It is an undisputed fact that any event has a repercussion, or a set of repercussions, which at times are direct and at times although not direct but play a very instrumental role in some way or the other in to the existence or strength of other movements.
At first it is possible to categorise the causes of the inception of Nasb into two categories:
The assassination of the Khalifah ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the first spark which brought about social imbalance regarding ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This was due to the common assumption that he played some sort of role in what had happened, either by conspiring against the Khalifah or due to being pleased with what had befell him. Whereas it is a well-established fact that the life of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not just inviolable, but together with that he was the Khalifah of the Muslims and their leader. Hence the silence of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this regard was indeed a matter of question.
This assumption was, of course, not going to leave the hearts of those in which it had become entrenched without effect and it resulted in them detracting from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and becoming disillusioned with him. Hence based upon this false assumption they rebelled against him, fought him several times, and harassed him tremendously.
This was the case of most of the people who fought him, especially the people of Syria who raised the slogans of seeking revenge for the blood of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Added to that was the hatred which was provoked by bigotry of pedigree, as was the case in the opposition of many of the Umayyads.
The effects of battles do not end with their termination and the physical wounds which they leave, but their dreadful effects and harsh memories endure and eventually engender deep wounds in the human psyche; they instigate within it feelings of disillusionment and ingrained hatred which a person cannot easily overcome. It for this reason that such a victim is not reprimanded in Shari’ah, as long as it does not lead to wronging others and violating their rights without any legitimate reason.
Hence when Wahshi appeared before Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam after accepting Islam, he asked him:
أنت وحشي؟ فقال نعم. قال: أنت قتلت حمزة: قال: قد كان من الأمر ما قد بلغك. فقال له: فهل تستطيع أن تغيب وجهك عني. قال وحشي: فكنت أتجنبه حتى قبضه الله تعالى
“Are you Wahshi?”
He said, “Yes.”
Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam further asked, “Did you kill Hamzah?”
He replied, “The matter was as it has reached you.”
To which Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Is it possible for you to keep yourself away from me?”
Wahshi said, “I would thus avoid approaching him till Allah claimed his life.”
Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam disliked looking at the face of Wahshi due to the overwhelming pain which had overtaken him after the horrendous murder and mutilation of his uncle. Hence the expression of what he was experiencing was restricted to his desire not to see him, for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had sent him as a mercy to the worlds and Islam obliterates whatever crimes were committed before it. That is why he said:
دعوه فلإسلام رجل واحد أحب إلي من قتل ألف كافر
Leave him, for the Islam of one man is more beloved to me than the killing of a thousand disbelievers.
A similar incident is what is reported from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul. He is reported to have come to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and said:
يا رسول الله، إنه بلغني أنك تريد أن تقتل أبي، فوالذي بعثك بالحق ما تأملت وجهه قط هيبة له، وإن شئت أن آتيك برأسه لأتيتك، فإني أكره أن أرى قاتل أبي
O Rasul Allah, it has reached me that you intend to kill my father. By the one who has sent you with the truth, I have never closely looked at his face out of awe for him. If you want me to come with his head I will come with it to you, for I dislike seeing the killer of my father.
Likewise here we have one of the people of Basrah reminiscing over their wounds which had not healed due to the Khawarij defeating them, and describing the agony and frustration which they still felt two years after the experience he says:
لاتستفيق عيون كلما ذكروا
|وزادنا حنقا قتلى تذكرهم|
|قتلى، حلالهم حولان ما قبروا||
إذا ذكرنا جروزا والذين بها
نبقي عليهم، ولا يبقون أن قدروا
تأتي عليهم حزازات النفوس فما
The remembering of the killed has increased us in exasperation. The eyes do not recover whenever they are remembered.
When we remember Jaruz and those who were killed there, leaders who have not been buried for two years.
Upon them the rancour of the hearts is incited and thus we do not spare them and they would not spare us if they were capable of doing so.
Hence, as a result of those battles many people had lost their fathers, sons, brothers, and other dear ones. That naturally provoked hatred for whoever they deemed the cause of their loss, for hatred toward the offender is ingrained in the hearts of men. From all the people involved, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu became the greatest victim of hatred. This was because at first the Battle of Jamal took place between him and the people of Basrah, subsequent to that was the Battle of Siffin which broke out between him and the people of Syria, and subsequent to that was the Battle of Nahrawan which ensued between him and the Khawarij. Hence he was the enduring opponent in all three conflicts.
Therefore when Abu Labid was asked, “Do you love ‘Ali?” He replied:
كيف أحب رجلا قتل من قومي حين كانت الشمس من ها هنا إلى أن صارت هاهنا ألفين وخمسائة
How do I love a man who has killed two thousand five hundred people from my people from sunrise to sunset?
And when Hariz ibn ‘Uthman al Rahabi was asked regarding the reason for his hatred of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu he said:
لا أحب من قتل آبائي
I will not love a person who killed my fathers.
He also said:
لا أحب من قتل لي جدين
I will not love a person who killed two of my grandfathers.
He likewise said:
هو القاطع رؤوس آبائي وأجدادي
He is the one who decapitated the heads of my fathers and grandfathers.
Ibn Taymiyyah has alluded to this when he said:
كان من شيعة عثمان من يسب عليا ويجهر بذلك على المنابر وغيرها لأجل القتال الذي كان بينهم وبينه
Amongst the partisans of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu there were some who reviled ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, openly doing so on the pulpits and in other places due to the battles which ensued between them and him.
It is not far-fetched to assume that this was the prime reason why Qatami wanted the murder of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as part of her dowry, for the historians have stated that her father and brothers were martyred on the Day of Nahrawan when fighting against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
This belief did not take root within those who fought him in the battles of Jamal and Siffin. Instead it took root amongst his partisans who violated their allegiance after the call for arbitration; they detracted by rebelling against him and were thus known as the Khawarij (rebels) according to prominent view.
The cause of this belief was that according to them ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave men the authority to pass judgement in the Din of Allah and gave preference to their views over the law of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. This according to them constituted disbelief because according to the text of the Qurʾan passing judgements was solely the purview of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. They further reasoned that it is impermissible to love a disbeliever, who according to them was ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and thus it would be compulsory to hate him and fight him unless he repents, which ‘Ali did not do. Hence it was no surprise that they confronted him in the severest of ways, deemed his blood violable and some of their leaders dubbed him the Jahid (denier) thereby expressing his hatred and detraction.
It is clear to any person who reflects that the worst form of opposition is religious opposition, even though it may be based on falsehood. For, owing to the ignorance of the opponent regarding the proof, or his warped understanding thereof which distances him completely from its actual purport, he becomes unstoppable in his actions however reprehensible they may be. Because he assumes that this is the actual Din of Allah and that whatever he is doing in defending it is an act of worship and whatever befalls him in doing so is all in the way of attaining the pleasure of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
The fanaticism of the Shia in respect to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is well-known. It does not stop at merely giving him preference over others but exceeds logical boundaries. To the extent that if it is claimed that none of the sub-sects of the Ummah can or has matched this type of fanaticism it would not be far-fetched. There can be no greater evidence of this than their passion to consecrate him and attribute to him contrived virtues even if they may be impossible. All of this in an endeavour to elevate him to a stage which no one else can share with him and thereby bolster their viewpoint regarding Imamah.
Reality attests that extremism is only opposed by an opposite extremism which is at times based on ignorance and at times upon transgression. For one breeds in the hearts of the proponents of the other such animosity that removes them from moderation and fixes them into an extreme wherein their only intent becomes opposing their opponents and debunking their claims in whichever way possible. For example, some of the ignorant Sunnis are reported to have said:
سبوا عليا كما سبوا عتيقكم كفر بكفر وإيمان بإيمان
Revile ͑Ali just as they revile your ‘Atiq. Disbelief in lieu of disbelief and faith in lieu of faith.
Another example is that when the Shia forged innumerable narrations regarding the specialities, virtues, and miracles of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and likewise narrations criticising Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and impugning him, others combatted this lie with another lie; and hence they forged narrations regarding Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and at times even impugned ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Ibn Taymiyyah has alluded to this:
طائفة وضعوا لمعاوية ورووا أحاديث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في ذلك كلها كذب
Likewise when the Shia mastered the art of mourning over the martyrdom of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and forged narrations and stories best known only to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, some ignoramuses countered that by forging narrations regarding the virtues of expressing joy on the day of ‘Ᾱshuraʾ and spending upon the family.
Many of the Umayyad rulers played a very pivotal role in the emergence of Nasb and its spread amongst people due to exploiting their influential capacities.
A person can never be free from accepting the effect from his environment, for he is the product of the environment in which he grew up due to it contributing to the development of his conscience, the formation of his satisfactions, and the shaping of his outlook; this is what later influences all his ideas and activities inevitably. Even though at times he will manage to shed off some of its impacts upon him, but he can never possibly overcome all of them altogether because they have already become a part of his identity.
The causes of social influence differ in terms of strength and weakness for various reasons: like being close to the impactor or far therefrom, or the period of exposure being long or short. Hence the stronger the relation and the longer the period of exposure, the stronger and the deeper the impact, as in the case of the parents. The polytheists would therefore refuse to accept the message of the truth due to them being heavily influenced by this factor, as is mentioned by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in the Qurʾan:
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمُ اتَّبِعُوا مَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ قَالُوا بَلْ نَتَّبِعُ مَا أَلْفَيْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا ۗ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ
And when it is said to them, “Follow what God has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُوا حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا ۚ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ
And when it is said to them, “Come to what God has revealed and to the Messenger,” they say, “Sufficient for us is that upon which we found our fathers.” Even though their fathers knew nothing, nor were they guided?
بَلْ قَالُوا إِنَّا وَجَدْنَا آبَاءَنَا عَلَىٰ أُمَّةٍ وَإِنَّا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم مُّهْتَدُونَ
Rather, they say, “Indeed, we found our fathers upon a religion, and we are in their footsteps [rightly] guided.”
Therefore, due to Nasb gaining a lot of traction in the Syrian environment it engendered negative effects in the formation of the ideas of many of its inhabitants and their position regarding Amir al Muʾminin radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as said by the poet:
وما دان الفتى بحجا ولكن يعلمه التدين أقربوه
وينشأ ناشئ الفتيان منا على ما كان عوده أبوه
A youngster amongst us grows according to the habits his father instils in him.
The youngster does not become devoted by way of intellect, rather it is his relatives who teach him devotion.
Likewise another has said:
ولن تموت وللآباء أبناء
أحيا الضغائن آباء لنا سلفوا
Our fathers who have passed gave life to grudges which will not die as long as fathers will have sons.
Al Dhahabi says:
خلف معاوية خلق كثير يحبونه ويتغالون فيه ويفضلونه، إما ملكهم بالكرم والحلم والعطاء، وإما قد ولدوا في الشام على حبه وتربي أولادهم على ذلك، وفيهم جماعة يسيرة من الصحابة وعدد كثير من التابعين والفضلاء وحاربوا معه أهل العراق ونشأوا على النصب، نعوذ بالله من الهوى
Behind Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu there were many people who love him, exaggerate regarding him, and give him preference over all else; this is either because he won their hearts with his generosity, his forbearance, and his bonuses; or because they were born in Syria and grew up loving him and as did their children. Amongst them was a small group of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, a large group of Tabi’in, and virtuous people who fought by his side against the people of Iraq and grew up with tendencies of Nasb. We seek the refuge of Allah from following the ego.
He likewise says the following regarding one of the Tabi’in of Syria who did not see ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu or meet him:
غالب الشاميين فيهم توقف عن أمير المؤمنين علي رضي الله عنه من يوم صفين، ويرون أنهم وسلفهم أولى الطائفتين بالحق
Most of the Syrians are hesitant regarding Amir al Muʾminin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu since the day of Siffin. They assume that they and their forefathers were the closer of the two groups to the truth in the conflict.
On the other hand, in Iraq as well there were people who inherited hatred for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from their fathers. However, it was not as widespread as it was in Syria. The reason being that the Syrians remained united under both the banners of the Umayyads, i.e. the Sufyani and the Marwani banners, whereas the people of Iraq were divided by conflict and disparity.
Qusas refers to people who would enact gatherings in the Masjids to advise the scores of people who frequented them. Hence they would motivate, warn, and instil enthusiasm in the hearts of people, mimicking the circles of knowledge by doing so. But many a time they would rely upon fabricated narrations, Israʾili reports, and eerie incidents and dreams without differentiating between what is well-established and what not, or resorting to reason in trying to separate between that which is logically reasonable and which is not.
The phenomenon which probably made them the most effective was that they were some of the few sources of knowledge, at times the only sources of information, for the commoners of the time. Furthermore deploying the appealing narrative style would draw the people to them, especially the laity. Hence:
ومن شأن العوام ملازمة القصاص ما دام يأتي بالعجائب الخارجة عن نظر العقول
The laity are such that they will latch onto the tale teller as long as he produces strange stories which are beyond the comprehension of the minds.
إذا الحديث عن جمل طار أشهى إليهم من الحديث عن جمل سار، ورؤيا مرئية عندهم آثر من رواية مروية
For a story of a flying camel is more appealing to them than a story of a walking camel. And a dream takes preference according to them over a transmitted narration.
This influence would at times, however, take a negative route and would play a crucial role in instigating turmoil and would thus lead to the intervention of the Khalifah and a subsequent band upon the story tellers. Likewise at times it would lead to the implantation of incorrect ideologies, wittingly or unwittingly, especially when considering that most of them would not be seekers of the correct and would not avoid mistakes due to their lack of knowledge and piety. Rather most of them would intentionally lie and narrate false narrations in their talks.
It for this reason that the scholars of hadith commonly use certain expressions which allude to this reality, like ‘this was forged by the story tellers’, and ‘the story tellers added’, and ‘from the forgeries of some of the story tellers’, and ‘fabricated by some story tellers’, and from ‘the fables of the story tellers’, etc. Some scholars actually authored books dedicated to the narrations and stories of these people.
Their influence on the commonality specifically is more because of them being people of primitive thinking. Hence they would accept everything which these people would mention in their gatherings considering it to be Din without any hesitation. One of these things was aversion toward ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Hence al Junaid ibn ‘Abdul Rahman radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrates:
دخلت على حوران آخذ عطائي، فصليت الجمعة، ثم خرجت إلى باب الدرج فإذا عليه شيخ يقال له: أبو شيبة القاص يقص على الناس، فرغب فرغبنا وخوف فبكينا. فلما انقضى حديثه قال: اختموا مجلسنا بلعن أبي تراب، فلعنوا أبا تراب! فالتفت عن يميني فقلت ومن أبو تراب فقال: علي بن أبي طالب.
I went to Hawran to collect my bonus. I read Jumu’ah and then came out to the door by the stairs. Upon it was seated a man who was known as Abu Shaibah, the story teller, who would narrate tales to the people. He motivated us and we felt motivated and he made us fear and we cried. When his conversation was over he said, “Culminate your gathering with reviling Abu Turab,” and everyone thus cursed Abu Turab. So I turned to my right and asked, “Who is Abu Turab?” He said, “‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
People have been created with inherent love for this world and inclination toward its various attractions. A person is not condemned for loving the world as long as it does not dominate his conscience and become the deciding factor in all his activities, thereby making him oblivious of all his obligations and the consideration of the rights of others and the fear of punishment. When the love of this world deeply settles in his heart then one would begin to consider it the means to acquire all his goals and ambitions.
The love for position and the fame that it brings along is what propelled ‘Umar ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas to choose marching against Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu rather than accepting his dismissal from the governorship of Ray. Whereas he knew the difficulties and atrocities which were glooming over Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Likewise was the condition of most of the people who were with him.
Ibn Taymiyyah says:
عمر هذا كان يحب الرياسة ولو حصلت على الوجه المذموم، ولهذا لما ولي ولاية وقيل له: لا نوليك حتى تتولى قتال الحيسن وأصحابه كان هو أمير تلك السرية
‘Umar was a person who loved leadership and would not mind achieving it even if it be in a condemnable way. Hence when he took charge of some affairs and was later promised governorship he was told, “We will not appoint you as governor unless you assume the responsibility of fighting Hussain,” he happily accepted to be leader of that expedition.
Likewise Marwan ibn al Hakam would acknowledge before ‘Ali ibn al Hussain that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was innocent from the blood of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Not only that, but was also his greatest defender. But in spite of all of this he would very often talk ill of him. When asked, “What is it with you people that you revile ‘Ali from the pulpits?” He said, “The matter will not be straight without doing so.” I.e. leadership.
He also suggested the following to the governor of Madinah:
أن ابعث إلى الحسين بن علي وعبد الله بن الزبير فإن بايعا وإلا فاضرب أعناقهما
Send a messenger to Hussain ibn ‘Ali and ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, if they pledge their allegiance (well and good), or else decapitate them.
The reason for this suggestion again was none other than his desire for rulership to stay in the Banu Umayyah and his fear that it would leave them after the demise of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu before the allegiance was fully taken for Yazid.
Based on this it would be fine to assert that initially the basis of Nasb in the Nawasib who did not excommunicate was religion. Subsequent to that it progressed after the Umayyads had settled into power and took on the dimension of opposing the Ahlul Bayt for various reasons and political motives. Thereafter it was the latter which remained the general feature of Nasb and the prevalent distinction of their aversion.
Many of the ‘Alawis for a very long time continuously tried to reach the pedestal of rulership due to the assumption that it was their inevitable right due to it being an extension of the Caliphate of their father ‘Ali which was usurped from him by the Umayyads and the Abbasids. Hence they would instigate revolts when they found the moment opportune. These revolts kept the Umayyads and the Abbasids restless for a very long period of time.
By undertaking these revolts, unwittingly, they provoked many of the rulers to continue reviling ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and increasingly violate his rights in an endeavour to bar any person who would try to exploit his relationship with him.
Some people have tried to discover the reasons behind the inception of the phenomenon of Nasb in the Muslim society, but have not been fully inspired to reach the correct conclusions. This is either due to them not studying the history of the fitnah and whatever followed thereafter in depth, or due to them going with certain presupposed perceptions which were dictated by their inclinations and leanings to a specific school. As a result it became an obstacle between them and an objective study of the actual causes.
The most prominent of these causes are the following:
In the days of Jahiliyyah the competition for status and honour was at its peak between the various Arabian tribes and sub-tribes; it was the dominating thought which occupied the mind of every person.
Because the Quraysh were not aloof from this reality, there was competition between its sub-tribes as well. This is especially true between the Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah who were united by very strong bonds. But these bonds were alloyed by their competition for glory and leadership in an environment whose first priority was leadership and honour. Hence ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz would say:
ما زلنا نحن وبنو عمنا من بني هاشم مرة لنا ومرة علينا، نلجأ إليهم ويلجؤؤن إلينا، حتى طلعت شمس الرسالة فأكسدت كل نافق، وأخرست كل ناطق
We and our cousins of the Banu Hashim remained such that at times the odds would be in our favour and at times they would be against us. They would resort to us and we would resort to them. Then rose the sun of prophethood which made every hypocrite valueless and made every speaker speechless.
When Islam came with its novel ideas and beliefs it brought about an astounding revolution in the criteria of the people and their priorities; it purified the people from the deep seated traits of Jahiliyyah which overpowered their lives. This does not mean that they completely vanished, rather some of its effects still lived on, as in the following hadith of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
أربع في أمتي من أمر الجاهلية لا يتركونهن: الفخر في الأحساب، والطعن في الأنساب والاستسقاء بالنجوم والنياحة
Four things in my Ummah are from the traits of Jahiliyyah which they will never leave: boasting over high pedigrees, impugning lineages, seeking rain through the stars, and mourning.
Likewise when Abu Dhar radiya Llahu ‘anhu vilified a man and taunted him because of his mother, Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to him, “You are a person in who there is still some Jahiliyyah.”
However, this was not the prevalent situation in the Muslim society, but rather was an exception.
Upon the advent of Islam some of the Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah hastened to embracing it whilst the majority of the people still opposed. Thereafter Islam continued to grow gradually till Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala favoured the Muslims with the Conquest of Makkah after which people entered the Din of Allah in droves and scores.
The Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah united under the umbrella of Islam and the ideas of the new religion which confined true status to piety became embedded in their hearts. There was nothing that tarnished this newly realised bond, with the exception of the little aversion which some of the Quraysh would display for the Banu Hashim; this was not specific to the Banu Umayyah, but was rather a phenomenon common to the Quraysh.
Matters remained this way till the fitnah of the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu transpired. That was followed by the war which broke out between ‘Ali and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. It was at this point that some people went on to reintroduce the long buried history of animosity between these two tribes of the Quraysh and deemed it the cause for all the bickering. Hence fables were invented which stated that the struggle between Hashim and ‘Abdul Shams was an old one which started from the days of Jahiliyyah. They further went on to state that it was something destined since eternity and started the day they both were born as twins with their heads attached which were later separated with the sword; this was interpreted as bloodshed remaining in their progenies till the Day of Judgment.
Some Shia writers do not hesitate in going on to assert that the Banu Umayyah were always known for their embedded and inherited hatred for the Islamic message which brought their glory and leadership to an end. Nor do they hesitate in claiming that they always harboured enmity for the Banu Hashim and that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu directed it to the Ahlul Bayt specifically and exuded all of it against Amir al Muʾminin and his children; this enmity was further embodied by Yazid in the horrendous massacre of Karbalaʾ when he killed the senior of the Ahlul Bayt and its leader al Hussain ibn ‘Ali.
Some of their contemporary scholars even went onto author books in this regard, a practice not uncommon for the Shia, for it is well known regarding them that they endeavour to offend their opponents in every way possible, including lying. As a result many a time they become victims of open contradiction; hence here they claim that the dispute between these two tribes started the first day their forefathers came into this world, and in another place they impugn the lineage of Umayyah and claim that he was bastard. If the latter is true then would there be any basis to claiming that enmity between them was destined since eternity, whereas Umayyah was not the son of ‘Abdul Shams at all.
However, what is really shocking is that a Sunni scholar like al Muqrizi is deluded by these claims and assumptions and authors a book in which he gathers all the narrations in this regard without scrutiny and names it al Niza’ wa al Takhasum Fima Bayn Umayyah wa Bani Hashim.
Those who aver that the clash between the Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah endured tried to explain everything that had transpired, from the opposition of the Umayyads to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and their rebellion against him, to all the suffering the ‘Alawis suffered at their hands; in light of this supposed clash.
But their analysis is not correct for the following reasons:
Firstly, this analysis undermines the various causes which contributed to the instigation of this clash, especially the political cause.
Secondly, it necessitates the impugning of the Banu Umayyah in general, i.e. whether they were from the people who accepted Islam at the conquest of Makkah or before that. Whereas amongst them there were great Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who were known for their sound Islam according to all. Sufficient to establish their virtue is the fact that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam got his daughters married to them and married in them. Also, it was from their tribe that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had appointed the most people to prominent positions; had they been insincere in their faith, he would never have confided in them at a time when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had granted glory to his Din and his Rasul.
In reality, returning everything that had happened to the Banu Hashim to this clash is not only impugning the Banu Umayyah but entails impugning Islam as well. Because it entails that Islam had no effect in transforming the lives of those who embraced it, especially the Muslims of the Conquest of Makkah who are portrayed as if they did not accept Islam but due to the fear of the sword; and who are depicted as though they attacked Islam when they found the time opportune.
Thirdly, the Banu Umayyah had already earned acclaim when one of their members, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu assumed the Caliphate. So why would they feel inferior or why would they deem the Banu Hashim to be better if they surpassed them in obtaining the Caliphate.
Fourthly, if the only reason for fighting ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and opposing him was the fear of the Banu Umayyah that the Banu Hashim will surpass them in status due to collectively enjoying both Nubuwwah and Caliphate, then why was Abu Sufyan ibn Harb so keen on pledging his allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu rather than Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Did he not know that doing so would very quickly grant the Banu Hashim both the honours?
Furthermore, if the competition was the only cause of the clash between the Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah, then why did Talhah, Zubair, and ‘Aʾishah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, who were not Umayyads and had no relationship with any of the two tribes, fight him.
Fifthly, it is a complete misreading of history because history bears that the Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah both held common positions regarding the acceptance and the rejection of the prophethood of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
As for after their acceptance of Islam, everyone who has common sense and knows even a little of the history of both people will know that they were very united in the time of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.
‘Abdul Rahman al Mu’allimi has made this fact very clear in his following statement:
شمل الإسلام الفريقين ظاهرا وباطنا، وكما أسلم قديما جماعة من بني هاشم فكذلك من بني أمية كابني سعيد بن العاص وعثمان بن عفان وأبي حذيفة، وكما تأخر إسلام جماعة من بني أمية فكذلك من بني هاشم، وكما عاداه بعض بني أمية فكذلك بعض بني هاشم كأبي لهب بن عبد المطلب وأبي سفيان بن الحارث بن عبد المطلب، ونزل القرآن بذم أبي لهب ولا نعلمه نزل في ذم أموي معين، وتزوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بنت أبي سفيان بن حرب الأموي ولم يتزوج هاشمية، وزوج إحدى بناته في بني هاشم وزوج ثلاثا في بني أمية، فلم يبق في الإسلام في أحد الطرفين حتى يحتمل أن يستمرهدفا لكراهية الجانب الآخر، بل ألف الله بين قلوبهم فأصبحوا بنعمته إخوانا.
Islam included both tribes internally and externally. Hence just as a group of the Banu Hashim accepted Islam at a very early stage, likewise did a group of the Banu Umayyah accept Islam at a very early stage, like the two sons of Sa’id ibn al ‘Ᾱs, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, and Abu Hudhayfah. Similarly, just as a group of the Banu Umayyah only entered the fold of Islam much later, so too was there a group of the Banu Hashim who embraced Islam much later. Also, just as some of the Banu Umayyah opposed him, so did some of the Banu Hashim like Abu Lahb ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib and Abu Sufyan ibn al Harith oppose him. Furthermore, the Qurʾan was revealed condemning Abu Lahab and we do not know of any section of the Qurʾan being revealed condemning a specific individual of the Banu Umayyah; Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam married the daughter of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb and did not marry a Hashimiyyah; He married only one of his daughters in the Banu Hashim and three of them in the Banu Umayyah. As a result Islam did not exclusively remain on either side so that the other remains a target of hatred. Rather Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala united their hearts and by his favour they became brothers.
This is from two angles:
A group of Twelver scholars, many of the Zaidiyyah and some contemporary scholars have averred that the hatred of most of the Umayyads for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not take root after the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu specifically. Their hatred for him is rather linked to the many battles that ensued between Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the polytheists of Makkah, like the battle of Badr, in which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu managed to kill some of their forefathers and relatives. They go on to narrate that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu said the following to his people on the day of Siffin:
ما من أحد إلا وقد قتل علي أباه أو أخاه أو ولده
There is not anyone but that ‘Ali has killed his father, brother, or son.
These killings had allegedly left them disillusioned and upset with him, but they were unable to express that previously. Then, as soon as ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was martyred they found the time opportune to seek revenge from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and settle their long-harboured hatred under the pretext of seeking revenge for the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
So for example, Professor Hisham Ja’ayt is of the view that the Umayyads did not love ‘Ali because he killed a number of the seniors of the Quraysh with his hands, amongst them was the brother of Muawiyah and his grandfather. They would thus exude hatred for him.
But this view is incorrect. After the advent of Islam the tendencies of revenge were abolished and thus there remained no room for them in the Muslim life. Reality is the greatest attestation to this, for none of these people are known to have intended harming ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in any way. Even the aversion that some of the Quraysh displayed, of which ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu complained to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was directed at the Banu Hashim in general, not ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu specifically.
In fact, the diametrically opposite happened:
أكثر بني عبد مناف من بني أمية وبني هاشم وغيرهم لهم ميل قوي إلى علي بن أبي طالب يختارون ولايته
Most of the decedents of ‘Abd Manaf from the Banu Umayyah and the Banu Hashim, amongst others, were very strongly inclined to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and gave preference to his leadership.
Thus, Abu Sufyan Sakhr ibn Harb, who was the head of the Banu Umayyah at that time, was amongst those who desired that a descendent of ‘Abd Manaf assume leadership, whether he be a Hashimi or an Umawi, and despised the leadership of a Taymi due to the tribal fanaticism which was entrenched in them. He thus said to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
ما بال هذا الأمر في أقل قريش قلة وأذلها ذلا (يعني أبا بكر) والله لئن شئت لأملأنها عليه خيلا ورجالا
Why is this matter in the least of the Quraysh in number and the most insignificant of them in status (referring to Abu Bakr)? By Allah if you want I will fill Madinah with horses and men against him.
He then said:
أبا حسن، ابسط يدك حتى أبايعك
Spread your hand so that I may pledge my allegiance.
But ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused.
Furthermore, here we have before us all the books of history which, despite the divergent leanings of its writers and their disparate tendencies, have documented a plethora of details regarding the rulers of the Banu Umayyah, their gatherings, and their personal lives. But not one of them has reported any report which suggests that any of them would eulogise any of his forefathers who were killed in Badr or elsewhere, let alone displaying grief upon what befell them, with the exception of what is narrated regarding Yazid (which we will discuss in the pages to come, Allah willing).
What makes the matter even clearer is that:
‘Ali did not exclusively kill some of the disbelievers, rather there were many Muslims who killed with him. So why would he alone be made a victim of hatred, to the exclusion of everyone else who was involved, when the ‘crime’ is one?
Likewise it is not known that the Banu Umayyah sought revenge from their descendants due to the killings their fathers had committed after having grounded themselves in power and having full authority to do so.
Similarly, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was very stern against all the polytheists; there was no one who denigrated them and offended them as boldly as ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, not forgetting him fighting them with his sword. So why did they not do anything to him when he assumed leadership and why did they instead listen and obey? And why would they thereafter then rebel against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was a Hashimi, considering that the Banu Hashim were higher in rank than the Banu ‘Adi?
Furthermore, how foolish would it be for them to wait for him to become the Khalifah and earn the support of the people and their loyalty and then rise to seek revenge from him, and prior to that do nothing to him during the time of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu when most authority was with them?
Moving on, many of the people who fought ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu were not descendants of those who ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had killed, like the people of Syria and the other partisans of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. So why is this claim being made regarding the Banu Umayyah specifically?
Also, ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, and alongside him the Umayyads, fought ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair very ferociously till eventually the odds turned in their favour. In spite of this no one has claimed that they fought him in order to take revenge from his father Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu who fought the disbelievers of Makkah, amongst who many were Umayyads, alongside Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Instead the rationale given is that they fought for worldly authority, as is stated by Abu Barzah al Aslami.
The Shia continuously claim that the Umayyads did not enter Islam sincerely and that they hated it and were enemies of it internally. They claim that the fate their forefathers met at the hands of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam left indelible grudges in their hearts and induced them to hate him, ‘Ali, and the their household. But they were unable to do anything during his era and the eras of his Khalifas and thus only initiated their uproar during the era of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu by making the people revolt against him.
They go on to say that the martyrdom of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Karbalaʾ during the reign of Yazid ibn Muawiyah was nothing but revenge against Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and avenging the murder of those of his forefathers who were killed in Badr and other battles.
In response, even though previously we had stated the effects of wars and the enmity it brings about, but that does not necessitate that every incident be analysed in light thereof and that it be the basis for any event whatsoever it maybe, unless there is compelling evidence to suggest that.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 7/452.
 Asna al Matalib fi Silah al Aqarib p. 404 (with a slight change).
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 4/405.
 Sahih al Bukhari, chapter of the battles of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, sub-chapter regarding the murder of Hamzah ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib, hadith no. 3844. As for the addition “I would avoid approaching him…” it is mentioned in al Mujam al Kabir of al Tabarani, hadith no. 2947.
 Al Rawd al Unuf 3/256; Fath al Bari 7/370.
 Musnad al Humaidi, hadith no. 1240; al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah 4/155.
 A place in ancient Persia where a battle had ensued between the Azariqah and the people of Basrah. Mujam al Buldan 2/130.
 Poem of Ka’b al Ashqari. See: Mujam al Buldan 2/130.
 Siffin: A place near Raqqah on the western shores of the Euphrates river. It is situated between Raqqah and Balis. The famous battle took place there on Wednesday in 37 A.H. Mujam al Buldan 3/414; Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat p. 191.
 Limazah ibn Zabbar al Azdi al Jahdami, Abu Labid al Basri. He saw ‘Umar, ‘Ali, and a group of Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and narrated from them. He was a reliable and truthful narrator, but was a hater of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu due to the Battle of Jamal. He visited Yazid ibn Muawiyah and praised him. I did not come across his date of death. His narrations appear in the Sunan of Abu Dawood, al Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah. See: Tarikh Dimashq 50/299; Tahdhib al Kamal 24/250; Mizan al I’tidal 5/507; Tahdhib al Tahdhib 8/410.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat p. 186; Tarikh Dimashq 50/306.
 Hariz ibn ‘Uthman ibn Jabr al Rahabi, Abu ‘Uthman/Abu ‘Awn al Himsi. He was considered to be from the scholars of the people of Syria and their ascetics. He was born in 80 A.H. He was deemed reliable by many scholars, but was, however, deemed a Nasibi. Muaz ibn Muaz said about him, “I do not know that I saw anyone more virtuous than him in Syria.” He passed away in 163 A.H. His narrations appear in Sahih al Bukhari and the four Sunan. See: Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 12/339; Siyar A’lam al Nubalaʾ 7/79; Tahdhib al Kamal 5/568; Tahdhib al Tahdhib 2/207. He will be discussed in more detail in the chapters to come, Allah willing.
 Tarikh Baghdad 8/267; Tahdhib al Kamal 5/576; Siyar A’lam al Nubalaʾ 7/81; Tahdhib al Tahdhib 2/209.
 Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh 2/225; Tarikh Baghdad 8/267; Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 12/349; Tahdhib al Kamal 5/576.
 Al Majruhin 1/268; al Ansab 3/50; Tahdhib al Tahdhib 2/209.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 6/201.
 Qatami bint Shajnah ibn ‘Adi ibn ‘Amir. A woman belonging to the Banu Taym ibn al Rubab. She held the ideology of the Khawarij. When ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Muljam intended to marry her she placed a condition that her dowry be three thousand and the murder of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. See: al Tabaqat al Kubra 3/36; al Thiqat 2/302; Mustadrak al Hakim 3/154; al Ikmal 7/274.
 Tarikh al Tabari 3/156; al Muntazam 5/174; al Kamil fi al Tarikh 3/255; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 7/327. For more details regarding the aftermath of the battle of Nahrawan and its impact upon the people of Kufah see: Harakah al Khawarij, Nashʾatuha, wa Tatawwuruhu ila Nihayah al ‘Ahd al Umawi p.48.
 Ibn Qutaybah: Gharib al Hadith 1/252; Sharh al Nawawi ‘ala Sahih Muslim 7/164; al Suyuti: Sharh Sunan al Nasaʾi 7/119.
 Majmu’ Fatawa Shaikh al Islam 4/469; Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 6/16; Fath al Bari 13/537.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 7/290.
 For example: A dog one day addressed him saying, “Your Wilayah was presented to me and I did not accept, and so I was disfigured.” Al Nafi’ Yawm al Hashr p. 170; and that he covered a distance in one night which cannot normally be covered in two months; and that a person in Iraq (whose name was Ibn Hubayrah) missed his children who were in Madinah. Whereupon ‘Ali said to him, “Close your eyes and then open them, “and suddenly he was in his house amidst his children. See: al Sirat al Mustaqim 1/205.
 Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 378; al Sarim al Maslul 3/925.
 Shia: Refers to those people who supported ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu specifically, believed in his Imamah and his immediate successorship which was emphatic, and that Imamah will not leave his children but by way of oppression. They believe that Imamah is a principle of Din. There are many sub-sects within the Shia the common denominator amongst all of which is believing in the infallibility of the Imams and the Ambiyaʾ from all minor and major sins and association with the Ahlul Bayt and disassociation with everyone beside them in word, action and contract, with the exception of Taqiyyah permitting situations. The Zaidiyyah differ with them in some of these ideas. See: Maqalat al Islamiyyin p. 5, al Tanbih wa al Radd p. 18; al Milal wa al Nihal 1/146; al Mawaqif 3/671.
 Al ‘Ilal al Mutanahiyah 1/272; Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 7/371; al Manar al Munif p. 116; al Shawkani: al Fawaʾid al Majmu’ah p. 404.
 Tarikh Asfahan 2272; Siyar A’lam al Nubalaʾ 13/229.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 4/400.
 A more detailed discussion around this will come under the discussion: ‘the stance of the Khulafaʾ of the Banu Umayyah’ on p. 220. (add page number)
 Surah al Baqarah: 170.
 Surah al Maʾidah: 104.
 Surah al Zukhruf: 22.
 Abu al ‘Alaʾ al Ma’arri: al Luzumiyyat 2/421.
 Al Wafi bi al Wafayat 17/232. The poem was said by Abu al ‘Abbas al Saffah, the first Khalifah of the Abbasids.
 Siyar A’lam al Nubalaʾ 3/128.
 Mizan al I’tidal 6/153.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 2/204.
 Tarikh al Tabari 3/457; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 12/29; Dirasat fi al Ahwaʾ wa al Firaq wa al Bida’ p. 239.
 Lisan al Mizan 1/13.
 Al Badʾ wa al Tarikh 1/4.
 Al ‘Ibar fi Khabar man Ghabar 2/78, 3/68.
 Ibn al Jawzi: al Qusas wa al Mudhakkirin p. 161; Subh al A’sha fi Sana’ah al Insha 12/62.
 Subh al A’sha fi Sana’ah al Insha 12/62.
 See, for example: al Muntazam 9/96; Tarikh Ibn Khaldun 2/22; Ibn al Jawzi: al Mawdu’at 1/208; al Laʾali al Masnu’ah 1/243; al Qari: al Masnu’ p. 267; al Qari: al Asrar al Marfu’ah p. 416; Kashf al Khafaʾ 2/563; al Fawaʾid al Majmu’ah p. 320.
 Like: al Qusas wa al Mudhakkirin of Ibn al Jawzi, Ahadith al Qusas of Ibn Taymiyah and Tahdhir al Khawas of al Suyuti.
 Al Junaid ibn ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Amr al Murri al Ghatafani. A generous and prominent leader. Originally from Damascus. Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik appointed him as the governor of Sindh and Khorasan in 113 A.H. However, he was not praiseworthy in his battles and thus was dismissed in 115 A.H. A year later he passed away due to an ailment he contracted in his stomach. See: Tarikh al Tabari 4/153; Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 11/322; al Wafi bi al Wafayat 11/158; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 9/312.
 Hawran: A very vast town and one of the suburbs of Damascus which has lots of villages and orchards. See: Mujam al Buldan 2/317; Mujam ma Ustu’jim 1/474.
 I have not come across his biography in the books I have at my disposal. However, he lived during the era of the Khalifah Ibn ‘Abdul Malik and participated in the Jihad in the lands of Syria. See: Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 11/290; Bughyah al Talab fi Tarikh Halab 10/4485.
 See the entire story in Tarikh Dimashq 11/290; Akhbar wa Hikayat of al Ghassani p. 52.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 2/70.
 ‘Umar ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu Hafs al Madani. He was born in the era of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but his companionship is not established. He stayed in Kufah and was appointed as the governor of Ray. He was the commander of the army which confronted Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu owing to which he was despised by the people. As for his narrations, he has been deemed reliable according to al ‘Ijli. He was killed at the hands of Mukhtar ibn ‘Ubaid in 67 A.H. His narrations appear in Sunan al Nasaʾi. See: Ma’rifah al Thiqat 2/166; Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 45/37; Tahdhib al Kamal 45/37; Tahdhib al Kamal 21/356; Tahdhib al Tahdhib 3/227.
 Ray is a famous city and is one of the largest cities of Asfahan. It has been described as a land with abundance of wealth. Currently it is close to Tehran, the capital city of Iran. See: Mujam al Buldan 3/116.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 2/65./., .
 Ibid. 4/560.
 Ibid. 6/335.
 Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 42/438; Simt al Nujum al ‘Awali 2/533.
 Tarikh Khalifah Ibn Khayyat p. 232; al Badʾ wa al Tarikh 6/8; Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 28/202; Tarikh al Islam 4/169.
 Muhammad Khalil Harras: Sharh al ‘Aqidah al Wasitiyyah p. 251
 Al Hadarah al Islamiyyah fi al Qarn al Rabi’ al Hijri 1/270.
 They are only deemed causes in consideration of those who consider them causes.
 Banu Umayyah Bayn al Suqut wa al Intihar p. 16.
 Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 45/222; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 9/203.
 The narration of Abu Malik al Ash’ari radiya Llahu ‘anhu which appears in Sahih Muslim: chapter of funerals: sub-chapter regarding the severity of mourning: hadith no. 934.
 Nabih ‘Ᾱqil: Tarikh Caliphate Bani Umayyah p. 5.
 Al Muntazam 2/211; al Niza’ wa al Takhasum p. 38, 39; al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 1/68; Hashim wa ‘Abdul Shams p. 14.
 Asl al Shia wa Usuluha p. 46.
 Jihad al Imam al Sajjad p. 63.
 Sadr al Din Sharaf al Din: Hashim wa Umayyah and Hussain al Shakiri: Hashim wa ‘Abd Shams.
 Hashim wa ‘Abdul Shams p. 118.
 Ahmed ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdul Qadir al Ba’li. A scholar who had fair share in many sciences but was specifically known for his expertise in history. He was known as Ibn al Muqrizi, an attribution to a street in Ba’labak which was known as ‘the street of the Maqarizah’, where from his grandfather migrated to Egypt. He was born in Cairo in 766 A.H. He was first a Hanafi and then became a Shafi’i. He passed away in 845 A.H. The following are some of his works: al Khutat, Imta’ al Asmaʾ, Iqaz al Hunafaʾ bi Akhbar al Aʾimmah al Fatimiyyin al Khulafaʾ. See: al Dawʾ al Lami’ 2/21; Shadharat al Dhahab 7/254; al A’lam 1/177.
Note: In my view al Muqrizi had slight leanings toward Shi’ism. This I say for the following reasons:
Firstly, he authored books regarding the virtues of the Ahlul Bayt in which he gathered all sorts of authentic, weak and even fabricated narrations without any scrutiny, like the books Fadl ʾᾹl al Bayt and al Niza’ wa al Takhasum.
Secondly, his disillusionment with Abu Sufyan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and deeming him a hypocrite, as is clear in his book al Niza’ wa al Takhasum. Some researchers are, however, of the opinion that this book is falsely attributed to al Muqrizi and this opinion is forged against him. See: Abatil Yajib an Tumha min al Tarikh p. 209.
Thirdly, he has approved the lineage of the Fatimids which according to the quasi unanimity of the scholars and genealogists is not true. Likewise his book Itti’az al Hunafaʾ bi Akhbar al Fatimiyyin al Khulafaʾ is also an indication of this.
Here also, however, it should be noted that he considered his lineage to be linked with the ‘Ubaidiyyin. So was his praise for them and his approval of their lineage because of this or not? See: al Dawʾ al Lami’ 2/23.
 Sharh Ihqaq al Haqq 23/644.
 Majmu’ Fatawa Shaikh al Islam 35/64.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 4/460.
 Tarikh al Tabari 2/237; al Mawardi: al Hawi al Kabir 14/99; al Kamil fi al Tarikh 2/189.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 6/168.
 ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Yahya ibn ‘Ali al Mu’allimi. An expert hadith scholar. He was born in 1313 A.H. in village a Yemen. He was appointed as a judge in Jazan for Idrisi. Thereafter he travelled to India and worked on correcting manuscripts of hadith in the Daʾirah al Ma’arif al ‘Uthmaniyyah. He thereafter went to Makkah and settled as the trustee of the library of the Haram. He passed away in 1386 A.H. Some of his works are: al Tankil, al Anwar al Kashifah, Ighathah al ‘Ulamaʾ. See: the introduction of al Tankil 1/9 which is written by ‘Abdullah al Mu’allimi.
 Actually most of them, as is stated by Ibn Taymiyyah in Minhaj al Sunnah 4/398.
 Al Anwar al Kashifah 169, 270.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 6/331.
 The Twelvers add that most of the people of the Quraysh and those besides them hated him due to him killing their children, their brothers, and their relatives. See: Sharh Ihqaq al Haqq 7/400, 416.
 Al Haʾiri: Shajarah Tuba 2/333.
 Kitab al Fitnah p. 181.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 7/49.
 Al Fisal fi al Milal wa al Ahwaʾ wa al Nihal 4/82; Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 1/519, 2/54, 4/360.
 Mustadrak Hakim: chapter regarding knowing the Sahabah: sub-chapter regarding Abu Bakr ibn Abi Quhafah: hadith no. 4462. Al Dhahabi has deemed the narration authentic in Tarikh al Khulafaʾ p. 68.
 Tarikh al Tabari 2/237; Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 7/457.
 See al Fisal fi al Milal wa al Nihal 4/82 to discover the amount of people ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu killed from the Quraysh.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 6/321.
 Ibid. 7/460.
 ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan ibn al Hakam al Umawi, Abu al Walid. One of the great rulers of the Banu Umayyah. He was born in Madinah in 26 A.H. He ranked amongst the jurists of Madinah and their scholars before he assumed leadership. He was known for his strategizing and intelligence and excessive shedding of blood. After seven years of conflict people united upon him. He passed away in Damascus in 86 A.H. al Bukhari has narrated his narrations in al Adab al Mufrad. See: al Thiqat 5/119; Tarikh Madinah Dimashq 37/116; Siyar A’lam al Nubalaʾ 4/246; Tahdhib al Tahdhib 6/373.
 Sahih al Bukhari 6/2603; Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 5/153; al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah 6/434.
 Sharh Minhaj al Karamah p. 545.