Governor of Kufa

The Battle of Bassrah

The period at which the Qureshite community was overwhelmed and lost the political control had elapsed. Quraish woke up after the Brother of the Messenger was elected. Now, this community went on gathering its forces, determined not to let Ali enjoy his leadership and to demolish that leadership regardless of what it may cost the Muslims in blood, unity, and religion.

The Qureshite parties (though neither of them had good intentions towards the other), agreed to wage war against Ali, the Imam of the truth. One of the two parties was led by three leaders who had a high religious position: Ayeshah, the politically-minded wife of the Holy Prophet, Talhah, and Al-Zubeir, who were among the early Muslims with a brilliant record in their endeavor during the days of the prophethood, along with a long companionship of the Holy Prophet.

The other party was the Omayads led by Muaweyah (governor of Syria). The Omayads were known (with the exception of a few) to be less religious than other Muslims as they were known for their long and strong hostility towards the Prophet. That hostility continued for most of the years of the prophethood, and the signs of it did not disappear except during the last two years of the life of the Messenger.'(1) In spite of that, this party had a tremendous material power which made it the more dangerous of the two parties.

A Third Party, Governor of Kufa

Both parties declared their open defiance to the Caliph. Both parties made out of the revenge for the death of Othman a slogan, with which they were trying to deceive millions of ignorant Muslims. The two parties were joined by Abu Musa Al-Ashaari in a covered and camouflaged way. As the Imam's appointed governor of Kufa, Abu Musa was able through his malicious method to offer to the two parties tremendous assistance.

However, the three leaders of the first Qureshite party were faster than the second party in their violent hostility. They took the strategy of offense while Muaweyah took the strategy of disobedience and defiance.

The three leaders took the law in their hands and appointed themselves as the high magistrates of the nation and the administrators of its affairs. They went on shedding the blood of the Muslims, (2) though they were neither heirs nor relatives of the assassinated Caliph. Nor were they elected by the nation.

History recorded the names of the killers of Othman and their number did not exceed five: Soudan Ibn Hamran, Al-Ghafiqi, Qutairah, Kinanah Ibn Bishr AlTajeebi and Amr Ibn Al-Hamiq. (3) History records that three of them: Kinanah Ibn Bish Al-Tajeebi, Soudan Ibn Hamran, and Qutairah were killed at the same time Othman was murdered. (4) Thus, only two of them survived Othman. But the three leaders did not go after these two.

They considered all who attended the besiegement of the Third Caliph from Bassrah, Kufa and Egypt to be of his killers. Yet, most of these came asking the Caliph to make changes and did not come to kill him. They came only to pressure him to change his policy towards handling the public funds and towards his relatives. The few who killed him made their attack on him while the majority of the rebels were unaware of what the few did. His death probably was a shocking surprise to most of those who besieged him.

The three leaders considered all who attended the besiegement partners in his assassination because their presence was an assistance to the murderers. If this logic is sound, then it would have been the duty of the three leaders to go to the Imam and ask him to give them what they deserved of punishment, because they were among the biggest agitators against the Caliph. (5)

A Sweeping Condemnation

The three leaders were not satisfied to kill only the ones who besieged Othman whose number did not exceed twelve hundred from Egypt, Kufa, and Bassrah. Evidently, the three leaders considered every loyal person to the Imam a partner in the murder of Othman. They went to Bassrah and turned thousands of its inhabitants against the Imam, then used them to fight whomever they could reach of the Imam' s followers in Bassrah or Kufa. The participants in the siege of Othman from the people of Bassrah did not exceed two hundred persons, and none of them participated directly in killing the Caliph.

The Qureshite war followed a pre-Islamic method. Its purpose was not to kill the killers of Othman but to destroy the caliphate of the Imam. How would they avenge the blood of Othman when they were the ones who urged people to kill him?

A Warning Prophecy Not Heeded

The three leaders went to Bassrah accompanying three thousand persons, including a thousand Meceans. 0th- man's former appointed governors supplied them with funds and means of transportation through what they stole from the public funds before they left their posts. Their procession arrived to a water where dogs at that water barked at them. Mother of the Believers, Ayeshah, asked about the name of the place. When they told her it was the water of Al-Hou-ab, she realized that she was deviating from the right road, and the prophecy of the great Messenger had been fulfilled. She said "Return me, return me (to Mecca). (6) Al-Zubeir and his oldest son, Abdullah, confused her by bringing witnesses testifying falsely that the water is not the water of Al-Hou-ab.

It is also reported that she was told that Ali is about to overtake them and they ought to hurry out. Thus, she continued her journey to Bassrah. (7)Yet she knew that the Imam does not fight anyone that does not fight him. She was too intelligent to believe in the testimony of witnesses who were brought to her by people who justified every means for reaching their end. The voice of the Messenger was still ringing in her ears: "I wish I knew. which one of you will be the rider of the huge camel to be barked at by the dogs of Al-Hou-ab, and she would be deviating from the right road. (He was addressing Ayeshah and Om Selema), and he turned to Ayeshah saying:' Humairah, I have warned you. (8)

Dividing, Killing, and Truce

Finally the procession arrived in Bassrah, and the wife of the Messenger was able (through her position with the Messenger of God and her father being the First Caliph) to divide the people of Bassrah, after they had given their allegiance to the Imam. The three leaders' party and the party of the governor of Bassrah, Othman Ibn Huneif, fought each other, then agreed on a temporary truce. This truce was violated by the three leaders when they attacked the followers of Ibn Huneif, then forced him out of the leadership of the prayer at the Mosque and slaughtered many of his guards, then occupied the governor's office and massacred their opponents. (9) Their opponents were not the killers of the Caliph Othman, but they were loyal to the Imam.

The Contents of the Truce Agreement

Al-Tabari in his History reported that the truce pact which was made between Ibn Huneif on one hand, and Talhah and Al-Zubeir on the other hand, contained the agreement to send a messenger from Bassrah to Medina, seeking information from its inhabitants whether Talhah and Al-Zubeir elected Ali voluntarily or by force. If people of Medina testified that the two companions were forced to elect Ali, the city of Bassrah shall be under control of the two companions, and Ibn Huneif should leave his post. If people of Medina testify that the two companions elected the Imam voluntarily, the governor, Ibn Huneif, would stay in his post and Talhah and Al-Zubeir could stay in Bassrah under the control of the Imam if they want, and if they choose to leave Bassrah they could. (10)

The messenger of the two parties to Medina was Kaab Ibn Soor, a former judge of Bassrah. When he asked people of Medina about the two companions' election of the Imam, people did not answer his question except Osamah Ibn Zeid Ibn Harithah. He stated that they elected Aliunwillingly and under coercion. Sahl Ibn Huneif (brother of Othman Ibn Huneif, governor of Bassrah), and others attacked Osamah Ibn Zeid, but Osamah was defended by a few people who were from the opposition of the Imam, and Osamah was taken to his home without being hurt. (11)

Al-Tabari recorded that when the Imam knew about what took place in Medina, he sent to Othman Ibn Huneif a message in which he blamed him for his inefficiency and told him in the message: "By God, they were not forced for a division. They were forced for unity and good. If they want to declare their disobedience, they have no excuse; and if they want something else, we may consider the matter. (12)

When the message of the Imam came to Othman Ibn Huneif, and Ibn Soor came with his news from Medina, Talhah and Al-Zubeir sent to Othman Ibn Huneif to leave his post and his office. Othman refused to do so, saying that what the Imam brought up is different from what they had agreed upon. Upon this, Talhah and Al-Zubeir and their supporters made their attack at the Mosque, then they attacked the governor and prevailed against him. They occupied his office and the city of Bassrah, then took over the treasury. This was followed by a massacre. (13) The three leaders aimed at liquidating their opponents. Ibn Huneif was taken prisoner. They tortured him and pulled the hair off his beard and wanted to kill him.

Al-Tabari in reporting these events, relied on the narration of Seif Ibn Omar, who alleged to have taken his information from Mohammad (Ibn Oun) and Talhah.

Knowing the Imam s method of conducting himself, we ought to discredit this report. The Imam was not a man who would take a pledge of loyalty from a person who was forced to give it.

We have already substantiated that the claim of coercion by Talhah and Al-Zubeir was unfounded. The reporter of this story was Seif Ibn Omar who was discredited by many historians and hadith recorders, and some of them declared him as one of the forgers of the history, and some of them accused him of being a heretic. (14) We shall deal with this in the following chapter.

Forcing Two Persons Does Not Nullify the Election

Assuming that the two companions were forced to elect the Imam, this would allow them only to withhold from the Imam their assistance if he seeks it. It would not allow them to hinder the Imam from exercising his rule as the administrator of the affairs of the nation after he was elected by the overwhelming majority from the companions of the Prophet.

Forcing two persons to elect an Imam does not cancel the whole election or the legitimacy of his caliphate. Al-Zubeir was forced to give his allegiance to Abu Bakr when Abu Bakr was elected. Historians reported that Al-Zubeir came out from the house of Ali drawing his sword in the faces of the attackers saying: "Ali has the right more than anyone to the caliphate. The attackers took the sword from his hand and led him to Abu Bakr and made him give his allegiance to him by force. (15) Forcing Al-Zubeir at that time did not cancel the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's election, in spite of the fact that his election was a "Faltah (an incident that came without preparation or planning) according to the testimony of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. (16)

Would it have been legitimate at that time for Al-Zubeir to go to Mecca, for example, and occupy it and drive Abu Bakr's appointed governor from Mecca by force? I do not believe that Al-Zubeir could claim that this was legal for him to do. I do not think that anyone from the companions would agree with him if he had claimed the right to do that. Had he done this, he would have been fought and considered to be a divider of the Muslim community. Why should it be legitimate for him and Talhah to fight the Imam and drive his appointed governor out of Bassrah and occupy a city whose people pledged their allegiance to him?

Illegal Agreement

If Ibn Huneif had agreed with the two companions voluntarily on the contents of the alleged pact of the temporary truce, he would have committed a grave mistake. This is because his agreement with the two companions represents a negligence of the trust which the Imam put in the hand of Ibn Huneif and because it is an agreement on dividing the nation. This is abhorable to God and His Messenger.

Granted that Ibn Huneif agreed on that. This could not make it legitimate for the two companions and for the Mother of the Believers to implement the contents of the agreement because it contained a pledge to commit a major sin. If Ibn Huneif had breached the pact between him and the two companions after the Imam reprimanded him, he would have only fulfilled his duty. This is because the contents of the pact are unjustifiable in Islam.

Notes:

1. Ibn Al-Atheer,Al-Kamil, part 2, pp. 165-166.

2. Dr. Taha Hissein, Al-Fitnat Al-Kubra, part 2, p. 39. Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Kamil, part 3, p. 111.

3. Al-Tabari, his History, part 4, p. 391- and pp. 393-394.

4. Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Kamil, part 3, pp. 89-90. Al-Tabari, in his History, part 4, p.431. Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Kamil, part 3, p. 102. Ibn Abu-Al-Hadeed, Commentary on Nahjul-Balaghah, vol. 2, p. 506.

5. Ibn AI-Atheer, Al-Kamil, part 3, p. 506. Al-Tabari, his History, part 4, p.431.

6. Taha Hussein, A l-Fitnat Al-Kubra, part 2, p. 34. Al-Tabari, his History, part 4, p. 407. Al-Hakim, in his Al-Mustadrak, part 3, pp. 119-120. Ibn Al-Atheer, A1-Kamil, part 3, p. 39.

7. Ibn Al-Atheer, A1-Kamil, part 3, p. 107.

8. Ai-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak, part 3, p. 120.

9. Al-Fitnat Al.-Kubra, part 2, p. 39. Al-Tabari, his History, part 4, p. 468. Ibn Al-Atheer, A l-Kamil, part 3, p. 111.

10. Al-Tabari, his History, part 4, p. 467.

11. Al-Tabari, his History, part 4, p. 468.

12. Al-Tabari, his History, part 4, pp. 468-69.

13. Taha Hussein, A1-Fitnat A1-Kubra, part 2, p. 36.

14. Sayed Murtadah Al-Askari, Abdullah Ibn Saba, second edition, p. 26.

15. Ibn Abu Al-Hadeed, his Commentary on Nahjul-Balaghah, part 6, p. 11 (printed in 1965 by the House of Resurrection of the Arabic Books.)

16. Al-Bukhari, his Sahih, part 6, p. 195. ImamAhmad,hisMuSflad, part 1,p.17.

17. Muslim, his Sahih, part 6, p. 195.

18. Muslim, his Sahih, part 6, p. 195.