[26] Ruh al Ma’ani vol. 11 pg. 192.

[27] Hassan ibn Yusuf ibn ‘Ali, Abu Mansur al Hilli, the Mu’tazili and Sheikh of the Rawafid. He had status by Kharbanda, king of al Tatar. He was a wicked Rafidi. Ibn Taymiyyah has refuted him. He wrote al Asrar al Khafiyyah fi al ‘Ulum al ‘Aqliyyah. He died in 771 A.H. (al Nujum al Zahirah vol. 9 pg. 267; Hadyat al ‘Arifin vol. 5 pg. 284)

[28] Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah vol. 4 pg. 330.

[29] Ibid vol. 4 pg. 335 with slight variations.

[30] Al Rahid: washed (al ‘Ayn of al Khalil ibn Ahmed vol. 3 pg. 103).

[31] Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat pg. 175.

[32] Ibid pg. 176

[33] Al Fitnah wa Waq’at al Jamal pg. 112; Tarikh al Tabari vol. 4 pg. 448; al Muntazam fi Tarikh al Muluk wa al Umam of Ibn al Jawzi vol. 5 pg. 78.

[34] Sulaiman ibn Mahran al Asadi al Kahili, their freed slave, Abu Muhammad al Kufi, al A’mash. The Imam, Hafiz and Sheikh al Islam. He was born in 61 A.H. He is the Sheikh of the Qurra’ and muhaddithin. He passed away in 147 A.H. and it is said after that. (Siyar A’lam al Nubala’ vol. 11 pg. 283; Tahdhib al Tahdhib vol. 2 pg. 423).

[35] Al Tabaqat al Kubra vol. 3 pg. 82.

[36] Al Mirt: shawl made of silk, wool, or cotton (Lisan al ‘Arab vol. 7 pg. 399).

[37] Sahih Muslim Hadith: 2402.

[38] Musnad Ahmed vol. 1 pg. 275 (al Sa’iqah pg. 162).

[39] Tarikh al Ya’qubi vol. 2 pg. 175.

[40] Ahmed ibn Ishaq ibn Jafar, Abu al ‘Abbas al Ya’qubi, al Ikhbari al ‘Abbasi. He was an explorer who loved to travel and he was also a Shia. He has written Tarikh al Ya’qubi and Asma’ al Buldan. He died in 284 A.H and there are other views as well. (al A’lam vol. 1 pg. 95)

[41] Khalid ibn al Walid ibn al Mughirah, Abu Sulaiman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, al Qurashi al Makhzumi, the sword of Allah. Since he embraced Islam, he remained holding the reigns of the steeds of war in the path of Allah as assigned to him by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu despatched him to fight the apostates and then appointed him to wage war against Persia and Rome and he wrought havoc in their ranks. He passed away in 21 A.H. and it is suggested: 22 A.H. (al Isti’ab vol. 1 pg. 126; al Isabah vol. 2 pg. 251)

[42] Asma al Matalib fi Sirat Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib of al Sallabi vol. 2 pg. 705. Herein, he beautifully discusses his methodology which is worth a read.

Back to top