{"id":2304,"date":"2021-11-30T09:41:28","date_gmt":"2021-11-30T09:41:28","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-11-30T09:41:28","modified_gmt":"2021-11-30T09:41:28","slug":"important-historical-events","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/2304\/important-historical-events\/","title":{"rendered":"Important Historical Events"},"content":{"rendered":"

Important Historical Events<\/strong><\/p>\n

IV `Umar`s Caliphate<\/strong><\/span>
\nWhen Ab\u016b Bakr became sick, he called `Uthm\u0101n ibn `Aff\u0101n to his presence and said to him, \u201cWrite the following: In the Name of All\u0101h, the most Gracious, the most Merciful. This is a covenant from Ab\u016b Bakr son of Ab\u016b Quh\u0101fah tot he Muslims.\u201d It was then that he became unconscious. `Uthm\u0101n, therefore, went on to write the following: \u201cI leave as my successor over you `Umar ibn al-Khatt\u0101b, and I do not hide from you anything good.\u201d Then Ab\u016b Bakr regained his consciousness, so `Uthm\u0101n said to him, \u201cI see that you feared lest the Muslims would dispute if I passed away during my unconsciousness; is that so?\u201d Ab\u016b Bakr answered in the affirmative, whereupon `Uthm\u0101n said, \u201cMay All\u0101h reward you with goodness on behalf of Islam and Muslims.\u201d The writing was kept where it had been.[79]
\nIt is also narrated that `Umar was holding in his hand the sheet on which Ab\u016b Bakr named him as his successor on the day of the Saq\u012bfa when he scared people and thus took from them the oath of allegiance for Ab\u016b Bakr through his coercion as has already been proven above, taking advantage of the split in the ranks of the Ans\u0101r and in the presence of those who held in their hands the legitimate right to be the caliphs and who were busy preparing for the funeral of the Messenger of All\u0101h . Ab\u016b Bakr also played the same role by installing `Umar as the caliph after him. It cost him nothing but a little ink. Despite the extreme pain of Ab\u016b Bakr`s ailment during the writing of that will, even during his unconsciousness at the time, nobody at all said that Ab\u016b Bakr was hallucinating regarding what was written. Contrariwise, caliph `Umar and those who supported him did not hesitate to accuse the Prophet with such a painful word [\u201cyahjur, hallucinating\u201d] when the Prophet asked them to get him some writing material so that a statement would be written for them after the writing of which they would never stray.
\nAb\u016b Bakr claimed that the reason why he named `Umar as the caliph after him was his fear lest dissension should take place after his death. Thus did the Sunnis accept his excuse after he had violated the principle of sh\u016bra which they claim should be the principle according to which the Muslims should elect their caliph. You will see later how they also accepted the caliphate of Mu`\u0101wiyah and his son Yaz\u012bd after his death although these ascended to power through intimidation and the force of the sword, killing many Muslims in the process, especially the descendants of the pure `itra of Ahl al-Bayt (`a).
\nBut the question which we wished to put forth here is this: \u201cWhy did the Sunnis refuse the notion that the Prophet did, indeed, name the caliph who was to succeed him as they did accept it from Ab\u016b Bakr especially since the dispute about the caliphate at the time of the death of the Prophet was much greater than those when Ab\u016b Bakr died, in addition to the clear texts about the importance of referring to Ahl al-Bayt (`a) whenever the Muslims disputed with each other after the departure of the Chosen One ? And the caliphate of Ali (`a)?!\u201d<\/p>\n

V `Uthm\u0101n`s Caliphate<\/strong><\/span>
\nWhen caliph `Umar was stabbed, he was told that his successor had already been named, so he said, \u201cHad Ab\u016b `Ubaydah ibn al-Jarr\u0101h been alive, I would have named him as my successor. And had S\u0101lim, slave of Ab\u016b Hudhayfah, been alive, I would have named him as my successor.\u201d Then he said to them, \u201cSome men say that the swearing of fealty to Ab\u016b Bakr was a slip from the evil of which All\u0101h protected us, and that the fealty to `Umar lacked consultation, and the issue after me is to be resolved through sh\u016bra.\u201d[80] Said he, \u201cI have determined your issue to be resolved by a number of early Muh\u0101jir\u016bn\u201d whom he named saying, \u201cCall to me Ali (`a), `Uthm\u0101n, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Abd al-Rahm\u0101n ibn `Awf and Sa`d ibn Ab\u016b Waqq\u0101s. If four persons agree [to choose the same person], the remaining two must follow the view of the [first] four. And if the views are split between three and three, you should follow the view of Abd al-Rahm\u0101n ibn `Awf; therefore, listen [to him] and obey…\u201d[81]
\nFrom the above narrative it becomes obvious that caliph `Umar arranged for the candidate to be named by Abd al-Rahm\u0101n ibn `Awf. This is a third portrait of the type of sh\u016bra which they [Sunnis] advocate… Caliph `Umar ordered Abd al-Rahm\u0101n ibn `Awf to require a condition in the candidate for whom fealty would be sworn. This condition is that he should act upon the line of both senior sah\u0101bis (Ab\u016b Bakr and `Umar) in addition to acting upon the Book of All\u0101h and the Sunnah of His Prophet . As was expected, the six persons split into two parties: three persons and two candidates. The first three were: Ali (`a), Talhah and al-Zubayr, and their candidate was Ali (`a). As for the three in the other party, they were: Sa`d, `Uthm\u0101n and Talhah, and their candidate was `Uthm\u0101n. Im\u0101m Ali (`a) rejected the condition of acting upon the line of both senior sah\u0101bis saying, \u201cI shall follow the Book of All\u0101h and the Sunnah of His Prophet and my own ijtih\u0101d,\u201d[82] whereas `Uthm\u0101n accepted the condition, becoming a caliph accordingly.
\nAl-Bukh\u0101ri records a portion of this incident in his own Sah\u012bh. He cites al-Has\u016br ibn Makhramah saying, \u201cAbd al-Rahm\u0101n [ibn `Awf] knocked at my door after a good portion of the night had already lapsed till I woke up. He said, `I see that you are asleep. By All\u0101h, my eyes have not tasted much sleep. Come, call al-Zubayr and Sa`d to my presence.` I told them to meet him, so he consulted with them. Then he called upon me and said, `Call Ali (`a) to my presence.` I invited him [Ali (`a)] to meet with him. He talked privately with him till the night`s color started to fade. Then Ali (`a) left him optimistically. Then he said to me, `Call `Uthm\u0101n to my presence.` I did. He talked privately with him till the call of the mu`athin to the fajr prayers separated them from each other. Having led the people for the morning prayers, and once the same individuals assembled near the pulpit [of the Prophet ], he called to his presence those of the Muh\u0101jir\u016bn and the Ans\u0101r who were present and also sent messages for the commanders of the troops to meet there, and these were all loyal to `Umar. Once they all gathered together, Abd al-Rahm\u0101n recited both testimonies [that \u201cThere is God except All\u0101h and Muhammad is the Messenger of All\u0101h], Abd al-Rahm\u0101n said, `O Ali! I have looked into the affairs of the people and found no peer among them for `Uthm\u0101n; so, do not put your own safety to jeopardy.` To `Uthm\u0101n he said, `I swear allegiance to you according to the Sunnah of All\u0101h and His Messenger and [the line] of both caliphs [Ab\u016b Bakr and `Umar] after him.` Thus did Abd al-Rahm\u0101n swear the oath of allegiance to him [to `Uthm\u0101n], and so did the people.\u201d[83]
\nThus it becomes obvious that when caliph `Umar preconditioned for the one to whom people must swear the oath of allegiance to act upon the way of both senior sah\u0101bis, in addition to acting upon the Book of All\u0101h and the Sunnah of His Prophet , he had already determined the caliphate for `Uthm\u0101n right then because he knew the attitude of Im\u0101m Ali (`a) vis-a-vis this condition in addition to his knowledge that Talhah and al-Zubayr would both side with Ali (`a) because he had already noticed their stand, which was supportive of Ali (`a), on the day of the Saq\u012bfa. Add to all the above the fact that `Umar had already granted the right to make a preference in favor of Abd al-Rahm\u0101n ibn `Awf, thus it becomes quite clear to you what sort of sh\u016bra they claim…<\/p>\n

Murder of Caliph `Uthm\u0101n<\/strong><\/span>
\nA great deal was said about how `Uthm\u0101n was assassinated. Many statements and narratives clashed with each other in this regard especially with reference to the group which used to urge others to kill him, the reasons which prompted them to do so and such events reaching their climax with his murder. The most rational explanations are embedded in the practices on the government level, the appointment of provincial rulers who were relatives of `Uthm\u0101n and the money these used to be given from the State`s treasury. All this prompted critics and rebels to turn against `Uthm\u0101n. The famous writer, Kh\u0101lid Muhammad Kh\u0101lid, says, \u201cWe do not doubt that `Uthm\u0101n, too, used to realize that most of those who welcomed his appointment for the caliphate, rather than Ali, All\u0101h glorifies his countenance, wanted to be freed from life`s strictness and stringency from which people suffered for a long period of time and which could have added to their burdens had Ali (`a) received the matters in his own hands. Through his strict system, exact justice, asceticism and piety, he (`a) represented an extension of the strictness, justice, stringency and piety of `Umar…\u201d[84]
\nThe hands of the relatives of caliph `Uthm\u0101n from among Ban\u016b Umayyah played havoc with the State treasury to the extent that some people think that the Umayyad government started ruling since choosing `Uthm\u0101n as the caliph and swearing the oath of allegiance to him. Here is Ab\u016b Sufy\u0101n supports this view when he says the following to caliph `Uthm\u0101n after the latter had received the oath of allegiance: \u201cO Ban\u016b Umayyah! Receive it as a ball is received, for by the One by Whom Ab\u016b Sufy\u0101n swears, I remain optimistic that you (too) will receive it, and it shall be received by your children by way of inheritance.\u201d[85] According to another narrative of the same statement, he said, \u201cReceive it as a ball is received, for there is neither Paradise nor Hell…\u201d[86]
\nAmong those who opposed caliph `Uthm\u0101n were some of the best sah\u0101bah. The most famous of these are: Ab\u016b Dharr, may All\u0101h be pleased with him, Abdull\u0101h ibn Mas`\u016bd and `Amm\u0101r ibn Y\u0101sir. The said caliph took a very fanatical stand against them, punishing them severely. As for Ab\u016b Dharr, he met his death in the [desert of] al-Rabatha as his punishment for opposing [the appointment of] Mu`\u0101wiyah as the provincial governor [then self-declared absolute ruler] of Syria. Ab\u016b Dharr resented how Mu`\u0101wiyah was hoarding gold and squandering money at the expense of the Muslims` wealth. Zayd ibn Wahbah has said, \u201cI passed by al-Rabathah and saw Ab\u016b Dharr, may All\u0101h be pleased with him, so I said to him, `What brought you [to such a pathetic condition of banishment] here?` He said, `I was in Syria and had a dispute with Mu`\u0101wiyah regarding the verse saying, And there are those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend in the way of All\u0101h (Qur`\u0101n, 9:34). Mu`\u0101wiyah said that it was revealed about the People of the Book. I said that it was revealed about us and about them; therefore, this was the source of disagreement between him and myself. He wrote `Uthm\u0101n, may All\u0101h be pleased with him, complaining about me. `Uthm\u0101n wrote me ordering me to go to Med\u012bna. I went there. Many people came to see me as if they never saw me before, so I mentioned this to `Uthm\u0101n. He [`Uthm\u0101n] said to me, `If you wish, you may stay away nearby.` This caused my present condition. Had they assigned an Ethiopian as an am\u012br, I would have listened to him and obeyed.`\u201d[87]
\nAs regarding Abdull\u0101h ibn Mas`\u016bd, the man in charge of K\u016bfa`s bayt al-m\u0101l, his ribs were broken as a result of being beaten by `Uthm\u0101n`s slave as his punishment because of his objection to the conduct of al-Wal\u012bd ibn Mu`eet, caliph `Uthm\u0101n`s brother by his mother and his w\u0101li over K\u016bfa following the deposition of Sa`d ibn Ab\u016b Waqq\u0101s. This son of Ab\u016b Mu`eet took money from the Muslims` bayt al-m\u0101l and never returned it.[88]
\nAs for `Amm\u0101r ibn Y\u0101sir, he became sick with hernia as a result of being severely beaten by `Uthm\u0101n`s slave as his punishment for having performed the funeral prayers for Ibn Mas`\u016bd without informing the caliph of it. Actually, `Amm\u0101r did so in honor of the will of Ibn Mas`\u016bd so that the caliph might not perform the said prayers service for him instead.[89]
\nOthers are many among those who objected to the extravagance of the caliph`s relatives from among Ban\u016b Umayyah of the common wealth of the State. Marw\u0101n ibn al-Hakam, for example, took a fifth of the khir\u0101j tax of Africa. Refer to more stories about caliph `Uthm\u0101n in the book titled Khil\u0101fah wa Milookiyyah (caliphate and monarchy) by `all\u0101ma Mawdoodi.
\nA profound effect resulted from the anger of the Mother of the Faithful `\u0100`isha and her objection to caliph `Uthm\u0101n, even to her instigation that he should be killed such as when she said, \u201cKill Naathal for he has committed apostasy.\u201d[90] She did so after accusing him of altering the Sunnah of the Prophet . This aggravated the revolution against him. Many citizens of Med\u012bna, as well as people who came from Egypt, Syria and K\u016bfa, gathered and collectively killed him.<\/p>\n

Caliphate of Im\u0101m Ali (`a)<\/strong><\/span>
\nAfter `Uthm\u0101n had been killed, people went in drones to Im\u0101m Ali (`a) seeking to swear the oath of allegiance to him (as the caliph). They said to him, \u201cThis man [`Uthm\u0101n] has been killed, and people have to have an Im\u0101m. Nowadays, we find none worthy of such an undertaking besides you.\u201d The swearing of allegiance was completed.
\nIm\u0101m Ali (`a) wanted to implement justice among the people, establishing equity between those who were weak and those who were mighty. He wanted to establish the rulings which All\u0101h revealed in His Book. Some of them objected. They enticed dissension and gathered troops, publically announcing their rebellion and mutiny against him. This let to many battles the most significant of which were those of the Camel and of Siff\u012bn.<\/p>\n

VI Battle of al-Jamal; Mother of the Believers Goes Out to Fight Ali (`a)<\/strong><\/span>
\nWhen Mother of the Believers `\u0100`isha came to know that `Uthm\u0101n had been killed and that people swore the oath of allegiance to Ali (`a), she said to `Ubaydull\u0101h ibn Kil\u0101b, who informed her of it, \u201cBy All\u0101h! I wish this [heavens] had crashed with this [earth] if, indeed, the matter has been concluded to the advantage of your friend. Woe unto you! Look into what you are saying!\u201d `Ubaydull\u0101h said to her, \u201cIt is just as I have told you, O Mother of the Faithful!\u201d She pronounced statements expressing her frustration, whereupon he said to her, \u201cWhy should it concern you [so much], O Mother of the Faithful?! By All\u0101h, I know nobody more worthy of it [caliphate] than him [than Ali (`a)]; so, why do you hate for him to be the caliph?\u201d The Mother of the Faithful cried out, \u201cTake me back! Take me back!\u201d She returned to Med\u012bna saying, \u201c`Uthm\u0101n, by All\u0101h, was killed unjustly. By All\u0101h! I shall seek revenge for the shedding of his blood!\u201d `Ubaydull\u0101h said to her, \u201cWhy?! By All\u0101h, the first person to legitimize the shedding of his blood is your own self! You used to say, `Kill Naathal for he has committed apostasy`.\u201d She said, \u201cThey got him to regret, then they killed him. I have said what I said, and so have they, and my last statement is better than my first.\u201d She went to Mecca and alighted at the Mosque`s door where many people gathered around her. She said to them, \u201cO people! `Uthm\u0101n has been unjustly killed. By All\u0101h! I shall seek revenge for his murder.\u201d[91]
\nThe anger of Mother of the Faithful `\u0100`isha agreed with the anger of Talhah and al-Zubayr after Im\u0101m Ali (`a) had deposed them from their posts as the w\u0101lis of Yemen and Bahrain respectively; therefore, they both reneged from their oath of allegiance to Im\u0101m Ali (`a) and went to Mecca to urge the same Mother of the Faithful to fight Ali (`a). They went out accompanied by a huge army under the military command of the Mother of the Faithful in the direction of Basra where a crushing war, known as the Battle of the Camel (harb al-jamal), took place. Victory was on the side of the army led by Im\u0101m Ali (`a), and in it both Talhah and al-Zubayr were killed as well as thirteen thousand Muslims. All these were the victims of the call ushered by the Mother of the Faithful to avenge the killing of `Uthm\u0101n. She claimed that the killers had found their way to the Im\u0101m`s army. No matter what, was she not supposed to let such issues be decided by wali al-amr especially since All\u0101h Almighty had ordered her to \u201c… stay in your houses\u201d (Qur`\u0101n, 33:33)?
\nAnd why should she have anything to do with that since `Uthm\u0101n is a man from Ban\u016b Umayyah while she is from [the tribe of] Taym except when there is another reason for her thus marching out?! Although the reality of this incident answers this question clearly, add to it the prophecy of the Messenger of All\u0101h about this dissension and his making a reference to those behind it. For example, Abdull\u0101h [ibn Abb\u0101s] has said, \u201cThe Prophet stood up to deliver a sermon. He pointed in the direction of the residence of `\u0100`isha and said, `Dissension is right there,` repeating his statement three times. He went on to say, `It is from there that Satan`s horn shall come out.`\u201d[92] `Amm\u0101r ibn Y\u0101sir considered obedience to `\u0100`isha in such a deed as being at the expense of obedience to All\u0101h, the most Great, the most Exalted One. Ibn Ziy\u0101d al-Asadi has said, \u201c… so I heard `Amm\u0101r saying, “\u0100`isha marched out to Basra. By All\u0101h! She is the wife of your Prophet in the life of this world and in the Hereafter, but All\u0101h, the most Praised, the most Exalted One, has tested you in order to see whether you obey Him or you obey her.`\u201d[93]
\nLong before this incident, `\u0100`isha was very well known of being extremely spiteful of Ali (`a). She could not even bear hearing his name mentioned. Abdull\u0101h ibn `Utbah is quoted as having said, \u201c`\u0100`isha said, `When heaviness covered the Prophet and his pain intensified, he sought permission of his wives to be treated at my chamber, and they granted him permission. The Prophet went out assisted by two men, dragging his feet on the ground. He was between Abb\u0101s and another man.`\u201d `Ubaydull\u0101h went on to say, \u201cI related this to [Abdull\u0101h] ibn Abb\u0101s who asked me, `Do you know who the other man was?` I said, `No.` He said, `That was Ali.`\u201d[94] Perhaps what `\u0100`isha had heard was what Ali (`a) said to the Messenger of All\u0101h in her regard in the incident wherein she was charged. This was the reason for such spite and hatred. `Ubaydull\u0101h ibn Mas`\u016bd has said, \u201c… As for Ali ibn Ab\u016b T\u0101lib (`a), he said, `O Messenger of All\u0101h! All\u0101h has not placed any pressure on you, and women besides her are numerous, indeed.`\u201d[95]
\nThe \u201cprince of poets,\u201d Ahmad Shawqi, has described `\u0100`isha`s spite [towards Ali (`a)] in poetic verses wherein he addresses Im\u0101m Ali (`a) as follows: \u201cO mountain! The weight that you carry is rejected by other mountains; what load did the Owner of the Camel [`\u0100`isha] throw on you? Was it the effect of `Uthm\u0101n causing her to grieve? Or was it choking the grief which was never extracted? Such was a rift none ever expected. Women`s schemes weaken mountains, and the Mother of the Faithful was only a woman. What got that pure and exonerated woman out of her chamber and Sunnah was the same spite that remains all the time.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Myth of Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba`<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe summary of this myth is: \u201cA man named Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba`, a Jew from Yemen, pretended to be a follower of Islam during the reign of `Uthm\u0101n in order to cause mischief to the Muslims. He moved about the main Islamic metropolises in Egypt, Syria, Basra and K\u016bfa, spreading the \u201cglad tiding\u201d that the Prophet would return to life, that Ali (`a) was his wasi, and that `Uthm\u0101n was the usurper of the right of this wasi. Groups from among senior sah\u0101bah and t\u0101bi`\u012bn such as `Amm\u0101r ibn Y\u0101sir, Ab\u016b Dharr, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah and others. He was able to raise armies to kill caliph `Uthm\u0101n at his own house.\u201d
\nThus does the series of events of this fabricated myth continue till it ends with the Battle of the Camel when Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba` orders his followers to sneak into the army of Ali (`a) and of `\u0100`isha without their knowledge in order to stir a war, and \u201cthus did the Battle of the Camel take place.\u201d[96] Sayyid Murtadha al-`Askari[97], who stood to expose the fallacy of this imagined myth, states that \u201cThe person who fabricated this personality [Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba`] is Sayf ibn `Amr al-Tam\u012bmi al-Barjami al-K\u016bfi, who died in A.H. 170 (A.D. 786), and from him all other historians quoted it. Then this fabricated incident gained fame and spread in history books acrossx the centuries and till our time, so much so that it has become one of the famous incidents the authenticity of which nobody doubts. The vast majority of writers and historians in the East as well as Orientalists have been blinded to the fact that this incident was the brainchild of one single narrator, a lone individual who acted on his own, and that this narrator, namely Sayf ibn `Amr, is very well known by ancient scholars of had\u012bth as a fabricator and is even accused of being an unbeliever. Ibn D\u0101w\u016bd says the following about him: \u201cHe is nothing; he is a liar.\u201d Ibn Abd al-Birr says, \u201cSayf is rejected. We have cited his tradition only to inform you of it.\u201d Al-Nis\u0101`i says this about him: \u201cHis traditions are weak. He is not trusted, and nobody has any faith in him.\u201dYet this same lying narrator is quoted by al-Tabari, Ibn `As\u0101kir, Ibn Ab\u016b Bakr, etc., and al-Tabari has been and is being quoted by all other writers and historians till our time.[98]
\nIt is well known that incidents narrated by one single person do not satisfy the scientific thinking, nor can they be used as evidence. How is it, then, when this same narrator is not trusted and was famous for being a liar and an unbeliever? Can his narrative be accepted? How can one accept to pass a judgment against a large segment of the Muslims by simply relying on incidents related by lone individuals who have been proven to be liars while there are ahad\u012bth that are consecutively reported [mutaw\u0101tir] from the Messenger of All\u0101h which prove the opposite?
\nOne of the greatest historical farces is to attribute Sh\u012b`ism to a mythical man, namely Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba`, claiming he was the one who disseminated the concept of \u201cAli (`a) the wasi\u201d despite the existence of a huge number of authentic texts proving that Sh\u012b`ism has always been to follow Muhammad and nobody else. Refer to the Im\u0101mate texts on the previous pages to see where this Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba` fits. Is Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba` the one who said, \u201cI am leaving among you that which, if you uphold them, you shall never stray: the Book of All\u0101h and my `itrat, my Ahl al-Bayt\u201d? Or is he the one who said, \u201cAnyone who has accepted me as his master, Ali is his master\u201d? Or is he the one who said that the Im\u0101ms are twelve in number? What a ridiculous tale it is that says that a Jew has come from Yemen to hypocritically declare his acceptance of Islam then carries out all these extra-ordinary deeds which reach the limit of getting Muslim armies to battle each other without anyone discovering his true identity?! Is it reasonable to accept that Im\u0101m Ali (`a), about whom the Messenger of All\u0101h said, \u201cI am the city of wisdom and Ali is its gate,\u201d fall a victim to the trickery of this Jew? Surely one who says so has strayed far, far away from the right track.<\/p>\n

VII The Battle of Siff\u012bn and the Rebellion of Mu`\u0101wiyah<\/strong><\/span>
\nHaving achieved victory in the Battle of the Camel, the Im\u0101m (`a) concentrated the effort of his army to eliminate the opposition led by Mu`\u0101wiyah ibn Ab\u016b Sufy\u0101n in Syria. Both armies stood face to face near the Euphrates. The Im\u0101m (`a) tried to correct the situation through peaceful means, but the answer given by Mu`\u0101wiyah to the deputation sent to him by the Imam (`a) was this: \u201cGet away from me, for I have nothing for you except the sword.\u201d[99] Thus, both armies were engaged in battle. When signs of victory for the army led by the Im\u0101m (`a) became clear, Mu`\u0101wiyah staged the \u201ctrick of the copies of the Qur`\u0101n\u201d. Mu`\u0101wiyah ordered his soldiers to raise the copies of the Qur`\u0101n on the tips of their lances and swords. Although the Im\u0101m (`a) stood to expose this plot which was intended to put hurdles in the path of the victory which dawned quite near the army of Im\u0101m Ali (`a), those fighters in his army who were demanding a cease-fire did not respond to his repeated calls, forcing him to accept arbitration. And the Im\u0101m (`a) strongly protested the choice of Ab\u016b M\u016bsa al-Ash`ari as the representative of his army during the arbitration process due to this man`s weakness and the feebleness of his views. Im\u0101m Ali (`a) had said, \u201cI do not see that you should grant Ab\u016b M\u016bsa such an official task, for he is too weak to confront the trickery of `Amr [ibn al-`\u0100s].\u201d[100] Ali (`a) had already deposed Ab\u016b M\u016bsa al-Ash`ari from his post as the w\u0101li of K\u016bfa.
\nThere was a prior plan to raise the copies of the Qur`\u0101n and to coordinate it with a movement supportive of Mu`\u0101wiyah that had sneaked into the Im\u0101m`s army and which demanded the acceptance of the arbitration and the choice of Ab\u016b M\u016bsa al-Ash`ari [as the negotiator during the arbitration process]. The results of the arbitration, as the Im\u0101m (`a) had expected, came in favor of Mu`\u0101wiyah. For the latter, the situation started to gradually stabilize in his own interest following this major rebellion and when the caliph of the Muslims was thus disobeyed, hoping he would earn a worldly pleasure of which he always dreamed.
\nIn the past, I used to wonder about this incident in which more than ninety-thousand Muslims from both sides were killed. Whenever I asked [the Sunnis about it], the answer came as a cliche as follows: \u201cIt was merely a dissension between two great sah\u0101bis. Each of them followed his own ijtih\u0101d. The one whose ijtih\u0101d was right earned two rewards, while the one whose ijtih\u0101d proved wrong earned one. Nobody ought to think about it. That was a nation that passed by; for it are the rewards of the good deeds which it earned, and for you are your own rewards.\u201d They have other such answers whereby they close any door that may uncover the causes of this \u201cdissension\u201d, as they call it.
\nThus does this issue remain according to Ahl al-Sunnah suspended like a mysterious riddle without a solution. This opened the door wide for Orientalist scholars to state their own views about our religion, so much so that some of them claimed that there is contradiction in Islam, pointing out to the tradition of the Messenger of All\u0101h wherein he said, \u201cIf two Muslims face each other with their swords in hand, both the killer and the killed shall be lodged in hell.\u201d This tradition contradicts the claim of the Sunnis that both parties during the Battle of Siff\u012bn were Muslim, and their commanders were great sah\u0101bis! So, why such insistence on refusing to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong? Why should the truth not be said? Is it really that ambiguous?
\nAnyhow, anyone who is confused about the truth regarding Mu`\u0101wiyah must carefully discern the following proofs, and let the reader issue his own judgment after that:
\nIn his Sah\u012bh, Muslim cites the following statement of Ali (`a): \u201cI swear by the One Who created the seed and initiated the breeze that the Ummi Prophet pledged that nobody except a believer loves me, and nobody except a hypocrite hates me.\u201d[101] So, what would you say about one who raises armies to fight him (`a)?! And what is the judgment of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding one who disobeys the Im\u0101m of the Muslims obedience to whom is obligatory?
\nIn al-Bukh\u0101ri`s Sah\u012bh, there are references pointing to the oppression committed by Mu`\u0101wiyah. Ab\u016b Sa`eed al-Khudri is quoted as having said, \u201cWe were once carrying the Mosque`s blocks one by one while `Amm\u0101r was carrying them two at a time. The Prophet passed by him, rubbed the dust from his head and said, `What a pity for `Amm\u0101r! He shall be killed by the oppressive party; `Amm\u0101r invites them to All\u0101h while they invite him to the Fire.\u201d[102] This prediction of the Messenger of All\u0101h proved true when `Amm\u0101r was martyred as he was fighting under the flag of Im\u0101m Ali (`a) during the Battle of Siff\u012bn.
\nIn Al-Mustadrak `Alal Sah\u012bhayn, relying on the authority of Kh\u0101lid al-`Arabi, the author quotes the latter as having said, \u201cI and Ab\u016b Sa`\u012bd al-Khudri met Hudhayfah [al-Yam\u0101ni] and said, `O Ab\u016b Abdull\u0101h! Relate to us what you have heard the Messenger of All\u0101h say about the dissension.` Hudhayfah said, `The Messenger of All\u0101h said, `Stick to the Book [of All\u0101h, i.e. the Holy Qur`\u0101n] wherever it goes.` We said, `If people differ with each other, with whom should we be?` He said, `Look up to the group wherein the son of Sumayya [i.e. `Amm\u0101r ibn Y\u0101sir] is and hold on to it, for he goes where the Book of All\u0101h goes.` I heard the Messenger of All\u0101h say to `Amm\u0101r, `O son of al-Yaqdh\u0101n! You shall not die till the oppressive group that lies in ambush kills you.`\u201d[103]
\nThe oppression and rebellion of Mu`\u0101wiyah were all expected. Since he became the w\u0101li of Syria during the reign of `Umar, wealth, authority and mansions which he had built for him followed, and he expanded such affluence during the reign of caliph `Uthm\u0101n. It was not easy for a man like him to give all of this up. He knew for sure that if Im\u0101m Ali (`a) did not remove him from office, he would at least strip him off all what he had acquired at the expense of the Muslims` bayt al-m\u0101l and that he would treat him on equal footing as he would any other Muslim. What went on between him and the highly revered sah\u0101bi, Ab\u016b Dharr al-Ghif\u0101ri, during the caliphate of `Uthm\u0101n also proves what we have stated, that is, he was running after the wares of the life in this world and his squandering of the State`s public funds. The objection of Ab\u016b Dharr to Mu`\u0101wiyah`s conduct resulted in caliph `Uthm\u0101n banishing him to al-Rabathah after having him brought to him in Med\u012bna. Zayd ibn Wahab is quoted as having said, \u201cI passed by Ab\u016b Dharr in al-Rabathah and asked him, `What brought you to this [desolate] land?` He said, `We were in Syria. The verse saying `And there are those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend in God`s way: Announce a most grievous penalty to them` (Qur`\u0101n, 9:34) was revealed. Mu`\u0101wiyah said that it was not revealed about the Muslims but rather about the People of the Book. I said that it was about us and about them as well.`\u201d[104]
\nThus was Ab\u016b Dharr punished with banishment despite the testimony of the Messenger of All\u0101h for him that he was truthful. The Prophet said, \u201cNo tree has shaded nor the desert has seen a man more truthful than Ab\u016b Dharr\u201d[105] This incident makes it clear how Mu`\u0101wiyah tampered with the meaning of the Qur`\u0101n in order to cover his squandering of the nation`s funds, the funds with which he had no right to deal according to his own personal desires. The problem is that al-Bukh\u0101ri has stated in his Sah\u012bh what \u201cqualifies\u201d Mu`\u0101wiyah to be a faq\u012bh! Ab\u016b Maleeka has said, \u201cMu`\u0101wiyah prayed one single rek`a for the witr prayers after the evening prayers, and a slave of Ibn Abb\u0101s was in his company. Ibn Abb\u0101s came and said [to his slave], `Leave him, for he was a companion of the Messenger of Allah`!\u201d[106] In another version in the narration of this same incident, he [Ibn Abb\u0101s] said that Mu`\u0101wiyah was a \u201cfaqih\u201d![107] If you come to know that Mu`\u0101wiyah spent twenty years as \u201ccaliph\u201d of the Muslims, and before that he was w\u0101li [provincial governor] over Syria, the reader may imagine the extent to which Mu`\u0101wiyah exercised his own influence on the fabrication and transmission of ah\u0101d\u012bth attributed to the Prophet in order to justify his actions. Despite all the efforts which he exerted to cover them up, they have become quite clear in the books of had\u012bth and history in a way which leaves no room for confusion in getting to know the truth about this \u201ccaliph\u201d whom they [Sunnis] also regard as the \u201ccommander of the faithful\u201d! The conduct of Mu`\u0101wiyah with regard to his government and authority has its own roots in his Sufy\u0101ni family. His father [Ab\u016b Sufy\u0101n] said to `Uthm\u0101n after the latter had received the oath of allegiance, \u201cReceive it as a ball is received, for by the One by Whom Ab\u016b Sufy\u0101n swears, I remain optimistic that you [Umayyads], too, will receive it, and it shall be received by your children by way of inheritance.\u201d[108] According to another narrative of the same statement, he said, \u201cReceive it as a ball is received, for there is neither Paradise nor Hell,\u201d thus pointing out to the true reason why this family pretended to have accepted Islam following the conquest of Mecca and when all Meccans embraced Islam. Look into the following incident to realize what sort of Islam they quite reluctantly embraced:
\nAbdull\u0101h ibn Abb\u0101s has said, \u201cAb\u016b Sufy\u0101n said, `By All\u0101h! I remained in humiliation, feeling sure that his [Prophet`s] call would gain the upper hand till All\u0101h caused Islam to enter my heart against my wish.\u201d[109] If Ab\u016b Sufy\u0101n`s tongue thus admits, imagine what his heart would say had it been enabled to speak about what it contains!<\/p>\n

What the Prophet Said about Mu`\u0101wiyah<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe following is stated by Muslim in his Sah\u012bh: \u201cThe Prophet one day sent him [Mu`\u0101wiyah] Ibn Abb\u0101s inviting him to come to write something for him. Ibn Abb\u0101s found him eating. The Prophet sent him [Ibn Abb\u0101s] again to Mu`\u0101wiyah, and Ibn Abb\u0101s again found him eating. This took place a third time. The Prophet said, `May All\u0101h never cause his [Mu`\u0101wiyah`s] stomach to feel satisfied.`\u201d[110] Also in Muslim`s Sah\u012bh is the following text: \u201cThe Messenger of All\u0101h said, `… As for Mu`\u0101wiyah, he is a penniless and spiritless person.\u201d[111] In Ahmad`s Musnad, the Messenger of All\u0101h is quoted as having said the following about Mu`\u0101wiyah and `Amr ibn al-\u0100s: \u201cO Lord! Hurl them into dissension headlong, and lodge them into hell,\u201d in addition to many other narratives exposing the truth about \u201ccommander of the faithful\u201d Mu`\u0101wiyah, son of the liver-eater, who sealed his deeds in the life of this world by installing his son, the drunkard and the debauchee Yaz\u012bd, as \u201ccaliph\u201d over the Muslims after him. Yaz\u012bd was then no more than twenty years old. Thus, Mu`\u0101wiyah violated the reconciliation treaty which he had signed with Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a), actually going against the Commandments of All\u0101h and of His Messenger as well as violating the \u201csunnah\u201d of both Shaykhs [Ab\u016b Bakr and `Umar] and all other traditions discussed by the \u201cAhl al-Sunnah\u201d.<\/p>\n

VIII Martyrdom of Im\u0101m Ali (`a)<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe last battle waged by Im\u0101m Ali (`a) was that of al-Nahrawan. He fought in it the group which forced him to accept the arbitration in Siff\u012bn but then regretted it a few days later, reneging from its covenant and violating the oath of allegiance to the Im\u0101m. Later on, these were called the \u201cKhaw\u0101raj\u201d [or Kh\u0101rijites] or the \u201cM\u0101riq\u012bn\u201d. He (`a) scored a victory over them and was getting ready to fight the rebels in Syria following the failure of the arbitration talks, but the Im\u0101m (`a) was martyred at the hands of a member of the Khaw\u0101rijis named Abd al-Rahm\u0101n ibn Muljim who stabbed the Im\u0101m (`a) as he was prostrating during his Fajr prayers at the Grand K\u016bfa Mosque in the morning of the 19th of the month of Ramadan, 40 A.H. (January 26, 661 A.D.), five years after having taken charge. The Im\u0101m (`a) remained suffering from the attack for three days during which he handed over the Im\u0101mate to his son al-Hasan (`a), older grandson of the Prophet , so that he might carry out after his own demise the duties in leading the nation.
\nThis assignment of the caliphate was not based on the mere fact that al-Hasan (`a) was a son of Ali (`a) or on his being the most fit for it, in his own personal view, to be the caliph. Rather, it was done in obedience to the Command of All\u0101h Almighty Who chose the twelve successors of His Messenger , as we have already stated, with Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) being the second on the list.<\/p>\n

IX The Reconciliation Treaty, Martyrdom of Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a)<\/strong><\/span>
\nAfter the martyrdom of Im\u0101m Ali (`a), Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) ascended the pulpit and the people of K\u016bfa swore the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of the Prophet and the Im\u0101m of the nation. But this did not last for more than six months.
\nWhen the news reached Syria that Im\u0101m Ali (`a) had been martyred, Mu`\u0101wiyah led a large army towards K\u016bfa in order to personally take charge of the leadership of the Muslims and to force Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) son of Im\u0101m Ali (`a) to surrender to him. Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) found no alternative to reconciling and signing a treaty with Mu`\u0101wiyah.
\nAs regarding the reasons which forced him to sign such a reconciliation agreement, these were: the disintegration of his army, the internal and unstable domestic situation in Iraq, and the Roman Empire which was looking for an opportunity to attack Islam, having stood ready with a huge army to fight the Muslims. Had a war been waged between Mu`\u0101wiyah and Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) under such circumstances, the winner would have been the Roman Empire, neither Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) nor Mu`\u0101wiyah. Thus, Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a), having opted for peace, removed a very serious danger against Islam. As for the terms of the Reconciliation Treaty, these were:
\n1. Al-Hasan (`a) was to hand over the government and the management of affairs to Mu`\u0101wiyah provided the latter should adhere to the Qur`\u0101n and to the Sunnah of the Messenger of All\u0101h .
\n2. Caliphate after the death of Mu`\u0101wiyah should be a right specifically belonging to Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a). If something happened to him, caliphate would then go to his brother, Im\u0101m al-Husayn (`a).
\n3. All condemnations and insults against Im\u0101m Ali (`a) should be prohibited, be they launched from the pulpit or from anywhere else.
\n4. Five million dirhams, which were then present at bayt al-m\u0101l in K\u016bfa, would be put under the supervision of Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) and Mu`\u0101wiyah was to send one million dirhams a year from the khir\u0101j tax to Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) for distribution to the families of those who were martyred in the battles of the Camel and of Siff\u012bn on the side of Im\u0101m Ali (`a).
\n5. Mu`\u0101wiyah was to pledge that he would leave all people, regardless of their race or ethnic origin, and not chase or harm them, and he should also pledge to carry out the terms of this Agreement with precision and make the public his witnesses.
\nBut Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) was martyred in 50 A.H. (670 A.D.) as a result of his wife, Ju`da daughter of al-Ash`ath ibn Qays, having laced something which she had given him with poison. This wife belonged to a family which followed a course of living and believing contrary to that of the descendants of Im\u0101m Ali (`a). Mu`\u0101wiyah had instigated her to commit this terrible crime by sending her one hundred thousand dirhams and by promising her to marry her off to his son, Yaz\u012bd, if she poisoned her husband, Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a). Mu`\u0101wiyah was elated when he heard about the martyrdom of Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a). He saw in it the removal of the greatest hurdle in his way to achieve his objectives, thus firming the foundations of the Umayyad dynasty`s rule. Thus, Mu`\u0101wiyah achieved all of that thereafter and was able to install his pornographic teenage son, Yaz\u012bd, over the nation by force. So, where does this fit in the Sunnis` belief that caliphate must take place through consultation? Did they not reject the texts which mandate the caliphate of the Im\u0101ms from among Ahl al-Bayt (`a) in the pretext that such Im\u0101mate must be through consultation? Does this not prove that caliphate, according to their view, is not legitimate if not done through consultation? But why did they consider the \u201ccaliphate\u201d of Yaz\u012bd as legitimate?! And how did they agree to call him \u201ccommander of the faithful\u201d?!
\nConsider the following so you may view some black pages of our Islamic history. Consider a narrative of glittering glimpses of the life of \u201ccommander of the faithful Yaz\u012bd son of Ab\u016b Sufy\u0101n\u201d!<\/p>\n

X The Karbal\u0101` Revolution and the Martyrdom of Im\u0101m al-Husayn (`a)<\/strong><\/span>
\nAfter the demise of Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) in 50 A.H.(670 A.D.), the Sh\u012b`ahs of Iraq started writing al-Husayn (`a) to request him to remove Mu`\u0101wiyah from his self-installed post of ruling over the Muslims. But al-Husayn (`a) stated in his answer to them that he had with Mu`\u0101wiyah a treaty, an agreement, and that he could not violate it. As for Mu`\u0101wiyah, for the period of twenty years of his rule, he used to prepare to firm the foundations of the rule of his debauchee son, Yaz\u012bd, in order to make him a \u201ccommander of the faithful\u201d, thus violating his treaty with Im\u0101m al-Hasan (`a) to which he had agreed and, moreover, rejecting and violating what the Sunis had agreed upon, that is, their belief that the selection of a caliph is done through consultation with the condition that he must be righteous and pious. If you consider all of this, you will see the extent of the crime committed by Mu`\u0101wiyah against Islam and Muslims. His line of action was followed by the rest of Umayyad, Abb\u0101side and Ottoman caliphs most of whom could not be distinguished from the Muslims` debauchee and corrupt rulers of our time.
\nAfter the death of Mu`\u0101wiyah in 60 A.H. (680 A.D.), Yaz\u012bd seated himself as the ruler. His palace was a nucleus of corruption and sin. He, according to the admission of all Islamic groups, used to publicly drink wine during his crowded night parties. Among his well recorded statements are shallow poetic verses from which we would like to quote the following:
\nMusical tones distracted me from the sound of the adh\u0101n,
\nInstead of the h\u016bris, I took to myself an old hag in the chambers.
\nThis does not surprise us. Yaz\u012bd was brought up by a Christian governess. He, as described by historians, was a reckless youth, a licentious, extravagant, immoral, short-sighted, off-guard young man who surrounded himself with luxury. He is always reported as having led the Friday congregational prayer service on a Wednesday [rather than Friday] and led the fajr prayers in four rek`ats [instead of two] because he was quite drunk. Other such incidents are reported about him the narration of which does not serve our purpose. We have mentioned his violations in order to shed a light on the circumstances during which Im\u0101m al-Husayn (`a) saw that an uprising and a revolution were necessary to resurrect Islam and the religious sunan after they had become threatened with distortion and extinction. The objective of Im\u0101m al-Husayn (`a) behind his revolution was not to take control of the caliphate or run after authority, for he knew that the Umayyads were more prepared to secure it for themselves especially after the people of Iraq had reneged, fearing the Umayyads.
\nIn one of his sermons near Karbal\u0101`, Im\u0101m al-Husayn (`a) states the reason behind his uprising as follows: \u201cO people! Whoever sees an oppressive im\u0101m permitting what All\u0101h prohibits, violating All\u0101h`s covenant after confirming it, behaving contrarily to the Sunnah of His Prophet , ruling among the servants of All\u0101h with sin and oppression, All\u0101h will hurl him together with the same person into the Fire.\u201d In another statement, he said, \u201cO people! They [Umayyads] obeyed Satan, disobeyed the most Merciful One, caused corruption in the land, suspended the implementation of the sunan, took to themselves what belonged to the Muslims, permitted what All\u0101h prohibits, forbade what All\u0101h permits, and I, more than anyone else, am more worthy of opposing them.\u201d
\nWhen Im\u0101m al-Husayn (`a) came to know about the reneging and violation of the covenant with him which took place in K\u016bfa, he gathered his companions and family members, who were in his company, and frankly said the following to them: \u201cOur Sh\u012b`ahs have betrayed us. Anyone who likes to go away may do so; he is not obligated to us.\u201d They dispersed from him right and left, so much so that only those who had come with him from Mecca and Med\u012bna stayed. But Im\u0101m al-Husayn (`a) kept upholding his decision and in the same determination whereby he set out from Mecca the Venerable. As described by a poet, his condition was: \u201cIf the religion of Muhammad cannot stay straight except if I am killed, then take me, O swords!\u201d He met with `Umar ibn Sa`d, commander of the army sent to fight him by the provincial governor of K\u016bfa,`Ubaydull\u0101h ibn Ziy\u0101d, who was appointed by the Umayyad \u201ccaliph\u201d, Yaz\u012bd, which was made up of thirty-two thousand strong, according to some narratives.
\nIt was only natural for the force of the army of Yaz\u012bd son of Mu`\u0101wiyah to be able to kill such a small numbered band. On that day, the tragedy of Ahl al-Bayt (`a) was personified, how they were wronged, in the most clear way. Yaz\u012bd son of Mu`\u0101wiyah, in this massacre, was paying the \u201creward\u201d which the Messenger of All\u0101h had required him: \u201cSay: `I ask no reward of you for this [Islamic creed] except love for my near in kin`\u201d (Qur`\u0101n, 42:23)… History narrates tragic scenes too difficult for anyone to describe as they were in reality. One of them is the tragedy of the infant son of Im\u0101m Husayn (`a), namely Abdull\u0101h, whom the Im\u0101m carried to the battlefield asking for a drink of water for him after a blockade was enforced on Im\u0101m Husayn (`a)`s camp, depriving him of any access to the Euphrates. Thirst, hence, took its heavy toll on them. The Im\u0101m carried Abdull\u0101h asking for some water for him and to stir their conscience and human feeling. But they shot the infant with an arrow, killing him instantly. Martyrs from among the followers of Im\u0101m Husayn (`a) and from his Ahl al-Bayt (`a) fell one after the other.
\nAl-Husayn (`a) was the last to be martyred in that decisive battle. Yet they were not satisfied with killing the Master of the Youths of Paradise but severed his head from his body then carried it together with the heads of his companions as gifts to the killers, raising them on their spears on their way to Yaz\u012bd son of Mu`\u0101wiyah in Syria. Some Muslims keep insisting on calling him \u201ccommander of the faithful\u201d…; so, there is no will nor might except in All\u0101h…!
\nHaving narrated these events, which clearly show the lofty objectives for which al-Husayn (`a) started his revolution, a revolution which was described by a great Islamist, namely Dr. `Amr Abd al-Rahm\u0101n, thus, \u201cThe martyrdom of al-Husayn (`a) is a thousand times greater than his staying alive.\u201d But there are those who minimize the value of this great revolution because of their falling victim to the misleading Umayyad propaganda. Such a propaganda has tried very hard to distort history. And they fell victim to contemptible sectarian fanaticism. They, thus, are forced to adopt such a shameful distortion of the facts such as the statement of so-called \u201cshaikh al-Islam\u201d Ibn Taymiyyah in this sense: \u201cIm\u0101m al-Husayn (`a), in his revolution, caused a dissension in the Islamic nation when he disobeyed the one who was in charge of the affairs of the Muslims\u201d…!!! If we ask this so-called \u201cshaikh al-Islam\u201d about Mu`\u0101wiyah who disobeyed Im\u0101m Ali (`a) (who was then in charge of the affairs of the Muslims), he will not see in it any dissension, nor will he see any sin in it for them. The same applies to `\u0100`isha who disobeyed Im\u0101m Ali (`a)… This is nothing but a norm of attempts to openly falsify our Islamic history; otherwise, how can we explain how most Sunnis ignore this historic tragedy in which the descendants of the Messenger of All\u0101h were killed in the most horrible and painful way? All the descendants of Mu`\u0101wiyah and his son, Yaz\u012bd, followed in the footsteps of the Umayyads and of the Abbasides. They crushed any opposition to their authority, especially when it came from the Members of the Household of the Prophet who were always pursued with discrimination, banishment, killing and torture.
\nSuch oppression was not confined to the Members of the Household of the Prophet alone. Among the victims of the Umayyad oppression from among those who did not belong to Ahl al-Bayt (`a) was, for example, Abdull\u0101h ibn al-Zubayr. History has recorded the tragic scene inside the precinct of Mecca where Abdull\u0101h ibn al-Zubayr was slaughtered and skinned. The sanctity of that place which even people during the j\u0101hiliyya period held as sacred and holy and did not permit the slaughter of animals, let alone of humans, inside it. And the Venerable Ka`ba could not help him against the Umayyad rulers when he clung to its curtains. This same Ka`ba was bombarded with catapults during the time of Abd al-Malik ibn Marw\u0101n who gave a free hand to his tyrant, al-Hajj\u0101j, to kill people without a just cause. About both men, al-Hasan al-Basri said, \u201cHad Abd al-Malik committed only the sin of [giving a free hand to] al-Hajj\u0101j, it would have sufficed him [i.e. was sufficient for his condemnation].\u201d And `Umar ibn Abd al-Az\u012bz said, \u201cHad each nation brought forth its oppressor, and had we [Umayyads] brought forth al-Hajj\u0101j, we would have out-weighed them [in the measure of oppressiveness].\u201d
\nSo, do these deeds qualify their doer to be a Muslim, let alone to being the caliph of the Muslims or the \u201ccommander of the faithful\u201d??! Undoubtedly, we nowadays need to take a second look at our history[112] and to discern many of its events then ask to speak to us due to their strong ties to sketching the outlines of the Islamic sects to which the Muslims nowadays adhere. They have in them what helps truly get to know this sect or that away from oppression and injustice. Because of those incidents, the Muslims slipped away from the original Islamic line of Muhammad , becoming diverse sects and groups each one of which claims it is the one that will receive salvation. None of us needs to wait for Divine Wahi to tell him the name of this sect. All\u0101h, the most Great and the most Exalted One, has granted us the mind whereby we can distinguish what is foul from what is good, making it an argument against His servants, prohibiting us from blindly imitating others, saying, \u201cWhat! Even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?!\u201d (Qur`\u0101n, 2:170). He has also said, \u201cWe have sent them admonishment, but most of them hate admonishment\u201d (Qur`\u0101n, 23:71). He has required us to investigate and research before believing each and every one, saying, \u201cO you who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest you should harm people unwittingly and afterwards become full of repentance for what you have done\u201d (Qur`\u0101n, 49:6).
\nNotes:<\/strong><\/span>
\n[79]Al-Tabari, T\u0101r\u012bkh. Ibn `As\u0101kir, T\u0101r\u012bkh Dimashq.
\n[80]Ibid.
\n[81]Ibid.
\n[82]Kh\u0101lid Muhammad Kh\u0101lid, Khulaf\u0101` Rasool All\u0101h, p. 272, 8th edition.
\n[83]Al-Bukh\u0101ri, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 9, p. 239, in the book of ahk\u0101m in a chapter about how an im\u0101m receives the oath of fealty from the people.
\n[84]Kh\u0101lid Muhammad Kh\u0101lid, Khulaf\u0101` Rasool All\u0101h, p. 276, 8th edition.
\n[85]Al-Tabari, T\u0101r\u012bkh. Al-Mas`\u016bdi. Ibn al-Ath\u012br, Al-Ist\u012b`\u0101b.
\n[86]Ibn al-Ath\u012br. Al-Mas`\u016bdi. Al-Tabari, T\u0101r\u012bkh.
\n[87]Al-Bukh\u0101ri, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 2, p. 278, in the Book of Zak\u0101t.
\n[88]Al-Bal\u0101dhuri, Ans\u0101b al-Ashr\u0101f. Al-W\u0101qidi. Al-Ya`q\u016bbi, T\u0101r\u012bkh.
\n[89]Ibn Abul-Had\u012bd, Sharh Nahjul-Bal\u0101ghah.
\n[90]Al-Tabari, T\u0101r\u012bkh, Vol. 4, p. 277 (Cairo edition of 1357 A.H.). Ibn al-Ath\u012br, Al-Nih\u0101yah.
\n[91]Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 172. Ibn al-Ath\u012br. Ibn Sa`d.
\n[92]Al-Bukh\u0101ri, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 4, p. 217, in the Book of Khums in a chapter about what went on in the houses of the Prophet`s wives.
\n[93]Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 171, in the Book of Dissensions in a chapter about a dissension that would move like high sea waves.
\n[94]Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 133, in the Book of Ablution in a chapter about the Prophet pouring water on someone who lost his consciousness.
\n[95]Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 252 in the Book of Tafs\u012br in a chapter about \u201c… had you only heard him say it.\u201d
\n[96]`All\u0101ma al-`Askari, Ah\u0101d\u012bth Umm al-Mu`mineen, p. 272.
\n[97]Besides him, a number of scholarly researchers, such as Taha Husayn in Vol. 1 of his book titled Al-Fitna al-Kubra (the great dissension) and Dr. K\u0101mil al-Shaybi in his book titled Al-Sila Bayna al-Tashayyu` wal Tasawwuf (the relationship between Shi`ism and Sufism), have all rejected the notion that such an individual ever existed in reality.
\n[98]Excerpted and edited from the book titled Abdull\u0101h ibn Saba` by `all\u0101ma Sayyid Murtadha al-`Askari.
\n[99]Ibn al-Sabb\u0101gh al-M\u0101liki, Al-Fus\u016bl al-Muhimma, p. 83 (the D\u0101r al-Adhwaa` edition).
\n[100]Al-Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Tathkirat al-Khaw\u0101ss, p. 79.
\n[101]Muslim, Sah\u012bh, in the Book of Im\u0101n in a chapter about love for Ali, may All\u0101h glorify his countenance, as a sign of im\u0101n, Vol. 1, p. 262 (D\u0101r al-Sha`ab edition).
\n[102]Al-Bukh\u0101ri, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 4, p. 52 in the Book of Jih\u0101d in a chapter about removing one`s dust seeking the Pleasure of Allah.
\n[103]Al-Mustadrak `Alal Sah\u012bhayn, Vol. 2, p. 148 (D\u0101r al-Kit\u0101b al-`Arabi edition).
\n[104]Al-Bukh\u0101ri, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 6, p. 146 in the Book of Tafs\u012br in a chapter about this verse.
\n[105]Al-Tirmidhi, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 13, p. 210 in a chapter about the merits of Ab\u016b Dharr ).\uf079\uf08a(
\n[106]Al-Bukh\u0101ri, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 5, p. 73 in a book about the merits of the sah\u0101bah in a chapter about Mu`\u0101wiyah.
\n[107]Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 74 in a book about the merits of the sah\u0101bah in a chapter about Mu`\u0101wiyah.
\n[108]Al-Tabari, T\u0101r\u012bkh.
\n[109]Al-Bukh\u0101ri, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 4, p. 122 in the Book of Jih\u0101d.
\n[110]Muslim, Sah\u012bh, Vol. 5, p. 462 in the Book of Kindness, Charity and Etiquette in a chapter about one cursed by the Prophet (D\u0101r al-Sha`ab edition) as cited in al-Nawawi`s Sharh.
\n[111]Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 693 in the Book of Divorce in a chapter about a woman whose divorce is irrevocable not having the right for any financial support after the divorce (D\u0101r al-Sha`ab edition).
\n[112]Take a look at the picture attacked to the cover of the book titled Haqaaiq an Ameer al-Momineen Yaz\u012bd [facts about the commander of the faithful Yaz\u012bd] so you may see to what extent some people have gone in their falsification of the Islamic history…!<\/span><\/p>\n

Imam Ali’s Letter To Talha and Zubayr<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n