Mother of the Believers Goes Out to Fight

After `Uthman had been killed, people went in drones to Imam `Ali (a.s.) seeking to swear the oath of allegiance to him (as the caliph). They said to him, "This man [`Uthman] has been killed, and people have to have an Imam. Nowadays, we find none worthy of such an undertaking besides you." The swearing of allegiance was compleed.

Imam `Ali (a.s.) 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 Allah revealed in His Book. Some of them objected. They enticed dissension and gathered troops, publicly announcing their rebellion and mutiny against him. This led to many battles the most significant of which were those of the Camel and of Siffin.

Battle of al-Jamal; Mother of the Believers Goes Out to Fight `Ali (a.s.)

When Mother of the Believers `A'ishah came to know that `Uthman had been killed and that people swore the oath of allegiance to `Ali (a.s.), she said to `Ubaydullah ibn Kilab, who informed her of it, "By Allah! 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!" `Ubaydullah said to her, "It is just as I have told you, O Mother of the Faithful!" She pronounced statements expressing her frustration, whereupon he said to her, "Why should it concern you [so much], O Mother of the Faithful?! By Allah, I know nobody worthier of it [caliphate] than him [than `Ali (a.s.)]; so, why do you hate for him to be the caliph?" The Mother of the Faithful cried out, "Take me back! Take me back!" She returned to Madinah saying, "`Uthman, by Allah, was killed unjustly. By Allah! I shall seek revenge for the shedding of his blood!" `Ubaydullah said to her, "Why?! By Allah, the first person to legitimize the shedding of his blood is your own self! You used to say, 'Kill Na`thal for he has committed apostasy'." She said, "They 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." She went to Mecca and alighted at the Mosque's door where many people gathered around her. She said to them, "O people! `Uthman has been unjustly killed. By Allah! I shall seek revenge for his murder."[1]

The anger of Mother of the Faithful `A'ishah agreed with the anger of ±alhah and al-Zubayr after Imam `Ali (a.s.) had deposed them from their posts as the walis of Yemen and Bahrain respectively; therefore, they both reneged from their oath of allegiance to Imam `Ali (a.s.) and went to Mecca to urge the same Mother of the Faithful to fight `Ali (a.s.). 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 Imam `Ali (a.s.), and in it both ±alhah 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 `Uthman. She claimed that the killers had found their way to the Imam's army. No matter what, was she not supposed to let such issues be decided by wali al-amr especially since Allah Almighty had ordered her to "... stay in your houses" (Qur'an, 33:33)?

And why should she have anything to do with that since `Uthman is a man from Banu 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 Allah (a.s.) about this dissension and his making a reference to those behind it. For example, `Abdullah [ibn `Abbas] has said, "The Prophet (a.s.) stood up to deliver a sermon. He pointed in the direction of the residence of `A'ishah 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.'"[2] `Ammar ibn Yasir considered

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 5, p. 172. Ibn al-Athir. Ibn Sa`d.

[2] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 217, in the Book of Khums in a chapter about

obedience to `A'ishah in such a deed as being at the expense of obedience to Allah, the most Great, the most Exalted One. Ibn Ziyad al-Asadi has said, "... so I heard `Ammar saying, '`A'ishah marched out to Basra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet (a.s.) in the life of this world and in the Hereafter, but Allah, the most Praised, the most Exalted One, has tested you in order to see whether you obey Him or you obey her.'"[1]

Long before this incident, `A'ishah was very well known of being extremely spiteful of `Ali (a.s.). She could not even bear hearing his name mentioned. `Abdullah ibn `Utbah is quoted as having said, "`A'ishah said, 'When heaviness covered the Prophet (a.s.) and his pain intensified, he sought permission of his wives to be treated at my chamber, and they granted him permission. The Prophet (a.s.) went out assisted by two men, dragging his feet on the ground. He was between `Abbas and another man.'" `Ubaydullah went on to say, "I related this to [`Abdullah] ibn `Abbas who asked me, 'Do you know who the other man was?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'That was `Ali.'"[2] Perhaps what `A'ishah had heard was what `Ali (a.s.) said to the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) in her regard in the incident wherein she was charged. This was the reason for such spite and hatred. `Ubaydullah ibn Mas`ud has said, "... As for `Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), he said, 'O Messenger of Allah! Allah has not placed any pressure on you, and women besides her are numerous, indeed.'"[3]

The "prince of poets (amir al-shu`ara')," Ahmed Shawqi, has described `A'ishah's spite [towards `Ali (a.s.)] in poetic verses wherein he addresses Imam `Ali (a.s.) as follows: "O mountain! The weight that you carry is rejected by other mountains; what load did the Owner of the Camel [`A'ishah] throw on you? Was it the effect

what went on in the houses of the Prophet's wives.

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 171, in the Book of Dissensions in a chapter about a dissension that would move like high sea waves.

[2] Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 133, in the Book of Ablution in a chapter about the Prophet (a.s.) pouring water on someone who lost his consciousness.

[3] Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 252 in the Book of Tafsir in a chapter about "... had you only heard him say it."

of `Uthman 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."

The Myth of `Abdullah ibn Saba'

The summary of this myth is: "A man named `Abdullah ibn Saba', a Jew from Yemen, pretended to be a follower of Islam during the reign of `Uthman in order to cause mischief to the Muslims. He moved about the main Islamic metropolises in Egypt, Syria, Basra and Kufah, spreading the "glad tiding" that the Prophet (a.s.) would return to life, that `Ali (a.s.) was his wasi (successor), and that `Uthman was the usurper of the right of this wasi. Groups from among senior sahabah and tabi`un (followers of the Sahabah-the second generation of Muslims) such as `Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Tharr, Muhammed ibn al-Hanafiyyah and others. He was able to raise armies to kill caliph `Uthman at his own house."

Thus does the series of events of this fabricated myth continue until it ends with the Battle of the Camel when `Abdullah ibn Saba' orders his followers to sneak into the army of `Ali (a.s.) and of `A'ishah without their knowledge in order to stir a war, and "thus did the Battle of the Camel take place."[1] Sayyid Murtada al-`Askari[2], who stood to expose the fallacy of this imagined myth, states that "The person who fabricated this personality [`Abdullah ibn Saba'] is Sayf ibn `Amr al-Tamimi al-Barjami al-Kufi, 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 across the centuries and until our time, so much so that it has

[1] `Allamah al-`Askari, AHadith Umm al-Mu'minin, p. 272.

[2] Besides him, a number of scholarly researchers, such as Taha Husain in Vol. 1 of his book titled Al-Fitna al-Kubra (the great dissension) and Dr. Kamil al-Shaybi in his book titled Al-Silah 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.

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 hadith as a fabricator and is even accused of being an unbeliever. Ibn Dawud says the following about him: "He is nothing; he is a liar." Ibn `Abd al-Barr says, "Sayf is rejected. We have cited his tradition only to inform you of it." Al-Nisa'i says this about him: "His traditions are weak. He is not trusted, and nobody has any faith in him." Yet this same lying narrator is quoted by al-±abari, Ibn `Asakir, Ibn Abu Bakr, etc., and al-±abari has been and is being quoted by all other writers and historians until our time.[1]

It 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 ahadith that are consecutively reported [mutawatir] from the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) which prove the opposite?

One of the greatest historical farces is to attribute Shi`ism to a mythical man, namely `Abdullah ibn Saba', claiming he was the one who disseminated the concept of "`Ali (a.s.) the wasi" despite the existence of a huge number of authentic texts proving that Shi`ism has always been to follow Muhammed (a.s.) and nobody else. Refer to the Imamate texts on the previous pages to see where this `Abdullah ibn Saba' fits. Is `Abdullah ibn Saba' the one who said, "I am leaving among you that which, if you uphold them, you shall never stray: the Book of Allah and my `itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt"? Or is he the one who said, "Anyone who has accepted me as his master, `Ali is his master"? Or

[1] Excerpted and edited from the book titled Abdullah ibn Saba' by `Allamah Sayyid Murtada al-`Askari.

is he the one who said that the Imams 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 extraordinary 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 Imam `Ali (a.s.), about whom the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) said, "I am the city of wisdom and `Ali is its gate," fall a victim to the trickery of this Jew? Surely one who says so has strayed far, far away from the right track.

The Battle of Siffin and the Rebellion of Mu`awiyah

Having achieved victory in the Battle of the Camel, the Imam (a.s.) concentrated the effort of his army to eliminate the opposition led by Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan in Syria. Both armies stood face to face near the Euphrates. The Imam (a.s.) tried to correct the situation through peaceful means, but the answer given by Mu`awiyah to the deputation sent to him by the Imam (a.s.) was this: "Get away from me, for I have nothing for you except the sword."[1] Thus, both armies were engaged in battle. When signs of victory for the army led by the Imam (a.s.) became clear, Mu`awiyah staged the "trick of the copies of the Qur'an". Mu`awiyah ordered his soldiers to raise the copies of the Qur'an on the tips of their lances and swords. Although the Imam (a.s.) stood to expose this plot which was intended to put hurdles in the path of the victory which dawned quite near the army of Imam `Ali (a.s.), those fighters in his army who were demanding a ceasefire did not respond to his repeated calls, forcing him to accept arbitration. And the Imam (a.s.) strongly protested the choice of Abu Musa 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. Imam `Ali (a.s.) had said, "I do not see that you should grant Abu Musa such an official task, for he is

[1] Ibn al-Sabbagh al-Maliki, Al-Fusul al-Muhimmah, p. 83 (the Dar al-Adwa' edition).

too weak to confront the trickery of `Amr [ibn al-'As]."[1] `Ali (a.s.) had already deposed Abu Musa al-Ash`ari from his post as the wali of Kufah.

There was a prior plan to raise the copies of the Qur'an and to coordinate it with a movement supportive of Mu`awiyah that had sneaked into the Imam's army and which demanded the acceptance of the arbitration and the choice of Abu Musa al-Ash`ari [as the negotiator during the arbitration process]. The results of the arbitration, as the Imam (a.s.) had expected, came in favor of Mu`awiyah. 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.

In 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 cliché as follows: "It was merely a dissension between two great sahabis. Each of them followed his own ijtihad. The one whose ijtihad was right earned two rewards, while the one whose ijtih?d 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." They have other such answers whereby they close any door that may uncover the causes of this "dissension", as they call it.

Thus 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 Allah (a.s.) wherein he said, "If two Muslims face each other with their swords in hand, both the killer and the killed shall be lodged in Hell." This tradition contradicts the claim of the

[1] Al-Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Tathkirat al-Khawass, p. 79.

Sunnis that both parties during the Battle of Siffin were Muslim, and their commanders were great sahabis! 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 ambiguousa

Anyhow, anyone who is confused about the truth regarding Mu`awiyah must carefully discern the following proofs, and let the reader issue his own judgment after that:

In his Sahih, Muslim cites the following statement of `Ali (a.s.):

"I swear by the One Who created the seed and initiated the breeze that the Ummi Prophet (a.s.) pledged that nobody except a believer loves me, and nobody except a hypocrite hates me."[1]

So, what would you say about one who raises armies to fight him (a.s.)?! And what is the judgment of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding one who disobeys the Imam of the Muslims obedience to whom is obligatory?

In al-Bukhari's Sahih, there are references pointing to the oppression committed by Mu`awiyah. Abu Sa`id al-Khudri is quoted as having said, "We were once carrying the Mosque's blocks one by one while `Ammar was carrying them two at a time. The Prophet (a.s.) passed by him, rubbed the dust from his head and said,

'What a pity for `Ammar! He shall be killed by the oppressive party; `Ammar invites them to Allah while they invite him to the Fire."[2]

This prediction of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) proved true when `Ammar was martyred as he was fighting under the flag of Imam `Ali (a.s.) during the Battle of Siffin.

In Al-Mustadrak `Alal Sahihayn, relying on the authority of Khalid al-`Arabi, the author quotes the latter as having said, "I and Abu

[1] Muslim, Sahih, in the Book of «man in a chapter about love for `Ali, may Allah glorify his countenance, as a sign of iman, Vol. 1, p. 262 (Dar al-Sha`b edition).

[2] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 52 in the Book of Jihad in a chapter about removing one's dust seeking the Pleasure of Allah.

Sa`id al-Khudri met Huthayfah [al-Yamani] and said, 'O Abu `Abdullah! Relate to us what you have heard the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) say about the dissension.' Huthayfah said, 'The Messenger of Allah (a.s.) said, 'Stick to the Book [of Allah, i.e. the Holy Qur'an] wherever it goes.' We said, 'If people differ with each other, with whom should we be?' He (a.s.) said, 'Look up to the group wherein the son of Sumayyah [i.e. `Ammar ibn Yasir] is and hold on to it, for he goes where the Book of Allah goes.' I heard the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) say to `Ammar, 'O son of al-Yaq¨an! You shall not die until the oppressive group that lies in ambush kills you.'"[1]

The oppression and rebellion of Mu`awiyah were all expected. Since he became the wali 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 `Uthman. It was not easy for a man like him to give all this up. He knew for sure that if Imam `Ali (a.s.) 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-mal and that he would treat him on equal footing as he would any other Muslim. What went on between him and the highly revered sahabi, Abu Tharr al-Ghifari, during the caliphate of `Uthman 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 Abu Tharr to Mu`awiyah's conduct resulted in caliph `Uthman banishing him to al-Rabathah after having him brought to him in Medinah. Zayd ibn Wahab is quoted as having said, "I passed by Abu Tharr 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'an, 9:34) was revealed. Mu`awiyah said that it was not revealed about the Muslims but rather about the People of the Book. I said that it was

[1] Al-Mustadrak `Alal Sahihayn, Vol. 2, p. 148 (Dar al-Kitab al-`Arabi edition).

about us and about them as well.'"[1]

Thus was Abu Tharr punished with banishment despite the testimony of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) for him that he was truthful. The Prophet (a.s.) said,

"No tree has shaded nor the desert has seen a man more truthful than Abu Tharr"[2]

This incident makes it clear how Mu`awiyah tampered with the meaning of the Qur'an 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-Bukhari has stated in his Sahih what "qualifies" Mu`awiyah to be a faqih (well-versed in religious affairs)! Abu Malikah has said, "Mu`awiyah prayed one single rak`ah (unit of prayer) for the witr (single) prayers after the evening prayers, and a slave of Ibn `Abbas was in his company. Ibn `Abbas came and said [to his slave], 'Leave him, for he was a companion of the Messenger of Allah'!"[3] In another version in the narration of this same incident, he [Ibn `Abbas] said that Mu`awiyah was a "faqih"![4] If you come to know that Mu`awiyah spent twenty years as "caliph" of the Muslims, and before that he was wali [provincial governor] over Syria, the reader may imagine the extent to which Mu`awiyah exercised his own influence on the fabrication and transmission of aHadith attributed to the Prophet (a.s.) 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 hadith and history in a way which leaves no room for confusion in getting to know the truth about this "caliph" whom they [Sunnis] also regard as the "commander of the faithful"! The conduct of Mu`awiyah with regard to his government and

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 6, p. 146 in the Book of Tafsir in a chapter about this verse.

[2] Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 13, p. 210 in a chapter about the merits of Abu Tharr.

[3] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 5, p. 73 in a book about the merits of the sahabah in a chapter about Mu`awiyah.

[4] Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 74 in a book about the merits of the sahabah in a chapter about Mu`awiyah.

authority has its own roots in his Sufyani family. His father [Abu Sufyan] said to `Uthman after the latter had received the oath of allegiance, "Receive it as a ball is received, for by the one by whom Abu Sufyan swears, I remain optimistic that you [Umayyads], too, will receive it, and it shall be received by your children by way of inheritance,"[1] 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:

`Abdullah ibn `Abbas has said, "Abu Sufyan said, 'By Allah! I remained in humiliation, feeling sure that his [Prophet's] call would gain the upper hand until Allah caused Islam to enter my heart against my wish."[2] If Abu Sufyan's tongue thus admits, imagine what his heart would say had it been enabled to speak about what it contains!

What the Prophet (a.s.) Said about Mu`awiyah

The following is stated by Muslim in his Sahih: "The Prophet (a.s.) one day sent him [Mu`awiyah] to Ibn `Abbas inviting him to come to write something for him. Ibn `Abbas found him eating. The Prophet (a.s.) sent him [Ibn `Abbas] again to Mu`awiyah, and Ibn `Abbas again found him eating. This took place a third time. The Prophet (a.s.) said,

'May Allah never cause his [Mu`awiyah's] stomach to feel satisfied.'"[3]

Also in Muslim's Sahih is the following text: "The Messenger of Allah (a.s.) said,

'... As for Mu`awiyah, he is a penniless and spiritless

[1] Al-Tabari, Tarikh.

[2] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 122 in the Book of Jihad.

[3] Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 5, p. 462 in the Book of Kindness, Charity and Etiquette in a chapter about one cursed by the Prophet (a.s.) (Dar al-Sha`b edition) as cited in al-Nawawi's Sharh.

person."[1]

In Ahmed's Musnad, the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) is quoted as having said the following about Mu`awiyah and `Amr ibn al-'As: "O Lord! Hurl them into dissension headlong, and lodge them into Hell," in addition to many other narratives exposing the truth about that "commander of the faithful" Mu`awiyah, son of the liver-eater,[2] who sealed his deeds in the life of this world by installing hison, the drunkard and the debauchee Yazid, as "caliph" over the Muslims after him. Yazid was then no more than twenty years old. Thus, Mu`awiyah violated the reconciliation treaty which he had signed with Imam al-Hasan (a.s.), actually going against the Commandments of Allah (a.s.) and of His Messenger (a.s.) as well as violating the "sunnah" of both Sheikhs [Abu Bakr and `Umar] and all other traditions discussed by the "Ahl al-Sunnah".

Martyrdom of Imam `Ali (a.s.)

The last battle waged by Imam `Ali (a.s.) was that of al-Nahrawan. He fought in it the group which forced him to accept the arbitration in Siffin but then regretted it a few days later, reneging from its covenant and violating the oath of allegiance to the Imam. Later on, these were called the "Khawaraj" [or Kharijites] or the "Mariqun". He (a.s.) scored a victory over them and was getting ready to fight the rebels in Syria following the failure of the arbitration talks, but the Imam (a.s.) was martyred at the hands of a member of the Khawarij named `Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljim who stabbed the Imam (a.s.) as he was prostrating during his fajr prayer at the Grand Kufah 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 Imam (a.s.) remained suffering from the attack for three

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, 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 (Dar al-Sha`b edition).

[2] The liver-eater is Hind, Mu`awiyah's mother who tried to chew the liver of the Master of the Martyrs, Hamzah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib, the Prophet's uncle, after he had been martyred during the Battle of Uhud.

days during which he handed over the Imamate to his son al-Hasan (a.s.), older grandson of the Prophet (a.s.), so that he might carry out after his own demise the duties in leading the nation.

This assignment of the caliphate was not based on the mere fact that al-Hasan (a.s.) was a son of `Ali (a.s.) 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 Allah Almighty Who chose the twelve successors of His Messenger (a.s.), as we have already stated, with Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) being the second on the list.

THE  RECONCILIATION  Treaty, MARTYDOM OF  IMAM  AL-HASAN (a.s.)

After the martyrdom of Imam `Ali (a.s.), Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) ascended the pulpit and the people of Kufah swore the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of the Prophet (a.s.) and the Imam of the nation. But this did not last for more than six months.

When the news reached Syria that Imam `Ali (a.s.) had been martyred, Mu`awiyah led a large army towards Kufah in order to personally take charge of the leadership of the Muslims and to force Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) son of Imam `Ali (a.s.) to surrender to him. Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) found no alternative to reconciling and signing a treaty with Mu`awiyah.

As 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`awiyah and Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) under such circumstances, the winner would have been the Roman Empire, neither Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) nor Mu`awiyah. Thus, Imam al-Hasan (a.s.), having opted for peace, removed a very serious danger against Islam. As for the terms of the Reconciliation Treaty, these were:

1. Al-Hasan (a.s.) was to hand over the government and the

management of affairs to Mu`awiyah provided that the latter should adhere to the Qur'an and to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.).

2. Caliphate after the death of Mu`awiyah should be a right specifically belonging to Imam al-Hasan (a.s.). If something happened to him, caliphate would then go to his brother, Imam al-Husain (a.s.).

3. All condemnations and insults against Imam `Ali (a.s.) should be prohibited, be they launched from the pulpit or from anywhere else.

4. Five million dirhams, which were then present at bayt al-mal in Kufah, would be put under the supervision of Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) and Mu`awiyah was to send one million dirhams a year from the khiraj tax to Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) for distribution to the families of those who were martyred in the battles of the Camel and of Siffin on the side of Imam `Ali (a.s.).

5. Mu`awiyah 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.

But Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) was martyred in 50 A.H. (670 A.D.) as a result of his wife, Ju`dah 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 Imam `Ali (a.s.). Mu`awiyah 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, Yazid, if she poisoned her husband, Imam al-Hasan (a.s.). Mu`awiyah was elated when he heard about the martyrdom of Imam al-Hasan (a.s.). 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`awiyah achieved all of that thereafter and was able to install his pornographic teenage son, Yazid, 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 Imams from among the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) in the pretext that such Imamate 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 "caliphate" of Yazid as legitimate?! And how did they agree to call him "commander of the faithful"?!

Consider the following so you may view some black pages of our Islamic history. Consider a narrative of glittering glimpses of the life of "commander of the faithful Yazid son of Abu Sufyan"!

THE  KERBALA'  REVOLUTION  AND  THE

MARTYDOM  OF  IMAM  AL-HUSAIN(a.s.)

After the demise of Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) in 50 A.H.(670 A.D.), the Shi'ahs of Iraq started writing al-Husain (a.s.) to request him to remove Mu`awiyah from his self-installed post of ruling over the Muslims. But al-Husain (a.s.) stated in his answer to them that he had with Mu`awiyah a treaty, an agreement, and that he could not violate it. As for Mu`awiyah, for the period of twenty years of his rule, he used to prepare to firm the foundations of the rule of his debauchee son, Yazid, in order to make him a "commander of the faithful", thus violating his treaty with Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) to which he had agreed and, moreover, rejecting and violating what the Sunnis 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`awiyah against Islam and Muslims. His line of action was followed by the rest of Umayyad, `Abbasid and Ottoman caliphs most of whom could not be distinguished from the Muslims' debauchee and corrupt rulers of our time.

After the death of Mu`awiyah in 60 A.H. (680 A.D.), Yazid 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:

Musical tones distracted me from the sound of the adhan,

Instead of the haris, I took to myself an old hag in the chambers.

This does not surprise us. Yazid 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 rak`ahs [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 Imam al-Husain (a.s.) 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 Imam al-Husain (a.s.) 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.

In one of his sermons near Kerbal?', Imam al-Husain (a.s.) states the reason behind his uprising as follows:

"O people! Whoever sees an oppressive imam permitting what Allah prohibits, violating Allah's covenant after confirming it, behaving contrarily to the Sunnah of His Prophet (a.s.), ruling among the servants of Allah (a.s.) with sin and oppression, Allah will hurl him together with the same person into the Fire."

In another statement, he said,

"O 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 Allah prohibits, forbade what Allah permits, and I, more than anyone else, am worthier of opposing them."

When Imam al-Husain (a.s.) came to know about the reneging and violation of the covenant with him which took place in Kufah, he gathered his companions and family members, who were in his company, and frankly said the following to them:

"Our supporters have betrayed us. Anyone who likes to go away may do so; he is not obliged to us."

They dispersed from him right and left, so much so that only those who had come with him from Mecca and Madinah stayed. But Imam al-Husain (a.s.) 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: "If the religion of Muhammed (a.s.) cannot stay straight except if I am killed, then take me, O swords!" He met with `Umar ibn Sa`d [ibn Abi Waqqas], commander of the army sent to fight him by the provincial governor of Kufah, `Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad, who was appointed by the Umayyad "caliph", Yazid, which was made up of thirty-two thousand strong, according to some narratives.

It was only natural for the force of the army of Yazid son of Mu`awiyah to be able to kill such a small numbered band. On that day, the tragedy of the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) was personified, how they were wronged, in the clearest way. Yazid son of Mu`awiyah, in this massacre, was paying the "reward" which the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) had required him:

"Say: 'I ask no reward of you for this [Islamic creed] except love for my near in kin'" (Qur'an, 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 Imam Husain (a.s.), namely `Abdullah, whom the Imam carried to the battlefield asking for a drink of water for him after a blockade was enforced on the Imam's camp, depriving him of any access to the Euphrates. Thirst, hence, took its heavy toll on them. The Imam

carried `Abdullah 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 Imam Husain (a.s.) and from his Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) fell one after the other.

Al-Husain (a.s.) was the last to be martyred in that decisive battle. Yet they were not satisfied with killing the Master of the Youths of Paradise[1] 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 Yazid son of Mu`awiyah in Syria. Some Muslims keep insisting on calling him "commander of the faithful"...; so, there is no will nor might except in Allah...!

Having narrated these events, which clearly show the lofty objectives for which al-Husain (a.s.) started his revolution, a revolution which was described by a great Islamist, namely Dr. `Amr `Abd al-Rahman, thus, "The martyrdom of al-Husain (a.s.) is a thousand times greater than his staying alive." But there are those who minimize the value of this great revolution because of their falling victim to the misleading Umayyad propaganda. Such 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 "sheikh al-Islam" Ibn Taymiyyah in this sense: "Imam al-Husain (a.s.), 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"...!!! If we ask this so-called "sheikh al-Islam" about Mu`awiyah who disobeyed Imam `Ali (a.s.) (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 `A'ishah who disobeyed Imam `Ali (a.s.)... This is nothing but a norm of attempts to openly falsify our Islamic history;

[1] As is mentioned in almost all Sunni and Shi`ite reference books of Hadith, the Prophet (a.s.) has said, "Al-Hasan and al-Husain are the masters of the youths of Paradise."

otherwise, how can we explain how most Sunnis ignore this historic tragedy in which the descendants of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) were killed in the most horrible and painful way? All the descendants of Mu`awiyah and his son, Yazid, followed in the footsteps of the Umayyads and of the Abbasids. They crushed any opposition to their authority, especially when it came from the Members of the Household of the Prophet (a.s.) who were always pursued with discrimination, banishment, killing and torture.

Such oppression was not confined to the Members of the Household of the Prophet (a.s.) alone. Among the victims of the Umayyad oppression from among those who did not belong to the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) was, for example, `Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. History has recorded the tragic scene inside the precinct of Mecca where `Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr was slaughtered and skinned. The sanctity of that place which even people during the jahiliyyah period held as sacred and holy and did not permit the slaughter of animals, let alone of humans, inside it. And the Venerable Ka`bah could not help him against the Umayyad rulers when he clung to its curtains. This same Ka`bah was bombarded with catapults during the time of `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan who gave a free hand to his tyrant, al-Hajjaj, to kill people without a just cause. About both men, al-Hasan al-Basri said, "Had `Abd al-Malik committed only the sin of [giving a free hand to] al-Hajjaj, it would have sufficed him [i.e. was sufficient for his condemnation]." And `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz said, "Had each nation brought forth its oppressor, and had we [Umayyads] brought forth al-Hajjaj, we would have outweighed them [in the measure of oppressiveness]."

So, do these deeds qualify their doer to be a Muslim, let alone to being the caliph of the Muslims or the "commander of the faithful"??! Undoubtedly, we nowadays need to take a second look at our history[1] and to discern many of its events then ask to speak to

[1] Take a look at the picture attacked to the cover of the book titled Haqa'iq `an Amir al-Mu'minin Yazid [facts about the commander of the faithful Yazid] so you may see to what extent some people have gone in their falsification of the Islamic history...!

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 Muhammed (a.s.), 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 Wahy (revelation) to tell him the name of this sect. Allah, 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,

"What! Even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?!" (Qur'an, 2:170).

He has also said,

"We have sent them admonishment, but most of them hate admonishment" (Qur'an, 23:71).

He has required us to investigate and research before believing each and every one, saying,

"O 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" (Qur'an, 49:6).

THE  SAHABAH:  HOW  EQUITABLE  WERE THEY

The issue of the sahabah and the degree of their justice is one of the most contested issues and the most sensitive. The Sunnis are of the view that ALL the sahabah are fair and just and cannot be charged of any wrongdoing whatsoever. They cannot be criticized or doubted with regard to their views about the traditions of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.). Thus, Sunnis adhere to everything a sahabi narrates. According to the Sunnis, as mentioned by al-Nawawi in the Introduction to his Sharh Sahih Muslim, the sahabi "... is any Muslim who saw the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) even for a moment. This is accurate, and it is the line of Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari in his Sahih, and of all traditionists."[1] As for the Shi'ahs, they are of the view that the sahabah are not all equal in the degree of their justice and equity, and they are liable to be criticized and critiqued, relying on convincing proofs from the Glorious Book and the Purified Sunnah. As regarding the lie that the Shi'ahs consider all the sahabah as unbelievers, in addition to cursing and condemning them, it is an outrageous lie and nothing else. Criticizing a sahabi does not mean calling him unbeliever as some idiots propagate. If such a criticism is based on convincing proofs, why should anyone be angry, and why such a fuss? Among the sahabah are believers whom Allah praised in the Holy Qur'an saying,

[1] Sahih Muslim as explained by al-Nawawi, Vol. 1, p. 28 (published by Dar al-Sha`b).

"Allah was pleased with the believers when they swore fealty to you [O Muhammed!] under the tree [at Hudaybiyah]: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down tranquility upon them, and He rewarded them with a speedy victory" (Qur'an, 48:18).

As `Allamah LutfAllah al-Safi has stated with regard to this verse, Allah Almighty specifically meant those who believed from among the attendants of the fealty ceremony under that tree, and [His Pleasure] was not extended to the hypocrites who also attended it such as `Abdullah ibn Ubayy and Aws ibn Khawli, etc. There is no clue in the verse that it was in reference to ALL those who swore fealty, and it does not indicate the good outcome of all believers who swore it. The verse does not convey any meaning beyond the Pleasure of Allah with them for having sworn this fealty [to His Messenger]. That is to say, He accepted such an oath, and He rewards for it. The Pleasure of Allah with those who swore this fealty does not obligate His Pleasure with them for eternity. The evidence for this is what He, the Almighty, said about them:

"Truly those who pledge their fealty to you [O Muhammed!] do no less than pledge their fealty to Allah: the hand of Allah is above their hands" (Qur'an, 48:10).

Had some of those who swore fealty not renege in his oath, and had the Pleasure of Allah been with them forever, there would have been no use for this verse of the Almighty:

"... Then anyone who violates his oath does so to the harm of his own soul" (Qur'an, 48:10).

Among the sahabah were those predicted by the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) to revert to pre-Islamic beliefs after the Prophet's demise and would perish on the Day of Judgment. We know this from the following tradition which al-Bukhari cites in his Sahih with the isnad to Sahl ibn Sa`d who said, "I heard the Prophet (a.s.) say,

"I shall precede you at the Pool [of Kawthar]. Whoever reaches it will drink of it, and whoever drinks of it shall never taste of thirst. People whom I know and who know

me shall meet me there, but a barrier shall be placed between us."

Sahl goes on to say that the statement of the Prophet (a.s.) had additional details. The Prophet (a.s.) would then say,

"But they are my companions!" It will be said to him, "You do not know what alterations [to the creed] they did after you." The Prophet (a.s.) shall say, "Crushed, may anyone who makes changes (to the creed) after me be crushed."[1]

`Abdullah [ibn `Abbas] is quoted as having cited the Prophet (a.s.) saying the following to some sahabah:

"I shall precede you at the Pool. Some of you, men, shall be raised to me. If I try to hand them [water], they shall not be able to reach me. I shall say, 'Lord! But these are my companions!' He shall say, 'You do not know what they introduced [into the creed] after you."[2]

As a testimony to both past traditions which point out to alterations and innovations introduced into the creed, the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) compares some of his sahabah to Jewish and Christian nations that altered the Word of Allah from its rightful place. Abu Sa`id al-Khudri says that the Prophet (a.s.) has said,

"You shall follow the ways of those before you the distance of a span, the distance of a yard, [and so on]. Even if they enter the hole of a lizard, you will still follow them there." We [the sahabah] said, "The Jews and the Christians?!" He (a.s.) said, "Who else?!"[3]

And among the sahabah are those about whom the Almighty said the following in His Glorious Book:

"But when they [some sahabah] see some bargain or

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 144, in the book of dissensions in a chapter titled "Beware of dissension that will specifically afflict those from among you who oppressed".

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 315, in the book of shielding with the Book and the Sunnah in a chapter about following past nations.

amusement, they disperse headlong to it and leave you standing" (Qur'an, 62:11).

This verse was revealed about the sahabah who left the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) delivering his Friday sermon when they heard about a trade caravan that had come from Syria, leaving with him only twelve men from among all the other thousands of sahabah. Jabir ibn `Abdullah [al-Ansari] is quoted as having said, "A trade caravan came on a Friday while we were with the Prophet (a.s.). People left save twelve men; thereupon, Allah revealed this verse: 'But when they see some bargain or amusement, they disperse headlong to it and leave you standing' (Qur'an, 62:11)." In another narrative, he said, "While we were praying with the Prophet (a.s.), a caravan came carrying foodstuffs. They turned to it, leaving with the Prophet (a.s.) only twelve men; therefore, this verse was revealed: 'But when they see some bargain or amusement, they disperse headlong to it and leave you standing' (Qur'an, 62:11)." The same number of sahabah remained with the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) after all the rest had fled away in the Battle of Uhud, prompting the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) to dissociate himself from their action. Al-Bara' ibn `Azib has said, "My uncle, Anas ibn al-Nadr, was absent during the battle of Badr, so he said, 'O Messenger of Allah! I was absent the first day when you fought the polytheists. If Allah permits me to be present during the fight against the polytheists, Allah will see what I shall do.' When the battle of Uhud approached and the Muslims dispersed, the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) said, 'Lord! I seek Your excuse for what these have done,' meaning his sahabah."[1]

Add to the above what happened during the battle of Hunayn. The flight of the sahabah left a more bitter taste. They numbered in the thousands. The Holy Qur'an reprimanded them for their abominable action thus:

"Assuredly Allah did help you on many battlefields and on the Day of Hunayn: Behold! Your great numbers elated

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 47 in the Book of Jihad in a chapter about the verse saying, "Among the believers are men who proved truthful..., etc."

you, but they did not avail you at all: The land, for all its vastness, constrained you and you turned back in retreat. But Allah poured His calm upon the Prophet and upon the believers and sent down forces which you did not see: He punished the unbelievers: Thus does He reward those without faith" (Qur'an, 9:25-26).

And among the sahabah were those about whom the Almighty said,

"It is not fitting for a Prophet to take prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look on the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looks to the Hereafter, and Allah is Exalted in might, Wise. Had it not been for a previous ordinance from Allah, a severe penalty would have reached you for the (ransom) that you took" (Qur'an, 8:67-68).

This verse was revealed in reference to a band of the sahabah who were of the view that they should take on the said caravan and what Abu Sufyan's caravan was carrying, preferring it over fighting when the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) consulted them before the Battle of Badr in order to gauge their readiness and will to fight.

And among the sahabah were those who were rebuked by the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) for their tribal attitude and their jahiliyyah-type attitudes. It also becomes clear from what is narrated by Jabir ibn `Abdullah [al-Ansari] who said once, "We were invaders in a campaign. Sufyan was once in an army when a man from the Muhajirun assaulted a man from the Ansar. The Ansari man said, 'Who supports an Ansari man?' and the man from among the Muhajirun said, 'Who supports a Muhajir man?' The Messenger of Allah (a.s.) heard about it, so he said, 'What a Jahili cAlla!'"[1] This Jahili call almost caused a war between both tribes of al-Aws and al-Khazraj which formed the bulk of the Ansar.

[1]Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 6, p. 397, in the book of Tafsir in a chapter about this verse: "Whether you ask for their forgiveness or not, (their sin is unforgivable:) If you ask seventy times for their forgiveness, Allah will not forgive them because they have rejected Allah and His Prophet, and Allah does not guide those who are perversely rebellious" (Qur'an, 9:80).

`A'ishah is quoted as having said, "... so Sa`d ibn Mu`ath stood up and said, 'O Messenger of Allah! I shall spare you having to deal with him! If he is one of the Aws, we shall strike his neck with the sword. And if he is from among our Khazraj brothers, you shall order us, and we will carry out your order.' Sa`d ibn `Abadah, master of al-Khazraj, who was before then a good man but his [tribal] zeal may have overcome him, said, 'You have lied, by Allah! We shall kill him, for you are a hypocrite trying to argue on behalf of the hypocrites.' Arguing intensified between the Aws and the Khazraj, and the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) was at the time on the pulpit. He descended and cooled their anger until they kept silent while he, too, became cool."[1]

And among the sahabah were those who hated `Ali (a.s.) hatred towards whom is a sign of hypocrisy, as we have already stated. Abu Buraydah has said, "The Prophet (a.s.) sent `Ali to Khalid [ibn al-Walid] to receive the khums tax, and I used to hate `Ali who had just had his ghusul, so I said to Khalid, 'Don't you look at this?!' When we went to the Prophet (a.s.), I mentioned the same to him. He said to me, 'O Buraydah! Do you hate `Ali?' I said, 'Yes'. He (a.s.) said, 'Do not hate him, for his share of the khums is a lot more than that.'"[2]

And among the sahabah were those who doubted the wisdom of the decisions of the Prophet (a.s.) as it became obvious when they doubted his wisdom in selecting usamah ibn Zayd [as commander of an army]. Some people doubted his leadership. The Prophet (a.s.), therefore, said, "Do not doubt his authority, for you all used in the past to doubt the authority of his father."[3]

And among the sahabah were those whom the Messenger of Allah

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 3, p. 508 in the book of testimonies.

[2] Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 447 in the book of military campaigns in a chapter about dispatching `Ali (a.s.) and Khalid, may Allah be pleased with both of them, to Yemen.

[3] Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 57 in the book of the virtues of the sahabah, in a chapter about Zayd's virtues.

(a.s.) kicked out of his meeting place when they objected to his order to write his last will and who, instead, described him as hallucinating. Sa`id ibn Jubayr quotes [`Abdullah] ibn `Abbas saying, "Thursday! And what a Thursday it was!" Sa`id went on to say that Ibn `Abbas kept weeping until his tears wetted the pebbles. "So I said," went on Sa`id ibn Jubayr, "O Ibn `Abbas! What is it with Thursday?!" Ibn `Abbas said to him, "The pain [of sickness] of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) intensified, so he said, 'Bring me a shoulder-bone so I may write for you something after which you shall never stray.' They disputed among themselves, and there must be no dispute in the presence of a Prophet. They said, `What is wrong with him?! Has he hallucinated?! Ask him for an explanation,' so he (a.s.) said, 'Leave me alone, for I am better than what you attribute to me.'"[1]

And among the sahabah were those who quarreled over authority following the demise of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.), so much so that some of them went as far as asking for the appointment of two rulers, one from the Muhajirun and one from the Ansar. This proved that they did not relinquish their tribal ways of thinking which had been common during the time of jahiliyyah despite their acceptance of Islam as we explained while discussing the events of the Saqifah.

Among the sahabah were Abu Hurayrah and Mu`awiyah for whom I dedicated special chapters in other places of this research.

Perhaps the exaggeration of the Sunnis in raising the status of a sahabi stems from the honor of his having accompanied the Prophet (a.s.), but this is not more honoring than marrying his daughter, for Allah Almighty has said the following about the women of the Prophet (a.s.):

"O consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah. But any of you who is devout in the service of Allah and His Prophet, and

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 260 in the book of khums in a chapter about getting the Jews out of the Arabian Peninsula.

does righteous deeds, to her We shall grant reward twice [as much] and We have prepared a generous sustenance for her" (Qur'an, 33:30-31).

Similarly, He has said the following about the disobedience of the Prophet (a.s.) of `A'ishah and Hafsah:

"If both of you turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if you back each other up against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and [so is] Gabriel and the righteous among those who believe-and the angels too. It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him consorts better than you in exchange-who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for faith) and fast, previously married or virgins. O you who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones, over which stern (and) strong angels are appointed, (angels) who do not flinch (from executing) the commands they receive from Allah, but do (precisely) what they are commanded. (They will say,) O you unbelievers! Make no excuses this Day! You are only being requited for all that you did! O you who believe! Turn to Allah with sincere repentance: In the hope that your Lord will remove your ills and admit you into gardens beneath which rivers flow-the Day that Allah will not permit the Prophet and the believers with him to be humiliated. Their light will shine before them and on their right hands, while they say, "Lord! Perfect our light for us, and grant us forgiveness, for You have power over all things. O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell-a (truly) evil refuge. Allah sets forth, as an example to the unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot: They were (respectively) under two of Our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they benefited nothing before Allah on their account but were told, "Enter

the Fire along with (others) who enter!" (Qur'an, 66:4-10).

What we are trying to say is that keeping a lot of company with the Prophet (a.s.) does not necessarily mean a higher degree of iman for such companions, in addition to the past narratives about the companions of the Prophet (a.s.). What is narrated about the wives of the Prophet (a.s.) is similar if not more perplexing and harsher. For example, Ibn `Abbas is quoted as having said, "I kept for a whole year trying to ask `Umar about the couple of women who disobeyed the Prophet (a.s.), but I kept fearing him. One day, he went to a house, and when he got out of it, I asked him. He said, 'They were `A'ishah and Hafsah.' Then he added saying, 'During the time of jahiliyyah, we held women as worthless, but when Islam came and Allah made references to them, we realized that we have some obligations towards them without our having to force them to do anything. My wife and I had an argument, so I became rough with her and said, 'You are such and such.' She said to me, 'Do you say this to me while your own daughter harms [the feelings of] the Messenger of Allah (a.s.)?!' I, therefore, went to Hafsah and said, 'I warn you against disobeying Allah and His Messenger!'"[1]

`A'ishah has also said, "The Messenger of Allah (a.s.) had a honey drink served to him once by Zainab daughter of Jahsh, and he stayed with her. I and Hafsah conspired that if he (a.s.) visited either of us, he would be told that he had eaten Maghafir [plant] and that he smelled of Maghafir. When he was told, he said, 'No, but I had a honey drink at the home of Zainab daughter of Jahsh, and I shall not do so again.' He (a.s.) asked her to swear not to tell anyone about it."[2]

`A'ishah also said, "The wives of the Prophet (a.s.) used to form two parties. One of them included `A'ishah (herself), Hafsah, Safiyyah and Sawdah, and the other included Umm Salamah and the rest of

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 7 pp. 72-404 in the book about clothes

[2] Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 404 in the book of Tafsir in a chapter about the verse saying, "O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from enjoying what] Allah has made lawful to you?"

the Prophet's wives."[1]

`A'ishah has also said, "I used to feel jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) and say, 'Does a woman really offer herself?!' When the following verses were revealed: 'There is no blame on you if you make an offer of marriage or hold it in your hearts. Allah knows that you cherish them in your hearts, but do not make a secret contract with them except on honorable terms, nor should you sign the marriage contract until the prescribed term is fulfilled. And be informed that Allah knows what is in your hearts, and take heed of Him, and be informed that Allah is oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing' (Qur'an, 2:235), I said (to him), 'I can see how your Lord is swift in fulfilling your heart's desires."[2]

`A'ishah has also said, "Halah, daughter of Khuwaylid, sister of Khadijah, sought permission once to visit the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) who recognized how Khadijah used to seek permission, so he was quite upset about it and said, 'Lord! I hope it is Halah!' I, thereupon, felt jealous and said, 'Why do you still remember one of Quraysh's old women with red eyes who has for some time been dead since Allah has replaced her for you with someone better than her [meaning herself]?"[3] In yet another narrative, `A'ishah made a reference to Khadijah who distinguished herself from all other wives of the Prophet (a.s.). She believed in the message of the Prophet (a.s.) while people then called him a liar. She offered all her wealth to him when people deprived him of theirs. And he was blessed with children by her. All this explains why `A'ishah was so jealous of her especially since the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) used to always mention her virtues even after her death, and this contradicts the claim of `A'ishah that Allah had granted the Prophet (a.s.) a

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 3, p. 454 in the book about gifting in a chapter about one giving his friend a gift.

[2] Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 295 in the book explaining the verse "... make an offer of marriage or hold it in your hearts..." (Qur'an, 2:235).

[3] Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 105 in the book of the virtues of al-Ansar in a chapter about the Prophet (a.s.) marrying Khadijah and her distinctions.

woman better than her [than Khadijah]. `A'ishah is also quoted as having said, "I never felt jealous of the Prophet's wives as much as I felt jealous of Khadijah. Although I never saw her, the Prophet (a.s.) used to mention her quite often. He may slaughter a she-camel then cut the meat into pieces then send them to Khadijah's friends. I may say to him that it was as though there was no woman in the world except Khadijah, and he would say that she was such and such, and that Allah granted him children by her."[1]

Those who believe in the "justice" of all the sahabah base their belief on their claim that the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) said, "My companions are like the stars: Whomsoever you emulate, you shall be guided." In another such narrative, the wording states: "... If you follow the statements of any of them..., etc." Although the Sunnis do not openly advocate that all the sahabah were infallible, yet anyone who claims the authenticity of this narrative must necessarily believe in the infallibility of all of them. This is so because it is not possible that the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) should order the absolute emulation, without any term or condition, as this supposed narrative claims, of someone who may disobey him.

Hence, the past traditions which call for a serious reconsideration and contemplation of the "justice" of many sahabis are mostly in reference to those who kept company with the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) for a long period of time; so, what would you say about the "justice" of those who were labeled as "sahabah" for merely seeing the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) even for one moment? And why should there be such an exaggeration anyway?! Can one acquire "justice" and "piety" by merely seeing the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) for one moment, or can it be acquired by obeying the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) and emulating him with good intentions and sincerity?

Such a contradiction, which is rejected by sound reason and by the human nature, may become gloriously obvious in the way how some Sunni "scholars", such as Ibn Taymiyyah, preferred

[1] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 5, p. 104 in the book of the virtues of al-Ansar in a chapter about the Prophet (a.s.) marrying Khadijah and her distinctions.

Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan over the ascetic caliph `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz for no reason except that Mu`awiyah was a "sahabi" and `Umar was a "tabi`i" despite the fact that `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz was very famous for his piety and justice, unlike Mu`awiyah who was famous for creating the greatest dissension among the Muslims in Siffin and for disobeying the Commander of the Faithful `Ali (a.s.) as we have already stated. Add to this fame which `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz acquired as the fifth righteous caliph according to the Sunnis themselves, something which by itself proves that Mu`awiyah was not a righteous caliph at all. Thus, nobody can be called "righteous" only because he was a companion of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.).

It is useful to ask in this regard: Who occupies a higher degree: those who believed in the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) after having witnessed scores of divine miracles with their own eyes or those who believed in Islam without seeing any of them?! The fact is that I could never see an explanation for such an exaggeration in the degree of "piety" of the sahabah and the publicity for the concept that they were all just except to close the door in the face of anyone who criticizes some sahabis who worked hard to push caliphate away from its rightful owners. Thus, many Sunnis reject all the irrefutable proofs that the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) were more fit to be the Imams of the Muslims for no reason except they believe in the "justice" of all the sahabah. They, therefore, consider anything which these "sahabis" had done as "correct."

As regarding those who worked hard to disseminate this wrong concept, they did so because they regarded the Imams from among the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) as posing a danger to their thrones due to their knowledge that those Imams were right in their claim. There was a need, therefore, to apply a sort of smoke-screen and confusion to such traditions and Qur'anic verses which highlighted the status of these Imams (a.s.) while raising the status of ALL the sahabah so that the Imams from among the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) would not have the distinction which qualified them to be the choice of Allah Almighty as well as that of the majority of the Islamic nation following the

demise of the Chosen One (a.s.).

Hence, the wordings and meanings of the above-cited alleged tradition which says that ALL the sahabah are "stars" are modeled after a tradition of the Messenger of Allah (a.s.) which says,

"The stars offer security for the people of the earth against drowning, while my Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) offer them security against dissension [with regard to religious issues]; therefore, if an Arab tribe opposes them, they will differ and become the party of Iblis."[1]

One of the most significant negative effects which came as the outcome of believing in the "justice" of ALL the sahabah is the existence of such a huge quantity of erroneous narratives in the books of hadith. These include what is cited through Jewish and Christian sources and other myths which are all used to cast doubts about the Islamic creed. Such narratives have been accepted and held as being authentic merely because they were narrated by the sahabah despite all the latter's deeds which can be criticized as we explained about many past narratives.

[1] Refer to Mustadrak al-Sahihayn.