And the allegations against him
One of the relatives whom Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave state responsibilities to was Marwan ibn al Hakam.
He is disparaged for a number of reasons just as the other relatives of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. His excellences were declared non-existent and his flaws were publicised whereas if a person has flaws, then he definitely has some good qualities too. In this regard, a brief biography of Marwan will be penned.
In the upcoming lines, we will present few incidents and aspects of the life of Marwan which will reveal his potential and worthiness as well as his conduct and behaviour. The answers to tribalism will appear as well. Lineage preferences will appear weightless. And the good side of the relationship shared by the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah will come to the fore.
Marwan’s father’s name is al Hakam ibn al ‘As ibn Umayyah. At the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Marwan was five years or eight years old, according to various reports of scholars.
قالوا قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و مروان بن الحكم ابن ثمان سنين فلم يزل مع أبيه حتى مات أبوه الحكم بن أبي العاص في خلافة عثمان بن عفان إلخ
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed on and Marwan ibn al Hakam was eight years old. He remained with his father until his father Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As passed away in the caliphate of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.
مات الحكم سنة اثنين و ثلاثين في خلافة عثمان
Al Hakam passed away the year 32 in ‘Uthman’s caliphate.
مات في شهر رمضان سنة خمس و ستين بدمشق
He passed away in the month of Ramadan, 35 A.H. in Damascus.
According to Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Marwan ibn al Hakam possessed noble character and excellent behaviour. Owing to this, he gave his daughter Umm Aban al Kubra in marriage to this cousin of his.
و تزوجت أم أبان الكبرى مروان بن الحكم بن أبي العاص فولدت له و توفيت عنده زوجه إياها عثمان
Umm Aban al Kubra married Marwan ibn al Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As. She gave birth to his children and passed away while married to him. ‘Uthman got them married.
Now some family links between Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu family and Marwan’s family will be mentioned. Study them carefully.
و كانت رملة بنت علي عند أبي الهياج و اسمه عبد الله بن أبي سفيان بن الحارث بن عبد المطلب ولدت له و قد انقرض ولد أبي سفيان بن الحارث ثم خلف عليها معاوية بن مروان بن الحكم بن أبي العاص
Ramlah bint ‘Ali was in the wedlock of Abu al Hayyaj, whose name was ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sufyan ibn al Harith ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib. She gave birth to his children. However, the progeny of Abu Sufyan ibn al Harith ceased. Muawiyah ibn Marwan ibn al Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As then married her.
و معاوية … شقيق عبد الملك … و تزوج رملة بنت علي بن أبي طالب بعد أبي الهياج عبد الله بن أبي سفيان بن الحارث بن عبد المطلب
Muawiyah, the twin of ‘Abdul Malik: Ramlah bint ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib married him after Abu al Hayyaj, ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sufyan ibn al Harith ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib.
و كانت زينب بنت الحسن بن الحسن بن علي عند الوليد بن عبد الملك بن مروان و هو خليفة
Zainab bint al Hassan ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali was married to Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan when he was khalifah.
Zainab’s mother is Fatimah bint Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Ibn Hazm has spoken of this marriage while discussing the details of the offspring of Marwan ibn al Hakam in Jamharat al Ansab:
و ولد معاوية بن مروان بن عبد الملك الوليد بن معاوية أمه زينب بنت الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب
The son of Muawiyah ibn Marwan ibn ‘Abdul Malik was Walid ibn Muawiyah. His mother was Zainab bint al Hassan ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Note: The readers should be cognisant of the fact that Ramlah bint ‘Ali was first in the wedlock of Muawiyah ibn Marwan and Zainab bint al Hassan al Muthanna came after into his wedlock. (They were married to him at different times.) Zainab bint al Hassan al Muthanna had two successive husbands, one Muawiyah ibn Marwan and after him, Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan. However, we could not find clarification as to which was her first and second husband. A woman being married to uncle then nephew [or vice versa] is no defect.
و نفيسة بنت زيد تزوجها وليد بن عبد الملك بن مروان فتوفيت عنده و أمها لبابة بنت عبد الله بن عباس بن عبد المطلب بن هاشم
Nafisah bint Zaid: Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan married her. She passed away while in his wedlock. Her mother was Lubabah bint ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim.
و كان لزيد ابنة اسمها نفيسة خرجت إلى الوليد بن عبد الملك بن مروان فولدت منه
Zaid had a daughter, Nafisah. She went to Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan and had children with him.
و قد قيل إنما خرجت إلى عبد الملك بن مروان أنها ماتت حاملا منه و الأصح الأول و كان زيد يفد على الوليد بن عبد الملك و يقعد على سريره يكرمه لمكان ابنته
It is said that she went to ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan and passed away while pregnant with this child. The first view is correct, however. Zaid would visit Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik, sit on his chair, and honour him to Walid’s relation with his daughter.
Caution: Some scholars have said that Nafisah was married to ‘Abdul Malik. This is incorrect. Rather, her marriage to Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan is correct. The word kharajat (went) was used by the Shia clerics. Our scholars have not used this term.
فولد إسماعيل بن عبد الملك بن الحارث مسلمة و إسحق و مروان و حسينا و محمدا أمهم أم كلثوم بنت الحسين بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب
The children of Ismail ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn al Harith are: Muslimah, Ishaq, Marwan, Hussain, and Muhammad. Their mother is Umm Kulthum bint al Hussain ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Ismail is Marwan ibn al Hakam’s biological brother, al Harith ibn al Hakam’s grandson. He married Umm Kulthum. Some have her name as Khadijah:
و لد إسماعيل بن عبد الملك بن الحارث بن الحكم المذكور محمد الأكبر و الحسين و إسحاق و مسلمة أمهم خديجة بنت الحسين بن حسن بن علي بن أبي طالب
The offspring of Ismail ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn al Harith ibn al Hakam are: Muhammad al Akbar, Hussain, Ishaq, and Muslimah. Their mother is Khadijah bint al Hussain ibn Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
و ولد إسمعيل بن عبد الملك بن الحارث بن الحكم محمد الأصغر و الوليد و يزيد أمهم حامدة بنت الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب خلف عليها بعد بنت عمها المذكورة
The offspring of Ismail ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn al Harith ibn al Hakam are: Muhammad al Asghar, Walid, and Yazid. Their mother is Hamidah bint al Hassan ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He married her after her above-mentioned cousin (paternal aunt’s daughter).
Under the above heading, a couple of marriage bonds between the two families were listed. These family links are a beautiful means of bringing these two tribes closer, and are recorded for eternity on the pages of history. They are marvellous pieces of evidence, denial of which is impossible.
Now if at times, there were temporary disputes and disagreements between these two families, its occurrence will be regarded as a temporary issue, just like temporary issues come and go and are resolved in their limits. The reality is that these types of disputes are generally temporary and the bond of family is perpetual and everlasting from generation to generation.
Furthermore, the historical reports of tales of dispute between these two families have less truth and more exaggerations. To regard these historical tales based on reality is in no way correct.
All these girls from the progeny of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu were given gladly to the family of Marwan. These bonds were contracted with mutual consent. These are historical facts. They prove that the family of Sayyidina ‘Ali al Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not regard the family of Marwan as bad, but rather as good. On the basis of this, these links were created.
Moreover, it is evident that the tales of the evil of Marwan ibn al Hakam are not correct, the way presented by those who came after. This is due to the fact that the Hashimites who contracted these bonds with Marwan’s family were closer to that era so they ought to be aware of the Marwani shenanigans and Marwani behaviour.
Despite this, if the Hashimites formed these perpetual bonds with this tribe, then they have by family tradition and practical assistance established that Marwan and his family are not deserving of hatred and insult, as broadcasted by the narrators among the people.
Concerning Marwan’s academic position and potential, much material is available in our religious books. A few of these aspects will be presented to the noble readers.
Marwan ibn al Hakam’s academic reliability is accepted to the extent that he reports ahadith and masa’il from Sayyidina ‘Umar, Sayyidina ‘Uthman, Sayyidina ‘Ali, Sayyidina Zaid ibn Thabit, Sayyidina ‘Abdur Rahman ibn al Aswad, and other senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Some Sahabah and senior Tabi’in narrate from him, like Sahl ibn Sa’d (Sahabi), ‘Ali ibn al Hussain (Tabi’i), ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair (Tabi’i), Sa’id ibn al Musayyab (Tabi’i), Mujahid, etc.
روى مروان عن عمر و عثمان و علي رضي الله عنهم و روى عنه سهل بن سعد و علي بن الحسين و عروة بن الزبير و أبو بكر بن عبد الرحمن
Marwan narrates from ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum and Sahl ibn Sa’d, ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair, and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abdur Rahman narrate from him.
The esteemed scholars have written that Marwan ibn al Hakam’s position in hadith is reliable. He is not accused in the science of hadith. Senior muhaddithin and leading Fuqaha’ of the ummah have relied upon him and have documented his reports through their respective chains. A few of Marwan’s reports will be quoted as samples.
قال عروة بن الزبير كان مروان لا يتهم في الحديث
‘Urwah ibn al Zubair says, “Marwan was not suspected in hadith.”
و قد روى عنه سهل بن سعد الساعدي الصحابي اعتمادا على صدقه
Sahl ibn Sa’d al Sa’idi the Sahabi narrated from him, relying on his truthfulness.
و قد اعتمد مالك على حديثه و رأيه و الباقون سوى مسلم
Malik relied upon his hadith and view as well as the others besides Muslim.
Imam Malik rahimahu Llah in his magnum opus Muwatta’ has reported Shar’i masa’il at a number of places via his chain from Marwan ibn al Hakam, with full reliance on him. A few places will be listed as samples.
Likewise, Imam Muhammad ibn Hassan al Shaybani rahimahu Llah has documented many laws from Marwan ibn al Hakam in his book, Muwatta’, with full trust in them. The respective chapters have been flagged below. Quoting the entire text was a lengthy issue, hence this style was adopted. The scholars may refer to the book for satisfaction.
The renowned muhaddith, ‘Abdur Razzaq, has reported a statement of Sayyidina ‘Ali al Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the strength of Marwan, via his chain in al Musannaf, pertaining to ila’:
عن عبد الرزاق عن الثوري عن ليث عن مجاهد عن مروان عن علي قال إذا مضت الأربعة فإنه يحبس حتى يفيء أو يطلق قال مروان و لو وليت هذا لقضيت فيه بقضا علي
‘Abdur Razzaq―from al Thawri―from Layth―from Mujahid―from Marwan―from ‘Ali who said:
When four (months) pass, he [the husband who made the oath] will be detained until he breaks his oath or gives talaq.
Marwan comments, “Had this case been brought to me, I would have passed ‘Ali’s judgement.”
In Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, this statement of Marwan is documented as follows:
قال مروان ولو وليت لفعلت مثل ما يفعل
Marwan comments, “Had this case been brought to me, I would have done just as ‘Ali had done.”
Imam Ahmed in volume 4 of his Musnad Ahmed has commenced a new heading under which he included the reports of Sayyidina Miswar ibn Makhramah al Zuhri radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Marwan ibn al Hakam. Sayyidina Miswar ibn Makhramah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is among the junior Sahabah. From page 323 to page 331 of volume 4, many reports of these two persons are documented therein. The titled has the following words:
حديث المسور بن مخرمة الزهري و مروان بن الحكم رضي الله عنهما
The hadith of Miswar ibn Makhramah al Zuhri and Marwan ibn al Hakam radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.
In volume 5 of Musnad Ahmed, the report of Marwan is documented under the traditions of Sayyidina Zaid ibn Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
عروة بن الزبير أن مروان أخبره قال قال لي زيد بن ثابت مالك تقرأ في المغرب بقصار المفصل
‘Urwah ibn al Zubair narrates that Marwan informed him saying:
Similarly, at various places of this Musnad are the reports of Marwan available. This marking simply served as a sample.
Imam al Bukhari has documented the reports of Marwan ibn al Hakam in Sahih al Bukhari. He mentions the narration of both Sayyidina Miswar ibn Makhramah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Marwan ibn al Hakam at one place in the book on wakalah (representation):
عن ابن شهاب قال و زعم عروة أن مروان بن الحكم و المسور بن المخرمة أخبرا أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قام حين جاءه وفد هوازن مسلمين إلخ
Ibn Shihab states: ‘Urwah is confident that Marwan ibn al Hakam and Miswar ibn al Makhramah informed that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stood when the delegation of Hawazin came to him as believers.
Similarly, Sayyidina Sahl ibn Sa’d al Sa’idi radiya Llahu ‘anhu (Sahabi) and other Tabi’in have obtained narrations from Marwan which are documented in Sahih al Bukhari. Hafiz Ibn Hajar confirms this in the introduction of Fath al Bari saying:
لمروان بن الحكم الأموى حديثان إلخ
Marwan ibn al Hakam al Umawi has two traditions.
Ibn Hajar writes in the introduction of Fath al Bari:
فإنما حمل عنه سهل بن سعد و عروة بن الزبير و علي بن الحسين و أبو بكر بن عبد الرحمن بن الحارث و هؤلاء أخرج البخاري أحاديثهم عنه في صحيحه إلخ
Sahl ibn Sa’d, ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair, ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn al Harith narrated from him and al Bukhari has documented their ahadith from him in his al Sahih.
At this juncture, Hafiz Ibn Hajar has clarified that besides some Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, senior Tabi’in like ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair, Zayn al ‘Abidin (‘Ali ibn al Hussain), and others trusted Marwan in religion and knowledge and thus reported from him ahadith and Shar’i masa’il. Imam al Bukhari has included these in his Sahih al Bukhari.
Note: The scholars should be notified that Imam al Bukhari, in al Tarikh al Kabir, vol. 4, section one, page. 368, has mentioned some brief points on Marwan without any criticism. Similarly, Ibn Abi Hatim al Razi in Kitab al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, vol. 4, section 1, pg. 271, has given a brief biography of Marwan with noting that a certain Sahabi and certain Tabi’i obtained reports from him. He did not mention any word of criticism for him. He only highlighted his reliability.
The scholars are aware that these two books hold the position of primary references for biographies and narrators. They are silent when it comes to criticising Marwan. They have not spoken negatively of him, as have those who came after them after being affected by historical reports.
‘Allamah Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah has listed the lofty capabilities and good qualities of Marwan in his biography. He quotes Sayyidina Muawiyah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu statement in favour of Marwan from which the religious talent of this man can be realised.
فقال أما القاري لكتاب الله الفقيه في دين الله الشديد في حدود الله مروان بن الحكم
Muawiyah stated, “Marwan ibn al Hakam is a proficient reciter of the Book of Allah, a jurist in the religion of Allah, and stern in implementing the punishments determined by Allah.”
عن الإمام أحمد قال يقال كان عند مروان قضاء كان يتبع قضايا عمر بن الخطاب
Imam Ahmed said: It is said that Marwan held the judicial post (at times during Muawiyah’s reign). He would pass judgement in the light of the rulings of ‘Umar ibn al Khattab.
و كان يعد في الفقهاء
He was reckoned among the jurists.
أخرج أهل الصحاح عدة أحاديث عن مروان و له قول مع أهل الفتيا
The authors of the Sihah have documented a few ahadith from Marwan and his statement is significant among the jurists.
مروان رجل عدل من كبار الأمة عند الصحابة و التابعين و فقهاء المسلمين
Marwan is a just and reliable individual from the seniors of the ummah according to the Sahabah, Tabi’in, and Fuqaha’ of the Muslims.
أما الصحابة فإن سهل بن سعد الساعدي روى عنه
As regards the Sahabah, Sahl ibn Sa’d al Sa’idi has reported from him.
و أما التابعون فأصحابه في السن و إن جازهم باسم الصحبة في أحد القولين
As regards the Tabi’in, he is their contemporary in age, although he has overtaken them by the honour of Companionship according to one view.
و أما فقهاء الأمصار فكلهم على تعظيمه و اعتبار خلافته و التلفت إلى فتواه و الانقياد إلى روايته
All the Fuqaha’ of the cities honour him, deem his caliphate correct, consider his rulings, and accept his reports.
و أما السفهاء من المؤرخين و الأدباء يقولون على أقدارهم
The foolish historians and linguists speak according to their worth.
The gist of the above is that Marwan’s academic prowess and talent is accepted by the senior individuals of the ummah. Senior muhaddithin and Fuqaha’ have reported religious matters from him and relied on him. We have presented these statements as samples. Now if some historians on the basis of inauthentic historical reports criticise Marwan, they are not worthy of consideration. It is evident that historical drivel has no weight in comparison to the emphatic statements of the senior muhaddithin and fuqaha’.
The scholars who penned the biography of Marwan have mentioned that during his governorship over Madinah Tayyibah, whenever the need arose to consult regarding a religious matter, Marwan would gather the present Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and consult with them and act in accordance to the decision reached in the consultation.
Ibn Sa’d writes:
و كان مروان في ولايته على المدينة يجمع أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يستشيرهم و يعمل بما يجمعون له عليه
During his governorship over Madinah, Marwan would gather the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and consult them and act in accordance to their unanimous decision.
An example of this is recorded by Ibn Kathir:
قالوا و لما كان نائبا بالمدينة كان إذا وقعت معضلة جمع من عنده من الصحابة فاستشارهم فيها قالوا و هو الذي جمع الصيعان فأخذ بأعدلها فنسب إليه الصاع فقيل صاع مروان
They say that when he was representative over Madinah, whenever any difficult matter arose, he would gather the Sahabah present by him and consult them in the matter.
They say that he was the one to gather all the sa’s (type of measurement) and determine the average one. Thus the sa’ was attributed to him and called the sa’ of Marwan.
The genealogists have written an amazing incident of Marwan ibn al Hakam with regards to his cautiousness.
‘Anbasah ibn Sa’id relates: Once, I invited Marwan ibn al Hakam for meals when he was governor. I decorated my house lavishly. I draped exquisite curtains, spread expensive carpets, exhibited fine clothing, and prepared sumptuous meals with much exertion. Marwan accompanied by his two sons ‘Abdul Malik and ‘Abdul ‘Aziz attended the function. When the food was presented, Marwan picked up a morsel of food and before inserting it in his mouth, he asked:
فقال يا عنبسة هل عليك من دين قلت نعم إن علي لدينا قال و كم قلت سبعون ألف درهم فقبض يده و رفعها من طعامي و قال لابنيه ارفعا يديكما حرم علينا طعامك ما كنت تقدر أن تجعل بعض هذه الفضول التي أرى في دينك فهو كان أولى به ثم قام و لم يأكل من طعامي شيئا
“O ‘Anbasah, do you have any debts?”
I replied in the affirmative.
He asked the amount to which I replied, “70 000 dirhams.”
He withdrew his hand from the food and told his sons to do the same saying, “Your food is forbidden for us as long as you have the ability to settle your debt with all these surplus commodoties that I see. You debt is more deserving to be settled.”
He then stood up (to leave) and did not eat even a morsel of my food.
Previously in the first discussion, we related the incident which al Baladhuri documented in Futuh al Buldan:
During the Battle of Africa, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu mobilised a huge army from Madinah and sent them as reinforcements for Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh radiya Llahu ‘anhu in 27 or 28 A.H. Among the warriors were many Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and other seniors. He writes:
و أمده بجيش عظيم فيه معبد بن العباس بن عبد المطلب و مروان بن الحكم و الحارث بن الحكم أخوه و عبد الله بن الزبير إلخ
He reinforced him with a massive army among whom were Ma’bad ibn al ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib, Marwan ibn al Hakam, his brother Harith ibn al Hakam, and ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.
Marwan ibn al Hakam possessed administrative skill. Owing to this, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu made him governor over Bahrain. Khalifah ibn Khayyat speaks about this in the following words. We did mention this in discussion one.
و من ولاته عليها مروان بن الحكم
Marwan ibn al Hakam was among his governors over Bahrain.
إن أبا هريرة كان حين يستخلفه مروان على المدينة إذا قام للصلوة المكتوبة كبر
When Marwan would appoint Abu Hurayrah over Madinah, when he would stand for the fard salah, he would recited takbir.
Hafiz Ibn Kathir has recorded the same incident in the following words:
و المعروف أن مروان هو الذي كان يسنيب أبا هريرة في إمرة المدينة و لكن كان يكون عن إذن معاوية في ذلك و الله أعلم
What is known is that Marwan is the one who would appoint Abu Hurayrah as his deputy over the governorship of Madinah. However, this would happen with Muawiyah’s’ consent. And Allah knows best.
قال الليث عن يزيد بن حبيب عن سالم أبي النضر أنه قال شهد مروان جنازة فلما صلى عليها انصرف فقال أبو هريرة أصاب قيراطا و حرم قيراطا فأخبر بذلك مروان فأقبل يجري حتى بدت ركبتاه فقعد حتى أذن له
Layth reports―from Yazid ibn Habib―from Salim Abu al Nadr who said:
Marwan attended a Janazah. After completing the salah over the deceased, he left. Abu Hurayrah commented, “He attained one qirat (a measurement of that time) and was deprived of one qirat.”
When Marwan was informed of this, he came hurriedly until his knees became exposed. He sat down until general permission was given to leave.
There were many places in Madinah Tayyibah where Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam displayed a miracle or an incident of the exhibition of blessings took place, or something significant happened. Marwan made a concerted effort with sincerity to learn about these blessed spots.
عن عبد الله بن كعب بن مالك أن مروان أرسل إلى أبي قتادة و هو على المدينة ان اغد معي حتى تريني مواقف النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم
‘Abdullah ibn Ka’b ibn Malik relates that Marwan, while he was governor of Madinah, sent word to Abu Qatadah, “Come with me tomorrow and show me the noteworthy spots of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”
The Ahlus Sunnah and Shia both have related an incident of the Battle of Jamal. Sa’id ibn Mansur (Sunni muhaddith) has documented it in the second volume of his Sunan. After the Battle of Jamal, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu announced:
من أغلق عليه باب داره فهو آمن و من طرح السلاح آمن قال مروان و قد كنت دخلت دار فلان ثم أرسلت إلى حسن و حسين ابني علي و عبد الله بن عباس و عبيد الله بن عباس و عبد الله بن جعفر كلموه قال هو آمن
Whoever locks the door of his house is safe. Whoever puts down his weapons is safe.
Marwan continues, “I had entered the house of a certain person. I then sent word to Hassan, Hussain (the sons of ‘Ali), ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Ubaid Allah ibn ‘Abbas, and ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar. They spoke to ‘Ali who said, “He is safe.”
The Shia book, Nahj al Balaghah, has the same topic:
من كلام له عليه السلام قال لمروان بن الحكم بالبصرة قالوا أخذ مروان بن الحكم أسيرا يوم الجمل فاستشفع بالحسن و الحسين عليهم السلام إلى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فكلما فيه فخلى سبيله
From his radiya Llahu ‘anhu speech which he said to Marwan ibn al Hakam in Basrah.
They relate: Marwan ibn al Hakam was taken captive on the Day of Jamal. He thus interceded on the strength of Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They interceded on his behalf and Amir al Mu’minin released him.
The Shia historian Mas’udi speaks about the intercession of Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain and Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhum subsequent awarding of amnesty to Marwan in the following words. He also includes the amnesty of Sayyidina Walid ibn ‘Uqbah radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
و تكلم الحسن و الحسين في مروان فآمنه و آمن الوليد بن عقبة
Hassan and Hussain spoke on behalf of Marwan, and he gave him amnesty as well as Walid ibn ‘Uqbah.
During the governorship of Marwan ibn al Hakam, Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma would always perform salah behind him.
عن جعفر عن ابيه قال كان الحسن بن علي و الحسين يصليان خلف مروان قال فقيل له أما كان أبوك يصلي إذا رجع إلى البيت قال فيقول لا والله ما كانوا يزيدون على صلاة الأئمة
Jafar narrates from his father, (Muhammad al Baqir):
Hassan ibn ‘Ali and Hussain would perform salah behind Marwan.
Somebody asked him, “Would your father repeat those salah performed behind Marwan upon returning home?”
He replied, “No, by Allah. They would not add onto the salah of the imams.”
Imam al Bukhari has mentioned in al Tarikh al Saghir that Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma always performed salah behind Marwan:
حدثني شرحبيل أبو سعد قال رأيت الحسن و الحسين يصليان خلف مروان
Shurahbil Abu Sa’d narrated to me saying, “I saw Hassan and Hussain praying behind Marwan.”
The statement of Imam Muhammad al Baqir is recorded in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d:
إنا نصلي خلفهم من غير تقية و أشهد على علي بن الحسين أنه كان يصلي خلفهم في غير تقية
We perform salah behind them without observing Taqiyyah. I testify that ‘Ali ibn al Hussain would perform salah behind them without observing Taqiyyah.
The Shia clerics have also mentioned the reports of Imam Jafar al Sadiq and Imam Muhammad al Baqir:
عن موسى بن جعفر عن أبيه قال كان الحسن و الحسين يصليان خلف مروان بن الحكم فقالوا لأحدهما ما كان أبوك يصلي إذا رجع إلى البيت فقال لا والله ما كان يزيد على صلاة
Musa ibn Jafar narrates from his father:
Hassan ibn ‘Ali and Hussain would perform salah behind Marwan ibn al Hakam.
They asked him, “Would your father repeat that salah upon returning home?”
He replied, “No, by Allah. He would not perform more than one salah.”
In the light of the reports of both sects (which are reported from senior members of the Banu Hashim) it has been made clear that Marwan’s governorship and caliphate was correct. His leading of the salah was correct. The senior Hashimites always performed their five times daily salah behind him, without observing Taqiyyah, and without repeating it on returning home. In religious matters, lineage distinctions and tribalism was never considered. These incidents prove Marwan’s talent and reject the false propaganda.
Ibn Abi Shaybah, in volume two of his al Musannaf under the chapter of salah behind the governors through his chain, has quoted one statement of Zayn al ‘Abidin, which holds much significance in resolving these issues. Let the readers study it attentively and keep in mind that this was the era of Marwan ibn al Hakam in which Zayn al ‘Abidin made this declaration.
عن إبراهيم بن حفصة قال قلت لعلي بن الحسين أن أبا حمزة الثمالي و كان فيه غلو يقول لا نصلي خلف الأئمة و لا نناكح إلا من يرى مثل رأينا فقال علي بن الحسين بل نصلي خلفهم و نناكحهم بالسنة
Ibrahim ibn Hafsah relates that he said to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, “Abu Hamzah al Thumali―who was an extremist―says: We do not perform salah behind the leaders and we do not marry except those who hold the same view as ours.”
‘Ali ibn al Hussain said, “Instead, we perform salah behind them and marry into their tribe according to the Sunnah.”
Sayyidina Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah relates that once Marwan ibn al Hakam gave a large amount of 100 000 dirhams as a loan to Zayn al ‘Abidin (‘Ali ibn al Hussain) for marriage so that he might purchase a slave girl and have children with her. Zayn al ‘Abidin purchased the slave girl and had plenty children with her. The narration continues:
فلما حضرته الوفاة أوصى إلى ابنه عبد الملك أن لا يسترجع من علي بن الحسين شيئا إلخ
When he was about to pass away, he commanded his son ‘Abdul Malik not to take anything back from ‘Ali ibn al Hussain.
ثم لما مرض مروان أوصى أن لا يؤخذ من علي بن الحسين شيء مما كان أقرضه فجميع الحسينيين من نسله
Then when Marwan fell ill, he bequeathed that nothing should be taken back from ‘Ali ibn al Hussain from the amount he gave him as a loan. Thus, the entire progeny of Hussain are from his lineage.
Zayn al ‘Abidin wished to return the amount but Marwan’s son did not accept it and the money stayed by him.
In this incident is a beautiful example of Marwan’s kind treatment of Sayyidina Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu children.
The offspring of Marwan ibn al Hakam, ‘Abdul Malik etc., enjoyed a friendly relationship with the offspring of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is easily available in the books of history.
عن شعيب بن أبي حمزة قال كان الزهري إذا ذكر علي بن الحسين قال كان أقصد أهل بيته و أحسنهم طاعة و أحبهم إلى مروان بن الحكم و عبد الملك بن مروان
Shu’ayb ibn Abi Hamzah reports:
When al Zuhri would speak of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, he would say, “He was the most balanced of the people of his household, the most obedient, and the most beloved to Marwan ibn al Hakam and ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan.
عن سعيد بن خالد عن المعبري قال بعث المختار إلى علي بن الحسين بمائة ألف فكره أن يقبلها و خاف أن يردها فأخذها فاحتبسها عنده فلما قتل المختار كتب علي بن الحسين إلى عبد الملك بن مروان أن المختار بعث إلي بمائة ألف درهم فكرهت أن أردها و كرهت أن آخذها فهي عندي فابعث من يقبضها فكتب إليه عبد الملك يا ابن عم خذها فقد طيبتها لك فقبلها
Sa’id ibn Khalid narrates from―al Mu’abbari who says:
Mukhtar sent 100 000 dirhams to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain who disliked accepting it but at the same time feared returning it, so he took it and kept it by him. After Mukhtar was killed, ‘Ali ibn al Hussain wrote to ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, “Mukhtar had sent to me 100 000 dirhams and I disliked returning them as well as accepting them. They are with me till now so send someone to collect them.”
‘Abdul Malik wrote back to him, “O nephew, take it as I have gifted it to you.” Accordingly, he accepted it.
The matters pertaining to Marwan which we have presented under several headings hold a unique stance to answer the criticisms and through them the rank, character, and practice of Marwan becomes manifest. Nevertheless, to remove specific misconceptions, a few aspects will be mentioned before the readers so that the core of this matter is exposed and the negative notions about Marwan are done away with.
The critics say that Marwan’s father Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As was exiled by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from Madinah Munawwarah due to some mistakes of his and his son Marwan was with him. Father and son remained in exile during the Siddiqi and Faruqi eras. When his cousin Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu became caliphate, he appointed Marwan as his scribe and special consultant.
Sayyidina ‘Uthman, Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As, and his son Marwan are all targets of this criticism.
The idea put forward is that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu acted contrary to the statement of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As had wicked behaviour due to which the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had him removed from his city. By remaining in exile with his father, Marwan is also the target of rejection, reproach, and rage.
A. On the onset, let it be realised that this story of exile is not found in authentic ahadith. The reports which speak of this story do not reach the standard of authenticity with regards to their chain. Unreliable narrators like al Waqidi and severely criticised reporters like Hisham Kalbi are found in the chain. Many authors have documented the tale of expulsion without including the chain, from which the authenticity or inauthenticity of the narration cannot be analysed.
Renowned scholars like ‘Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah and Hafiz al Dhahabi have severely critiqued the expulsion tale and declared it inauthentic.
و قصة نفي الحكم ليست في الصحاح و لا لها إسناد يعرف به أمرها
The tale of Hakam’s expulsion is not found in the authentic compilations, nor does it have a chain from which it may be checked.
Corroboration of the inauthenticity of Hakam’s expulsion can be found in one report of Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d. Ibn Sa’d writes in the biography of Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As:
أسلم يوم فتح مكة و لم يزل بها حتى كانت خلافة عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه فأذن له فدخل المدينة فمات بها في خلافة عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه
He embraced Islam on the Day of the Conquest of Makkah and remained there until the caliphate of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu who gave him permission to enter Madinah. He passed away there during the caliphate of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
It is learnt from this report that after embracing Islam, Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As lived in Makkah Mukarramah and relocated to Madinah during the era of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. (The expulsion tale did not occur in this time.) And Allah knows the truth!
B. Secondly, from another angle, if for arguments sake, it is accepted that the expulsion did take place and Hakam was exiled by the prophetic command and Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu called him back; Ibn Jarir al Tabari and other scholars have clearly mentioned that this return was upon the permission of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Accordingly, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu addressed the critics who besieged him saying:
قالوا إني رددت الحكم و قد سيره رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و الحكم مكي سيره رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم … من مكة إلى الطائف ثم رده رسول لله صلى الله عليه و سلم فرسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم سيره و رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم رده كذلك قالوا اللهم نعم
They object that I returned Hakam whereas Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam expelled him. Hakam is a resident of Makkah whom Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had expelled from Makkah to Ta’if and subsequently returned him to it. So Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the one who expelled him and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the one to return him in the same way.
They answered, “O Allah, yes.”
At another juncture, al Tabari writes that during the siege, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu addressed some residents of Madinah saying:
فقال إن الحكم كان مكيا فسيره رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم منها إلى الطائف ثم رده إلى بلده فرسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم سيره بذنبه و رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم رده بعفوه
He said: “Hakam was a Makki. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam expelled him from there to Ta’if and then returned him to his city. So Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam expelled due to his sin and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam returned him with his pardon.”
C. The punishment of exile in relation to Hakam was not perpetual. It was restricted to a certain time due to the fact that in the Shari’ah, due to sins of this nature, the punishment of exile for lifetime is waived and after repentance that person does not remain the target of perpetual punishment.
This issue has been discussed by renowned scholars (like Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc.) in their respective works under this discussion. The texts are reproduced verbatim for the benefit of the scholars. Ibn Hazm writes:
و نفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم للحكم لم يكن حدا واجبا و لا شريعة على التأبيد و إنما كان عقوبة على ذنب استحق به النفي و التوبة مبسوطة فإذا تاب سقطت عنه تلك العقوبة بلا خلاف من أحد من أهل الإسلام و صارت الأرض كلها مباحة
Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam expulsion of Hakam was not a wajib hadd (punishment) nor a Shar’i one for perpetuity. It was only a punishment for a sin that deserved exile. And repentance is open. So when he repents, this punishment is waived from him without dispute from any of the adherents of Islam and the entire earth has become permissible.
Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
و إذا كان النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قد عزر رجلا بالنفي لم يلزم أن يبقى منفيا طول الزمان فإن هذا لا يعرف في شيء من الذنوب و لم تأت الشريعة بذنب يبقى صاحبه منفيا دائما بل غاية النفي المقدر سنة وهو في نفي الزاني و المخنث حتى يتوب من التخنيث فإن كان تعزير الحاكم لذنب حتى يتوب منه فإذا تاب سقطت العقوبة عنه
When the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had punished a person with exile, it does not necessitate that he remains exiled forever. This is not recognised in any sin and the Shari’ah has not stipulated for a sin that the perpetrator remains exiled forever. In fact, the limit of a prescribed exile is a year and that is in relation to the exile of a fornicator and an effeminate until he repents from effeminacy. If the punishment of the leader is for a sin until he repents from the same, then the punishments will fall away when he repents.
D. At the time of the expulsion, Marwan was still young and immature. He was not the criminal. To put the crime of the father on the young son’s shoulders and label him a criminal is in no way correct.
فلم يكن لمروان ذنب يطرد عليه على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم
Marwan had no sin for which he may be banished during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Some people have decorated this incident of father and son and concocted many issues only to taint the image of the criticised father’s accursed son, i.e. Marwan. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protect us from having evil thoughts and bad opinions about the Muslims of former times. The divine command is:
إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوْا
Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy.
In Islam, the Shar’i rule stands that when any believer repents from any sin, the sin is pardoned and the integrity of that person is not lost. The scholars have stated:
و ليست الذنوب مسقطة للعدالة إذا وقعت منها التوبة
Sins do not sacrifice integrity when repentance is done from them.
In light of the above, both father and son are not worthy of been taken to task. Their iman and Islam are correct and their integrity is sustained.
The summary of the above is that the banishment incident is not among the accepted narrations by the muhaddithin. Various types of reports include this subject which do not reach the standard of authenticity.
If hypothetically this incident is correct, then they were punished according to the command of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Sayyidina ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu practice was not in conflict with Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam command, but rather in conformity to it. This is the status of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The scholars say:
و ما كان عثمان ليصل مهجور رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لو كان أباه و لا ينقض حكمه
‘Uthman was not to maintain ties with one Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam severed ties from, even if he be his father and he would not violate his command.
Hakam’s mistake was not perpetual, but rather temporary and deserving of pardon. He was forgiven and the matter was overlooked.
Despite his young age, to declare Marwan the criminal and declare him deserving of hatred and criticism is the highest level of injustice which is unbecoming.
The opposition to Marwan mention this aspect with much vociferousness and intensity that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu made him the administrator of the matters of his caliphate and gave him the reigns to the affairs of his state. They state:
و ولى مروان أمره و ألقى إليه مقاليد أموره و دفع إليه خاتمه فحدث من ذلك قتل عثمان و حدث من الفتنة بين الأمة ما حدث
He handed over his affairs to Marwan and gave him the reigns of his matters coupled with giving him his ring. This resulted in the murder of ‘Uthman and countless fitnahs cropped up in the ummah.
Earlier on, we mentioned in discussion one that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu appointed Marwan ibn al Hakam as his scribe. He did not make him dominate over his entire state or appoint him his representative. Moreover, Marwan did not occupy this office forever. Rather, he remained the governor of Bahrain for some period and participated in important battles at some stage, e.g. he went along with other seniors to fight in the Battle of Africa. References to this were given in discussion one.
This clearly proves that Marwan did not occupy the post of scribe the entire duration, nor did the despised Marwan due to the influence of his disparaged father Hakam negatively affect the affairs of state, as hallucinated by them.
Marwan being a scribe was not disliked by the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The issue of it being disliked by senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum has been concocted by the way. This is due to the fact that had Marwan’s scribal office for Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu being incorrect, then when Sayyidah ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu made a public announcement for complaints to remove or change the officials, then no one (neither a Sahabi or non-Sahabi) brought up the issue of Marwan’s post being changed nor did anyone raise any complaints concerning it. (The reference has passed in discussion one.) The people who came later on selected these objections and broadcasted them whereas the noble Sahabah in the ‘Uthman era never objected.
Another point worth considering is that Marwan remained scribe in the last three years of Sayyidina ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu life whereas his father Hakam passed on few years earlier in 32 A.H. After his demise, to regard his son as despised and disliked by the noble Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum is a concocted tale sourced from a pile of baseless historical reports. The objection was not raised (on the basis of a sahih report.)
Another reality is that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not dismiss a senior Sahabi and appoint Marwan in his position. Rather, he was given the post from the onset. Have a look at Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat.
The caliphate of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu spread over a vast and wide dominion which comprised of countless provinces and districts. The administration and management of them all was in the hands of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The appointment and dismissal of governors was also according to his discretion. Marwan had no control whatsoever. He acted at the rank of an ordinary scribe or writer. Looking at the governors and officials of those far outlying places, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu being the dominant governor is relative and sensible.
Previously, a description of the vast kingdom of the ‘Uthmani state was included in discussion one. A brief image of the ‘Uthmani state will be presented here as well as a reminder given by Ibn Qutaybah al Dinawari in al Ma’arif and Imam al Nawawi in Tahdhib al Asma’. These are further conquests and dominations over and above the Siddiqi and Faruqi eras; for example: Rayy, Iskandariyyah, Sabur, Africa (with its countries), Cyprus Island, the coastal regions of the Roman Sea, Istakhr al Akhirah, Faris al Ula, Jur, Faris al Akhirah, Tabaristan, Darzbahard, Kirman, Sajistan, al Asawirah (coastal), coast of Jordan, Marw (with its districts), etc.
To regard Marwan’s dominance and management over all these countries and districts instead of Sayyidina ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu is wishful thinking and in polarity with reality. It is total injustice to the history of that era which no fair-natured human is prepared to accept.
Marwan ibn al Hakam was the paternal cousin of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In his personal capacity, he was a dignified and trustworthy individual. He remained engaged in serving the religion of Islam. Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu got him married to his daughter Umm Aban al Kubra. In the biography of Marwan, the reference to this was mentioned.
With reliance on the religiousness and trustworthiness of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, we can declare with conviction that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not give his daughter’s hand in marriage to some irreligious open transgressor. Rather, he was righteous and deserving for this honour and status. Furthermore, the verses and ahadith which mention that the hand of assistance should not be stretched towards a sinner, oppressor, or evil person and friendly relationship should not be maintained with him were in front of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
In short, Sayyidina ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu forming of this link with him is sufficient proof for Marwan’s religious potential which cannot be refuted due to historical fallacies.
Before the martyrdom of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, some things occurred which led to the martyrdom. Regarding the causes and reasons of the martyrdom, a brief discussion, according to the need, will take place at the end of these themes, Allah willing. Here, aspects pertaining to Marwan will be penned.
When the rebels and transgressors besieged Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum tried their best to resolve the issues between Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the rebels and Marwan continued to remain at the side of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum to guard against the evil of the rebels.
عن محمد بن سيرين قال انطلق الحسن و الحسين و ابن عمر و ابن الزبير و مروان كلهم شاك في السلاح حتى دخلوا الدار فقال عثمان أعزم عليكم لما رجعتم فوضعتم أسلحتكم و لزمتم بيوتكم فخرج ابن عمر و الحسن و الحسين فقال ابن زبير و مروان و نحن نعزم على أنفسنا أن لا نبرح
Muhammad ibn Sirin reports:
Hassan, Hussain, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair, and Marwan came to the house of ‘Uthman, armed with their weapons to defend him. ‘Uthman told them, “I entreat you on oath to return, lay down your weapons, and remain in your homes.”
At this, Ibn ‘Umar, Hassan, and Hussain left. However, Ibn al Zubair and Marwan stated, “We have taken an oath upon ourselves that we will not leave.”
This was the offer from these men in the beginning stages.
The unethical rebels had an ulterior motive in their hearts, to fulfil which they devised many schemes and plots. The final plot they devised to start anarchy is that after getting their demands fulfilled by Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they returned and after going a certain amount of the way, all the rebels of Basrah, Kufah, and Egypt at once returned to Madinah and besieged Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu a second time. They expressed their reason for their return to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum saying that they found a letter from Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu which a camel rider was taking to the governor of Egypt. In it was written that when the Egyptian delegation return, certain members should be punished. The stamp of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was on the letter and the man with the letter was riding ‘Uthman’s camel. They explained that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu broke the covenant with them and deceived them, due to which they are going to murder him.
Ibn Khaldun gives a detailed report of this incident:
فانصرفوا قليلا ثم رجعوا و قد لبسوا بكتاب مدلس يزعمون أنهم لقوه في يد حامله إلى عامل مصر بأن يقتلهم و حلف عثمان على ذلك فقالوا مكنا من مروان فإنه كاتبك فحلف مروان فقال ليس في الحكم أكثر من هذا فحاصروه بداره ثم بيتوه على حين غفلة من الناس و قتلوه و انفتح باب الفتنة
The rebels left for a while and then returned, with a devious letter which they claimed they hand found in the hand of its carrier to the governor of Egypt stating that he should kill them all. ‘Uthman swore upon oath that he had no knowledge of the letter.
They said, “Allow us to punish Marwan, for he is your scribe.” Marwan swore that he did not write it.
‘Uthman then said, “Nothing more than this is part of the ruling.” Thus, they besieged him in his house and then attacked him when people were in negligence and murdered him in cold blood. This resulted in the opening of the door of fitnah.
At the martyrdom of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, among the forged letters in the name of the Sahabah these wicked conspirators broadcasted for their propaganda, one letter was this one which was being sent with a camel rider to the Egypt governor. This was fabricated in the name of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Marwan was included due to him being the scribe.
This was a logical excuse devised to kill Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The academic historians have emphatically stated that these letters were concocted. Ibn Kathir writes:
هذا كذب على الصحابة إنما كتبت مزورة عليهم كما كتبوا من جهة علي و طلحة و الزبير إلى الخوارج كتبا مزورة عليهم أنكروها … و هكذا زور هذا الكتاب على عثمان أيضا فإنه لم يأمر به و لم يعلم به أيضا
This is a fabrication in the name of the Sahabah. It was forged in their name just as many letters were forged in the name of ‘Ali, Talhah, and Zubair to the Khawarij which they denied. Similarly, this letter was forged in ‘Uthman’s name. He did not order it, nor had any knowledge of it.
The critics have prepared a startling image of Marwan’s behaviour at this juncture. It is presented below. Study it and keep it in mind then wait a little for the answer.
In short, the heated dialogue between Sayyidina Muhammad ibn Maslamah al Ansari radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Marwan, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu severely criticising Marwan and labelling him responsible for all the affairs, Sayyidina ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu wife Na’ilah labelling Marwan wicked and a conniver, etc. all of these fall on Marwan’s head.
In answer to this, the basis of the historical reports this blessed material was founded upon should be examined narrationally and logically. If it comes out accurate, then all these accusations are correct. However, if to the contrary the very basis is faulty, then the entire building of accusations is useless. Now study carefully.
Firstly, where the issue of appointing Marwan as scribe and earning proximity is mentioned, it is reported with the words they say. Through an authentic chain, this has not reached the era of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Hence, it being reported back to the actual happening with a strong chain is now doubtful. Allah knows what type of people they were who objected to Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu for appointing Marwan.
Then Marwan spoiling the relationship between the Sahabah and Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and delivering a lecture, filled with threats, to the Sahabah, Marwan being responsible for creating problems, Muhammad ibn Maslamah al Ansari’s, Sayyidina ‘Ali al Murtada’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and ‘Uthman’s wife Na’ilah’s severe criticism and disparagement, etc.; the reporter of all these reports is al Waqidi. Open Tarikh al Tabari and have a look. These reports are available at various places. Have a look at the following places:
Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 5 pg. 109, 111, 112, 118, 119, under the heading: mention of the travel of those Egyptians who travelled from Dhu Khashab, under the events of 35 A.H., old Egypt print.
The scholars must have realised, but for the benefit of the laymen, it should be noted that the reporter of these tales is an unreliable and weak narrator and such narrations of his have been discarded by the scholars. His narrations are a combination of both truthful and false narrations. To accept them is synonymous to putting an end to distinguishing from truth and falsehood. Especially those aspects which depict the excellent era of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in a bad light and taint the image of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu will never be accepted. These reports are fabricated. Falsehood has been mixed with the truth.
A few texts highlighting the rank of al Waqidi will be presented for the satisfaction of the intellectual. A little indicates to plenty.
Some research scholars have critiqued al Waqidi in the following manner. ‘Allamah al Dhahabi writes in Mizan al I’tidal:
قال أحمد بن حنبل هو كذاب يقلب الأحاديث … قال البخاري و أبو حاتم متروك … و استقر الإجماع على وهن الواقدي
Ahmed ibn Hambal said, “He is a kadhab (liar). He changes ahadith.”
Al Bukhari and Abu Hatim labelled him matruk (accused of hadith forgery). The unanimous decision has been reached that al Waqidi is weak.”
Al Dhahabi writes in Tadhkirat al Huffaz:
لم أسق ترجمته هنا لاتفاقهم على ترك حديثه إلخ
I have not mentioned his biography here due to their agreement on discarding his reports.
Hafiz ibn Hajar writes in al Tahdhib:
قال البخاري الواقدي مدني سكن بغداد متروك الحديث … قال أحمد بن حنبل الواقدي كذاب … قال الشافعي كتب الواقدي كلها كذب إلخ
Al Bukhari says, “Al Waqidi is a Madani who settled in Baghdad. He is matruk al hadith (accused of hadith forgery).”
Ahmed ibn Hambal said, “Al Waqidi is a kadhab (liar).”
Al Shafi’i states, “All the books of al Waqidi are false.”
Since he is unreliable and matruk, his reports are discarded and unacceptable. Without the corroboration and substantiation of the narrations of other muhaddithin and historians, al Waqidi’s reports will not be considered.
Second, if hypothetically the above image of Marwan’s behaviour is correct and he is the foundation for all the chaos and problems, then why did the Hashimites (Sayyidina ‘Ali, Sayyidina Hassan, Sayyidina Hussain, Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhum, etc.) and other esteemed Sahabah (example Sayyidina Ibn ‘Umar, Sayyidina Zaid ibn Thabit, Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, etc.) not avoid protecting, supporting, and assisting Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in every possible way. Why did they wear weapons and continue protecting him? Why did they deliver water to him when his water was stopped? Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu told them on oath to put down their weapons but they continued their endeavours to safeguard him to the last breath. Why did they support him and assist him in this manner?
These men should have told Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu openly that all the chaos and anarchy is due to Marwan in whose hands he gave the reigns of the entire kingdom and appointed as a special secretary. The responsibility of all the fitnah is upon his shoulders. “Therefore, let Marwan be and your affair be. We cannot assist in this wrongdoing.” The Divine command is:
وَتَعَاوَنُوْا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوىٰ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوْا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيْدُ الْعِقَابِ
And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.
Another point worthy of consideration is that the letter in relation to the Egypt delegation which was stumbled upon, which included the killing of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and others, which the camel rider was taking along with him, if Marwan was the one to write it and send it, then it is only sensible to kill such a wicked human first. Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is killed and Marwan is spared? What is this all about?
Thirdly, the Battle of Jamal came out after the martyrdom of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. At that time, Marwan was taken captive by the supporters of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He was among the opposition of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma interceded for his pardon to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who forgave him. This intercession is documented in the following sources and has been quoted aforetime in matters pertaining to Marwan from both Sunni and Shia books,
As per the declaration of the critics, if Marwan was the source of all evil, and the ‘Uthmani fitnah was all because of him, then why did Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma intercede for such a man? Why did Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu accept the intercession? It was binding upon him to finish him off. Why was intercession and pardon allowed for Marwan?
Contemplating and pondering deeply over all these aspects reveals that the original cause for this catastrophe was not the doings of Marwan, but other causes. With regards to this, Allah willing, at the end of these discussions, a special section will be dedicated to it and it will be discussed in brief.
Since the critics have the objective of registering all the troubles, shortcomings, and inadequacies of the ‘Uthmani era, they gather such material from weak historical reports to reach their assumed objective.
This behaviour of the critics, whether it harms Marwan or not, but it definitely blemishes the image of Sayyidina ‘Uthman (the Rightly Guided khalifah) and bad thoughts about him are certainly spread. How sorrowful! To Allah do we belong and to Him is our return!
The critics present a few such narrations which depict the Banu Umayyah and the children of Hakam, viz. Marwan, and others, as disliked, despised, and accursed. After reproducing some reports of this nature, a short discussion will take place so that the reality is learnt in the correct manner and the baselessness of the objection be established.
The examination will take place from two angles, the narration and logic.
Those who harbour hatred for the Banu Umayyah Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum present the following narration:
عن أبي برزة الأسلمي قال كان أبغض الأحياء إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بنو أمية و بنو حنيفة و ثقيف
Abu Barzah al Aslami reports: The most despised tribes to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were the Banu Umayyah, Banu Hanifah, and the Thaqif.
In some reports, it appears that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam disliked these tribes, viz. the Banu Umayyah, Banu Hanifah, and the Thaqif.
Firstly, it is befitting to clarify that Hakim reported the narration of Sayyidina Abu Barzah al Aslami radiya Llahu ‘anhu via one chain from Imam Ahmed ibn Hambal and his son ‘Abdullah. We checked Musnad Ahmed, volume four and perused all the narrations of Sayyidina Abu Barzah al Aslami radiya Llahu ‘anhu only to find that although this report is available, however, the words Banu Umayyah are not found. Only the Banu Hanifah and Thaqif are listed. Have a look at Musnad Ahmed, vol. 4 pg. 420, the musnadat of Abu Barzah al Aslami, first Musnad of the Basriyyin, Egypt print, first edition.
This elucidates that the original report does not have the words Banu Umayyah. It was added later on by some reporters which is termed idraj al rawi (addition of a narrator) which is one spectacle of the narrators. Many narrators add and delete from narrations.
Secondly, worthy of consideration is that if this report is authentic and the Banu Umayyah were despised and disliked by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then how are his following actions correct and how were the following dealings with the Banu Umayyah made. According to the prophetic statement, this tribe is deserving of disparagement and aversion, while the prophetic behaviour displayed kindness and benevolence. Paradoxical, is it not?
Moreover, why did the Banu Hashim develop links and other relationship with the despised and disliked Banu Umayyah tribe? Why did Sayyidina Abu Bakr al Siddiq and Sayyidina ‘Umar al Faruq radiya Llahu ‘anhuma maintain good relations with the Banu Umayyah? Why were they awarded high posts in the Islamic state? A few points will be listed hereunder as a reminder. Have a look at them and ponder deeply and reflect over this matter. The references have passed before, they may be checked for satisfaction.
(References to all the above marriages with detail, besides Umm Habibah, appears in Ruhama’ Baynahum, ‘Uthmani section, discussion one.)
(References to these marriages were given a little while back in discussion two under the heading of links with the family of Amir Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu)
The tribe that is despised and disliked by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, how can fostering links and relationships with them of this type ever be correct? Think and deal fairly.
The tribe deserving of hatred, aversion, and detestation according to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, why were they awarded these posts of honour? Why was trust placed in them in the era of Nubuwwah, the Siddiqi era and Faruqi era, and why were they given these responsibilities?
Many statements of Sayyidina ‘Ali al Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the virtues and merits of the Banu Umayyah tribe are recorded in many places which highlight his stance and views on the tribe.
عن ابن سيرين قال قال رجل لعلي أخبرني عن قريش قال أرزننا أحلاما أخوتنا بني أمية
Ibn Sirin narrates: A person requested ‘Ali to inform him about the Quraysh. (While highlighting the characteristics of all the tribes,) he said: “Our brothers the Banu Umayyah have the weightiest of minds (deepest understanding and foresight).”
فقال (علي) أوزننا أحلاما إخواننا بنو أمية
‘Ali said, “The ones with the highest level of tolerance are our brothers the Banu Umayyah.”
فقال (علي) أما إخواننا بنو أمية فقادة أدبة ذادة
‘Ali said, “With regards our brother the Banu Umayyah, they are leaders (of armies), preparers of food, and protectors of honour.”
In short, in light of the statements and behaviour of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the practice of Sayyidina Siddiq Akbar and Sayyidina Faruq A’zam radiya Llahu ‘anhuma it is evident that the Banu Umayyah Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum being despised and disliked is contrary to reality. This is in total polarity with the declarations of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself. Rather, they are accepted and beloved. The reports which contain the aversion and hatred for the Banu Umayyah are incorrect and inauthentic and are additions from the narrators.
First of all, Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al ‘As relates that they were sitting in the company of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and my father went home to change his clothes so that he may attend the gathering. Meanwhile, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated, “An accursed man will enter your presence.” ‘Abdullah continues, I continued looking inside and outside
حتى دخل فلان يعني الحكم
until so and so i.e. Hakam entered.
Worthy of noting is that this report is among the solitary reports. If accepted as correct, then Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not curse by determining a certain individual by name. Rather, he informed of the entering of an accursed person. A certain person entered. One of the narrators determines him as Hakam.
This means that the original narration does not have the name Hakam emphatically. However, Hakam was taken as the referred to at a later stage. In this way, this report is not clear in its indication to the subject, but is actually the assumption of the narrator.
Secondly, it is reported on the authority of Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma that while reclining on the Ka’bah, he reported the following statement of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
لعن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فلانا و ما ولد من صلبه
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam cursed so and so and the offspring from his loins.
This narration is among the solitary reports. if accepted as accurate, it has cursed a certain individual and his children, without determining who he is. His name does not appear in the original narration, nor was it determined by any narrator.
Thirdly, it is reported on the strength of Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma:
إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعن الحكم و ولده
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam cursed Hakam and his issue.
The scholars have scrutinised the chain of this report and have criticised it. Therefore, this report is not correct and is not worthy of being presented as proof. For example, one of these narrators is Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn al Hajjaj ibn Rushdin al Misri. Al Dhahabi has written in Talkhis al Mustadrak that Ibn ‘Adi declared him weak. Al Dhahabi writes in volume one of Mizan al I’tidal that Ibn ‘Adi says that the people have labelled Ibn Rushdin a liar and that he has many munkar reports and many false reports and fabrications are reported from him.
Similarly, the same criticism is found in Lisan al Mizan. Hafiz Ibn Hajar adds that Ahmed ibn Salih al Rushdini is declared a liar.
Criticism is found for him in Kitab al Jarh wa al Ta’dil of al Razi (volume one, section one). More narrators in this chain are criticised, however, he has been sufficed upon. In short, this narration is not authentic with regards to its chain. Therefore, it cannot be used as proof.
Fourthly, al Hakim’s al Mustadrak contains a narration which mentions an incident that when Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu told Marwan to pledge allegiance to his son Yazid, Marwan presented this to the people. Upon this, a heated argument broke out between Sayyidina ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Marwan. Sayyidina ‘Abdur Rahman radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained that this is the system of Heraclius and Caesar. Marwan retorted that the following verse of the glorious Qur’an was revealed concerning him:
وَالَّذِيْ قَالَ لِوَالِدَيْهِ أُفٍّ لَّكُمَا
But one who says to his parents, “Uff to you.”
When news of this reached Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, she said:
كذب والله ما هو به و لكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لعن أبا مروان و مروان في صلبه
He has spoken a lie, by Allah. It is not in relation to him. On the other hand, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam cursed the father of Marwan while Marwan was in his loins.
Firstly, inqita’ (interruption of chain) is found in this report. ‘Allamah al Dhahabi has written in the footnotes of this report in his Talkhis:
قلت فيه انقطاع محمد لم يسمع من عائشة
My comment: There is inqita’ in it. Muhammad did not hear from Aisha.
A narrator is missing in-between which reported it to Muhammad. (Allah alone knows what type of person he was.)
The second point is that the above narration (the dialogue between ‘Abdur Rahman and Marwan) has been documented by senior scholars in the following books, without any mention of Marwan or his father Hakam being accursed on the tongue of nubuwwah. Sahih al Bukhari contains the dialogue of ‘Abdur Rahman and Marwan without any mention of Hakam and Marwan being cursed.
The dialogue is recorded in the events of 58 A.H. However, in all these five books, the addition of Marwan and Hakam being cursed by the tongue of Nubuwwah is not found. Wherever the addition of cursing on the tongue of Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha is found, Hafiz Ibn Kathir sheds light upon it saying that the reports are inauthentic.
و يروى أنها بعثت إلى مروان تعتبه و تؤنبه و تخبره بخبر فيه ذم له و لأبيه لا يصح عنه
It is reported that she sent word to Marwan, denigrating him, censuring him, and informing him of a narration which contains disparagement of him and his father. This is not authentic from him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
The above mentioned points establish that the authentic reports on this incident do not contain cursing and wherever cursing does appear, they are inauthentic. Therefore, this report cannot establish the claim and the evidence is not complete.
Fifth, a report on the authority of Sayyidina ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf radiya Llahu ‘anhu goes as follows. In the era of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, whenever a child was born, it was brought to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for prayers and blessings and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would supplicate for the child. When Marwan ibn al Hakam was born, he was brought in the presence of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who stated:
هو الوزغ ابن الوزغ الملعون ابن الملعون
He is a lizard, son of a lizard; accursed, son of the accursed.
The scholars have mentioned the following about this report, rendering it totally baseless and worthless. ‘Allamah al Dhahabi writes under this report in Talkhis al Mustadrak:
قلت لا والله و ميناء كذبه أبو حاتم
My comment: No, by Allah. The narrator Mina’ has been declared a liar by Abu Hatim.
Ibn Abi Hatim al Razi writes concerning Mina’ (the freed slave of ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf radiya Llahu ‘anhu) in Kitab al Jarh wa al Ta’dil that he is munkar al hadith.
روى أحاديث في أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم مناكير لا يعباء بحديثه كان يكذب
He narrates munkar ahadith about the Companions of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. His narrations are not considered. He would lie.
Ibn Hibban writes concerning Mina’ in his book al Majruhin:
وجب التنكب عن حديثه
Abstention from his reports is necessary.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar states in Tahdhib al Tahdhib:
قال الجوزجاني أنكر الأئمة حديثه لسوء مذهبه قال ابن عدي … إنه يغلو في التشيع … قال يعقوب بن سفيان … أن لا يكتب حديثه
Al Juzajani says, “The Imams have rejected his hadith due to his evil creed.”
Ibn ‘Adi says, “He was extreme in tashayyu’.”
Yaqub ibn Sufyan says, “His hadith should not be written.”
The above declarations of the senior scholars have established that this report of Mina’ is baseless and it is necessary to abstain from it.
Caution: These types of reports regarding cursing Marwan and his father Hakam have been broadcasted by the narrators in many forms. To count them all and analyse each one of them is a lengthy issue. We have presented few samples of this type to the readers and analysed them. Some reports do not establish the claim and other reports are baseless due to the unreliability of the narrators.
Concerning the Umawi Sahabah and other Sahabah of their type, disgrace and criticism is found is some reports about them. The senior scholars have written something amazing regarding these type of reports. We will reproduce it below as a sample so that the report against the Umawi Sahabah can be assessed all at once and this misconception on the reports on hatred, cursing, etc. may be examined altogether.
‘Allamah ibn Qayyim in his work al Manar al Munif fi al Sahih wa al Da’if has written something special in the 37th section concerning narrations like the above. A few sentences will be reproduced hereunder for the benefit of the readers:
و من ذلك الأحاديث في ذم معاوية و كل حديث في ذمه فهو كذب و كل حديث في ذم عمرو بن العاص فهو كذب و كل حديث في ذم بني أمية فهو كذب و كذلك أحاديث ذم الوليد و ذم مروان بن الحكم
In the genre are the ahadith in disparagement of Muawiyah. Every hadith in his disparagement is a lie. Every hadith deriding ‘Amr bin al ‘As is a lie. Every hadith ridiculing the Banu Umayyah is a lie. Similarly, the ahadith on criticising Walid and Marwan ibn al Hakam.
Mulla ‘Ali Qari has expressed similar verdicts about reports of disparagement, insulting, and cursing. He says:
و من ذلك الأحاديث في ذم معاوية و ذم عمرو بن العاص و ذم بني أمية … و ذم مروان بن الحكم إلخ
From this type [fabrications], are the reports ridiculing Muawiyah, ‘Amr ibn al ‘As, the Banu Umayyah, and Marwan ibn al Hakam.
The renowned masters of this science have cautioned the Muslim ummah that the reports ridiculing, insulting, and cursing noteworthy individuals of the Banu Umayyah have been concocted by the narrators and spread among the masses. By coming across piles of narrations of this type, they should not be misled and fall prey to harbouring evil thoughts about these personalities. The scholars have fulfilled their duty of establishing the truth in a splendid way. If any person does not accept the truth despite this and chooses a path wayward from the truth, then this is obstinacy which has a nasty ending. Allah’s declaration is:
أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَن يُتَّبَعَ
So is He who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed?
Ponder deeply over the following. If the reports of cursing for Hakam and his offspring Marwan etc., are correct and they are accursed on the tongue of Nubuwwah, then how can the following be correct:
References to these points have been given earlier on in matters pertaining to Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Marwan and may be referred to.
Worthy of noting is that did the progeny of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu forget all these statements of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (including hatred, loathing, cursing, etc.) and aligned themselves to the family of Marwan by contracting lifelong bonds with them? Or was it that these reports were never present before them in their era? But rather, the narrators of later times concocted these to reach their evil agendas and propagated them.
Among the readers are intellectuals, academics, thinkers, and scholars of high note. We have presented many angles to the issue at hand. The impartial may ponder and hopefully reach sensible conclusions themselves. Our only request is to reflect after removing the yolk of prejudice and tribalism from the neck.
First, a brief biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam was penned. Thereafter, answers to a few famous objections against Marwan were presented. We were unable to present all the academic material on these two topics as it deserves. Nonetheless, practicing on the principle: what cannot be attained in full, should not be abandoned completely, what was present was presented.
In the beginning of this discussion it was mentioned and now it is repeated at the end, that excesses in any matter is unnecessary. On the basis of this, Marwan being free from error and innocent from mistakes is not at all the claim. Very likely, he committed errors at many instances. However, to terminate Marwan’s good qualities and religious and social services and to spread tales on his flaws is no good work nor any great service to Islam and the religion.
It is appropriate to practice on the stance of the pious predecessors:
خذ ما صفا و دع ما كدر
Take what is clear and positive and avoid what is imprecise and negative.
Telling the truth as is and not supporting falsehood is the safest option and the best possible way to avoid prejudice. If acceptance is viable.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 24, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam, Leiden print; al Isabah with al Isti’ab, vol. 3 pg. 256, second section, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Al Isabah, vol. 1 pg. 345, biography of Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As.
 Al Jam’ bayn Rijal al Sahihayn, pg. 501 – 502, Marwan ibn al Hakam, Hyderabad Dakkan print; al Isabah with al Isti’ab, vol. 3 pg. 456, second section, biography of Marwan. Egypt print; al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 260, end of Marwan ibn al Hakam’s biography.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 112, the offspring of ‘Uthman.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 45, the offspring of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
 Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 87, the offspring of al Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As and the children of his son Marwan.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 52, the children of Hassan Muthanna.
 Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 108, offspring of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 234, biography of Zaid ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
 ‘Umdat al Talib fi Ansab Al Abi Talib, pg. 70, first object, the progeny of Zaid ibn al Hassan.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 171, Harith ibn al Hakam; Nasab Quraysh, pg. 51, Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
 Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 109, offspring of Muhammad ibn Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 109, the children of Muhammad ibn Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Kitab al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, vol. 4 pg. 271, section 1, Marwan ibn al Hakam, Dakkan print; al Jam’ bayn Rijal al Sahihayn, pg. 501 – 502, Marwan ibn al Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As, Dakkan print.
 Hady al Sari Muqaddamah Fath al Bari, vol. 2 pg. 164, the letter mim, Egypt print.
 Ila’: the husband swearing on oath that he will not have conjugal relations with his wife.
 Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaq, vol. 6 pg. 457, chapter on the termination of four, (discussion on ila’), Majlis ‘Ilmi Beirut print, first edition.
 Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol. 5 pg. 131, a person who makes ila’ should hold on, discussions on ila’, Hyderabad Dakkan print.
 Short surahs beginning from Surah al Bayyinah to Surah al Nas.
 Musnad Ahmed with Muntakhab Kanz al ‘Ummal, vol. 5 pg. 189, Zaid ibn Thabit, Egypt print, old edition.
 Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 1 pg. 309, book on representation, chapter on when he gifts the representative something, Nur Muhammadi print, Delhi.
 Hady al Sari Muqaddamah Fath al Bari, vol. 2 pg. 192, mention of a few reports of every Sahabi in Sahih al Bukhari, mawsul or mu’allaq.
 Hady al Sari, vol. 2 pg. 164, under the letter mim, Egypt print.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 257, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 258, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Al Isabah with al Isti’ab, vol. 3 pg. 455, section two, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 189.
 Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 89 – 90, discussion on ‘Uthmani criticisms, 12.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 30, end of the biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam, Leiden print.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 258, biography of Marwan.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 180 – 181, the offspring of Sa’id ibn al ‘As.
 Futuh al Buldan, pg. 234, the conquest of Africa.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, vol. 1 pg. 159, the names of ‘Uthman’s governors, Bahrain.
 Sahih Muslim, vol. 1 pg. 169, chapter on establishment of takbir in every movement in salah, Nur Muhammadi Delhi print.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 113, biography of Abu Hurayrah, 56 A.H.; al Muntakhab Dhayl al Mudhil, pg. 81, under mention of who said this, printed at the end of Tarikh al Tabari.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 258, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Al Tarikh al Saghir, pg. 54, under mention of who was present from the fifties to sixties, Ilahabad India print.
 Sunan Sa’id ibn Mansur, pg. 366, chapter on martyrdom, Hadith: 2947, Majlis ‘Ilmi print, Karachi, Dabhel.
 Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 123, in his khutbah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in which he taught the people salutations upon the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Egypt print.
 Muruj al Dhahab, pg. 378, the Battle of Jamal, dialogue between Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Aishah, fourth edition, Egypt print.
 Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol. 2 pg. 378, mention of salah behind the governors, Hyderabad Dakkan print; al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 258, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Al Tarikh al Saghir, pg. 57, Anwar Muhammadi print, Ilahabad, India.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 158, biography of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain.
 Bihar al Anwar, vol. 10 pg. 139 – 141, chapter on the condition of the people of his era and what happened between them and Muawiyah, old Iran print.
 Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol. 2 pg. 378 – 379, salah behind the leaders, Hyderabad Dakkan print.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 258, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 9 pg. 104, 105, biography of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 156, section 1, biography of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain; al Tarikh al Saghir, pg. 104, India print.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 158, section 1, biography of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, Leiden print; al Muntakhab min Dhayl al Mudhil, pg. 89, those who died in 83 A.H., Egypt print, printed at the end of Tarikh al Tabari.
 Minhaj al Karamah, pg. 67, ‘Uthmani criticisms.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 196, discussion on the exile of Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As; al Muntaqa, pg. 395, section 3, discussion on the expulsion of Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 331, biography of Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As, first print, Leiden.
 Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 5 pg. 102 – 103, the conditions surrounding the arrival of the Egyptian and Iraqi delegations into Madinah, 35 A.H.; al Bidayah, vol. 7 pg. 171, the beginning of 35 A.H.
 Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 5 pg. 135, list of some of ‘Uthman’s travels; Kitab al Tamhid wa al Bayan fi Maqtal al Shahid ‘Uthman, pg. 83 – 84, Beirut print.
 Ibn Hazm Abi Muhammad ‘Ali ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H.): Kitab al Fasl fi al Milal wa al Ahwa’ wa al Nihal with Kitab al Milal wa al Nihal of Shahristani, vol. 4 pg. 154, discussion on the war of ‘Ali and those among the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who fought against him, first edition.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 196, discussion on the exile of Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As and its answer.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 196; al Muntaqa, pg. 395, section 3, research on the exile of Hakam and his release.
 Surah al Hujurat: 12.
 Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 94.
 Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 77, answers to the criticisms against ‘Uthman.
 Minhaj al Karamah, vol. 4 pg. 67, at the end of Minhaj al Sunnah, Lahore print.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, vol. 1 pg. 156 – 157, the names of ‘Uthman’s governors, Najaf Ashraf print, Iraq.
 Al Ma’arif, pg. 83 – 84, information on ‘Uthman; Tahdhib al Asma’, vol. 1 pg. 323, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 112, ‘Uthman’s children.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, vol. 1 pg. 151, 152, fitnah in the era of ‘Uthman, Najaf Ashraf Iraq print, first edition.
 ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Khaldun al Maghribi: Muqaddamah Ibn Khaldun, section 30 regarding him assuming the post, pg. 215 – 216, Egypt print, 381 – 382, Beirut print.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 7 pg. 175, discussion on the coming of ruins to ‘Uthman.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 234 – 25, biography of Marwan ibn al Hakam, first edition, Leiden.
 Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 3 pg. 110, Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn Waqid al Aslami, old Egypt print.
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib, vol. 9 pg. 364 – 366, Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, vol. 1 pg. 150 – 151, the fitnah in the era of ‘Uthman.
 Surah al Ma’idah: 2.
 Al Mustadrak, vol. 4 pg. 480 – 481, book on fitan and wars, list of the most despised tribes to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 175 – 176; al Muntaqa, pg. 382 – 383.
 The original book has ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id. However, ‘Amr ibn Sa’id ibn al ‘As is correct. The reason is that the common books on genealogy and narrators (at my disposal) has the name ‘Amr among the offspring of Sa’id ibn al ‘As. however, ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id is not found. It is learnt from here that the copier made a typo, and wrote ‘Uthman instead of ‘Amr. Anyways, this is my research. Perhaps Allah will bring about after this a [different] matter.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 175 – 176, answers to the accusations against ‘Uthman, Lahore print; Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, vol. 1 pg. 61 – 62, the names of his salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam governors.
 Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaq, vol. 5 pg. 451, bay’ah to Abu Bakr.
 Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaq, vol. 11 pg. 56, chapter on the virtues of Quraysh.
 Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaq, vol. 11 pg. 57, chapter on the virtues of Quraysh; Kitab al Fa’iq, vol. 2 pg. 264, nun with jim, Dakkan print.
 Musnad Ahmed, the narrations of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al ‘As.
 Musnad Ahmed, under the musnadat of ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.
 Al Mustadrak, book on fitan and wars, list of the most despised tribes to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Dakkan print, first edition.
 Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 1, Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Rushdini.
 Lisan al Mizan, vol. 1 pg. 257 – 258, Ahmed.
 Surah al Ahqaf: 17.
 Al Mustadrak, vol. 4, book on fitan and wars, list of the most despised tribes to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 Talkhis al Mustadrak, vol. 4 pg. 481.
 Al Bidayah, vol. 8 pg. 89, biography of ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, year 58 A.H.
 Al Mustadrak, book on fitan and wars, when the Banu Umayyah will reach 40.
 Talkhis al Mustadrak, vol. 4 pg. 479; al Mughni fi al Du’afa’, vol. 2 pg. 691, Mina’ ibn Abi Mina’.
 Kitab al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, vol. 4 pg. 395, section one, Mina’, Hyderabad Dakkan print.
 Kitab al Majruhin, vol. 2 pg. 325, Mina’ the freed slave of ‘Abdur Rahman, Hyderabad Dakkan print.
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib, vol. 1 pg. 397, Mina’ ibn Abi Mina’.
 Al Manar al Munif fi al Sahih wa al Da’if, pg. 117, 37th section, Aleppo print.
 Al Mawdu’at, pg. 106, section on what the ignorant who attribute themselves to the Sunnah have fabricated, Mujtaba’i print, Delhi; al Asrar al Marfu’ah fi Akhbar al Mawdu’ah, al Mawdu’at al Kabir, pg. 477, Beirut print, Lebanon; Molana ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Parhardi: Kawthar al Nabi, section 2, discussion on fabricated ahadith.
 Surah Yunus: 35.