Module Two: Seeking retribution from the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the stance of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

Section One: The Stance of those who were Seeking Retribution for the Blood of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from amongst the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum

The murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a direct cause for another crisis, or in other words, a second Fitnah, wherein the opinions differed and the viewpoints emerged with disparity. The Ijtihad of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum also differed as to what was the best medium of seeking retribution from the Khawarij who murdered ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

A group of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum averred that the first duty of the Ummah was to take revenge for its martyred Khalifah and execute the capital punishment upon his sinful murderers. Whilst others opined that the first most suitable thing to do was to restore unity, secure peace, and exercise patience till matters settle and the folds of the conspiracy unfold. Subsequent to that extirpating them and executing its propellants would be most important.

And a third group thought that since the oppressed Khalifah only tolerated the siege upon him and prevented his believing followers from taking any action because of his passionate concern that no blood should be shed and not the smallest of Fitnahs should occur in the Ummah. Hence, it was only appropriate for those who succeeded him to give preference to the wellbeing of the Ummah and not side with either side of the conflict; especially when the prophetic Ahadith in this regard prohibits from fighting in the times of Fitnah.

Al Nawawi states in this regard:

واعلم أن سبب تلك الحروب أن القضايا كانت مشتبهة، لشدة اشتباهها اختلف اجتهادهم وصاروا ثلاثة أقسام: قسم ظهر لهم بالاجتهاد أن الحق في هذا الطرف، وأن ملخفه باغ، فوجب عليهم نصرته، وقتال الباغي عليه فيما اعتقدوه، ففعلوا ذلك، ولم يكن يحل لمن هذه صفته التأخر عن مساعة إمام العدل في قتال البغاة في اعتقاده، وقسم عكس هؤلاء ظهر لهم بالاجتهاد أن الحق في الطرف الآخر، فوجب عليهم مساعدته، وقتال الباغي عليه، وقسم ثالث: اشبهت عليهم القضية وتحيروا فيها، ولم يظهر لهم ترجيح أحد الطرفين، فاعتزلوا الفريقين، وكان هذا الاعتزال هو الواجب في حقهم، لأنه لا يحل الإقدام على قتال مسلم حتى يظهر أنه مستحق لذلك

Know that the cause of these wars was that the matters were confusing. Due to the extreme confusion, their Ijtihad differed and they became divided into three groups: It occurred to one group via their Ijtihad that the truth was on this side, and that the one who opposed it was a rebel. They, thus, considered it compulsory to help him and fight those who revolted against him in what he believed and that is what they did; (according to them) it was not permissible for someone of this nature to stay behind from helping a just ruler in combating those who were rebels according to his understanding. Another group was diametrically opposite to them; it occurred to them via their Ijtihad that the truth was on the other side, and, thus, they deemed it their responsibility to help him and fight those who opposed him. And to the third group the issue was confusing and they were perplexed. The validity of either of the two sides did not become clear to them and, thus, they avoided them both. This avoiding was necessary (according to them), for it is not permissible to advance in killing a Muslim till it becomes evident that he is deserving of it.[1]

The stance of those who sought retribution for the blood of ‘Uthman, like Talhah, Zubair, Aisha, Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and those who agreed with them

A well-known fact which is agreed upon by all historians is that the dispute between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and also the dispute between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the one hand and Talhah, Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum on the other hand was solely in order to seek retribution from the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu immediately. The march of Talhah, Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum to Basrah was for the very same reason.

Al Tabari has narrated that after Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha completed her ‘Umrah she left for Madinah. A person from her maternal family, the Banu Layth, met her and informed her of the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. She, thus, returned to Makkah and when she halted at the door of the Masjid and headed for the Hijr Ismail, the Hatim, she secluded herself in it. The people gathered around her and she informed them of the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was killed without any evidence or excuse and she said:

والله لأصبع عثمان خير من طباق الأرض أمثالهم، فنجاة من اجتماعكم عليهم حتى ينكل بهم غيرهم ويشرد من بعدهم

By Allah the finger of ‘Uthman is better than the earth full of their like. Hence, salvation is in you collaborating against them so that they are punished and serve as a lesson for others and so that those after them are dispersed.[2]

It is also narrated that when Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha returned to Makkah ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir al Hadrami, the governor of Makkah, asked her, “What has brought you back, O Umm al Mu’minin?” She replied saying:

ردني أن عثمان قتل مظلوما، وأن الأمر لا يستقيم ولهذه الغوغاء أمر، فاطلبوا بدم عثمان تعزوا الإسلام

What has returned me is that ‘Uthman has been murdered wrongly. This matter will not be correct as long as these riffraff have any say. So, seek revenge for the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and you will elevate Islam by doing so.[3]

Likewise, when Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma came from Madinah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir from Basrah and Ya’la ibn Munyah from Yemen, whereafter their group decided to march to Basrah after much deliberation, Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha said:

إن هذا حدث عظيم وأمر منكر، فانهضوا فيه إلى إخوانكم من أهل البصرة فأنكروه، فقد كفاهم أهل الشام ما عندهم لعل الله يدرك لعثمان وللمسلين بثأرهم

This is a grave event and a heinous matter, so rise in it to your brothers from the people of Basrah and condemn it, for the people of Syria have taken care for them of the situation on their side. Probably Allah will take for ‘Uthman and for the Muslims their revenge.[4]

And al Tabari also narrates that when Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha came to Basrah she asked the people for two things: to apprehend the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and to uphold the Book of Allah.[5]

There can be no doubt regarding the eagerness that Talhah, Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum had in slaying the Khawarij who murdered ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and in seeking retribution for his blood. Hence, when their opinion settled upon going to Basrah after much consultation their messenger announced:

إن أم المؤمنين وطلحة والزبير شاخصون إلى البصرة، فمن كان يريد إعزاز الإسلام، وقتال المحلين والطلب بثأر عثمان، ومن لم يكن عنده مركب أو جهاز فهذا جهاز وهذه نفقة

Umm al Mu’minin, Talhah, and Zubair are leaving for Basrah. Hence, whoever wants to honour Islam, fight the violators, and seek retribution for ‘Uthman (should join us). And whoever does not have a conveyance or equipment then here is equipment and here is provision.[6]

In another narration it is stated that Talhah, Zubair, Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and others who were with them had concurred upon seeking retribution for the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and fighting the Saba’iyyah.[7]

And al Tabari narrates that al Ahnaf ibn Qais sent a person to the people coming from Hijaz in order to glean information regarding them. Hence, ‘Imran ibn Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Abu al Aswad al Du’ali[8] departed and they came to Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and asked him, “What has brought you here?” He replied, “Seeking revenge for the blood of ‘Uthman.”[9] They thereafter came to Zubair and asked him, “What has brought you?” He replied, “Seeking retribution for the blood of ‘Uthman.”[10]

Likewise, Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu addressed the people in Basrah standing on the right of the Mirbad (a camel market in Basrah), with him were Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the people of Basrah and ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf radiya Llahu ‘anhu was on his left. He praised Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and exalted him and thereafter made mention of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and called for seeking retaliation for his blood. He said:

إن في هذا إعزازا لدين الله وسلطانه، وإن الطلب بدم الخليفة حد من حدود الله، وإنكم إن فعلتم أجبتم، وإن تركتم لم يقم لكم سلطان، ولم يكن لكم نظام

In this is the elevation of the Din of Allah and his authority. And in seeking retribution for the blood of the Khalifah is establishing an injunction from the injunctions of Allah. If you are going to do this you will be responding to the call, and if you are going to leave the matter no authority will remain for you and no system.[11]

Also, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu camped in Dhi Qar he sent Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Basrah, who had travelled to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu amongst those who travelled to him from Kufah. He met Umm al Mu’minin Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha just as he met Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and asked them as to what had prompted them to travel to these regions. They replied saying:

قلتة عثمان رضي الله عنه فإن هذا إن ترك كان تركا للقرآن، وإن عمل به كان إحياء للقرآن

The murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If this is left it will be tantamount to leaving the Qur’an, and if this is implemented it will be reviving the Qur’an.[12]

Similarly, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu left for Kufah and the groups camped and faced one another, ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said when he drew close to the canopy of Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha and asked, “What are you seeking?” They replied, “We are seeking the blood of ‘Uthman.”[13]

Furthermore, it is important to note that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum all unanimously agreed upon establishing the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman, but they differed in hastening in doing so or deferring it till an appropriate time. Talhah, Zubair, Aisha, and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhum considered advancing in establishing the punishment upon those who laid siege upon ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be ideal, and averred that starting with killing them was appropriate. Whereas Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who were with him thought it appropriate to delay the matter till the centre of Caliphate regains its authority and the guardians of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu lodge a case before him against specific individuals, whereafter he can execute them after evidence is established. This was because these besiegers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu were not from a specific tribe, rather from different tribes.

Over and above this, establishing the capital punishment upon this band without the guardians of the murdered actively establishing evidence against them, by the Imam who will then be required to pass his judgement against the killers, will inevitably lead to the spread of Fitnah which will result in a ferocious war that will claim the lives of innocent people. That is why the opinion of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was more correct and accurate than the opinion of Talhah, Zubair, Aisha, and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, as is stated in the Shar’i texts.

The jurists concur that it is not permissible for anyone to seek retribution from anyone and claim his right without the ruler, or the medium of someone who is appointed by the ruler for that matter. Because that can lead to Fitnah and the spreading of confusion. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has appointed the ruler so that he may withhold the hands of some from oppressing others.[14] This is exactly what Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was saying:

إنه لا بد من إمارة تنظم الناس، وتزع الظالم، وتعز المظلوم، وهذا علي يلي بما ولي، وقد أنصف في الدعاء، وإنما يدعو إلى الإصلاح

A leadership is essential in order to keep the affairs of the people organised, repress the oppressor, and help the oppressed. And here is ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who is in charge. He has been fair in his call and has only called toward reform.[15]

Ostensibly, Talhah, Zubair, Aisha and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu believed and understood that the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the most heinous of evils eradicating which was Fard Kifayah (if carried out by some all are absolved) upon anyone who is capable of doing so and is not necessarily contingent upon the permission of the Imam. Over and above that their high ranking in Islam and acclaim amongst the people would make this achievable for them. This is what justified their march to Basrah. However, in this thinking of theirs, i.e. hastening to eradicate this evil, they were practicing Ijtihad, for it did not occur to them just as it did not occur to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu that eradicating this evil was linked to executing the capital punishment upon those who perpetrated it, and that doing so was contingent upon an Imam and the furnishing of evidence from the guardians of the murdered against the perpetrators whereafter the Imam can pass a judgement. This is to what their Ijtihad led them and, thus, it would be fine to say that they had erred but will accrue one reward for their Ijtihad.

Having said this, Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were closer to the truth than Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu due to four reasons.

Firstly, Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma willingly pledged allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and conceded his virtue.[16] Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu although conceded the virtue of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, did not pledge to him.[17]

Secondly, the high esteem in which the people held them. Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was without a doubt inferior than them.[18]

Thirdly, their only intention was to kill those who rebelled against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and did not have any intention of combatting ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who were with him in Jamal.[19] Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the other hand insisted on fighting ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who were with him in Siffin.[20]

Fourthly, they did not accuse ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu of complacency in executing the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu,[21] whereas Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who were with him accused him thereof.[22]

Al Qurtubi[23] states the following in his commentary of Surah Hujurat:

لا يجوز أن ينسب إلى أحد من الصحابة خطأ مقطوع به، إذ كانوا كلهم اجتهدوا فيما فعلوه وأرادوا الله عزوجل.. هذا مع ما قد ورد من الأخبار من طرق مختلفة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن طلحة شهيد يمشي على وجه الأرض، فلو كان ما خرج إليه من الحرب عصيانا لم يكن بالقتل فيه شهيدا… ومما يدل على ذلك ما قد صح وانتشر من إخبار علي بأن قاتل الزبير في النار، وقوله: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: بشر قاتل ابن صفية بالنار. وإذا كان كذلك فقد ثبت أن طلحة والزبير غير عاصيين ولا آثمين بالقتال أي إنهما معذوران باجتهادهما لأن ذلك لو كان كذلك لم يقل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في طلحة “شهيد” ولم يخبر أن قاتل الزبير في النار، وإذا كان كذلك لم يوجب ذلك لعنهم، والبراءة منهم، وتفسيقهم وإبطال فضائلهم وجهادهم، وعظيم غنائهم في الدين، رضي الله تعالى عنهم.

It is not permissible to attribute error to any of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhu definitively, for they had all exercised Ijtihad in what they did and had in mind the pleasure of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Together with this, narrations which have come to us through various sources from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam state that Talhah was a martyr who was walking upon the land; if the purpose for which he had embarked was really a sin he would not have earned the status of martyrdom by being killed therein. Likewise, something else that points to this is the statement of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu which is authentically proven from him and is widely transmitted wherein he said that the killer of Zubair is in the fire, and also his narration wherein he states that he heard Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, “Give glad tidings to the killer of the son of Safiyyah of Hell-fire.” If this is the case, then it is established that Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were not sinful in fighting, i.e. they were excused due to their Ijtihad. Because if the matter was otherwise Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would not have dubbed Talhah ‘a martyr’ and he would not have informed regarding the murderer of Zubair being in Hell-fire. And if that is the case, it does not necessitate cursing them, disassociating from them, deeming them sinful, and discarding their merits, striving, and great contribution to the Din radiya Llahu ‘anhum.[24]

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu acknowledged the validity of the view of Talhah, Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha. He also conceded that they had evidence to substantiate the approach they were taking as long as they intended thereby the pleasure of Allah. Hence, when Abu Salamah al Dalani stood up and asked, “Do these people have any evidence to back the blood that they are seeking if their intention thereby is to attain the pleasure of Allah?” He replied, “Yes.”[25]

However, the mistake in their position was their passionate persistence in hastening to seek retribution for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and execute his murderers, despite the circumstances not being very favourable to do so. Especially when considering that repelling evils takes precedence over securing interests. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu alluded to adopting the lesser of the two evils in the following statement:

هذا الذي ندعوكم إليه من إقرار هؤلاء القوم-قتلة عثمان- شر، وهو خير من شر منه-القتال والفرقة

This to which we are calling you, i.e. sparing these people (the murderers of ‘Uthman), is bad, but it is better than an evil far greater than it, fighting and disunity.[26]

Likewise, al Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr also pointed out to them the mistake in their position when they embarked on killing the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from Basrah which had led to the divide increasing. He emphasised upon them that this crisis can only be settled with calmness and deliberation.[27]

Also, Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma surely realised that the matter was indeed confusing. Their hesitance in what they were doing is a clear sign that matters were obscure, for it was extremely difficult to differentiate between right and wrong. Hence Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu dubbed this battle a Fitnah and said regarding it:

إن هذه الفتنة التى كنا نتحدث عنها، فقال له مولاه: أتسميها فتنة وتقاتل فيها؟ قال الزبير: ويلك إنا نبصر ولا نبصر، ما كان أمر قط إلا وأنا أعلم موضع قدمي فيه غير هذا الأمر، فإني لا أدري أنا مقبل فيه أم مدبر

“This Fitnah regarding which we were talking…”

His freed slave said to him, “Do you dub it a Fitnah and still fight in it?”

Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied, “Woe to you! At times we can see and at times we cannot. Never did a matter occur but that I knew my standing position with the exception of this matter, for I do not know whether I am coming or going.”[28]

To further illustrate, when Ka’b ibn Sur came to Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, this was when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had arrived with his army. He said to the two of them:

ما تنتظرون يا قوم بعد توردكم أوائلهم؟ اقطعوا هذا العنق من هؤلاء، قالا: يا كعب إن هذا أمر بيننا وبين إخواننا وهو أمر ملتبس، لا والله ما أخذ أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم منذ بعث الله نبيه طريقا إلا علموا أين مواقد قدمهم، حتى حدث هذا، فإنهم لا يدرون أمقبلون أم مدبرون.

“What are you waiting for, O people after their first batch has come to you? Cut this neck of these people.”

They both said, “O Ka’b, this is a matter between us and between our brothers and it is a confusing matter. No, by Allah, the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam have not treaded a path since Allah sent his Nabi but that they knew the places of their feet till this happened, for they do not know whether they are coming or going.”[29]

Considering all of the above, if it was possible for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum to err, as is the possibility with regard to every human, it would be permitted for us to accept their mistakes which were unintended and happened purely as a result of their Ijtihad in which they were not guided to the correct stance. But in spite of that they will still be rewarded for the sincerity they showed in their Ijtihad, if Allah wills.

What is worth mentioning is that Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were at the verge of revoking their stance regarding seeking the establishment of the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and were almost convinced with the viewpoint of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu when Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr had succeeded in convincing them of the viewpoint of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[30]

This is clearly understood from what the two of them had said to Saburah ibn Shayman, one of the leaders of Basrah, when he came to them. He said to them:

يا طلحة يا زبير انتهزا بنا هذا الرجل، فإن الرأي في الحرب خير من الشد، فقالا: يا صبرة: إنا وهم مسلمون، وهذا أمر لم يكن قبل اليوم فينزل فيه قرآن أو يكون فيه من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سنة، إنما هو حدث، وقد زعم قوم إنه لا ينبغي تحريكه اليوم-القصاص من قتلة عثمان- وهم علي ومن معه، فقلنا نحن: لا ينبغي لنا أن نتركه اليوم ولا نؤخره، فقال علي: هذا الذي ندعوكم إليه من إقرار هؤلاء القوم شر، وهو خير من شر منه، وهو أمر لا يدرك، وقد كاد يبين لنا، وقد جاءت الأحكام بين المسلمين بأيثار أعمها وأحوطها

“O Talhah and Zubair. Rise with us to this man, for strategy in war is better than launching an attack.”

They replied, “O Saburah! We and they are Muslims and this is a matter which had not occurred before this day due to which the Qur’an would be revealed regarding it or there be regarding it a Sunnah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is a new matter. Some people suggest that it is not feasible to stir it today, seeking revenge from the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, i.e. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his people. We on the other hand said, ‘It is not appropriate for us to leave this today and we should not delay it.’ ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu reasoned, ‘What we are calling you to of entertaining these people is evil, but it is better than an evil far worse than it, a matter that cannot be grasped. This was about to become clear to us, for the rulings between the Muslims have come in such a way that they necessitate giving preference to the more general and those based more on discretion among them.’”[31]

However, the plotting of the Saba’iyyah in order to instigate the war and fuel its fire, without the willingness of the Sahabah, did not allow the last step of the reconciliation to reach its culmination. This last step entailed within it the consensus of ‘Ali, Talhah, and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhum upon one stance. This would further ensure the safety of Muslim lives, the accomplishment of the greatest interest in the form of unity, filling the cracks, and uniting the rows.

Those who aver that the motive that drove Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to mobilise was their greed for Caliphate and that they had conspired against the people to achieve that are certainly wrong.[32] Ibn Shabbah debunks this assumption in his book Akhbar al Basrah, saying:

إن أحدا لم ينقل أن عائشة ومن معها نازعوا عليا في الخلافة، ولا دعوا إلى أحد منهم ليولوه الخلافة، وإنما أنكورا على علي منعه من قتل قتلة عثمان وترك الاقتصاص منهم

No one has reported that Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha or those who were with her disputed with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu for the Caliphate, nor did they campaign for anyone of them to appoint him to the Caliphate. However, they had disproved of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu preventing the execution of the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and not exacting the revenge upon them.[33]

The events which concluded in the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu hurt them. They felt severe regret and assumed that they fell short of fulfilling the rights of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They, thus, set out to seek revenge for him. Hence, when Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu passed by Malih ibn ‘Awf al Sulami[34] on his way to Basrah the latter said to him:

يا أبا عبد الله! ما هذا؟ قال: عدي على أمير المؤمنين، فقتل بلا ترة ولا عذر! قال: ومن قال الغوغاء… قال فتريدون ماذا؟ قال: ننهض الناس فيدرك بهذا الدم، لئلا يبطل فإن أبطاله توهين سلطان الله بيننا أبدا. إذا لم يفطم الناس عن أمثاله لم يبق إمام إلا قتله هذا الضرب

“O Abu ‘Abdullah! What is this?”

He said, “Amir al Mu’minin has been attacked and has been murdered without any blame or excuse.”

He asked, “Who?”

He replied, “The riffraff.”

He further asked, “So what do you intend?”

He replied, “We rise and this blood should be sought so that it does not go to waste, for discarding it would result in humiliating the authority of Allah amidst us. If the people are not weaned off from doing such actions no Imam will remain but that this class of people will kill him.”[35]

And Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whilst being showered with arrows in the Battle of Jamal, was saying:

اللهم خذ لعثمان مني اليوم حتى ترضى

O Allah take for ‘Uthman from me till you are pleased.[36]

Likewise, when the news of the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu reached Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, and she had reached Sarif[37], she said:

قتل والله مظلوما، والله لأطلبن بدمه

By Allah he has been wrongfully killed. By Allah I will seek revenge for his blood.[38]

Ibn Hazm says:

قد صح صحة ضرورية لا إشكال فيها أنهم لم يمضوا إلى البصرة لحرب علي ولا خلافا عليه، ولا نقضا لبيعته، ولو أرادوا ذلك لأحدثوا بيعة غير بيعته، هذا ما لا يشك فيه أحد ولا يمكره أحد، فصح أنهم إنما نهضوا إلى البصرة لسد الفتق الحادث في الإسلام من قتل أمير المؤمنين عثمان رضي الله عنه ظلما.

It is established with obviousness and without any objection that they did not proceed to Basrah to fight ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu or to oppose him or violate his pledge. Had they intended that they would have initiated a pledge other than the pledge they gave him. Regarding this no one can doubt or deny. Hence, it is established that they only proceeded to Basrah to obstruct the fissure which had occurred in Islam due to the murder of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrongfully.”[39]

Moving on, it has become popular amongst people of ancient and of recent that the dispute between Muawiyah and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was due to Muawiyah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu greed for the Caliphate, and that he had only revolted against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and refused to pledge allegiance to him due to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu dismissing him from the governorship of Sham. Hence, a narration appears in al Imamah wa al Siyasah of Ibn Qutaybah al Dinawari[40] which states that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu claimed Caliphate; this narration mentions what Ibn al Kawwa’ said to Abi Musa al Ash’ari radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

اعلم أن معاوية طليق الإسلام، وإن أباه رأس الأحزاب، وأنه ادعى الخلافة من غير مشورة فإن صدقك فقد حل خلعه، إن كذبك فقد حرم عليك كلامه

Know well that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a late entrant to Islam and his father was the leader of the groups (in the battle of Khandaq). He claimed Caliphate without consulting anyone. If he speaks the truth to you then it will be permissible to denounce him and if he lies to you then it will impermissible for you to talk to him. [41]

It also appears in the Tarikh of al Tabari from Saif that Mughirah ibn Shu’bah came to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and suggested to him than he keep Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in his position and that he only dismiss him or maintain him after he is sure of his compliance.[42] He has also cited another narration from al Waqidi which is akin to the aforementioned narration, but with the following addition:

إن عليا قال لابن عباس: سر إلى الشام فقد وليتكها، وأن ابن عباس لم يوافقه على ذلك، وأشار عليه أن يكتب إلى معاوية يمنيه ويعده –أي بالولاية- فرفض علي بقوله: والله لا كان هذا أبدا

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, “Proceed to Syria for I have appointed you over it.” But Ibn ‘Abbas did not agree and suggested to him that he write to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and give him hope and promise him governorship. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused and said, “By Allah, that will never happen.”[43]

And al Dhahabi has cited that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu told Jarir ibn ‘Abdullah radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

اكتب إلى علي يجعل لي الشام، أنا أبايع له

Write to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to designate Syria for me and I will pledge allegiance to him.[44]

However, the more correct opinion is that the dispute between ‘Ali and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma revolved more around whether it was compulsory for Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his comrades to pledge allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu before he exacts the retribution upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu or only after that. This has nothing to do with the Caliphate.

The view of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who were with him, i.e. the people of Syria, was that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu should establish the retribution upon the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and subsequently they will pledge their allegiance.[45] This had become their definitive stance since No’man ibn Bashir radiya Llahu ‘anhu carried the garment of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and placed it upon the pulpit in Syira so that the people could see it, and together with it the fingers which were attached to the sleeve of the garment. Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, thus, exhorted the people to seek revenge for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and he was backed by a group of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in this regard.[46]

Al Tabari narrates that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent a messenger to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu. When he entered and assured amnesty for himself, he said:

لقد تركت ورائي ستين ألف شيخ يبكون على قميص عثمان وهو منصوب لهم، وقد ألبسوه منبر دمشق، قال علي: مني يطلبون دم عثمان! ثم قال: اللهم إني أبرأ إليك من دم عثمان، نجا والله قتلة عثمان إلا أن يشاء الله

“I have left behind me sixty thousand elders who are all crying upon the garment of ‘Uthman which was raised for them and which they had put over the pulpit of Damascus.”

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied saying, “Are they seeking the blood of ‘Uthman from me? O Allah I plead my innocence from the blood of ‘Uthman. By Allah the killers of ‘Uthman have attained salvation, unless Allah wills.”[47]

When ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu camped in Siffin he approached them in the same manner as he had approached the people of Jamal. Hence, he sent a delegation to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in which was Bashir ibn Abi Mas’ud al Ansari[48] who initiated the conversation and said to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

أدعوك إلى تقوى ربك وإجابة ابن عمك إلى ما يدعوك إليه من الحق، فإنه أسلم في دينك وخير لك في عاقبة أمرك، فقال معاوية: ويطل دم عثمان؟ لا والرحمن، لا أفعل ذلك أبدا.

“I call you to fearing your Lord and answering the call of your cousin to the truth to which he is inviting you, for that is safer for you in your Din and better for you in terms of consequence.”

Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied, “And (in doing so) neglect the blood of ‘Uthman! No, by al Rahman, I will never do that…”[49]

And Abu Hanifah al Dinawari has stated that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu the following:

فإن كنت صادقا فأمكنا من قتلته-أي عثمان- نقتلهم به ونحن أسرع الناس إليك، وإلا فليس لك ولأصحابك عندنا إلا السيف، فوالله الذي لا إله غيره لنطلبن قتلة عثمان في البر والبحر حتى نقتلهم أو تلحق أرواحنا بالله والسلام

If you are true then give us authority over the killers of ‘Uthman so that we may kill them for him. Or else there is nothing for you and your comrades by us beside the sword. For by Allah beside who there is no deity we will seek the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu on land and in the ocean till we kill them or till our souls reach Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Greetings.[50]

And Yahya ibn Sulaiman al Ju’fi narrates in Kitab Siffin with a good chain of transmission from Abu Muslim al Khawlani that he had the following conversation with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

أنت تنازع عليا في الخلافة أو أنت مثله؟ قال لا. وإني أعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالأمر، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما وأنا ابن عمه ووليه أطلب بدمه؟ فأتوا عليا فقولوا له يدفع لنا قتلة عثمان، فأتوه فكلموه، فقال: يدخل في البيعة ويحاكمهم إلي، فامتنع معاوية…

“Are you disputing with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the Caliphate or are you his equal?”

He said, “No. I know that he is more virtuous than me and much more deserving of the matter. But don’t you know that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu has been killed whilst wronged and I am his cousin and his guardian who is seeking retribution for his blood? So, go to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and tell him to handover the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to me.”

They thus came to him and spoke to him to which he responded saying, “He should enter the allegiance first and thereafter institute legal proceedings against them by me.”

Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused.[51]

And Ibn Muzahim has narrated in his book Waq’at Siffin that Abu Muslim al Khawlani said to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

يا معاوية! قد بلغنا أنك تهم بمحاربة علي بن أبي طالب، فكيف تناوئه وليست لك سابقته؟ فقال معاوية: لست أدعي أني مثله في الفضل، ولكن هل تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما؟ قالوا: نعم. قال: فليدفع لنا قتلته حتى نسلم له هذا الأمر

“O Muawiyah! It has reached us that you intend to fight ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. How do you oppose him when you do not enjoy the accolade of his early contributions?”

Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied, “I do not claim that I am like him in virtue, but do you know that ‘Uthman has been wrongly killed?”

They said, “Yes.”

He, thus, said, “He should thus handover his killers to us so that we may acknowledge for him this matter.”[52]

Furthermore, Ibn al ‘Arabi has stated that the reason for the war between the people of Syria and Iraq was their disparate views:

فهؤلاء-أي أهل العراق- يدعون إلى علي بالبيعة تأليف الكلمة على الإمام، وهؤلاء –أي أهل الشام- يدعون إلى التمكين من قتلة عثمان ويقولون: لا نبايع من يأوي القتلة

These people (the people of Iraq) were calling to pledging allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and uniting the word of the Muslims upon the Imam. And these people (the people of Syira) were calling to getting authority over the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and were saying ‘we will not pledge to a person who gives refuge to the killers’.[53]

And al Juwayni mentions in Luma’ al Adillah that although Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu fought ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu but he did not deny his leadership and did not claim it for himself. He was merely seeking the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu assuming that he was correct, whereas he was in error.[54]

As for Ibn Taymiyyah, he says that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not claim the Caliphate, for the pledge for it was not enacted for him due to which he would have fought ‘Ali. Hence, he did not fight ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu considering himself to be a Khalifah nor on the premise that he deserved it, and he would confess this to those who asked him.[55]

Ibn Kathir cites two narrations in this regard: the first is from Ibn Dizil[56] with his chain of transmission to Abu al Darda’ and Abu Umamah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. They both visited Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and asked:

يا معاوية! علام تقاتل هذا الرجل؟ فوالله إنه أقدم منك ومن أبيك إسلاما، وأقرب منك إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأحق بهذا الأمر منك. فقال: أقاتله على دم عثمان، وأنه أوى قتلة عثمان، فاذهبا إليه، فقولا: فليقدنا من قتلة عثمان، ثم أنا أول من أبايعه من أهل الشام.

وفي رواية ابن أعثم: لكني أقاتله حتى يدفع إلي قتلة عثمان، فإذا فعل ذلك كنت أنا رجلا من المسلمين أدخل فيما دخل فيه الناس

“O Muawiyah! On what basis are you fighting this man? For by Allah he accepted Islam before you and your father, he is closer to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam than you and he is more deserving of this matter than you.”

He replied, “I am fighting him for the blood of ‘Uthman and because he gave refuge to the killers of ‘Uthman. So, go to him and tell him to exact revenge for us upon the killers of ‘Uthman and thereafter I will be the first to pledge allegiance to him from the people of Sham.”

And in the narration Ibn A’tham: “But I will fight him till he hands over the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to me. If he does that, I will be the first of the Muslims to enter that which the people have entered.”[57]

As for the second narration it states that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent a message to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu calling him to pledge allegiance to him. Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu consulted ‘Amr ibn al ‘As radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the leaders of the people of Syria. They refused and suggested that they will not pledge till the murderers ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu are not killed or handed over to them.[58]

And al Dhahabi narrates from Ya’la ibn ‘Ubaid[59] from his father[60] that he said:

قال أبو مسلم الخولاني وجماعة لمعاوية: أنت تنازع عليا؟ هل أنت مثله؟ فقال: لا والله إني لأعلم أن عليا أفضل مني وأحق بالأمر، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما، وأنا عمه، وأنا أطلب بدمه؟ فأتوا عليا فقولوا له: فليدفع إلي قتلة عثمان وأسلم له

Abu Muslim al Khawlani and a group of people said to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “Are you disputing with ‘Ali? Are you an equal to him?”

He replied, “No, by Allah I know that ‘Ali is better than me and more deserving of the matter. But don’t you know that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu has been wrongfully killed and I am his cousin and seeking retribution for his blood? So, go to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and tell him to handover the killers of ‘Uthman to me and I will submit to him.”[61]

And al Haythami says:

ومن اعتقاد أهل السنة والجماعة أن ما جرى بين معاوية وعلي رضي الله عنهما من الحروب، فلم يكن لمنازعة معاوية لعلي في الخلافة للإجماع على أحقيتها لعلي… فلم تهج الفتنة بسببها، وإنما هاجت بسبب أن معاوية ومن معه طلبوا من علي تسليم قتلة عثمان إليهم لكون معاوية ابن عمه، فامتنع علي

From the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah is that the wars which occurred between ‘Ali and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were not due to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu disputing with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu for the Caliphate due to consensus that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was most deserving of it. Hence, the Fitnah did not erupt because of that. It erupted because Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who were with him asked ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to handover the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to him due to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu being his cousin, but ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused.[62]

As is clear, all the narrations corroborate each other and indicate that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu had resisted in order to seek retribution for the blood of ‘Uthman and that he explicitly stated that he would enter into the obedience of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu if the capital punishment was established against the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

Even if it is hypothesised that he used the issue of retribution as a pretext to fight ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu because he coveted the Caliphate, what would happen if ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu managed to establish the capital punishment upon the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Inevitably Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu would eventually surrender to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and pledge his allegiance to him, for that was his stance in the Fitnah. Likewise, all those who fought alongside him only did so on the basis of seeking retribution against the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Furthermore, if Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu really was concealing something else in his heart which he did not reveal to the people then this situation would have surely posed a great challenge for him due to which he would never have mustered the courage to pledge because of his greed.

Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was from the scribes of revelation and was from the honourable Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, he was truthful in his speech and was a man of forbearance. How can it then be entertained that he fought a Shar’i Khalifah and spilled the blood of Muslims over a vanishing rulership. He is the one who said:

والله لا أخير بين أمرين، بين الله وبين غيره إلا اخترت الله على ما سواه

By Allah I am never given an option between to matters, between Allah and others besides him, but that I always choose Allah over everything beside him.[63]

Likewise, it is established from Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that he said:

اللهم اجعله هاديا مهديا واهد به

O Allah make him a guider, one who is guided, and use him as a means of guidance.[64]

He also supplicated:

اللهم علمه الكتاب وقه العذاب

O Allah teach him the book and save him from the punishment.[65]

As for the mistake in his stance, it lies in his refusal to pledge allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu before hastening in his demand of retribution from the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu; he demanded that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu hand over the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to him, whereas a seeker of retribution is not in any way eligible to rule. He has to first enter into the obedience of the ruler, raise his case to him and thereafter seek his right from him.

It would be plausible to aver that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu exercised his Ijtihad and assumed that the truth was with him. Hence, he stood to address the people of Syria after summoning them and reminded them the he was the guardian of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and that he was killed oppressively. He recited unto them the verse:

وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنصُورًا

And whoever is killed unjustly, we have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life. Indeed, he has been supported.[66]

He then said, “I want you to let me know of yourselves regarding the murder of ‘Uthman.” All the people of Syria stood up and they all affirmatively responded to seeking revenge for the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They pledged allegiance to him, promised him, and gave him their pledges that they will sacrifice their lives and their wealth till they exact the desired revenge or Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala captures their souls.[67]

This mistake can be substantiated by what ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu said in the Battle of Siffin. Ziyad ibn al Harith, a Sahabi radiya Llahu ‘anhu, says:

كنت إلى جنب عمار بن ياسر بصفين وركبتي تمس ركبته، فقال رجل: كفر أهل الشام، فقال عمار: لا تقولوا ذلك، نبينا ونبيهم واحد، وقبلتنا وقبلتهم واحدة، ولكنهم قوم مفتونون جاروا عن الحق، علينا أن نقاتلهم حتى يرجعوا

I was on the side of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Battle of Siffin and my knee was touching his knee. A person said, “The people of Sham have disbelieved.” ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Do not say that. Our Nabi and their Nabi is one, and our Qiblah and their Qiblah is one, but they are a people who have been deluded and have diverted from the truth. Therefore, it is our duty to fight them till they return to it.”[68]

NEXT⇒ Section Two: The Stance of those who called for exercising patience in exacting the retribution till conditions settle, like ‘Ali, al Qa’qa’ and those who concurred with them

[1] Al Nawawi: Sharh Sahih Muslim, 15, 149.

[2] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/449-450.

[3] Ibid. 4/463.

[4] Ibid. 4/450.

[5] Ibid. 4/463.

[6] Ibid. 4/449-450.

[7] Ibid. 4/454.

[8] Zalim ibn ‘Amr ibn Sufyan, Abu al Aswad al Du’ali, al Qadi al Basri. A successor who witnessed both the pre-Islamic era and the Islamic era and accepted Islam after the demise of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Ibn Sa’d has regarded him from the first generation of the people of Basrah. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr said regarding him, “He was a man of piety, eloquence, oratory, understanding, intelligence and wisdom, and was from the senior successors. He was the first person to found the Arabic grammar and was a poet.” And Abu Hatim said, “He served as a judge in Basrah and was deemed reliable by Ibn Ma’in, al ‘Ijli, and Ibn Hibban.” He passed away in 69 A.H/688 A.H. See: Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 7/99; al ‘Ijli: Tarikh al Thiqat, p. 238; Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, 2/692; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 12/10.

[9] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/462.

[10] Ibid. 4/462.

[11] Ibid. 4/464.

[12] Ibid. 4/489.

[13] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al ‘Awasim, p. 149.

[14] Al Qurtubi: al Jami’ li Ahkam al Qur’an, 2/256.

[15] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/484.

[16] Ibn Abi Shaybah: al Musannaf, 15/271-274.

[17] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/438.

[18] They were from the first forerunners of Islam and from the ten Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who given glad tidings of Jannat in one gathering, whereas Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was from those who accepted Islam at the Conquest of Makkah.

[19] See: p. 113, 116, and 118. (add page number)

[20] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 5/242; Abu Hanifah al Dinawari: al Akhbar al Tiwal, p. 162.

[21] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/454. 462-464.

[22] Ibid. 4/444; Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah, 7/259.

[23] Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi Bakr al Ansari al Khazraji al Andalusi, al Qurtubi. A prominent exegete and ascetic. The following are some of his books: al Jami’ li Ahkam al Qur’an, al Taqrib li Kitab al Tamhid, al Asna fi Sharh Asma’ Allah al Husna, and al Tadhkirah bi Ahwal al Mawta wa Ahwal al Akhirah. He passed away in 671 A.H/1273 A.D. See: Ibn Farhun: al Dibaj al Mudhahhab, 2/308; al Maqrasi: Nafh al Tib, 1/428.

[24] Al Qurtubi: al Jami’ li Ahkam al Qur’an, 16/321.

[25] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/496.

[26] Ibid. 4/495.

[27] Ibid. 4/488.

[28] Ibid. 4/476.

[29] Ibid. 4/495.

[30] Ibid. 4/488-489.

[31] Ibid. 4/495.

[32] Al Sheikh al Mufid: Kitab al Jamal, p. 61.

[33] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 13/56.

[34] I did not come across his biography in the sources I have at my disposal.

[35] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/461.

[36] Khalifah: al Tarikh, p. 185.

[37] A place between Makkah and Madinah. See: Yaqut: Mujam al Buldan, 3/212.

[38] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/459.

[39] Ibn Hazm: al Fisal fi al Milal, 4/157, 158.

[40] Professor ‘Abdullah al ‘Usaylan has advanced several evidences to prove that the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah is falsely attributed to Ibn Qutaybah. Hereunder are the following:

None of those who have written the biography of Ibn Qutaybah have recorded that Ibn Qutaybah wrote a book on history named al Imamah wa al Siyasah. The only history book that we know he has authored is al Ma’arif.
A person who pages through the book will get the impression that Ibn Qutaybah stayed in Damascus and Morocco whereas he never left Baghdad, besides to Dinawar.
The style which the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah has followed is very different than the style of Ibn Qutaybah in his books which are at our disposal. For example, one of the outstanding features of his books is that he writes a lengthy introduction in the beginning and details therein the format of the book and the reason for authoring it. But the introduction to al Imamah wa al Siyasah is very short and does not exceed three lines. Together with that its style is very different, a style that we do not see in the books of Ibn Qutaybah.
The author of the book narrates from Ibn Abi Layla in a way that gives the impression that he has directly heard from him. Ibn Abi Layla is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla the jurist and the judge of Kufah who passed away in 148 A.H. Whereas Ibn Qutaybah was born in 213 A.H. i.e. sixty five years after the demise of Ibn Abi Layla.
The narrators and scholars from whom Ibn Qutaybah normally narrates in his other works do not feature anywhere in this book.
Many of the narrations in the book are cited with wording that denotes inauthenticity. Hence, many a time the narrations will be cited as, ‘they have mentioned from some Egyptians’, ‘they have mentioned from Muhammad ibn Sulaiman from the scholars of Egypt’, ‘some scholars of Morocco have narrated to us’, ‘they have narrated from some scholars’, and ‘some scholars have narrated to us’. Phrases of this type are very far from the style and the language of Ibn Qutaybah and do not appear in any of his books.
The author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah narrates from two senior scholars of Egypt, whereas Ibn Qutaybah did not enter Egypt nor did he receive knowledge from these two scholars.
Ibn Qutaybah enjoys a lofty position by the scholars. He is according to them from the Ahlus Sunnah and is reliable in his Din and his knowledge. Al Silafi mentions, “Ibn Qutaybah was from the reliable scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah.” Ibn Hazm says, “He was reliable in his Din and his knowledge.” Al Khatib al Baghdadi has averred the same. Ibn Taymiyah has said, “Ibn Qutaybah subscribed to the school of Ahmed and Ishaq and was a defender of the Sunnah.” See: Lisan al Mizan, 3/357. A man of this stature according to the expert scholars, is it possible that he be the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah which distorts history and attributes to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum that which they are free from.

It seems as though the Orientalists paid much attention to investigating the attribution of the book to him; the first Orientalist who did so was Pascual de Gayangos in his book, History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain. His view was supported by R. Dozy in his book Histoire des Musulmans d’Espagne, jusqu’à la conquête de l’Andalousie par les Almoravides. The books makes mention of Brockelmann in his book Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Baron de Slane in Géographie d’Aboulféda; texte arabe publié d’après les manuscrits de Paris under the heading ‘the narrations of al Imamah wa al Siyasah’, and Margoliouth in his Lectures on Arabic Historians; they have all affirmed that the book is attributed to Ibn Qutaybah but it cannot possibly be his work. Before them Ibn al ‘Arabi has also cautioned us of the same in his book al ‘Awasim by stating that Ibn Qutaybah has in his book not left for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum any good trace, assuming that everything in his book al Imamah wa al Siyasah is authentically established.

[41] Ibn Qutaybah: al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/113.

[42] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/439.

[43] Ibid. 4/440.

[44] Al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 1/168.

[45] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/438.

[46] Ibid. 4/562; Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah, 7/248.

[47] Ibid. 4/444.

[48] Bashir ibn Abi Mas’ud, ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amr al Ansari al Madani. He has narrated from his father the great Sahabi: Abu Mas’ud al Ansari. Al ‘Ijli said, “He is a Medinan successor who is reliable.” Likewise, al Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Hatim al Razi have deemed him reliable and Ibn Hibban has made mention of his in his al Thiqat. See: al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/2/104; al ‘Ijli: Tarikh al Thiqat, p. 82; Ibn Hibban: al Thiqat, 4/70; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 1/466.

[49] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 5/242.

[50] Abu Hanifah al Dinawari: al Akhbar al Tiwal, p. 162.

[51] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 13/86.

[52] Ibn Muzahim: Waq’at Siffin, p. 97.

[53] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al ‘Awasim, p. 162.

[54] Al Juwayni: Luma’ al Adillah fi ‘Aqa’id Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, p. 115.

[55] Ibn Taymiyah: Majmu’ al Fatawa, 35/72.

[56] Ibrahim ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali al Hamdani al Nasa’i, commonly known as Ibn Dizil. He was a leader, a great retainer of hadith, reliable, and a devout worshipper. Due to his zeal for knowledge he was accorded the title ‘Saifannah’ which was a bird in the Egyptian region which would eat all the leafs of a tree when sitting on it. Likewise, was the case of Ibn Dizil, for he would not go to any scholar but that he would not part from him till he encompassed all his narrations. Al Hakim said, “Reliable and trustworthy.” Ibn Khirash said, “He was truthful in speech.” Al Dhahabi said, “He is the pinnacle of perfection.” It is narrated from him that he would say, “If I have my book in my hand I would not bother if Ahmed ibn Hanbal be on my right and Yahya ibn Ma’in be on my left,” (due to the accuracy of his books). He passed away in 281 A.H/893 A.C. See: Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (manuscript), 2/213; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 13/184; Ibn al Jazari: Ghayah al Nihayah fi Tabaqat al Qurra’, 1/11: Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 1/48.

[57] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 7/360.

[58] Ibid. 7/253.

[59] Ya’la ibn ‘Ubaid ibn Abi Umayyah al Iyadi al Hanafi, Abu Yusuf al Tanafisi al Kufi. Ibn Sa’d said, “He was reliable and narrated many hadith.” Salih ibn Ahmed said, “He was accurate in his narrations and was pious in himself.” Ibn Ma’in said, “Reliable,” and Abu Hatim said, “Truthful,” and al Daraqutni said, “All the sons of ‘Ubaid are reliable.” He passed away in 209 A.H. /823 A.C. See: Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 6/397; al Darimi: al Tarikh, p. 156; al Dhahabi: al Mizan, 4/458; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 11/402.

[60] ‘Ubaid ibn Abi Umayyah al Tanafisi al Lahham al Ayadi, Abu al Fadl al Kufi. He has been deemed reliable by Ibn Ma’in, al ‘Ijli and Ibn Hibban. Abu Zur’ah said, “There is problem with him.” Abu Hatim said, “He is a Sheikh.” See: Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, 2/385; al ‘Ijli: Tarikh al Thiqat, p. 324; Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 5/401; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 7/60; Sa’d al Hashimi: Abu Zur’ah al Razi wa Juhuduhu fi al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah: the narrators who have been authenticated by Abu Zur’ah: 3/907.

[61] Al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 4/573.

[62] Al Haythami: al Sawa’iq q al Muhriqah, p. 325.

[63] Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 3/151.

[64] Musnad Ahmed, 4/216; Sunan al Tirmidhi: chapter of merits: sub-chapter regarding the merits of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu: 5/350, he has deemed the narration Hassan Gharib. Similarly, al Albani has deemed it Sahih in Sahih Sunan al Tirmidhi, 3/236: hadith no. 3018.

[65] Ahmed: Fada’il al Sahabah, 2/913, its annotator has deemed it Hassan li Ghayrihi; al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 14/1/327; Yaqub ibn Sufyan in his Tarikh, 2/345.

[66] Surah al Isra’: 33.

[67] Ibn Muzahim: p. 32.

[68] Ibn Abi Shaybah: al Musannaf, 15/294.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents