Without doubt, during the caliphacy of the first three caliphs, Imam was not politically active in the current affairs and except for counseling some Judicial cases and, to a lesser extent political issues, did not take an active part in politics. In other words, he did not take part in the ruling system of caliphs, but just led the opposition party indirectly.
His victory after 'Uthman, in large measures, indicated the domination of anti-Quraysh and anti-Umayyads. These opponents enjoyed the support of Iraqi tribes, Egyptian migrants and also the assistance of Ansar and native Medinans. Some of Muhajirun at the head of which was 'Ammar Ibn Yasir, were reckoned among this group. These formed a part of 'Uthman's adversaries.
But because of 'Uthman's being inattentive to a group of Quraysh itself and his over attention to Umayyads, the former had also joined the opposition party. Talha, Zubayr and 'Ayisha were presiding over this group. 'Amr Ibn 'As who was deposed from Egyptian rule, opposed 'Uthman. Of course all these claimed that 'Uthman had stood aloof from the practice of Prophet.
Therefore the overall direction of the rebellion was returning to the Prophet's conduct, fostering justice and not being cruel or unjust to people. The head companions who had lived up to that time, and participated in 'Umar's election council- especially Talha who was supported by 'Ayisha were candidates for caliphate.
Their joining to the opposition party was a glimmer of hope for caliphate. Despite their fame in Iraq and Hijaz, concerning records, knowledge and piety none of them could hold a candle to 'Ali; moreover, 'Uthman's failure as the representative of Quraysh naturally resulted in the power of 'Ali, the representative of the opposition party who had opposed the ruler's policy from the very beginning.[276][1012]
From the starting-point of public opposition to 'Uthman, Imam 'Ali (a) was as the mediator of the two parties or on the other hand, opponents' spokesman and he transferred people's oppositions to 'Uthman. Although being considered as the mediator, Imam (a) acted moderately. Having objected to 'Uthman's some indecent behaviors[277][1013], Imam (a) under the conditions of being mediator obeyed 'Uthman's rights, took him on oath of promise and calm opponents along with obeying opponents' conditions.
It was natural that although Imam (a) didn't play any role in 'Uthman's murder and his coming to power, the Umayyads and some parties of Quraysh accused him of doing so. In spite of it, most of those being of Imam's close companions ranked among the opponents and even being accused of having a hand in 'Uthman's murder.
Imam's supporters were all anti-'Uthman. And as indicated before, this was the starting-point of Shi'ism forming among people of Kufa whose important political activity was opposition to the ruling caliphate. They were indeed satisfied with Abu Bakr and 'Umar.
At any rate, Imam's supporting party consisting of Ansar, the majority of companions as well as Kufa's Qur'an reciters was strong to the extent that Talha and Zubayr weren't allowed any appearance. Also there existed no reference to Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas[278][1014]. In continuation of Sa'id Ibn Musayyib's long narrations concerning 'Uthman's murder, it's mentioned that after that 'Ali (a) came to his house and all the people rushing to his house asserted 'Ali (a)'s caliphate.
They wanted him to reach out his hand to people for allegiance but Imam (a) said, “Allegiance is Badr's companions' not yours. And the caliph is the one they choose.”
After that, all the people of Badr who were alive came to 'Ali (a) and called for allegiance to Imam (a).[279][1015]
Confronted by the insistence of the Prophet (S) 's companions, Imam averted the admission of caliphate. Tabari quoted from Muhammad Ibn Hunayf that after 'Uthman's murder, a number of companions came to my father saying "that we know no body more deserving of caliphate than you."
'Ali (a) said, “It's better for me to be your vizier rather than your emir”.
They answered, “We admit nothing but swearing allegiance to you.”[280][1016]
Imam said that his allegiance ought to be in mosque rather than in secrecy.
According to Ibn 'Abbas, “I feared lest a problem might be arisen in the mosque.”[281][1017] When he went to the mosque, Muhajirun and Ansar went there and pledged allegiance to him. Besides, Abu Bashir 'Abidi has been quoted as saying that after the assassination of 'Uthman, the people went repeatedly to 'Ali (a) till they managed to compel him admit the caliphate.
Imam ascended the pulpit and said, “He was not in want of caliphate and he admitted it reluctantly, and shall accept to govern them providing that people will adhere thoroughly to him.”
It's been noted in the narrations that Talha and Zubayr were within this throng of the people as well. When all gathered in the mosque, Talha was the first to swear allegiance. Averting allegiance, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas said that he won't swear allegiance as well.
Tabari points out a narration with respect to the belief that Talha and Zubayr's allegiance arose from their fear of Malik's sword. However, the narration is not in conformity with the other ones. Imam asked them to be caliph themselves, and he shall swear allegiance to them.
Yet, in so far as, by no means, they found themselves apt, they were satisfied with swearing allegiance to Imam, in order that they hereby find a position for themselves. By chance, their later remarks made it known that by compelled allegiance they meant that they didn't have anybody at Medina to whom they swear allegiance, whereas Imam 'Ali (a) has had abundant number of supporters.
Previously, in our discussion on allegiance, we've pointed out that, in principle, Imam was among those compelling others to swear allegiance. As after the riot of Jamal rebels, he never forced Marwan to swear allegiance as quoted by him.[282][1018]
Immediately after allegiance Imam was asked to turn over Basra and Kufa but he refused to do so.
Muhammad Ibn Hanifa says, “All Ansars except a few, swore the oath of allegiance to 'Ali. The opponents consisted of Hassan Ibn Thabit, Ka'b Ibn Malik, Maslama Ibn Mukhallad, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and some others reckoned among the 'Uthmanids, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar, Zayd Ibn Thabit and Usama Ibn Yazid were among non-Ansar opponents who all benefited from generosity of 'Uthman's caliphate.
Tabari says, “As far as we know, not even one of Ansars infringed the allegiance to 'Ali. Hence, some who allegedly did not swear allegiance to 'Ali were probably those not taking part in battles of Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan not those not taking the oath of allegiance to 'Ali.[283][1019]
As Diyar Bakri relates, All the Badr participants who had lived up to that time swore allegiance to 'Ali.[284][1020]'Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abzi has been quoted, 800 of us who were present at Riďwan allegiance, took part at Siffin 63 of whom including 'Ammar were killed.[285][1021] As Ibn A'tham narrates, at first Imam rejected the allegiance saying, “I beheld in everything a profound disintegration which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept.”
Then, accompanied by people, he went to Talha and asked him to accept the caliphate.
Talha said, “There is no one more deserving than you.”
The same happened to Zubayr and both of them undertook not to do anything contrary to Imam's will.[286][1022]
Ibn A'tham talks about the role of Ansar in taking the oath of allegiance to 'Ali and about their deputies who addressed the people in the mosque some of whom where Iraqi and Egyptian migrants.
People said,” You are “God's helpers” and we will do what you say.”
They too introduced 'Ali as the caliph and the cheering people approved him as well. That day people left the mosque and next day Imam entered the mosque and said, choose someone that fits your purpose and I shall follow you.
They said, “We haven't changed our mind since yesterday.”
At first, Talha who was paralyzed in hand took the oath. This was considered as ill omen! Then Zubayr took the oath and following him Muhajirun and Ansar and all Arabs, non-Arabs and kinsfolk present in Medina did so. Imam Ali's words, better than anything else are expressive of why he refused to accept the burden of people's allegiance.
The first reason was that to him, the society was so decadent that he couldn't either lead it or enforce his criterion and intentions. On the day of allegiance he told, “Leave me alone and go in search of someone else. We are facing a matter with several faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept The clouds of sedition have darkened the skies thoroughly and the right path can't be discerned. Let it be known to you that if I accept your request I shall make you act according to my own judgments and will not care about the suggestions and blames of the reproachful.”[287][1023]
Imam knew that amidst those sedition, leading the society properly was beyond the bounds of possibility. Once he got that people won't leave him to himself, he managed to place them under the obligation of obeying him fully and resigning themselves to his will.[288][1024]
Following happenings made the hardships of working within sedition and doubts dawn on Imam Once he said, “If I knew the heightened situation, I would have never got involved in it from scratch.”[289][1025]
Later on, he wrote about the day of allegiance, “When you revolted against 'Uthman and killed him, turning toward me you wanted to swear allegiance to me. I balked at doing so and held my hand back. You struggled to open my hand and I prevented it.
You pulled my hand and I resisted. You crowded so densely round me that I thought you will either kill each other or me, you said” we swear allegiance to you for we find no one but you and will consent to no one except you and after the allegiance we will neither get separated nor will there be in any disagreement between us.” so I felt compelled to accept your request and called the people to take the oath of allegiance.
I accepted the allegiance of any one swearing at will. Not taking aversion to the one not willing to take the oath, I left him to himself. Talha and Zubayr were from among those swearing allegiance to me and if they didn't want to do so, I would compel neither them nor any one else.”[290][1026]
Once, in Kufa, Imam saw a man called Abu Maryam from whom he asked the reason for his coming there.
He answered,” I have come for my promise to you because you said if you had come to power, you would have done so and so.”
Imam said, “I have kept my word, but I am in grips with the most malignant people who do not obey me at all.”[291][1027]
There are some significant points about 'Ali's election as the Community leader. First, people's participation in the first Caliph's election was initially confined to the participants in Saqifa and evidence shows some sort of previous conspiracy or at least coordination of anti-Hashimites party earlier than allegiance.[292][1028] 'Umar was appointed through a will and 'Uthman, too,was selected by a confined council. By contrast, 'Ali's election was largely demanded by Medinans.
As a matter of fact, this was the only allegiance and election which can be called a public one. The new point about this allegiance was the participation of Iraqi and Egyptian delegates in addition to Muhajirun and Ansar. Of course, based on the common, well-established tradition of those days, according to which only Muhajirun and Ansar were of good standing, no credence was attached to their choice.
Despite of that, their presence did increase public turnout in Imam's election. This was not an unknown phenomenon for Imam and the others. During a sermon Imam said,
Your allegiance to me was not a hasty and precipitate action nor is my and your position the same. I seek you for Allah's sake and you seek me for your own benefits.[293][1029]
This, according to Ibn Abi l-Hadid[294][1030] is an allusion to Abu Bakr's election. In order to prevent the idea of opportunism and conspiracy in public opinion, Imam didn't allow people to take the oath at his house, stating that, “There can be no allegiance without Muslim's consent.[295][1031]
The allegiance should not take place secretly. I go to the mosque, anyone who wishes can come there to take the oath to me.” Then he entered the mosque and people took the oath to him. [296][1032]This is one of the reasons of Imam's delay in accepting people's request.
Secondly, Apart from what was set forth about Imam and his true Shi'ite Muslims' belief in his Imamate, the “tradition of allegiance” was fully established and Imam could not trespass it. This was a good proof against Imam's opponents and for him who was publicly selected.
According to Dinwari, during a speech following allegiance Imam stated, “Oh, people! You took the oath of allegiance to me in accordance with the previous traditions. Prior to the allegiance, the choice was yours but after that you have no choice. Imam must be firm and the folk must resign themselves to his will. This was a public allegiance, anyone denying it, has in fact denied Islam, allegiance to me was not precipitate.[297][1033]
Notwithstanding, Imam was determined not to force anyone to take the oath. He even didn't call to account those who had sworn the oath but were inattentive in settling the case of apostates. When Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and Usama Ibn Zayd made some excuse for not performing Imam's command, Malik Ashtar said, “Oh, the Commander of the Faithful! Although we are not from among the Muhajirun and Ansar but we are from “The followers of righteousness”.[298][1034]
Despite Muhajirun and Ansar's superiority in Islam, they are not supreme in what they share with us. This has been a public allegiance, anyone going back upon it deserves to be reprimanded. Coax those who intend to violate the allegiance and imprison them in case they refuse.
Imam stated, “I call them but they are decided in their very votes.”[299][1035]
Hasan and Husayn told their father,” Marwan -who after 'Uthman's murder, had sworn allegiance and now was taken into captivity in the battle of Jamal - will take the oath to you.”
Imam answered, “Did he not swear me allegiance after 'Uthman's murder? I don't need the allegiance of such a treacherous person with a hand like that of Jews.[300][1036]
According to Baladhuri, following Jamal, Marwan told 'Ali (a), “Unless forced, I won't swear allegiance to you.” [301][1037]
Obviously, not taking the oath differs form rebelling. Once according to the accepted standards the oath is taken and the public allegiance is accomplished anyone disobeying rebelliously or claiming caliphate, must be restrained;otherwise, what the caliphate would mean?[302][1038] Despite this, Imam gloried in not forcing anyone to take the oath to him.[303][1039]
'Adi Ibn Hatim also told Mu'awiya, ”'Ali (a) compelled no one to take the oath.”[304][1040]
The third point is that the accepted method of allegiance, was that of Muhajirun and Ansar based on which, Imam was nationally accepted as the caliph and apostates were rejected.[305][1041] Even it has been said that even if Imam were the one killing 'Uthman, he remains the caliph, for Muhajirun and Ansar who dominate over people have taken the oath of allegiance to him.[306][1042]
Obviously, Imam relied on this method with the purpose of convincing his opponents who, based on the same method, approved Muhajirun and Ansar and the legitimacy of previous caliphs. Not to mention that in addition to Muhajirun and Ansar, the delegates from Iraqi tribes and some Egyptians had also sworn allegiance to 'Ali (a), and this point was taken into consideration by Malik Ashtar.[307][1043]
In a letter to Mu'awiya Imam wrote, “Those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman, have sworn allegiance to me in the same way.” Now he who was present at the election have no right to go back upon his oath and he who was absent has no right to deny the oath of participants. Consultation is confined to Muhajirun and Ansar.
God feels satisfaction at they gathering round a man and selecting him as their caliph. Should anybody go against such decision or fall into heresy, they will return him to the position from where he kept away and should he refuse to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him.[308][1044]
As far as the initial caliphs were in power, this was deemed as an acceptable principle, except for the time when some 'Uthmanids relied on a few companions not swearing the oath and they also, making an excuse of Muslims fratricide, evaded to act in obedience to the orders of 'Ali (a) in combating his enemies.[309][1045]
Mu'tamir Ibn Sulayman narrated, “I told my father, people say the allegiance to 'Ali (a) was not accomplished." He answered, “My son, allegiance belongs to the people of Mecca and Medina who did take the oath.”[310][1046]
Another point is that on what allegiance was sworn. 'Uthman was recognized as outcast because he violated divine rules and in early caliphs time, it was an acceptable principle to act upon the Book and the Prophet's tradition.
Although a few of them disregarded some dimensions of the Prophet's biography and even Qur'an, after 'Umar, condition of Shiykhs biography was included in allegiance that Imam 'Ali rejected. According to Tabari, swearing allegiance to 'Ali happened to say that Book of God has to be referred about the close, the mean, the endeared and the stranger.[311][1047] This position reflects issues during 'Uthman.
An Egyptian, Ibn A'tham says, named Sudan Ibn Hamran Muradi who is to be murderer of 'Uthman said, “O Abu Hasan! we swear allegiance to you provided that if you acted like 'Uthman,you'll be killed”.
That's right, replied 'Ali (a), then people acted according to Book of God and the Prophet's tradition.[312][1048]
One person insisted on including Shiykhs biography as terms of allegiance in addition to above two, yet Imam disapproved and saying that even if Abu Bakr and 'Umar act upon something except the Book and the tradition, they are untruthful.[313][1049]
Imam merely found himself yielded to Qur'an and tradition and unwilling to disobey it and so were his companions and commanders.
O people!, said Qays Ibn Sa'd, we swore allegiance to a man better of whom we never know after the Prophets (S). Rise up and swear allegiance to the Book and His Prophet. If we failed to do so, allegiance is withdrawn.[314][1050]
Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, Egyptian ruler said if you observe in my deeds obedience and fear from God, I praise God because of this gift bestowed upon me and it has guided me. If not, I have to be scolded.[315][1051]
Imam himself disapproved those who wanted to condition the allegiance to make Imam overlook what they have in their hands and said the only right they have in front of him is to comply with the Book and the tradition and nothing else.[316][1052]
Qa'idin and no Congregation Formation
There emerged no agreement like that of Shiykhs time in the course of swearing allegiance to Imam and despite allegiance of the Ansar and Muhajirun. A few people opposed in the course of allegiance to Abu Bakr but congregation formed since, later, opponents also swore allegiance.
Then, 'Umar claimed that the opponents must join “congregation”. This congregation faced no problems in time of 'Umar. It wasn't first time when a rebellion shaped in time of 'Umar and congregation split apart. 'Uthman's improper attitude led to fragmentation in the Islamic community.
In that time Kufiyans and a major part of Egyptians found 'Uthman a wrongdoer if not willing to kill him, they did not consider him to be qualified for caliphate either. This idea wasn't strongly rooted in Kufa and 'Uthman was never admitted by people. Later on, it wasn't known that if anyone wants martyrdom, he shall go to Dar al-Bittikh in Kufa for compassion of 'Uthman.[317][1053] Medinans were hesitant about this and they are said to be followers of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. They never approved 'Uthman.
There were people of Damascus and Umayyads who retained sanctity of 'Uthman and founded ”'Uthmanids”[318][1054], recalled as “anti-Shi'a religion”. As a matter of time, the Sunnites approved 'Uthman. From third century on, the 'Uthmanids with a gradual change of name into people of Sunnat and Jama'at approved 'Ali (a).
Anyway, “Jama'at” persisted till 'Umar and up to mid-rule of 'Uthman[319][1055] and broke up into branches. This congregation in a real sense ceased to return until Mu'awiya that strangled all opposition by force and trick. However, it is obvious that the congregation differed from that of the old one foundationally.
Allegiance to Imam 'Ali met the requirements of a proper one. Muhajirun and Ansar in addition to emissaries of Iraq and Egypt swore allegiance to him. But due to disagreements continued by Qa'idin, the wicked ones, the deviators and the apostates and that a full-scale congregation came not to be formed, the subject congregation wasn't so legitimate in the eyes of the majority of the companions through support of which the disagreements can be challenged and their founders can be called “rebels”.
This wasn't accepted by the Sunnites save the basis of the mentioned rebellions on the part of the companions that wasn't regarded as “Ijtihad”, exertion, and so they were exonerated. They didn't analyze the Kharijites this way calling them real rebels.
The “legitimate congregation” resisted against “rebellion” through support of a Qur'anic verse in the chapter of Hijrat that says, “If two groups of the faithful began to fight each other, try to bring them to a compromise. And if one offended the other, try to fight the offender to bring it back to bow to God. If it did so, make a just peace between them and exert justice for God love just people”.[320][1056]
If, Abu Hanafiyya said later, Amir al-Mu'minin(a) had no conduct of Jihad with the rebels, we didn't know the rules of fighting with them.[321][1057]
The Commander of the Faithful held that the mere swearing no allegiance and even expressing dissent verbally can not justify armed campaigning against them. The first disagreement came from Qa'idin, those who likely swore allegiance to 'Ali but refrained from helping him in his war with the Infidels and the Deviators. Baladhuri narrates that they didn't swear allegiance.
Some of such as 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar said that they will be the last people to swear allegiance.[322][1058]
These people believed that “congregation” is not organized.
Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas said, “I will swear allegiance when I'm the last one”.[323][1059]
Imam left them alone in front of these oppositions. Here it is to be noted that there must be a distinction between the particular and general allegiance when a forcible allegiance is in question.
In fact, when the “particular” people swear allegiance, caliphate is established, afterward all must attend the general allegiance. Malik Ashtar's speech against the disagreement of Qa'idin denotes such a case. Imam rejected force too.[324][1060]
When the Kharijites opposed, they were said to be silent, if they want to be safe. If they say something, they will be given reasons and in case they turn to swords, they will be resisted.
And he further said, “As long as you remember Allah, we keep our mosques open to you and as long as you stay with us, we keep your share of booty but if you pull your swords out, we launch a war with you.”[325][1061]
Anyway, Qa'idin regarded “congregation” incomplete to justify their opposition and naturally questioned 'Ali's caliphate. They said people of Damascus would complement this congregation whilst until then allegiance of people of Haram wasn't considered sufficient. Mu'awiya too having a large number of Damascus people in his control denied forming of “congregation” along with 'Ali and naturally rejected his caliphate.
In front of 'Ali's call, Mu'awiya wrote to people of obedience and congregation, “The community you're talking about is also available to us.” He accused 'Ali of murdering their caliph and dispersing their community.[326][1062]
There is no reasonable justification about the Infidels. The evidence show that these people opposed merely because of authoritarianism despite the commitments they had in allegiance. Imam tried hard to rehabilitate peace and in no case he resorted to weapon. Imam regarded their launching war the only permit to wage war.[327][1063]
Aside from all incentives and internal problems, the events in period of caliphate resulted in different sectarian and religious tilts that left behind works not only in jurisprudic-ideological matters but also in the field of Imamate issues.
Later, “political community” came to posed again and the Sunnites calling themselves independent of “people of innovation” and devaluing their participation in or separation from “congregation” named themselves “people of congregation.”
Abu Hatim Razi writes about the term of congregation for the Sunnites, “Since the majority of people accepted caliphate of the Umayyads during Mu'awiya and after in Marwanids time, people from the followers asserting this called themselves people of congregation…. And saying that “if anyone opposes us, he breaks apart the unity, opposes Umma and abandons the tradition.
By “people of Sunnat and Jama'at”, they meant that they named themselves so because they were unanimous by the same Imam despite all sectarian differences they had.[328][1064] The pivotal role in “congregation” is in fact the same Imamate.
According to a Sunnites mind, community appears when all people generally agree on an Imam who is in power in whatever way. Such an Imam is entirely legitimate according to a Sunnites. In Shi'a thinking, Imam is beyond a mere political consensus and community normally has its given sense.
Allegiance wasn't sworn to Imam on Friday, Dhi l-Hajja 18,36 H.
Notes:
[329][1012] From fabricated narrations in Tarikh at-Tabari
[330][1013] Sa‘id Ibn Musayyib said, “I witnessed ‘Ali (S) ’s rebel contention and that of Uthman until Uthman wanted to scourge ‘Ali (a) and I caused them to make up with each other See Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 132, No 112
[331][1014] Sa‘id in the conflict of arbitration claimed that no one but he is of superior quality in caliphate, for having no hand in Uthman’s murder and the recent seditions See Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 344
[332][1015] Ansab al-Ashraf, al-Juz’ al-rabi‘, pp 559-560, No 1419
[333][1016] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 429; see Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 219
[334][1017] In Iskafi’s narration it’s been cited, I was afraid that some of the ignorants might say something in mosque or the ones who have lost their own fathers or uncles in the Prophet’s Maghazi might object, al-Mi‘yar Wa l-Muwazina, p. 50
[335][1018] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 263
[336][1019] Herein some other evidence will be mentioned According to Ya‘qubi, All people took the oath except three of Quraysh one of whom swore the oath thereafter See, Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. p. 178-179
[337][1020] Tarikh al-khamis, vol. II, p. 261 About the allegiance of Muhajirun and Ansar see, al-Jamal, p. p. 102-110
[338][1021] Tarikh Khalifa Ibn KhayyaT, p. 196
[339][1022] These two were also tied to seizing caliphate and Talha was supported by ‘Ayisha Baladhuri states, When ‘Uthman was murdered, ‘Ayisha was on her way from Mecca to Medina Hearing about people swearing allegiance to Talha she cheered up, but being informed of ‘Ali’s caliphate, she returned to Mecca and declared she would take revenge for ‘Uthman, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 213
[340][1023] Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 92
[341][1024] Tarikh at-Tabari,vol. IV,p. 428
[342][1025] Ansab al-Ashraf,vol. II,p. 213
[343][1026] al-Gharat, p. 112
[344][1027] Akhbar al-Buldan, Ibn Faqih Hamadani, pp 4-5 ( Sezgin publication
[345][1028] ‘Abd al-Aziz al-Duri denies Lammens’s belief considering Saqifa as the result of Abu Bakr,‘Umar and Abu ‘Ubayda’s conspiracy but confirms the former agreement of Anti-Hashimites party Muqadama fi Tarikh Sadr al-Islam,p. 56
[346][1029] Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 136
[347][1030] Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IX, p. 31
[348][1031] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 427
[349][1032] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 210
[350][1033] Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 140; See, al-Mi‘yar wa l-muwazina, p. 105
[351][1034] This refers to the verse 100,Mu’minun
[352][1035] Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 143 See, al-Mi‘yar wa l-muwazina, p. 106
[353][1036] Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 73
[354][1037] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 262
[355][1038] In a letter to Mu‘awiya, Imam wrote,…and now the fact about deeming yourself different from Talha and Zubayr is that there exists no difference between you Because mine has been a “public allegiance” to which no body disagreed So necessarily it is to be accepted by all Waq‘at Siffin, p. 58
[356][1039] al-Mi‘yar wa l-muwazina, p. 52; al-Jamal, p. 131 This has been stated in the first letter in Nahj al-Balaghah,“People swore me allegiance freely and willingly ” Trying to emphasize the role of Malik, ‘Uthmanids and Umayyads intend to prove that people took the oath for fear of him
[357][1040] Waq‘at Siffin, p. 65
[358][1041] Ibid, p. 16
[359][1042] Ibid, p. 45
[360][1043] Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 143, No 10
[361][1044] Nahj al-Balaghah, Letter 6
[362][1045] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 207
[363][1046] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 208
[364][1047] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 435
[365][1048] al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 246-247
[366][1049] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, p. 76
[367][1050] al-Gharat, p. 75
[368][1051] Ibid p. 83
[369][1052] Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 178-179
[370][1053] Tarikh Yahya Ibn Mu‘ayn, vol. II, p. 238
[371][1054] This sect was also called” Sufyaniya”,”Nabita” and” Nawasib”
[372][1055] Al-Risalat al-Nabita dar Rasa’il al-Jahi¨ (al-Rasa’il al-kalamiyya),p. 239
[373][1056] al-Hujurat, 49:9
[374][1057] Sharh Usul al-Khamsa, p. 141; al-Bahr al-ra’iq, vol. VI, pp 151,153; Ahkam al-qur’an, Jassas, vol. III, p. 400, Jawahir al-kalam, vol. XXI,p. 332
[375][1058] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 207
[376][1059] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 207; Iskafi says that they said that they accept allegiance but they resent to war with the people of prayer In return, Imam said, “Abu Bakr permitted war with them(Imam meant people who refused to pay tax alms) How didn’t you oppose him? See al-Mi‘yar wa l-muwazana,p. 106
[377][1060] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, pp 72-73
[378][1061] al-Mi‘yar wa l-Muwazina, p. 106; Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 143
[379][1062] Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXV, p. 35
[380][1063] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 240; al-Mi‘yar wa l-Muwazina, p. 158
[381][1064] Kitab al-zina, p. 225
