History of The Caliphs


Author(s): Rasul Jafariyan

Publisher(s): Ansariyan Publications - Qum

Category: Early Islamic History

Topic Tags: Umayyad Caliphate Caliphate Miscellaneous information:nbsp;History of The Caliphs

From the Death of the Messenger (S),

to the Decline of the

039;Umayyad Dynasty 11-132 AH


Rasul Ja039;fariyan

ISBN: 964-438-457-1

Published by:

Ansariyan Publications

22, Shohada St.,

P.O. Box 187 Qum

Islamic Republic of Iran

Tel: ++98 251 7741744 Fax: 7742647

Congress Classification: BP14/ج 7ت 204952 1382

Dewey Classification: 297 /912

National bibliography numbers: م 82-15970

E-mail: ansarian@noornet.net


سرشناسه : جعفریان، رسول، - 1343

Jafarian, Rasul

عنوان قراردادی : [تاریخ خلفا از رحلت پیامبر تا زوال امویان (132 - 11ه). انگلیسی]

عنوان و نام پديدآور : History of the caliphs/ by Rasul Jafarian; translated by Ali Ebrahimi

مشخصات نشر : Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 2003 = 1382.

مشخصات ظاهری : ص 664

فروست : (Political History of Islam; 2)

وضعیت فهرست نویسی : فهرستنویسی قبلی

يادداشت : فهرستنویسی براساس جلد دوم؛ 1382

یادداشت : کتابنامه: ص. 664 - 649؛ همچنین به صورت زیرنویس

عنوان دیگر : ...History of the caliphs: from the death of the

عنوان دیگر : تاریخ خلفا از رحلت پیامبر تا زمان امویان (132 - 11ه). انگلیسی

آوانویسی عنوان : )هیستری آو د کلیفس }(...{

موضوع : اسلام -- تاریخ -- از آغاز تا ق 132

موضوع : خلفای راشدین

موضوع : خلافت

موضوع : امویان -- تاریخ

شناسه افزوده : ابراهیمی، علی Ebrahimi, Ali، مترجم

رده بندی کنگره : BP14/ج 7ت 204952 1382

رده بندی دیویی : 297 /912

شماره کتابشناسی ملی : م 82-15970


From the Death of the Messenger (S), to the Decline of the ‘Umayyad Dynasty 11-132 AHIn this book, the author covers the history of Shi'i Islam from after the death of the Prophet . He discusses in detail the rule of the three Caliphs and of Imam Ali after that. He also delves into the history of the Ummayad rulers and their actions.

www.ansariyan.net amp; www.ansariyan.orgImportant notice:nbsp;Important Notice about This Text:

The Ahlul Bayt DILP team wishes to inform the reader of some important points regarding this digitized text, which represents the English translation of a work originally written in Arabic. Whereas no one can doubt the best intentions of the translator and the publishers in making this title accessible to an English speaking audience, the editing and digitization process of this book (carried out by the DILP Team) has revealed issues in the quality of translation.

Based upon this fact, the DILP team has taken the liberty to make grammatical corrections to make the text more readable and less ambiguous; spelling mistakes and typographical errors have also been

p: 1

corrected and an attempt has been made to improve the highly non-standard use of transliteration of Arabic names and terms. The online text is not an exact reproduction of the original translation.

Users wishing to see the translation as it was published should refer to printed copies available in bookshops. Those who understand are advised to refer directly to the original text.

The Ahlul Bayt DILP Team

Translator’s Note

History of Caliphs manifests and presents undeniable facts associated with History of Shiism, in addition to facts every Shiite Muslim and individuals interested in the course of Shiism find necessary to achieve an understanding of the History of Islam. To this aim, the book is mainly written by the author and printed by the publisher, not to mention the translator, knowing that the task in its entirety is a heavy one with a substantial responsibility shouldered upon.

Certainly, there exists a mission and function before the Almighty God, his Messenger (S), his progeny and the Shiite followers after, part of which is encumbered here in this historically authentic publication. Motives behind the task are legion and great but whatsoever they may be, they lead every Ahlul Bayt enthusiast to a long road with unending eternal truths.

Gratefulness must first be rendered to divine contributions, considering that the accomplishment of such a heavy task including its translation, requires plenty of time, energy, patience, knowledge, faith and aim. It demanded a great deal of energy and time excluding other factors to bring

p: 2

this to an end, but one thing drove me ahead and that was assistance granted by my Lord who removed all hindrances and obscurities and facilitated the task.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that knowledge, competence and performance are the divine blessings bestowed upon me to fulfill this mammoth task. It is hoped that through this publication and resource, the Muslim world and the ensuing generations are able to greatly benefit and transfer it to others.

A. Ebrahimi


Abu Bakr’s Caliphate


It is impossible to study the incidents after the Prophet's demise in connection with the leadership of the society without paying attention to the political parties existing in Medina at the time. The Ansar (Helpers) were among the more important political parties who were worried about problems and their future following the demise of the Prophet (S) since the fall of Mecca to Muslims.

They gathered in Saqifa, fearing the rule of the Quraysh, although they had sworn allegiance to Imam 'Ali (a) - who was, they believed, less probable to assume power. Hubab Ibn Mundhir, one of the influential leaders of Ansar, in his remarks in Saqifa, considered the Ansar superior to Quraysh and proclaimed, “It was their sword that gained victory for Islam.”

He addressed the Ansar and said, “These people (Muhajirun (Immigrants)) are your booties and your subjects and dare not stand against you.”(1) Hubab's words imply that what led the Ansar do this unwise act was merely their fear from and of competition with the Quraysh. On the other

p: 3

1- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, pp. 24-25

hand, a number of the Muhajirun who had shown suspicious behavior two weeks before the Prophet's passing, hearing about the Saqifa gathering, wasted no time in attending the place and arguing with the Ansar.

The news of the negotiations was revealed later in Medina by the second caliph in one of his sermons. He was in Mecca when he was told that someone had said, “Swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr happened all of a sudden.” This made 'Umar very angry and he decided to talk to the people about it in Mecca.

'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf said to 'Umar, “You are in a city where all Arab tribes are present. If you say something now, it will be spread in all cities.”

When 'Umar arrived in Medina, he went to the pulpit and addressed the people, “I have been told that some people have said swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr took place suddenly. I swear by my life that it was so. But God bestowed you its good and protected you against its bad side.

After the Prophet's demise, we were told that the Ansar had gathered with Sa'd Ibn 'Ubada in the vicinity of Banu Sa'ida. Abu Bakr, Abu 'Ubayda and I went to them and on our way, we came across two men from the Ansar. They assured us that the Ansar did not intend to do something contrary to our views, but we decided to see for ourselves.”

The spokesman of the Ansar said, “We, the Ansar, are the unified army

p: 4

of Islam and you, O Quraysh, were a small group of us and a minority among us!”

Abu Bakr repsonded to the spokesman of the Ansar and said, “Whatever you say about the Ansar is, of course, true but the Arabs do not recognize “caliphate” except for the Quraysh race. They are the best of Arabs in lineage and in noble birth. I propose swearing allegiance to 'Umar or Abu 'Ubayda (who were the only men of the Muhajirun in the gathering).”

The speaker of Ansar said, “Let there be an emir from us and another from you.”(1)

I responded, “Two swords cannot be put in a scabbard. Then, I raised Abu Bakr's hand and swore allegiance to him.”

'Umar added, “The Muhajirun and the Ansar swore allegiance to him. (Of course, there were only three men of the Muhajirun in the gathering.) We feared to leave the gathering lest they might swear allegiance to another one and force us to obey him! Or make a tumult with our opposition.

Of course, swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr was impromptu, and it was not other than a divine blessing to repel a bad omen from us, and there is no likeness of. Therefore, whoever swears allegiance with a person without “Muslims' consultation”, neither he nor the sworn one deserves obedience; otherwise, both will be in danger of assassination.”(2)

The caliph gave a brief report on Saqifa, but it was enough for disclosing part of the realities. The comprehensive report on Saqifa is available in Abu

p: 5

1- Hubab Ibn Mundhir said that neither Muhajirun nor Ansar accepted each other Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 13
2- Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. VII, p. 431 (‘Umar said, “فمن دعا إلى مثلها فهو الذي لا بيعة له ولا لمن بايعه” “ Whoever calls on people do this, neither his allegiance nor that of someone’s who calls to his obedience is acceptable ” ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, pp 442-445 (briefly said); Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 344; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, pp 204-206; see distorted and disgraceful narrations of ‘Umar’s speech in, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 581

Bakr Juwhari's (323 AD) as-Saqifa.(1)

Ibn A'tham writes, “Before the arrival of the Muhajirun, serious arguments were raised among the Ansar. One of the Ansar said, “Select someone whose countenance frightens the Quraysh and makes the Ansar feel safe.” A few proposed Sa'd Ibn 'Ubada.

Usayd Ibn Huďayr, one of the nobles of Aws, rose in objection and said, “Caliphate should remain in the Quraysh.” Others spoke against him. Bashir Ibn Sa'd defended the Quraysh and 'Uwaym Ibn Sa'ida said, “Caliphate will be exclusive to the Infallible Household of the Prophet (S). Put it where God has placed it.”(2) Ibn A'tham's report illustrates clearly the internal oppositions inside the Ansar.

Usayd Ibn Huďayr from Aws and Bashir Ibn Sa'd who was Sa'd Ibn 'Ubada's cousin, were the first men of the Ansar who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr in Saqifa. We all know that later on, the Ansar became dissatisfied with the rule of the Quraysh.

According to Zubayr Ibn Bakkar, the people of Aws said, “It was Bashir Ibn Sa'd of Khazraj who swore allegiance first. And the people of Khazraj said it was Usayd Ibn Huďayr.” (3)

Abu Bakr knew about such a contention, so in Saqifa he said, “If the men of Aws assume power, the people of Khazraj will not accept it and there will be bloody fights among them.”(4)

According to Ya'qubi, 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf, too, was in Saqifa. This however, is not true. Whatever Ya'qubi has quoted from him were told a day later in the mosque.

He addressed the

p: 6

1- This book is lost but major part of it is mentioned by Ibn Abi al-Hadid in Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah These quotations have been collected by Muhammad Hadi Amini in a separate book titled “As-Saqifa wa Fadak” and published
2- al-Futuh, vol. I, pp 3-4; Waqidi, Kitab ar-Ridda, pp 32-33
3- al-Muwaffaqiyyat, p. 578; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, p. 272 Hubab Ibn Mundhir said to Bashir Ibn Sa‘d in Saqifa, “You swore allegiance to Abu Bakr out of envy towards Sa‘d Ibn ‘Ubada (Kitab ar-Ridda, p. 42) When Usayd Ibn Huďayr passed away, ‘Umar paid off all his debts (al-Fa’iq fi gharib al-hadith, vol. I, p. 108) Hubab Ibn Mundhir composed poem in Saqifa in reproaching those two men, part of which is so (Kitab ar-Ridda, p. 38) ابن حضير في الفساد لجاجة وأسرع سعي منه في الفساد بشير Ibn Huďayr much embraced on evil-doings and Bashir did more than him
4- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 14; al-Bayan wal-Tabyin, vol. III, p. 298; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 27; Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 13

Ansar and stated, “Although you are people of essential excellence (but) there is no likeness of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Ali (a) among you.”

Mundhir Ibn Arqam stood up and said, “We do not deny excellence of the people you named. If one of these people seeks caliphate (referring to Imam 'Ali (a)), there will be no objection to his request.” Then Bashir Ibn Sa'd and Usayd Ibn Huďayr rose and swore allegiance; and many followed them so that Sa'd Ibn 'Ubada was about to be killed in the stampede.(1)

Bara' Ibn 'Azib went to the Hashimites and said, “They swore allegiance to Abu Bakr.”

The men of the Hashimites said Muslims would never do that in their absence. “We are the offspring of Muhammad (S) !”

'Abbas said, “I swear by the God of Ka'ba, they did.”

Ya'qubi adds, “The Muhajirun and the Ansar had no doubts on Imam 'Ali (a).”(2)

Tabari and Ibn Athir have said the Ansar or a number of them present in Saqifa said they swore allegiance only to 'Ali (a).(3)

According to Ibn Qutayba, Hubab Ibn Mundhir took his sword off its sheath when he saw the Ansar swearing allegiance but they disarmed him.

He addressed the Ansar, “You must wait and see your children begging for a bowl of water and a loaf of bread in the doorsteps of the Quraysh.”(4)

According to historians, the most important reasoning of Abu Bakr and 'Umar was Abu Bakr's kinship with the Prophet (S) and his age, although there are some references to his merits

p: 7

1- Sa‘d Ibn ‘Ubada never paid allegiance to Abu Bakr and when he was in Damascus, caliph sent somebody to kill him and he was killed; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 250
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 123-124; one of the Ansar is reported to have said, “If ‘Ali and other people of the Hashimites had not been engaged in burying the Messenger (S) in the house and not been there in worry about him, no one would have had caprice of caliphate, Kitab ar-Ridda, pp 45-46. Waqidi’s report reveals that ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Awf talked to the Ansar after Saqifa event Evidence of a good number indicates that nobody was present at Saqifa except three people of Muhajirun Later on, Bashir Ibn Sa‘d Ansari, after hearing of Imam ‘Ali’s reasoning said to him, “In case people had heard you speaking this way before, nobody would have disagreed with you and all would have paid allegiance to you But you stayed home and people thought you were not in need of caliphate! Imam responded, “O son of Bashir ! Should I have left the Messenger’s corpse at home and quarelling with people on succession?” Abu Bakr said, “They have paid allegiance to me now and if I had known your will, I would have never sought after it myself You’re free to swear allegiance to me ” Imam paid allegiance to him seventy five days after departure of the Messenger (S) when Fatimah (a) passed away, Kitab ar-Ridda, p. 47
3- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 208; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. II, p. 325
4- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 27; Kitab ar-Ridda, p. 42 Harra event, Juwhari says, in 63 A H confirmed what Hubab said to Abu Bakr, “I fear not of you but of those after you (Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 313) About Ansar’s repentance after Saqifa, al-Muwaffaqiyyat, p. 583 Hubab said, “Since we killed their fathers in wars, they would take revenge on us ” (Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 580); al-Fa’iq fi gharib al-hadith, vol. III, p. 166; Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 135. In this case, we should see how Imam was treated in Badr, they have murdered half of Quraysh totaling seventy people. Certainly, it has to be known that the Ansar felt remorseful of what they had done and so they stood against defending ‘Ali, Quraysh and its political party, from ‘Uthman and Mu‘awiya to Talha, Zubayr and ‘Ayisha in Jamal, Siffin or before by having a hand in ‘Uthman’s murder or staying silent towards it. Even a few days after Saqifa, their remorse was revealed and Hassan Ibn Thabit’s then poems best prove that. Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 127-128.

present in some documents.

They addressed the Ansar and said, “Arabs will only accept this race of Quraysh(1) and they will never accept prophethood in a family and caliphate in another family.” (2)

Abu Bakr in Saqifa said, نحن قريش والأئمة منا “ We are from the Quraysh and the Imams must be from us.”(3)

Later on, Imam 'Ali (a) expressed his objections to Abu Bakr and 'Umar about how they had relied on “kinship” knowing that he was closer to the Prophet (S). 'Umar replied to Imam 'Ali's (a) objections and said, “Arabs do not want to see prophethood and caliphate in a single family.(4) Prophethood belonged to you, so let the caliphate be for other families!”

There is little element of doubt that upon avoiding allegiance to 'Ali (a) in Saqifa, tribal opposition began and finally, the Quraysh introduced its “tribal superiority” to take advantage of the internal conflicts of the Ansar and win the caliphate despite their limited influence in Medina. Followers of Abu Bakr considered his age as a criterion at a time when Imam 'Ali (a) was young.

When Salman heard the news of the allegiance, he said, “You selected the most aged one but made a mistake about the Infallible Household of your prophet. If you swore allegiance to them, two people would not oppose you.”(5)

It should be noted that no reliable and documented words were uttered on the issue of Saqifa and the way of the caliph's selection. Of course, we must ignore the false quotations made

p: 8

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 582
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, p. 38
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 583, والعرب لا ترضى أن يؤمّركم وبينها من غيركم ولكن يؤمرون من كانت النبوة فيهم “Arabs never appoint you as ruler but those who were in touch with prophethood ” Kitab ar-Ridda, p. 39; Abu Bakr in his speech relied on this, “قريش أوسط العرب داراً وأكرمهم أحساباً ً The Qurayshites are the most outstanding and noble ‘Arab dynasty ” Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. II, p. 269; Following above sentence quoted from Abu Bakr, in Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 13 it is added through Abu Bakr, “وأحسنهم وجوهاً أكثر الناس ولادة في العرب “ The most good-looking people were more among those who were given birth among Arabs ”.Abu Bakr said, نحن قريش والأئمة منا “ We are the Qurayshites and Imams are from us” as a hadith although this was attributed to him later.
4- al-Iďah, p. 87.‘Umar said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “Your people did not want to have the prophethood and caliphate in your family because, in that case, pride elevated you to the sky; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 28
5- As-Saqifa wa Fadak, p. 43; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, p. 49 and Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 590; Abu ‘Ubayda Jarrah talked about ‘Ali’s youth when Imam objected, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, pp 2-5.

up to present Abu Bakr as rightful(1) for the caliphate which states incorrectly that the Prophet (S) had chosen not only Abu Bakr, but also the succeeding caliphs.(2)

What is important to us, however, is the Saqifa talks and the sideline incidents. The Ansar considered caliphate to themselves; the Muhajirun - Abu Bakr, 'Umar and Abu 'Ubayda - went to Saqifa and said caliphate was exclusive to the Quraysh.

They did not rely on any traditions such as “The Imams are from the Quraysh,” and said Arabs would not obey any other race than the Quraysh. Among them, some great companions of the Prophet (S) such as Zubayr and Talha(3) did not regard Abu Bakr as the right one to assume power.

Therefore, there was no recognized method or preconditions for selecting Abu Bakr except his relationship with the Prophet (S), the so-called “tribal superiority” of the Quraysh and tribal criteria. Being from the Quraysh was not a prerequisite for assuming the title of caliph. Many years after his caliphate, 'Umar wished “Salim” Mawla Hudhayfa Ibn Yaman were alive to rule after him.(4)

Salim was not a man of the Quraysh. Some segments believe that the prerequisite of being from the Quraysh by descent was introduced in the Sunnites political jurisprudence in the third century.(5) The only criteria in Saqifa was linkage to the Quraysh and Abu Bakr's age. These were the only criteria of the Dark Age along with the political conflicts that granted him caliphate, not a combination of

p: 9

1- ‘Ayisha is quoted to have been questioned, “Whom did the Messenger (S) find as his successor?” “Abu Bakr”, she replied “Who would be his successor?”, she was asked “‘Umar”, she answered “And after ‘Umar”, she was questioned “Abu ‘Ubayda Jarrah”, she replied (Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. VII, p. 433) The date of forging this hadith shall be found within the proper hadith.
2- al-Ghadir, vol. V (issue, Silicate al-Mawďu‘at fil-khilafa) pp 333-356 According to Waqidi in ar-Ridda (pp 35-37) it seems that the Messenger (S) has placed Abu Bakr as his successor as clarified in Saqifa several times!
3- Nihayat al-’Irab, vol. XIX, p. 39
4- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 190; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. II, p. 274, vol. III, p. 407; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 881; Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 63; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XII, p. 69
5- Tatawwur al-fikr As-Siyasi ‘Ind ahl As-Sunna, p. 38

the pagan and Islamic criteria that Dr. Khayr al-Din Sawi has stated.(1)

There are other documents at hand that Abu Bakr attached special significance to the Quraysh and its nobility.

Ibn 'Asakir says, “Some time after the conversion of Abu Sufyan to Islam; Bilal; Suhayb Rumi, and Salman scorned him. Abu Bakr asked angrily why they behaved that way with “the Sheikh and master of the Quraysh”. They complained about this in the presence of the Prophet (S) who upon hearing of the incident, asked Abu Bakr to apologize.(2)

After the allegiance in Saqifa, they left the place. According to Bara' Ibn 'Azib, they walked in the alleys and rubbed the hands of whoever they met to Abu Bakr's hands, not paying attention to the person's willingness or unwillingness.

Bara' adds, “I rushed to the door of the Hashimites to give the news.”(3) Their interest in allegiance was so immense that according to Ibn Abi Shayba, they did not even attend the funeral ceremony of the Prophet (S) and returned to the city after the ceremony.(4)

Finishing the allegiance swearing, 'Umar stood up and apologized for whatever he had said the day before on the continuation of the Prophet's life until the death of his last companion, and indeed for his claim on offering guidance to the Prophet (S).

He said he believed that the Prophet (S) would live long to organize the affairs, but now he witnessed that the Qur'an was left among them and the people swore allegiance to the best companion

p: 10

1- Tatawwur al-fikr As-Siyasi, p. 38, footnote IV
2- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. V, p. 261
3- As-Saqifa wa Fadak, p. 46
4- Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. VII, p. 432 Hisham Ibn ‘Urwa quotes his father, ان ابا بكر وعمر لم يشهدا دفن النبي (ص) وكانا في الانصار فدفن قبل ان يرجعا Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were with the Ansar when the Prophet (S) was to be buried, and before they came back, the Prophet (S) had been buried Waqidi says, “What seems correct to me is that the Prophet (S) has been buried Saturday (al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 47). Therefore, it is clear that Abu Bakr and his fellow had been busy since Monday till tomorrow when the Prophet (S) passed away and they could not come by his dead body These two people are hardly mentioned among those named in reports concerned with his burial

of the Prophet (S).(1) This demonstrates 'Umar was waiting for the selection of the anticipated caliph.

Some people rose in objection, and in addition to two distinguished personalities of the Hashimites, i.e. Imam 'Ali (a) and 'Abbas, there was other influential people such as Zubayr Ibn 'Awam, Khalid Ibn Sa'id, Miqdad Ibn 'Amr, Salman, Abu Dharr, 'Ammar, Bara' Ibn 'Azib, and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b.(2)

Abu Bakr's followers went to visit Ubayy Ibn Ka'b but he did not open the door for them.(3) 'Umar, Abu 'Ubayda Jarrah, Mughira Ibn Shu'ba and Khalid Ibn Walid were the chief organizers of this program. At Imam 'Ali's doorstep, 'Umar severely and seriously asked him to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Imam Ali replied to Umar's request by stating:“Your greed for Abu Bakr's rule today is (in order) to have the caliphate tomorrow.”(4)

Those who had gathered in Imam 'Ali's house faced the harsh behavior of 'Umar and his followers. 'Umar took Zubayr's sword and broke it, then threatened the residents of the house that he would set the house on fire. For the list of those sitting in Imam 'Ali's house and the names of those who broke into the house, refer to the following sources.(5)

According to Ibn 'Abd Rabbih, 'Umar had a brand of fire in his hand and threatened to set the house on fire. When Fatima (a) asked him whether he was serious, he replied that indeed he was unless they accepted whatever the nation had accepted.(6) Fatima asked the sit-in people to disperse

p: 11

1- al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. IV, pp 65-66
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 124
3- As-Saqifa wa Fadak, p. 47
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 587 According to Ibn Qutayba, ‘Ali said to him, “Milk in a way you can have part of it; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 29
5- Ma‘alim al-Madrisatayn, vol. II, pp 163-166; Talkhis Ash-Shafi, pp 76, 156
6- al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. III, p. 64; Tarikh ’Abi l-fida’, vol. I, p. 156 quoted from, Ma‘alim al-Madrisatayn, vol. II, p. 167 About other sources talking about threat, Ma‘alim al-Madrisatayn, vol. II, pp 167-168 Abu Bakr in his time of death was concerned about a few things, one was that he wished he had never opened Fatimah’s house door even if they had closed it with the aim of war (Ma‘alim al-Madrisatayn,, vol. II, p. 165, footnote LXV from various sources.

because she was certain 'Umar would set the house ablaze.(1)

Getting allegiance by force and threatening to set the house on fire, which were followed later on by the other caliphs (such as Ibn Zubayr in his exacting allegiance from the Hashimites) (2) could have stemmed from here.

Of course, the Quraysh started talks in addition to using force. Upon Mughira's advice, they went to 'Abbas to include him and his family, too, in the allegiance move and alleviate their problems by pleasing the Prophet's uncle, but 'Abbas rejected their invitation.(3)

Imam 'Ali (a) and Fatima did their best to return the right of caliphate from Abu Bakr to Imam 'Ali (a) but it was fruitless. Their efforts have been recorded in the books of Abu Bakr Juwhari and others.(4) There is no doubt that Fatima (a) was angry with Abu Bakr and 'Umar for trampling on her right in the issue of the Prophet's heritage, the Fadak case(5) and the Imamate of Muslims and she passed away with pain in her heart.(6)

Zuhri says, “Imam 'Ali (a) buried Fatima's body at night and did not let Abu Bakr know. Until before her death, Imam 'Ali (a) and none of the Hashimites men swore allegiance to Abu Bakr.(7) Later on, Imam 'Ali (a) swore allegiance to protect the unity of Muslims against the idolaters and infidels.”(8)

In his response to Abu Sufyan's request who asked him not to let caliphate remain in the hands of the Banu Taym, Imam 'Ali said, “You have always been

p: 12

1- al-Mudhakkar wal-tadhkir wal-dhikr, p. 91; Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. VII, p. 432 The Shi‘ite Muslims believed in such an action.
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XX, p. 147.
3- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 220; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 124-125
4- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 126; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, pp 5-28 and 67; Waq‘at As-Siffin, p. 182; Kitab ar-Ridda, p. 46
5- About what happened to Fadak during the Umayya and the ‘Abbasids, al-Kharaj wa Sana‘at al-kitaba, pp 259-260
6- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 472 The same quotation comes from Zuhri in Bukhari, vol. VI, p. 122 Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VI, pp 49-50; vol. XVI, pp 253,281,282; al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. V, pp 285,287
7- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 472
8- It was for the same reason Imam opposed to Abu Sufyan who had been willing to pay allegiance to Imam, Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 400

an enemy of Islam and Muslims.”(1)

Regardless, there is no doubting that Imam 'Ali (a) did not swear allegiance to Abu Bakr until after the death of Fatima (a).(2)

Mada'ini has written that with the beginning of the war against the infidels, 'Uthman came to Imam 'Ali (a) and said, “No one will join you in your fight against infidels unless you swear allegiance to Abu Bakr.” He insisted and took Imam to Abu Bakr's place and 'Ali (a) swore allegiance and it made Muslims very happy.(3)

Mas'udi says, “Fatima, sitting at the side of the Prophet's grave, recited the following poem”,

قدكان بعدك انباء وهينمة لوكنت شاهدها لم تكثر الخطب

“After you, there appeared events that if you had been alive to see them, you would have never made so many speeches.” (4)

Fatima's opposition was considerably important to the caliph as far as his public prestige was concerned. Abu Bakr did his best to come to mutual terms with her, however, she never accepted. This led the caliph to express his deep regret in the final years of his life for invading Fatima's house. Many historians have quoted him as wishing he had never inspected Fatima's house.(5)

Sa'd Ibn 'Ubada was another opponent of Abu Bakr.(6) He did not swear allegiance with Abu Bakr and went to Damascus, and as has been reported, was assassinated there during the time of the second caliph. The common narrative in historical documents is that genies killed him and they composed two verses on this incident. The truth however,

p: 13

1- Nihayat al-’Irab, vol. XIX, p. 40
2- Aside from false narrations against the chronicles, Imam swore allegiance just when ‘Umar and Abu Bakr stopped by him in his house, Nihayat al-’Irab, vol. XIX, pp 39,40
3- Talkhis Ash-Shafi, vol. III, p. 77
4- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 304; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, p. 50, vol. VI, p. 43, vol. XVI, pp 212, 251; al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, pp 68-69, there, “Wahaynama” is replaced with “Wahanbatha”; in addition, another line is added too
5- Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 24; Kanz al-’Ummal, vol. V, No 14113; Ibn Sallam, al-Amwal, p. 194
6- Nihayat al-’Irab, vol. XIX, p. 38; it is cited there a group of Khazrajis failed to pay allegiance in Saqifa

according to Baladhuri and Ibn 'Abd Rabbih, is that a man from Damascus was sent by 'Umar to ask him to swear allegiance and when 'Ubada did not accept, 'Umar killed him.(1)

Abu Bakr's policy differed from that of 'Umar in that 'Umar believed in using force to get allegiance from his opponents, but Abu Bakr did not encourageit although he also believed in the principle. Both had dual policies but 'Umar, according to authentic documents, used force while Abu Bakr said in one of his sermons,

“لا بيعة لي في عنقه وهو بالخيار من أمره ”'

‘Ali has no obligation nor commitment to swear allegiance to me and he is free in his choice.”(2)

Caliphate After the Prophet (S)

Abu Bakr, son of Abu Quhafa, was the first caliph after the Prophet's demise. There are differing views on his name being either 'Abd Allah or 'Atiq.(3) Apparently, many individuals have insisted on saying that his name was 'Abd Allah but he had previously been called 'Atiq. He belonged to the Banu Taym tribe, one of the tribes of the Quraysh.

During the Dark Age, this tribe maintained minimal special standing among the other tribes. This claim is evidenced by Abu Sufyan's words once Abu Bakr assumed power. He said, “How come the government has fallen to the least populated and meanest tribes of the Quraysh?”(4)

There is a story that one day, Abu Bakr was speaking with Dhaghfal about his lineage and both agreed that Banu Taym was one of the weakest tribes of the Quraysh.(5) Another

p: 14

1- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazana, p. 232 (quoted from Baladhuri and Ibn ‘Abdirabbih in the footnote) Interestingly, Ibn Abi al-Hadid (XVII, 223-224) says that some knew Abu Bakr as his murderer but he has not found a historical report concerningly This is while the aforesaid report is cited in two historical sources, of course about caliph II
2- As-Sirat al-halabiyya, vol. III, p. 389 (al-Ghadir, vol. V, p. 368)
3- al-Ma‘rifa wal-Tarikh, vol. I, p. 238, Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 298
4- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 451; Mustadrak, vol. II, p. 78
5- Majma‘ al-Amthal, vol. I, p. 27

time, Abu Bakr asked Qays Ibn 'Asim why he buried his daughters alive. Qays Ibn 'Asim replied, “So that they do not give birth to children like you.”(1)

There are different views also on his occupation prior to the advent of Islam.Those who intended to attribute a high position to him in the Dark Age, said he was a merchant. On the other hand, there are documents that say he had menial jobs such as milking and of that nature.(2)

Another story says Abu Bakr had financial problems and was a teacher in the Dark Age and later, became a tailor following the advent of Islam.(3)

Abu bakr was two years younger than the Prophet of Islam and he is considered to be among one of the first Muslims. There are however conflicting ideas concerning whether he was the first or the fifty-first Muslim as one quotation has put it.(4)

Such notions about him are natural considering he was the first caliph. We have not heard about any special pressures he may have faced in the years of invitation to Islam in Mecca. He did not accompany the Muhajirun to Abyssinia, but he found an opportunity to be with the Prophet (S) in the night of Hijra. According to various discussions about Hijra, after the Prophet left the house, Abu Bakr went to see Imam 'Ali (a) and when found out that Prophet Muhammad (S) had gone, he had set off and joined him.

Abu Bakr's relationship with the Prophet (S) grew stronger

p: 15

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XIII, p. 177
2- al-Fa’iq fi gharib al-hadith, vol. IV, p. 12
3- al-Ifsah, p. 176
4- As-Sahih Min Sira al-Nabi, vol. I, pp 247,289,290; Tarikh at-Tabari, (vol. II, p. 60), in a weakened narration by Himself, says that fifty people embraced Islam before Abu Bakr

following the Prophet's marriage with 'Ayisha. 'Ayisha was a clever woman who tried to have a role in all political developments of her time. This helped strengthen Abu Bakr's position to some extent.

Abu Bakr did not have any political or military responsibility during his ten years of stay in Medina, but he could gain power by understanding the situation of the internal wings of the Quraysh and taking advantage of the Quraysh's enmity towards Imam 'Ali (a) as well as the collaboration of the middle wings of the Quraysh. This group was not among the Umayyads nor the Hashimites.

Abu Bakr grasped a serious chance. When he took over the caliphate, a wave of apostasy and opposition to Islam swept across Hijaz and Muslims who all saw the principle of Islam endangered realized that opposing Abu Bakr was not to their interests.

It is interesting to know that immediately after Abu Bakr's coming to power, rifts emerged between the Ansar and the Quraysh over a sarcastic poem composed by Abu Bakr about the Ansar. Afterwards, the Ansar kept some distance from Abu Bakr and 'Amr Ibn 'As who was instigated by the Quraysh spoke against them.

On the other hand, Faďl Ibn 'Abbas and then, Imam 'Ali (a) praised the Ansar. Hassan Ibn Thabit composed poems in praise of Imam 'Ali (a) for his support of the Ansar and implicitly, referred to the efforts of some men of the Quraysh who wanted to take Imam 'Ali's position.(1) However, when oppositions

p: 16

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 128

heightened, the Ansar moved towards the claimants of prophethood and other apostates.

Abu Bakr reiterated several times that there were some people who deserved the caliphate more than him. After the people swore allegiance to him, he said in a sermon, “I took over the rule over you while I'm not any better than you. If I behave well, help me; if not, guide me. Obey me as long as I am obedient to God; otherwise, you won't need to obey me.”(1) This shows that Abu Bakr believed it was not necessary for a ruler to be the best of the people.

It is necessary to admit that Abu Bakr had an eloquent language and we are sure that it was his clam words at the Saqifa more effective than 'Umar's harsh words, though they were complementary.

Later, Abu Bakr once pointed to his tongue and said, “This is what helped me reach this rank.”(2)

He has been quoted as saying, ” 'Umar is stronger than me and Salim is more pious.”(3) But his emphasis on having the rule is surprising. Abu Bakr introduced his government as the “Caliphate of Prophethood” to convey the religious aspect of his caliphate. He considered his rule not as a caliphate from God, but a succession to the Prophet (S) and named himself the “Caliph of the Messenger of Allah”.(4)

His first measure was dispatching Usama's army, an army which the Prophet (S) had prepared to send to Damascus in the final days of his life. Political opposition caused

p: 17

1- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. XI, p. 326; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 336; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 34
2- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 13
3- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 15
4- Abuya‘la, al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyya, p. 17 Despite what is said, caliph I, in his first oration, said, وقد استخلف الله عليكم خليفة God hath ordained a caliph to unify thee and to strengthen thy words, Al-Imama wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 34 Damascus Muslims are quoted to have called Abu Bakr as “God’s Caliph” Al-Imama wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 38 (Damascus people were expected to say this but nothing else) Once he was called “God’s Viceroy”, but he said, “I’m not vicegerent of God, I am caliph of the Prophet (S) and I am pleased with it! (Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. VII, p. 433) ‘Adi Ibn Hatam told Abu Bakr, “We obeyed God’s Messenger (S) because of his obedience and you are obeyed for you obey the Propher (S) (Kitab ar-Ridda, p. 66) His intention lies in the same word of caliph

delays in the deployment of the army under the pretext of Usama's young age. Now that the issues seemed to have been settled, the same people who were opposed, decided to send Usama's army in spite of the critical situation on Hijaz.

Responding to opposition against the army's dispatch, they said they could not ignore doing something that the Prophet had wanted. Abu Bakr said he would send the army even if the beasts would tear him apart in Medina.(1) Usama's army left for Damascus and returned after forty days with no serious clashes. Since the Prophet (S) had included 'Umar in Usama's army, Abu Bakr asked Usama to let 'Umar stay with him.

The Issue of Apostasy

The main problem of Muslims was a move known as “Apostasy”. According to historians, after the Prophet's passing, some people claimed prophethood, some became apostates and put on the royal crown while others refused to pay their tax alms.

It is known that the Bedouin Arabs converted to Islam one after another following the conquest of Mecca. It was mostly due to the ever-expanding power of Islam and they feared that Muslims would confront them any time. Therefore, they had no way but to accept the new path, even if temporarily. They did not know enough about Islam and nor could they give up their old ideas of the Dark Age.

Another serious problem for them was paying the tax alms. In fact, they considered it an act of extortion by Muslims. According to the Bedouin Arabs, Muslims were

p: 18

1- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, pp 100-101

only the people of the Quraysh, Aws and Khazraj. These currents each had its own motive, but the system of caliphate viewed all of them as apostasy and confronted them from this aspect. However, apostates can be classified into several groups given what has been said so far:

The first group was those who claimed prophethood. Others gave up Islam and returned to their previous faith during the Dark Age. The third group did not recognize the Medina government, but said they abided by Islam. These people did not believe in the Medina administration and so refused to pay tax alms. Among this group, there were people who did not recognize Abu Bakr's rule and did not believe in the Imamate of Prophet's Household, so they did not pay tax alms. Here, we will first discuss the claimants of prophethood.

The news of apostasy has been brought up in several books. Tabari has used Sayf Ibn 'Umar's book as his major source. His book was “al-Futuh al-Kabir wa ar-Radda”. Biographers have all rejected Sayf's authenticity.(1) Another independent work is the book of al-Futuh by Ibn A'tham Kufi that fortunately remains to date. Waqidi and Mada'ini had both books on apostasy. More recently, Waqidi's “ar-Radda” was published. It has many commonalities with the al-Futuh of Ibn A'tham. There are other sparse and relatively scattered references to apostasy in other books.

As for the claimants of prophethood, there was a main motive. Some ambitious tribes or individuals thought that they could also rule others by

p: 19

1- ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’, in his book, deals with narrations of the same person by considering narrations of Sayf by ‘Allama ‘Askari.

claiming prophethood if others had done so. This move led to the emergence of many claimants of prophethood. Aswad 'Ansa was the first of these who staged a rebellion in Yemen and wrote to the representatives of the Prophet,

” أمسكوا علينا ما أخذنا من أرضنا "

Return to us whatever of our lands you have captured.”(1)

Hearing this, Prophet Muhammad (S) ordered him to be killed in “any way possible”. It took three months for Muslims to quell the Aswad mutiny and he was killed finally. It is said that the news of his death reached Medina a few days after the demise of the Prophet (S). An Iranian-born man named Firuz, belonging to the Yemeni tribe of Abna', had killed 'Ansa.(2) There is also another reference to another Muslim named Dadhwayh who seems to be an Iranian.

Musaylima Ibn Habib from the Banu Hanifa tribe was another claimant of prophethood. He visited the Prophet of Islam in Medina along with the influential men of his tribe and said to have converted to Islam.

Upon his return, he thought about claiming prophethood and said to the people of Banu Hanifa, “I what to know how come the Quraysh is more deserving than you for caliphate and Imamate? I swear by God that their population is not more than yours. They are not braver than you. You have more lands and more properties.”(3)

Then, he claimed prophethood and wrote to the Prophet of Islam, “I have become your partner in prophethood. Half of the lands

p: 20

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. II, p. 229.
2- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p.. 117.
3- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 23.

belong to us and the other half to the Quraysh, but the Quraysh are aggressive people.” The Prophet responded to him,

إِنَّ الْأَرْضَ لِلَّهِ يُورِثُهَا مَنْ يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ وَالْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ.

“The earth belongs to Him, He gives it to whomever He wishes and the eternality is for the pious people.” (1)

This correspondence took place at the end of the 10th year from Hijra. When the Messenger of Allah passed away, Musaylima found an opportunity to gather some followers around himself. He used to compose rhythmic prose to imitate the Qur'an and recited the prose for his followers.(2) Furthermore, he had told people he had exempted them from saying morning and evening prayers.(3)

Also, Sajah, the daughter of Harith Tamimi(4), claimed prophethood but after meeting Musaylima, she married him. It is said that as Sajah's marriage portion, he exempted the people from saying morning and evening prayers.

In al-Futuh we read that when Sajah met Musaylima, she said, “I heard about your excellent traits and chose you. I have come to be your wife so that we can both be prophets, and together, make the world obey us and be our subordinate.”

Musaylima said, “For your marriage portion, I exempted your nation from saying prayers at dawn and dusk.”(5)

When Muslims went to Yamama with an army led by Khalid Ibn Walid, they came across some of Musaylima's followers and asked them what faith they were in.

They said, “منا نبي ومنكم نبي” “ We have our prophet and you have your prophet.”

It was then that

p: 21

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. II, p. 149; al-Kharaj wa Sana‘a al-kitaba, p. 282.
2- For example, لا اقسم بهذا البلد، ولا تبرح هذا البلد، حتى تكون ذا مال وولد، ووفر وصفد وخيل وعدد، الى آخر الابد، علي رغم من حسد Kitab ar-Rida, p. 111; and another example in, al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, pp 161-162,164 These cases are morally ill.
3- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VI, p. 326.
4- In some sources, she is called daughter of Aws Ibn Hurayz, Jamharat an-Nasab, p. 226.
5- al-Futuh (Persian translation), p. 20-21; al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 165.

a war broke out between them. The Yamama battle was one of the bloodiest wars of Muslims with claimants of prophethood and apostates. In this war, the Muslim army lost a great number of its men, 58 of whom were from the Muhajirun and the Ansar and 13 men out of them, had fought in the Battle of Badr.(1) Ibn A'tham has put the number of Muslim martyrs at 1200 people, 700 of whom had memorized the Qur'an.(2)

In a text attributed to Waqidi, we read the details about the war and the many pre-battle bragging of the Prophet's companions, including 'Ammar Yasir. Immediately after the battle ended, Khalid married Muja'a Ibn Marara's daughter, who was one of the conspiring heads of Banu Hanifa, and indulged in his own lust and pleasure. Observing this, Muslims wrote a letter to Abu Bakr and said,

أترضى بأنا لا تجف دماءنا وهذا عروس باليمامة خالد

“Do you please with our blood in dryness and this man keeps on living in relief in Yamama.”

The news reached Abu Bakr and 'Umar said, “Khalid always does something which pains our heart.” Abu Bakr wrote a strong-worded letter to Khalid. When Khalid read the letter, he laughed and said he was sure it was 'Umar's work because he knew Abu Bakr was satisfied with him.(3)

Another claimant of prophethood was Tulayha Ibn Khuwaylad Asadi. He also gathered men from the tribes of Ghatafan and Banu Fazara and tried to compose rhythmic prose to claim prophethood and stand against the Medina government.


p: 22

1- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, vol. I, pp 111-115
2- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 40
3- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 43-44; Kitab ar-Ridda, pp 144-146

a battle between his men and the Muslim's army, 'Uyayna Ibn Hisn and his tribesmen from Banu Fazarah were defeated heavily and Tulayha fled to Damascus. Thus, another revolt was suppressed.(1) 'Uyayna Ibn Hisn had repeatedly shown his enmity towards Islam during the life of the Prophet (S) but had finally embraced Islam. However, his presence in this current showed that he, like many others, had never believed in Islam truly.

When he was brought as a captive to Medina, people taunted him and said, “O, enemy of God! Did you become an infidel after converting to Islam?” But he swore he had not believed in Islam even for a moment.(2) Abu Bakr pardoned the captives of this war. Tulayha, too, came to Medina at the time of 'Umar and repented.

'Umar told him, “How do you expect to save yourself from hell when you have killed Thabit Ibn Arqam Ansari and 'Ukkasha Ibn Mihsan Asadi?”

Tulayha said, “God had wanted martyrdom for them and I did not kill them with my own hand, so there will be no hell for me.” 'Umar liked his reasoning and pardoned him.

Apart from claimants of prophethood, some other tribes became apostates in the basics. There is no doubt that the situation was prepared for apostasy but it is not clear for sure who were the real apostates and who are those who did not accept the Medina government merely for political or religious reasons.(3)

For example, one such group was Malik Ibn Nuwayra's clan who

p: 23

1- al-Futuh, vol. I, pp 14-15; Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, pp 102-103
2- Al-Futuh,ol I,p. 17; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, ol II,p. 129
3- The Shi‘ite Muslims disagreed on saying that all people hae been atheist rebels Kanz al-fawa’id, vol. II, p. 346

were accused and killed mercilessly undoubtedly just because of Khalid's personal issues and his mean moral motives. This is a blot of shame for Khalid and those who defended him. They considered his crime in massacring a number of Muslims and his adultery with Malik's wife after her husband's murder as a wrong interpretation of Ijtihad.(1)

Hearing about this, 'Umar was seriously incited against Khalid and asked Abu Bakr to oust him but the caliph called him the “sword of God” and refused to do so.(2)

Among the tribes considered to be apostate, there were some people who did not believe in Abu Bakr's caliphate and favored the government of the Prophet's Household. They said Abu Bakr had no “allegiance” to them so there was no need to obey him. They believed that the Muhajirun and Ansar had prevented the Prophet's Household from coming to power out of jealousy.(3)

According to Waqidi and Ibn A'tham, a clan from Kinda in Haďramawt was all apostates. Ziyad Ibn Lubayd was responsible for collecting tax alms in the region. Some men of the tribe agreed with paying tax alms while others did not. Once Ziyad chose a camel belonging to Ziyad Ibn Mu'awiya as tax alms, he asked for help from one of the influential men of Kinda named Haritha Ibn Suraqa and asked him to return his camel and take another one.

Haritha made the request from Ziyad but he did not accept. So, Haritha himself went among the camels set aside as tax

p: 24

1- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 105, Abu Bakr was told هل يزيد خالد على ان يكون تأول فأخطأ Does Khalid want to express and go wrong. Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. II,p. 278; Tabaqat Ash-Shu‘ara’,p. 48
2- Tarikh at-Tabari,vol. II,p. 279, al-Aghani,vol. xv,p. 302
3- al-Futuh,vol. I,pp 58,60 and 61; ar-Ridda,pp 171,176 and 177 والله مأ ا زلتموها عن أهلها الاّ حسداً منكم لهم By God you seized caliphate away from them just out of envy

alms and brought back Zayd's camel, saying, “We obeyed the Messenger of God as long as he was alive.” “لو قام رجل من أهل بيته لأطعناه” “ Today, we will obey anyone from his Household who comes to power.” Abu Bakr has no right of rule and allegiance upon us.

It is said that Ziyad Ibn Lubayd fled from the region overnight and composed poems terming the tribe as apostate.

He said, “We will fight you to make you obey Abu Bakr until you give up infidelity and apostasy and say you shall never return to infidelity.”

Of course, not all tribesmen thought like Haritha. What is important is that all of them refused to pay tax alms to the Medina government because they considered it humiliation for themselves. They believed in distributing tax alms among the poor within their tribe.

Some people of this tribe used to say, “We swear by God that we have come to be enslaved by the Quraysh. First, they send Muhajir Ibn Abi Umayya or Ziyad Ibn Lubayd to collect tax alms. Then, they threaten to fight against us.”(1)

Ash'ath Ibn Qays, from this tribe, said, “I don't think Arabs would accept the rule of the Banu Taym and leave the men of the Hashimites.”

He said in his poems, “If the Quraysh are to leave the power into the hands of Banu Taym and distance themselves from Muhammad's Household, of course, we are prior to it because we are the descendants of kings.”

Elsewhere in the above narration, we read

p: 25

1- ar-Ridda,pp 169-174

that Ziyad sent the tax alms camels to Medina along with someone and he, himself, went to a tribe of Kinda named Banu Zuhal.

An influential man of Kinda named Harith Ibn Mu'awiya said, “O, Ziyad! You ask us to obey someone who has no accord with us.”

Ziyad said, “You are right. He has signed no agreement with you, but we have selected him to rule.”

Harith asked, “Why did you take the government away from the Prophet's Household when they deserved it, because God has said, “وَأُوْلُوا الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَى بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ.” “Some relatives are given more priority over others.”

Ziyad answered, “The Muhajirun and the Ansar know the interests of their government better than you.”

Harith stated, “I swear by God, it is not so. You did it out of your jealousy. I cannot accept that the Messenger of Allah has passed away without assigning a successor for himself. Go away from here.”

'Urfaja Ibn 'Abd Allah, another man of the tribe, said, “I swear by God, Harith is right. Expel this man from this place. His master is not eligible to be the caliph and the Muhajirun and Ansar are not better than the Prophet (S) in knowing the expediency of the government.”

Ziyad went to Medina and said, “The people of Kinda have revolted and have become apostate.”(1)

Ibn A'tham's further explanations on the disputes among the people of Kinda and Abu Bakr reveal their problem was Abu Bakr's caliphate. Making his mind to fight the Kinda tribes, Abu Bakr summoned

p: 26

1- ar-Ridda,pp 173-179; al-Futuh, vol. I,pp 57-61

'Umar and said, “I want to send 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib to fight them because,

فانه عدل رضا عند اكثر الناس لفضله وشجاعته وقرابته وعلمه وفهمه ورفقه بما يحاول من الامور “

He is just and acceptable more to the public because of his excellence, valour, kinship and knowledge as well as his handling of affairs.”

'Umar said, “You are right. 'Ali is as you say but I fear one thing. I fear he may refuse to fight them. If he does not go to war, no one else will do so unless with disgust.”(1)

This discussion and 'Umar's consultation with Abu Ayyub show that there were some people among them who opposed fighting Muslims.

The caliph considered these things instances of apostasy, and historians have recorded these fights as the battles of Radda. These wars may be justified as necessary tactics for safeguarding the government but it is hard to prove the tribes' apostasy. When Abu Bakr decided to fight these tribes, some of his men, including 'Umar, objected to his decision. Later on, 'Umar said he opposed Abu Bakr's decision in the beginning but after some time, he learne that caliph was right.

The question was whether or not these tribes were apostate and if fighting them was permissible or not? Abu Bakr believed in their apostasy, so he even took their women and children captive and brought them to Medina.(2) It seems that 'Umar, like many Muslims, agreed with fighting them in principle but did not believe in their apostasy. According to Shahristani,

p: 27

1- al-Futuh,vol. I,p. 71-72
2- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq,vol. x, p. 176; Abu Bakr once ordered his men to set atheists on fire and fall them down the mountain Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-qur’an, vol. III, pp 67 and 81

it was because of this belief that 'Umar freed their captives(1) when he became the second caliph.

Another problem was that even if the tribes were apostate, many considered it illegitimate to take captives from apostates.(2)

There are numerous documents at hand indicating that some tribes were considered apostate because they refused to pay tax alms. For instance, a group of Yamama people believed in the principle of paying tax alms but refused to pay tax alms to Abu Bakr.

They used to say, “We collect tax alms from the rich in our tribes and distribute it among the poor and needy among ourselves, but we will pay nothing to whom the Book and traditions have not recommended him.”(3) Ya'qubi, too, writes, “Some people only refused to pay tax alms to Abu Bakr.”(4)

As mentioned earlier, 'Umar opposed the idea of apostasy of these tribes. According to Ibn A'tham, when Abu Bakr wanted to kill the captives of the battles of Radda,(5) 'Umar said, “These people believe in Islam and they swear about it. Imprison them for the time being to see what happens next.”

Abu Bakr jailed them in the house of Ramla, daughter of Harith. After Abu Bakr's death, 'Umar told them, “You know what my opinion was about you. Now, you are all free without any ransom. Go wherever you want.”(6)

Qays on behalf of 'Asim Minqari was commissioned by the Prophet (S) to collect tax alms from his tribe. After the Prophet's demise, he collected the tax alms but instead of giving

p: 28

1- al-Milal wal-Nihal, vol. I, p. 31; Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm, vol. II, p. 129
2- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. III, p. 151
3- al-Ifsah, p. 121
4- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 128
5- Maqdisi says, “Abu Bakr sent Khalid to sword-kill people of Ridda, set fire to them, hold their children and women captive and share their properties Al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. v, p. 157
6- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 75; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, PP 101-102

it to Abu Bakr, he distributed them among the poor in his tribe. This was considered as a criminal act. Even a proverb was made in this regard which said “More criminal than Qays be 'Asim.”(1)

Ibn Kathir, too, has reiterated that many Muslims refused to pay their tax alms to Abu Bakr.(2) Mawbakhti writes of a group that said they would not pay tax alms until it was known who was holding the government; therefore, they distributed the tax alms among the poor.(3)

Maqdisi, too, says, “A group of them refused to pay tax alms while others opposed rejected the principle of tax alms.”(4)

Besides not recognizing Abu Bakr's rule, another problem of the tribes was that after hearing the news of the Prophet's passing, they severed their relations with Medina. They only believed in having a religious connection with Medina, and when the Prophet of Islam passed away, they felt no need for accepting the rule of someone else. Therefore, since they refused to pay tax alms to Medina, they were labeled apostate.(5)

These tribes believed there was no need to assign a single ruler for all Muslims and that if they obeyed Muhammad, it was because he was a prophet. But, after his demise, there would be no need to obey others. They said:

أطعن_ا رسول الله ما كان بيننا في___ا لعباد الله ما لأبي بكر

إذا مات بكر قام بكر مكان_ه وتلكم لعمر الله قاصمة الظهر

We obeyed the Messenger when he was alive but why shall we obey Abu Bakr?

When Abu

p: 29

1- ad-Durra al-fakhira, p. 324; Majma‘ al-Amthal, vol. II, p. 65
2- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VI, p. 311
3- Firaq Ash-Shi‘a, p. 4
4- al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 151
5- Tarikh al-’Arab wal-Islam, p. 71 Hasan Ibrahim Hasan says, “The atheists were those who refused to pay Zakat, tax alms, thinking that the Messenger (S) blackmails them It is to be noted that they never challenged and loathed Islam… they agreed on monotheism, foundation of Islam but they thought they had to pay tax alms only to the Prophet (S) ” Tarikh Siyasi Islam, vol. I, p. 216 ‘Aqqad also says, “A group of others believed in mere tax alms but they never took faith in those who had to pay tax alms ” ‘Abqariyya As-Siddiq, pp 124-125

Bakr died, a man like him came to power, that is - by God - backbreaking. (1)

Thus, they did not deem it necessary to obey the rule of Medina and the rulers of Medina counted them among apostates.(2)

Muhammad Ibn Idris Shafi'i writes, “This was because Arabs living in the outskirts of Mecca knew no rule and resented being ruled by others. The reason they accepted to obey the Messenger of God, was because they did not consider anyone else deserving obedience.”(3)

This reasoning has been brought in the poetry of Malik Ibn Nuwayra. Addressing his tribe, he said:

وقلت خذوا أموالكم غير خائف ولا ناظ_ر فيما يجئ من الغد

ف_إن قام بالأمر المخوّف قائم منعنا وقلنا: الدين دين محمد

“I told you to take your money (tax alms) with no fear and no worries of what happens tomorrow, If someone assumes power, we will tell him, the only religion is the religion of Muhammad.” (4)

Abu Bakr's insistence on collecting tax alms from all tribes was to strengthen his government in Medina.

He said, “If they do not pay me the tax alms they used to pay to the Prophet (S) every year, I will fight them.”(5)

There is no doubt that the majority of the Prophet's companions did not like Abu Bakr's idea of war(6) but they obeyed him regardless because he was the ruler.

Maqdisi said the first dispute among Muslims was leadership while the second was fighting those who refused to pay tax alms. Muslims opposed Abu Bakr's view of tax alms collection but after

p: 30

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. II, p. 246; Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 14; Kitab ar-Ridda, pp 171-172; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. III, p. 409; al-Aghani, vol. II, p. 157; al-Jamal, p. 181; Ash-Shi‘r wal-Shu‘ara’, p. 65; al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 156; Tatawwur al-fikr As-Siyasi ‘Ind ahl As-Sunna, p. 38, footnote II; Muqaddama fi Tarikh Sadr al-Islam, p. 51
2- Tarikh al-’Arab wal-Islam, p. 71; Tatawwur al-fikr As-Siyasi ‘Ind ahl As-Sunna, p. 38 Nashi’ Akbar says, “Some believed they were not atheist but they refused to pay poll tax, saying that the poor are superior to that, They would pay that to the agents of the Prophet (S) just for the sake of the Prophet and now that he has passed away, people would give it to any poor one they wished Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 14
3- al-Risala, p. 80
4- Tabaqat fuhul Ash-Shu‘ara’, vol. I,p. 206; Tabaqat fuhul Ash-Shu‘ara’, 1400 H; word of religion in the subject poem means government as footnoted by the proofreader
5- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 35
6- Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm, vol. II, pp 104 and 125

a while, the majority of them accepted his rule. The opposition remained and some Muslims believed fighting them was a mistake.(1)

We quoted 'Umar as saying that 'Ali (a) might avoid fighting the Kinda people. Elsewhere, we said Abu Bakr was ready to fight them himself, but Imam 'Ali (a) asked him to stay in Medina(2) and send another one to fight them. Obviously, a group of those the caliph fought against were real apostates.

Another quotation from Mada'ini says after Imam 'Ali (a) opposed Abu Bakr, 'Uthman told Imam Ali, “Nobody will join the Muslim army to fight the apostates if you do not swear allegiance to Abu Bakr.” 'Uthman's insistence made Imam 'Ali swear allegiance to Abu Bakr.(3)

On the other hand, there were some people in Medina who wished for the success of apostates to once again maintain their infidel beliefs of the Dark Age. One day, a man of the Umayya and another man from the Ansar were boasting for each other.

The former said, “When the Prophet of Islam passed away, the majority of his companions were from the Umayya.”

The Ansari man replied, “Yes.” و لكنهم حالفوا أهل الردة على هدم الاسلام (4) “They allied with the atheists to destroy Islam.”

'Ayisha, too, has said about wide-scale discord in Medina in the first days of his father's caliphate.(5) Also, Mecca was about to return to absolute apostasy after the Prophet's demise, but Suhayl Ibn 'Amr's remarks stabilized Mecca's situation.

Ibn Athir writes, “After the Prophet's passing, Mecca was on the

p: 31

1- al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 123
2- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazana, p. 94
3- Talkhis Ash-Shafi, vol. III,p. 77
4- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. I, pp 708-709 They allied with the atheists to destroy Islam.
5- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 102; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. VII, p. 434.

verge of apostasy and 'Attab Ibn Asid sought a hiding.”

Suhayl Ibn 'Amr stood up and addressed the people of Mecca, لاتكونوا آخر من اسلم وأول من ارتد “ Do not be the last one to embrace Islam and the first one to become an apostate.” (1)

At any rate, we must not ignore the fact that Medina's resistance against apostasy helped the administration in the city to be stronger and bring other lands under its control after passing through this tortuous period. Khalifa Ibn Khayyat has listed the apostates as follows,

Tulayha Ibn Khuwaylad, Banu Salim, Banu Tamim, Banu Yamama, Banu Bahrayn, Banu Umman, Banu Najir, Haďramawt and Banu Yemen, Banu Radda.(2)

Abu Bakr’s Agents

It is known to all that 'Umar was Abu Bakr's closest companion and friend. The Prophet of Islam had spelled their brotherhood union along with the Muhajirun.(3)107

Although Abu Bakr was a major architect of the issue of caliphate and showed he was better than 'Umar in his battles against apostates, accepted 'Umar's views in many cases due to 'Umar's seriousness and toughness. These two were complementary to each other. We wrote that during the Saqifa developments, too, they were always together. It was due to this insistence that during the Saqifa issue, Imam 'Ali (a) accused 'Umar of trying to secure his own future.(4)

Abu Bakr said of 'Umar, “He is the dearest of people to me.”(5)

Ibn Abi al-Hadid says, “Abu Bakr could not gain (the) caliphate if 'Umar had not helped him.”(6)

It is said that Abu Bakr appointed 'Umar

p: 32

1- Usd al-Ghaba, vol. II, pp 371-372.
2- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, pp.102-117.
3- Sahmi, Tarikh Jurjan, p. 96.
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 567; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VI, p. 11; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 11; Anas Ibn Malik says, “On Saqifa, I saw ‘Umar forcing Abu Bakr to go on pulpit al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 438
5- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 17; Gharib al-Hadith, vol. III, p. 222; al-adab al-Mufrad, p. 29
6- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 174

as a judge.(1) Also, he used to lead congregational prayers when Abu Bakr was absent.(2)

It was in the 11th Hijra year that Abu Bakr appointed him “emir of the pilgrims to Mecca”.(3) Khalifa Ibn Khayyat, listing Abu Bakr's emirs, writes,

وعلى أمره كله والقضاء عمر بن الخطاب “

Every affair including judiciary one of 'Umar Ibn Khattab.” (4)114

'Umar's influence on Abu Bakr was so immense that he dissuaded the caliph from appointing Khalid Ibn Sa'id as the commander of the Muslim army dispatched to Damascus and instead, sent Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan. After returning to Medina and seeing Abu Bakr's choice, Khalid Ibn Sa'id refused to swear allegiance to the caliph for some time.(5)

'Umar, himself, was aware of his power so he made use of his rank and divided the properties of Mu'adh Ibn Jabal into two halves and took one half for Bayt al-Mal, the Treasury of Muslims.(6) He did the same thing later to the governors of cities when he assumed caliphate. Abu Bakr could not do anything in the absence of 'Umar, so when he wanted to send Usama's army to Damascus, he asked Usama, the commander of the army, to let 'Umar stay with the caliph and help him in the administration of affairs.(7)

Also, once when Khalid had made a mistake and Abu Bakr would not agree to write a letter of protest to him, 'Umar wrote a letter himself, but Khalid paid to attention to it and said he knew 'Umar had done

p: 33

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 665; Ibn Juzi, Manaqib ‘Umar, p. 48; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, ol II, p. 420; al-Tanbih wal-Ishraf, p. 249
2- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 186; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. II, p. 425
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 187
4- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 123
5- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 454; Hayat As-Sahaba, ol II, p. 20
6- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, pp 585-588
7- Ibid vol. I, pp 29-30; Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. I, p. 48


At any rate, 'Umar's influence and the strong link between the two, made Abu Bakr appoint him as his successor. In other words, people did not consider their caliphate two separate things and from the very beginning, they saw one of them as successor to the other one.(2)

For the same reason, when Abu Bakr was in coma and wanted to write an agreement about his successor, his scribe, 'Uthman, wrote 'Umar's name in the agreement because he knew whom the caliph was thinking of.

Khalid Ibn Walid was another functionary of Abu Bakr. He belonged to the tribe of Banu Makhzum, a family of the Quraysh, who converted to Islam on Safar 1st, 8th AH.(3) He was physically a powerful man but void of ethical values. He committed various faults when the Prophet (S) was alive.

Some documents state it was the Prophet (S) who named him “God's sword” but Ibn Durayd and others say Abu Bakr gave him the title.(4) He got the title when he killed Malik Ibn Nuwayra unfairly and when people like 'Umar asked Abu Bakr to punish him. But the caliph said he was a sword hoisted by God and he would never bring it down.(5) According to Ibn A'tham, Khalid named himself “Sayf Allah or God's sword” and Abu Bakr approved it.(6)

It is said that Khalid was a supporter of Abu Bakr and an opponent of Imam 'Ali (a).(7) He also accompanied the group who invaded Imam 'Ali's house to force him into swearing

p: 34

1- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 44; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, ol I, p. 179
2- Maqdisi says, “People raised no doubt that ‘Umar would become Abu Bakr’s caliph al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 167
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, p. 394
4- al-Ishtiqaq, p. 149; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. XVI, pp 158-159
5- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 23; al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 212; al-Iďah, pp 72-73; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 179
6- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 149
7- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. III, p. 22

allegiance with Abu Bakr.(1) He is widely believed to be a person who prepared the ground for Abu Bakr's caliphate.(2)

The story of Malik Ibn Nuwayra's murder, and the subsequent rape of his wife which Ibn A'tham said he did upon the consensus of people of knowledge displays the weak moral character of Khalid. However, Abu Bakr insisted on keeping him the commander of his army and sending him to crack down on apostates and false prophets.

Abu Bakr defended Khalid with the justification that Khalid had acted on Ijtihad and so he did not deserve punishment. One day Khalid burnt some of the captives of apostates with fire. When 'Umar objected, Abu Bakr said he was God's sword.(3)

'Umar's objection was why he had appointed a commander who killed people and tortured them with fire.(4) Apparently, despite all his attention to 'Umar, the caliph was unwilling to stop backing Khalid, and still, it is interesting to know that when 'Umar, himself, took power as the second caliph, unlike his earlier emphasis on stoning Khalid for raping Malik Ibn Nuwayra's wife, he sufficed to sacking him.(5)

Khalid was sure his acts would meet no objection on the part of Abu Bakr and if he received a letter of punishment from the caliph, it was from 'Umar; otherwise, Abu Bakr trusted him.(6) Sometimes, he committed self-authorized acts because he was sure of Abu Bakr's support.(7)

Abu Bakr once said, “No mother can give birth to someone like Khalid.”(8) Once when he killed two

p: 35

1- Ibid vol. VI, p. 48-49
2- Ibid vol. XVIII, p. 306-307
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, p. 369
4- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 107
5- According to Tadhkirat al-Khawas (p. 160), ‘Umar separated Malik from his wife after her pregnancy with Khalid and her delivery.
6- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 44
7- Ibn Hajar quotes Zubayr Ibn Bakkar saying when Khalid took one fifth of booties, he never submitted any account to Abu Bakr He always did things, including attempted murder of Malik without informing Abu Bakr Al-Isaba, vol. I, p. 414-415
8- al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. II, p. 389

people who had letters of clemency from Abu Bakr, some people complained about it, but Abu Bakr defended Khalid as usual.(1) When 'Umar sat on the throne as the second caliphate, he immediately fired Khalid from the command of Damascus's army and replaced him with Abu 'Ubayda Jarrah.

He said, “I sacked Khalid to show that God helps His religion.”(2)

When Khalid was busy fighting in Iraq and received his letter of abdication to Damascus, he said, ”'Umar's jealousy did not allow me to achieve the conquest of Iraq.”(3)

According to Anas Ibn Malik, 'Umar used to tell Abu Bakr, “Write to Khalid to ask for your permission before doing anything.”

Abu Bakr wrote but Khalid responded, “You must leave me free in whatever I do; otherwise, I will resign.”

'Umar said, “Dismiss him”, but the caliph did not accept.(4) Khalid died in Medina or Damascus(5)) in the 21st AH and accidentally, he appointed 'Umar as guardian of his will. Ibn Sa'd quoted 'Umar as saying, “We had ill thoughts about Khalid, but we were wrong.”(6)

'Umar opposed crying over the dead and said he had heard from the Prophet (S) that, إن الميت ليعذب ببكاء اهله “ The dead person suffers when his family cries for him.”

However, he allowed the women of Banu Makhzum to cry for Khalid.(7) More surprising, 'Umar said at the time of his death, “If Khalid Ibn Walid were alive, I would appoint him as my successor.”(8)

Abu 'Ubayda Jarrah was another pillar of power for Abu Bakr's caliphate. He, along

p: 36

1- Ibid vol. II, p. 398
2- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 122
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. II, p. 397
4- al-Isaba, vol. I, p. 415
5- Ibid Ibn Hajar says they believe he has died in Damascus (Hims).
6- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, p. 397-398; al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, p. 115
7- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, p. 116
8- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 887; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 42

with 'Umar and Abu Bakr were present in Saqifa Banu Sa'ida. He had an oath of brotherhood with Salim Mawla Hudhayfa (1) who was also influential in the issue of caliphate.

'Umar said about him, “If Salim were alive, I would make him my successor.”(2)

It should be noted that 'Umar said the same thing about Abu 'Ubayda at the time of his death.(3) Abu 'Ubayda was first appointed in charge of the Treasury of Muslims but later, became the commander of the Damascus army and served until his death in 18th Hijra year when he died in Amawas plague.

The commanders and functionaries of Abu Bakr were Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan, 'Amr Ibn 'As, Shurahbil Ibn Hasana (18 H)(4) and 'Akrama Ibn Abi Jahl. Among his appointees, there were some people serving since the Prophet's time. Mu'adh Ibn Jabal in Yemen, 'Attab Ibn Asid in Mecca and 'Ala' Ibn Haďrami in Bahrayn were some of these people.

According to some documents, Abu Bakr appointed Anas as the ruler of Bahrayn. Perhaps, it was another part of Bahrayn. Muhajir Ibn Abi Umayya ruled in San'a, Ziyad Ibn Lubayd in the coastal regions of Yemen, Ya'la Ibn Umayya in Khawlan, 'Uthman Ibn Abi l-'As in Ta'if, and Sulayt Ibn Qays ruled in Yamama. Also, it is said that 'Uthman was Abu Bakr's scribe.(5)

It is evident that the list does not include important figures of the Prophet's companions, especially from the Ansar. Apparently, this can be suitable evidence on the caliphate's neglect of the

p: 37

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 410
2- Ibid vol III, p. 343; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 86
3- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 16; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 42; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 412 and 343; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 227
4- al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 454; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. II, p. 394
5- Tarikh Khalifat, Ibn Khayyat, p.. 123.


Conquest of Damascus

The greater Syria was a land bounded by the Mediterranean Sea, the Western banks of the Euphrates, the northern border of Hijaz, the southern border of the ancient Eastern Rome and modern-day Turkey. Presently, this land includes the countries of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. The new border demarcation was made during the developments following World War I.

The name of Syria has always existed since ancient times and Herodot (425 AD) has called this land Syria. Probably, the name Syria has been taken from the word ”'Ashuriyya” attributed to Assyrians, although some have rejected this notion.(1)

Before falling to Muslims, the region of greater Syria was a colony of the Eastern Roman Empire. Centuries before the advent of Islam, big tribes of Arabs migrated from Hijaz - mostly from south- to this land. The most important tribes recorded in the early advent of Islam, were, Quďa'a, Salih, Ghasasina, Judham, Lakhm, Kalb, Tanukh, and Bahra'. These tribes were sparse and scattered in the developed land of ancient Syria and each settled in a city or village.

These tribes forgot their Arab rites and rituals due to the many years of life with the Romans and the vast majority of them converted to Christianity.

However, they had retained parts of their Arab nature. The first sign of their conversion to Christianity was mixing their Arab language with Syriac, and basically, Syriac had become their scientific language. Therefore, it was recommended later that Arabic should not be taught from Qaďa'a and Ghassan because they read

p: 38

1- Tarikh Suriya and Lubnan and Filistin, pp 62-63

books in Syriac and naturally, their language had become mixed.(1)

Shaykhu insists in showing that all Arabs living in the greater Syria had converted to Christianity before the advent of Islam. We believe this is an overstatement. Earlier, we negated his views on the Christianity of the tribes of Aws and Khazraj. At any rate - true of false - he has provided a list of Arab tribes who converted to Christianity.(2)

Years before the advent of Islam, the Arabs of this land were allies of Romans in their battle against Iranians and fought the Iranian army and its allied Arabs from Iraq. In those years, the Roman army consisted of Arabs and Romans.

Damascus Arabs held different views from Arabs living on Hijaz and they had different social behavior as well. The Arabs of Damascus had left their Bedouin life because they lived in a developed area and had become city dwellers in Damascus, Halab (Aleppo), Hims, etc. Their commonalities with the Romans made some of them migrate to Rome after the advent of Islam.(3)

Of course, Romans always feared that racial commonality would urge the Arab tribes of Damascus to accept Islam. A more serious problem was difference in religion between the Christians of Damascus and the church of Constantinople in a way that they were greatly persecuted by the Eastern Church.

The Christians of Damascus believed in the Ya'qubi sect(4) and it was a heretical practice in view of the Eastern Church.

They believed that Damascus Christianity was excellent in

p: 39

1- Suyuti, al-Muzhir, quoted from, al-Nasraniyya wa Adabuha, p. 31
2- al-Nasraniyya wa Adabuha, pp 124-141
3- Futuh al-Buldan, pp 128 and 137
4- Ya‘qubi’s creed is ascribed to Ya‘qub Barda‘i (b. 578 AD) his followers are called monophysicist. The said creed is about the Christ believing in one divine nature rather than two divine human natures. Ya‘qubi expanded the sect throughout Syria, so named after the sect It spread through Syria in the north to Armenia and to Egypt in the south and that is why the Armenians and Egyptians still keep this belief Parallel to this, in Mesopotamia, there emerged Nestorian sect adopting two natures in Messiah though finding them not unified. The founder is Nestorius and it emerged several decades before Ya‘qubi’s creed Tarikh Suriya and Lubnan and Flistin, pp 412-413; Will Durant’s Tarikh Tamaddun, vol. IV (Age of Faith, part I) pp 63-64

innovation!(1) The religious difference of Damascus's Arab Christians with the Eastern Roman Church, to many, was one of the reasons for the consecutive Islamic conquests in the greater Syria.(2)

In addition to the Arab residents of the greater Syria, numerous Nibtiyan, too, who were descendants of the earlier tribes and rulers in the region, lived in that land. Also, many Jews who are said to be between 100 to 200 thousands lived in that land.(3)

We mentioned earlier that at the time of the advent of Islam, the greater Syria was under the domination of the Eastern Roman empire. However, since centuries ago, local rulers had the power in that land. The Nibtiyan government ruled first, followed by the Tadmur government and finally, the government of Ghassanid who were from the tribe of Ghasasina. These came from Yemen apparently after the destruction of the Ma'rab Dam.

This tribe converted to Christianity in the 4th century AD. Jafna Ibn 'Amr, from the elders of the tribe, was the founder of the Ghassani dynasty and there are ambiguous quotations that between 11 to 32 rulers of this dynasty ruled in Damascus. There is little we know about a limited number of these more recent rulers. Harith Ibn Jabala was one of their renowned personalities who ruled between the years 529-569.

He fought the Lakhmids -the Arab rivals of the Ghasasina who ruled Iraq - and helped his tribe rise to fame. He won the title of “Philark” meaning chieftain and also Bitriq (Patrick) from the

p: 40

1- al-Nasraniyya wa Adabuha, p. 38
2- concerning different views in this respect, Ash-Sham fi Sadr al-Islam, pp 63-64; Tarikh Tamaddun, vol. IV, p. 64
3- Ash-Sham fi Sadr al-Islam, p. 62

Roman emperor for his services. The Ya'qubiyya sect spread in Damascus in his time. After Harith, his son, Mundhir, replaced him and ruled until 581, when crisis engulfed Damascus.(1)

Between the years 611 and 614, Iranians fiercely invaded these regions and captured Jerusalem. Later, (Hiraql) Heraclitus could regain Jerusalem from Iranians. The names of Ghassani princes ruling some cities and their command of the battle between the Roman-Arab army and the army of Islam indicates that the Ghasasinah still had great influence in Damascus and Constantinople.

Jabala Ibn 'Ayham Ghassani, a commander of the Roman army at Yarmuk, was one of these influential princes who converted to Islam but became an apostate and went to the Roman emperor for certain reasons mentioned elsewhere.

Heraclitus was the son of Herakleios, whose father ruled in Christian Africa on behalf of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Empire Roman Empire experienced serious crises in the closing years of the sixth century AD and the early years of the 7th century.

The attacks of Awars and Islaws from the West caused problems for this vast land, but most pressing were the civil wars. A sergeant named Fukas united people and revolted against the government of the aristocrats and killed Emperor Mavrikius and all his children. This civil unrest prompted Khusraw Parviz to invade the greater Syria and capture Jerusalem in 614. He continued his assaults on Asia Minor.

The aristocrats of Constantinople sought help from Heraclitos, the ruler of Africa. He sent his son, who was also

p: 41

1- Tarikh Suriya and Lubnan and Filistin, pp 447-450

named Heraclitos, to Rome. The son who was a brave man, succeeded in defeating Fukas and put on the crown of emperor. The capture of Jerusalem was a good pretext for inciting Christians to fight Iranians. After restoring calm, Heraclitos set off to fight Iranians in the year 622 and after six years of sustaining consecutive defeats, he finally managed to pursue Iranians as far as the gate of Ctesiphon and made them accept peace.(1) These incidents took place in the 7th and 8th years of Hijra.

When Heraclitos was busy reorganizing his affairs, Muslims made their first attacks on Damascus and captured the city after a while. The last days of the empire coincided with the conquest of Egypt in 640 AD.(2)

The greater Syria was the first priority for Muslims because they had managed to make the Quraysh sign the Hudaybiyya peace accord after years and get ready for spreading Islam outside Hijaz.

The Prophet of Islam sent a few messengers to these regions. Harith Ibn 'Umayr was one of these messengers who took a letter to the ruler of Basra. He was killed by Shurahbil Ibn 'Amr of the Ghassani dynasty. Then, the Prophet of Islam sent his 3,000-strong army under the command of Ja’far Ibn Abi Talib, Zayd Ibn Haritha and 'Abd Allah Ibn-Rawaha to Muta in southern Damascus.

The army prepared to fight Muslims in Damascus- according to Ibn Ishaq - was a combination of the Roman army and the Arab tribes of Lakhm, Judham, Balqi, Buhra’, and

p: 42

1- The beginning Verses of Sura ar-Rum referring to defeat of Romans and promising their imminent victory are concerned with the same events
2- About life of Heraclitos and the events in his time, Tarikh Tamaddun, vol. IV (Age of Faith, part I) pp 543-545

Bali.(1) Muslims were unsuccessful and after the martyrdom of their commanders and a number of others, they could only return to Medina. The Tabuk operations were the Prophet's next measure.

This operation, likewise, entailed nothing for Muslims except several accords with some Arab tribes. The Prophet mobilized another army in the final days of his life under Usama Ibn Zayd but it was sent to Damascus after his death and returned home empty-handed. All these army deployments show the importance of Damascus in view of the Prophet.

Damascus was close to Medina and Muslims were quite familiar with its importance. It came out in the following years that Damascus was more important than Iraq to the succeeding caliphs.

With the end of the Radda operations, Abu Bakr wrote letters to the people of Mecca, Ta'if, Yemen and all Arabs in Hijaz and Najd and summoned them for Jihad or holy war.

In his letters, he promised the booties in Rome. Numerous people rushed to Medina from tribes across Hijaz.(2) A strong army of Muslims left for Damascus in the 12th AH (633 AD). Abu Bakr divided the army of Islam into three armies with three commanders. The first army commanded by 'Amr Ibn 'As, was to leave for 'Ayla in the Gulf of 'Uqba. The second army's commander was Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan and the third commander was Shurahbil Ibn Hasana.

These two commanders were sent to a region between Tabuk and Mu'an. Khalid Ibn Sa'id was supposed to command one of

p: 43

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. I, p. 37
2- Futuh al-Buldan,p. 115

these armies, but due to his objection to Abu Bakr's caliphate, upon 'Umar's emphasis, they replaced him with Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan.(1) A short while later, Abu 'Ubayda Jarrah joined them with his auxiliary men and he commanded all forces when they all operated in the same region. Some people believe he commanded an army from the beginning.

The first clashes of Muslims with Romans occurred in a region called “Wadi al-’Araba”, south of the Dead Sea. Palestinian governor, Sergius, was the commander of the Roman army. He was killed in this war and his army was defeated. The Muslims advanced along the Mediterranean coasts(2) and each of the armies fought in a region and joined others wherever necessary.(3) In the beginning, the Muslim armies had 3000 men each, but Abu Bakr sent fresh forces and the number of Muslim fighters in each army rose to 7500.

Shortly after, the total number of the army of Islam increased to 24000 men.(4)

After the 'Araba battle, the second encounter was made in a village of district of Ghazza called Dathin. This battle which took place in the month of Muharram of the 13th year of Hijra,(5) ended in Muslims' victory.

Baladhuri has written about the war of Dathin first and then, about the 'Araba battle, but he has mentioned a narration saying the battle of Dathin happened in the beginning. According to historians, the Muslim army did not face any obstacles which required them to use their weapons on their way from Hijaz to Wadi

p: 44

1- Ibid p. 116
2- Tarikh Suriya and Lubnan and Flistin, vol. II, p. 6
3- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 123
4- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 116
5- Atlas Tarikh Islam, p. 126

'Araba. These sweeping victories frightened Heraclitos and made him recruit forces. The news of the Roman army's recruitment reached Medina and the caliph ordered stopping the operations temporarily on the Iraqi border.

He sent Khalid Ibn Walid and his army to Damascus. The Muslims captured Basra and Ma'ab after Dathin in Rabi' al-Awwal of the 13th Hijra year. Then, they moved towards Damascus. Hearing the news of the enemy's concentration in Ujnadayn, Muslims moved towards that place first. This bloody battle ended in the victory of Muslims in the Jumadi al-Awwal or Jumadi al-Thani of the 13th Hijra year although many Muslims, too, were martyred.(1)

It was after this defeat of the Romans that Heraclitos who was in Hims, left for Antioch. While Muslims were on their way to Damascus, the enemy regrouped and encountered the army of Islam in Marj as-Safar. This war took place in the month of Muharram of the 14th Hijra year and once again, Muslims defeated the enemy. After that, Damascus was totally besieged by the army of Islam.

It is said that while Abu 'Ubayda had managed to open his way into the city, the archbishop of the city signed a peace accord with Khalid Ibn Walid on the other hand and Abu 'Ubayda, too, had to accept it despite Muslims' objection.

The conquest of Damascus forced many residents of the city who were mostly Roman or Arabs affiliated to them, into leaving for Antioch and joining Heraclitos. After their departure, Muslims settled in their

p: 45

1- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 121

unsettled houses.(1) Damascus fell to Muslims in Rajab of 14th Hijra year, but Abu Bakr had died in Jumadi al-Thani of the 13th Hijra year after two years and three months and a few days of caliphate.

Conquest of Iraq

Iraq is an ancient land with an ancient civilization, known to the world as the Mesopotamian civilization. It is located in the north of Hijaz, East of the greater Syria and West of Iran (behind the Jibal region). Centuries before the advent of Islam, Arab tribes residing on Hijaz immigrated northwards to Syria and Iraq to escape the ever-increasing population.(2)

Their massive immigration and their many young forces gave them dominance over the native people of the regions and gradually, created an Arab environment. The Nibtiyan of Iraq and Syria were the descendants of the ancient settlers of this land.(3)

Iraq is known as “Sawad” for its fertile lands. Sawad means abundant farming.(4) During the advent of Islam, the Arab settlers of Damascus were said to be from the tribes of Tanukh, 'Ibadiyyin and Ahlaf (different allied tribes). The Euphrates river was the border between Arabs of Damascus and Iraq. The Iraqi Arabs were called “Fars Arab” and Arabs of Damascus were called “Roman Arab”.(5)

The immigrant Bedouin Arabs began to dwell in cities due to the vastness of fertile lands in Iraq and many of them converted to Christianity under the pressure imposed from the West. The 'Ibadiyyin, the majority of whom lived in Hira, were Christians at large.(6)

They believed in Nestorian Christianity and

p: 46

1- Futuh al-Buldan, pp 128-129
2- There is a disagreement on departure time of these tribes al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-’Arab qabl al-Islam, vol. III, p. 162
3- al-Mufassal, vol. III, pp 172-173
4- al-Tariq ’Ila al-Mada’in, p. 132
5- al-Mufassal, vol. III, p. 165
6- Ibid vol. III, pp 169-171

they were, indeed, a cultural tribe taught reading and writing to Arabs of Hijaz during the Dark Age.(1)171

Hira was the chief city of Iraq that time. It is said that the word “Hira” had been taken from Harta, Hirta and Hirtu in Syriac, meaning military camp. According to Arab literature in the Dark Age, this city was highly important in Iraq and was the seat of Lakhmids kings. After the advent of Islam and the establishment of the city of Kufa in the vicinity of Hira, the city turned to ruin and its building materials were used for constructing Kufa.(2)

Hira was one league (six kms) away from Kufa and before Islam it was a center for interaction of various cultures such as the Persian Sassanids culture, the culture of Byzantium, Nestorian Christianity and local idolatry.(3) Remnants of this city still remain today.(4)

The pre-Islamic history of Iraq is part of the history of Iran from the political aspect. That is why two historians, i.e. Tabari and Dinwari, have mixed the history of this period of Iraq with the story of developments in Iran. The reason for this is the meaning of 'Arab Fars or Persian Arab, similar to the situation of Damascus whose history was mixed with the history of the Roman Empire.

The Al Lakhm dynasty, known also as Al Nasr, Al Nu'man(5) and Dawlat al- Manadhara, had a situation like that of the Ghassanids or Al Jafna. Accidentally, both had similar fates, i.e. losing power in the early

p: 47

1- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. III, p. 712
2- al-Mufassal, vol. III, p. 159
3- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. III, p. 710
4- About that, Usul Asma’ al-Mudun wal-mawaqi‘ al-’Araqiyya, vol. I, pp 100-101
5- it seems the reason is that there are several people named “Nu‘man” among kings of this dynasty as well as several people named ” Mundhir ”

years of Islam. Iran and Rome jointly imposed pressure on them. Information existing about the Al Lakhm dynasty is ambiguous in history books and Jawad 'Ali has tried to organize these pieces of information.(1) The first Lakhmi ruler was Judhayma al-Abrash also known as Shah Tanukh in some inscriptions.

Other famous kings of this dynasty were Imra' al-Qays (d. 328 AD) overstated as the “king of all Arab world”.(2) Lakhmi kings were mostly idolaters but due to being influenced by the Zoroastrian culture from the East and the Christian culture from the West, every now and then, they tended towards either direction. What is certain is that Nu'man III of this dynasty who reigned until 602, was a Christian.

We wrote that Nestorian Christianity was predominant in Iraq and Western Iran. The Sassanids kings supported this sect because the government of Byzantium was fighting it and it was politically in favor of Iran to defend this sect of Christianity.(3)

During this period, the political fate of Iran and Iraq were intertwined because the Iraqi government had practically been installed by Iran and it could not resist the Al Ghassan or powerful Arab rivals from northern Saudi Arabia (like Kinda who claimed to rule the entire region and managed to wrest control of Hira from Lakhm for three years.(4)) Iran, on the other hand, had to defend Iraq against its enemies because Iraq was a barrier on the way of the invasion of Bedouin Arabs and the Byzantium government and its puppet government

p: 48

1- al-Mufassal, vol. III, from p. 177 on
2- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol.III, p.712
3- al-Nasraniyya wa Adabuha bayn ‘Arab al-jahiliyya, p. 87
4- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. III, p. 715

in Damascus.

This necessity made the Iranian government deploy soldiers to Hira and its surrounding regions to guard Iranian borders there. Iran had contacts with Arabs not only in Iraq but it was also their neighbor on the eastern Saudi borders in the southern shores of the Persian Gulf. Some historians have reported of Iran's influence in Yathrib(1) one or two centuries before the advent of Islam. Sometimes, Iran had to give control of a region like Ubulla to a powerful tribe such as Banu Shayban to defend the invasion of Bakr Ibn Wa'il.

Due to its many interests in Saudi Arabia, Iran once accepted to interfere in Yemen, the southernmost point of Hijaz. In the early sixth century AD, Jews gained some power in Yemen and persecuted Christians. This made the Negus of Abyssinia, Yusti Niyanus, invade Yemen in the year 525 AD. He suppressed the Jews and established a Christian rule there.

Abraha, the commander of the operations and his son, Masruq, ruled for fifty years in Abyssinia until Sayf Ibn Dhi Yazan put an end to their rule over Yemen with an 8000-soldier Iranian army. Many of the Iranian remained in Yemen(2) and formed the Abna' or Persian generation of Yemen.

Their number grew to the extent that they joined the army of Islam in the conquest of Egypt. They had a district and a mosque in the name of Persians in Fastat that still existed until the third century.(3) When the Messenger of Allah invited the heads

p: 49

1- Tarikh Iran vol. III, p. 713-714
2- Tarikh Iran, vol. III, p. 720
3- Futuh misr wa akhbaruha, p. 129

of states to convert to Islam, famed Bazan ruled Yemen. He had been installed by the Sassanids in Iran.

At any rate, Iran had important interests in Arab lands, especially in Iraq located on the border between Iran and Rome. Iran's interference in these regions was to the degree that in the year 602, Khusraw Parviz ordered Nu'man III, the last king of the Lakhmi dynasty, to step down step down. After him, the Iranian government replaced him with a local Christian named Iyas Ibn Qubaysa to rule Hira and with him, an Iranian border guard was appointed.(1)

During a period of 30 years between the resignation of Al Lakhm and the first attacks of Muslims on Hira, drastic upheavals occurred in the relations of Iran and Byzantium, that required Iran's more direct interference in Iraqi affairs. In the years 611 to 614, Khusraw Parviz launched a lengthy attack against Byzantium and captured a major part of the greater Syria including Quds. For many years, this created problems for the Byzantium government. This defeat is referred to in Qur'an as the “Conquest of Rome”.

After a few years, Heraclitos succeeded in reinforcing his army and during six consecutive years of war, defeated the Iranian government until the year 628, when Khusraw Parviz was killed and Iran had to accept peace. It is clear that Iran's defeat opened the way for the invasion of Iraq by the Byzantium government and the most important of all, by the Bedouin rebels.

In the early

p: 50

1- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. III, p. 720

years of the fourth decade of the seventh century AD, some chieftains of Arab tribes pleaded to the first caliph of Muslims to retake Iraq from Iran. They organized the first attack against Iran in 633 AD or 12th AH.

Muslim Arabs lived in the Western part of Hijaz, but they maintained links with the eastern part of the peninsula as well. Especially, they exchanged visits with Najd and the tribes residing in it. Some time before the Prophet's demise, a large number of these tribes converted to Islam though it was apparently not serious considering that following the Prophet's passing, apostasy spread in the eastern parts of Hijaz, particularly in the land of Najd.

The new government had no option but to quell them; otherwise, the same tribes would soon move towards Medina. Muslim armies were dispatched to those regions in order to suppress the riots. The attack was partially commanded by Khalid Ibn Walid. As he gradually advanced to suppress these tribes, he came to the southern parts of Iraq.

Some of the apostates had fled to Iraq and some of them, like Banu Tamim, lived in that region. The consecutive victories of the Muslim army in those regions made the tribal chieftains of southern Iraq think of using these forces to capture Hira. This was the first attempt for conquests in Iraq and then, in Iran.

One of the influential tribes in southern Iraq was Banu Shayban, a branch of Bakr Ibn Wa'il tribe, Wa'il itself, was a branch

p: 51

of Rabi'a tribe. The region where Bakr Ibn Wa'il resided, started from Iraq and extended as far as Bahrayn in the Persian Gulf.(1)

Banu Shayban was a rival of Al Lakhm and one of those tribes whom Iranian had to give concessions to in the lands under their rule. One of the last Arabian-Iranian battles was Dhi Qar, in which Banu Shayban fought against Iranians and are said to have defeated them. One of this tribe's leaders was Muthanna Ibn Haritha who is considered the main instigator of Muslims in the conquest of Iraq and then, Iran.

According to Dinwari, ever since Puran sat on the throne in Iran, rumors began to spread that there was nothing left of the Iranian glorious kingdom. Hearing about this, two people from Bakr Ibn Wa'il, Muthanna Ibn Haritha and Suwayd Ibn Qutba 'Ijali, attacked the land of Iranians with their men (the first attacked Hira and the second one invaded Ubulla). They would raid farmers and plunder them. Following these events, Muthanna wrote a letter to Abu Bakr and noted Iran's weakness.(2)

Abu Bakr who had heard about his assaults on the Iranians, said, “Who is this man, whose “news” reaches us before his “name”?” He was told the man was not an unknown person. After ending the war against apostates, Muthanna came to Medina and asked Abu Bakr's permission to fight the Iranians. Abu Bakr wrote an agreement for him. A few months later, he dispatched his brother to Medina to ask Abu Bakr

p: 52

1- al-Tariq ’Ila al-Mada’in, p. 202
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 111

to send forces to him and the caliph sent Khalid Ibn Walid to Iraq.(1)

According to Baladhuri, after getting the permission for war from Medina, Muthanna returned to his tribe in Khiffan and invited them to convert to Islam, which they all did. Abu Bakr then sent Khalid to Iraq and asked Muthanna to obey him.(2) Muthanna did his best to expand Islam in Iraq for some years until his death. It has been said that he and his tribe had come to the Prophet (S) and therefore, was considered one of the companions.(3) The Muslim army in these attacks is said to have been numbered at around 18000.(4)

It should be noted here that the Iranians' war in the conquest of Iraq was not against Arabs. What has been reported about the conquests indicates that the Iranian armies were the main side of these clashes, although it has been said that some men from Hijaz and Arab Christians. In the conquest of Ubulla, the commander of the enemy's army was a man named Hurmuz whose part of army was commanded by Qubad and the other part, by Anushjan.(5)

In fact, after the collapse of the Lakhmids, Iranians guarded this land and it was natural that in the Arabic environment of Iraq. Lakhmids could do this better than the Iranians and therefore, it has been said that due to the fall of the Lakhmids, the southern wing of the Sassanids government was left almost without any support.(6)

We must also add that

p: 53

1- al-Isaba, vol. III, p. 361
2- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 242
3- al-Isti‘ab (on the margin of al-Isaba) vol. III, p. 522; al-Isaba, vol. III, p. 362
4- al-Tariq ’Ila al-Mada’in, pp 209-211
5- Ibid pp 215-216
6- Spuler, Tarikh Iran, vol. I, p. 6

there are different versions about these conquests. One of the best-known narrators was Sayf Ibn 'Umar who was notorious for fabricating stories. He tried to portray Khalid as an unnatural human being who even sometimes, did some supernatural tasks! Stories of the conquest of Iraq in the Tarikh Tabari, have been taken from his reports.

It is said that Khalid first captured Ubulla, although Waqidi rejects it.(1) Another source says this city was captured by 'Utba Ibn Ghazwan. Also, we read that the city of 'Ullays was conquered based on a peace accord and then, Muslims moved toward Hira from there. There are contradictory views on whether Hira resisted Arab Muslims or not.(2)

The nobles of Hira have said that Ayas Ibn Qubaysa was among them and they gave up the city peacefully provided that they would not destroy churches and palaces. Hira's tributes were the first sent to Medina.(3) Hira fell in Dhi Qa'da, 12th AH.

Anbar was another major city of Iraq that fell to Muslims. It had been named Anbar (storehouse) because in the past, it used to be a place for Iranians to store their cereals. In fact, many Iranian forces and border patrols served in this region, and the city was naturally, a warehouse for their food. The city was famous until the second AH century and the establishment of Baghdad.

It should be noted that before the conquest of the city by Muslims, the Romans had burnt the city.(4) This indicates that a year before Iraq's

p: 54

1- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. I, p. 431
2- Spuler, Tarikh Iran, vol. I, p. 8
3- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 244
4- Usul Asma’ al-Mudun wal-mawaqi‘ al-’Araqiyya, vol. I, p. 31

conquest, Romans had done serious damage to the region. 'Ayn al-Tamr, in addition to Ubulla and Khurayba, were the places used for the stationing of Iranian border guards. They were either captured by force or peace. One of the captives of this city was Yasar, the ancestor of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, the author of “Sira Nabawi.”(1)

The consecutive victories of Muslims all came within a year. This highlights the lack of any serious resistance and fight on the part of Iranians demonstrate how disorganized the state of Iranian forces was in the region. Perhaps, some may claim that the Iranians did not take these attacks seriously and this may be true to some extent.

However, Iranians were aware of the changes in Hijaz and the battles against apostasy, because they had much influence on Bahrayn and Yamama. It is illogical to accept that they were unaware of these incidents and of the state of Muslims. Secondly, Iranians could not do anything even after taking Arabs' assaults seriously.

Therefore, the Iranian army was not a fighting shape during that period. This army suffered from the disorders that had beset the Iranian ruling system after its defeat from the Romans. It had seriously damaged the credibility of the Sassanids government among Iranians, themselves.

Spuler writes on the speedy withdrawal of the Iranian army from Iraq, “The speedy victories of Arabs and fast retreat of Iranian forces from the region had more deep-rooted reasons. On the one hand, Mesopotamia, with its Aramaic or Aramaic-turned settlers

p: 55

1- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 248

which was largely populated by Christians and besides them, followers of Baptism and Jews and limited number of Manicheans, opposed the rule of Iran in the region.

On the other hand, there were few Iranians in the region and villagers showed no resistance against the advance of Arabs, although they did not welcome the invading Arabs as it was done simultaneously in Egypt extremely excited by the acts of Byzantium. However, the situation in Mesopotamia was similar to that of Egypt.”(1)

Umar’s Caliphate

About Caliph II

'Umar was from the Banu 'Adi tribe, one of the branches of the Quraysh. His mother, Hantama, was the daughter of Hashim Ibn Mughira from the Banu Makhzum clan. Banu Makhzum was another branch of the Quraysh and an ally of the Umayya in the Dark Age. Unlike Abu Bakr, 'Umar converted to Islam years after the ordainment of Prophet Muhammad (S).

Many sources say he converted in the sixth year of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (S). Mas'udi says he converted four years before Hijra, i.e. the ninth year of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (S).(2)

'Umar was present in wars and events in Medina, although history has recorded no specific memory about him. When his daughter, Hafsa, became the Prophet's wife, his relations with the Messenger of God were reinforced.

In this connection, he was like Abu Bakr. We wrote that the Prophet (S) made them brothers by contract.(3) They were inseparable throughout the entire life of the Prophet (S). They held common stances in the

p: 56

1- Spuler, Tarikh Iran, vol. I, p. 13
2- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 321
3- Sahmi, Tarikh Jurjan p. 96.

developments of Saqifa and it was because of 'Umar's insistence on stabilizing Abu Bakr's caliphate that Imam 'Ali (a) accused him of working for his own future.(1) This was well justified for others.

When Abu Bakr handed over the oath of caliphate to him and asked him to read it for the people, someone asked him, “What is in this letter?”

He replied, “I do not know for sure, but I shall be the first one to obey it!” The person said, “But I know what it is.” أمّرته عام أوّل وأمّرك العام “ The first year you appointed him caliph and the second year, he installed you as the caliph of Muslims.”(2)

The above quotation shows that people were aware of the political bond between these two. Apparently, people saw one way of thinking throughout the caliphate of Abu Bakr in these two persons. In other words, they believed that 'Umar's caliphate was the continuation of Abu Bakr's and that their caliphate was a single administration.

Qays Ibn Abi Hazim says, “I saw 'Umar in the mosque, with a stick of date branch in his hand trying to make people sit down. Abu Bakr's servant, named Shudayd, came to the mosque and read a message from Abu Bakr and then, 'Umar mounted the pulpit.”(3) “It is true to say that Abu Bakr would not be a caliph if it were not for 'Umar.(4)

When Abu Bakr wanted to appoint Khalid Ibn Sa'id as commander of the army, 'Umar managed to change his mind

p: 57

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 587; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VI, p. 11; Anas Ibn Malik says, “On Saqifa, I saw ‘Umar forcing Abu Bakr to sit on the pulpit al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 438
2- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 174 Once Abu Bakr transferred a piece of land to someone with a title deed registered under his name, but ‘Umar took the deed and destroyed it Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 47 Interesting to know is that they call them ” ‘Umarayn” meaning two ‘Umars
3- Abu Bakr Khallal, As-Sunna, p. 277
4- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 38 Ibn Abi al-Hadid writes, هو (عمر) الذي شيد بيعة ابي بكر ورقم المخالفين فيها وكسر سيف زبير… ودفع صدر مقداد… ولولاه لم يثبت لأبي بكر أمره ولا قامت له قائمته ‘ Umar was someone who straightened Abu Bakr’s allegiance and removed the dissenters, spit apart Zubayr’s sword, beat chest of Miqdad, if he had not helped, Abu Bakr’s caliphate would never be organized; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 174

because Khalid swore allegiance to Abu Bakr only three months after the Saqifa gathering.(1) Abu Bakr used to say he loved 'Umar more than others.”(2)

'Umar addressed Ibn 'Abbas and said, “Indeed, if Abu Bakr did not believe me, he would set aside your share of the government, and in that case, your tribesmen (Quraysh) would hate you.”(3) It was this belief in 'Umar that made Abu Bakr write an accord appointing 'Umar as his successor. Once he said, “I appointed 'Umar to succeed me because I was afraid of eruption of any tension.”(4)

Before the appointment of 'Umar, Abu Bakr consulted 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf. He praised the caliph and said 'Umar was a quick-tempered man. Abu Bakr said, “He shows to be so in contrast with my tender-heartedness. He will calm down when he takes power.” Abu Bakr consulted 'Uthman, too.

He said, ”'Umar's nature is better than his countenance.”(5) This is all the consultation Abu Bakr made with the nobles of the Quraysh before appointing 'Umar.

'Uthman was always present in the caliph's bedside during his sickness. Abu Bakr asked him to write the contract of succession on his behalf. After the beginning of the contract was written, Abu Bakr fell into coma and 'Uthman who knew his assignment, finished the oath and wrote the name of 'Umar in it. After regaining consciousness, Abu Bakr asked 'Uthman to read what he had written.

He did so and Abu Bakr approved it.(6) Following this, Talha came to Abu Bakr and said, “You

p: 58

1- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 254
2- Gharib al-Hadith, vol. II, p. 222; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 17; al-Fa’iq fi Gharib al-Hadith, vol. III, p. 333; al-Adab al-Mufrad, Bukhari, p. 29
3- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 28
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 200
5- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 428; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 199
6- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 429; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, pp 163-165; Nathr ad-Durr, ol II, pp 15 and 23; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. II, p. 425; Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 26; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 200

witnessed how 'Umar behaves beside you and with your presence. Then, we do not know what he will do without you.” Abu Bakr was angered by his objection.(1)

Another quotation says the people objected to Abu Bakr for appointing a bad-tempered man to rule them.(2) According to Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Abu Bakr asked Mu'ayqab al-Rusi about the people's opinion regarding the appointment of 'Umar and he replied, “Some are satisfied, some are not.”

Abu Bakr said, “Which group is greater in number?”

He said, “Those who are dissatisfied.”

Abu Bakr said, “The truth always shows its ugly face first, but it is finally the winner.”(3) 'Umar, himself, in his first sermon said he was aware of the fact that some people hated his caliphate.(4) Ibn Qutayba has said that after hearing the news of Abu Bakr's death, Muslims in Damascus expressed their concern over 'Umar's likely coming to power and said, “If 'Umar assumes power, he will not be our “master” and we will topple him.”(5)

Abu Bakr did not make any serious consultations about 'Umar's caliphate.(6) He believed that many of the Muhajirun were thinking about occupying the seat of caliphate. Once he told 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf that many men of Muhajirun were yearning for the seat of caliphate since the start of his caliphate.(7) In his deathbed, Abu Bakr warned 'Umar about the Muhajirun and their greed for ruling.(8)

Abu Bakr's act of setting an age for caliphate, the principle of “succession” became legitimate in the political jurisprudence of the Sunnites

p: 59

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 433 ‘Ayisha mentions objection of “so and so”, Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 274 Abu Bakr was told, “When he was not “caliph”, he harshly treated us ” “Oh, if he becomes a ruler, what will he do to us?” al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 449 Others complained of his “tongue and stick” al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 38 ‘Ali also objected to Abu Bakr, Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 274; Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 26
2- Abu Bakr Khallal, As-Sunna, p. 275
3- Bahjat al-Majalis, vol. I, p. 579 and about other objections, Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 183; al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 152; al-Fa’iq fi Gharib al-Hadith, vol. I, pp 99-100
4- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 61 He, in the same speech, asked God to make him “good-tempered” Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 274
5- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 38
6- Khayr al-Din Sawi writes, “Abu Bakr consulted with the companions before selecting ‘Umar(Tatawwur al-fikr As-Siyasi, p. 40) Such a viewpoint clashes with historical facts and consultation with Ibn ‘Awf and ‘Uthman is only knowm to us Of course, disagreements are more informative to us Faruq Nabhan, too, claimed that Abu Bakr always received advice from the faithful people (Ni³am al-hukm fil-Islam, p. 93)
7- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 16
8- Ibid vol. II, p. 22

sect. However, according to Sunnites sources, this had no background in the Prophet's biography. The succession rule shares two pillars of hereditary government. In a hereditary government, the first pillar is succession and the second pillar is family and hereditary advantages. Its first pillar in the caliphate's biography took on a legitimate form. Just as Muhammad Rashid Riďa has noted, this brought about hereditary caliphate in the time of the Umayya.(1)

Abu Bakr's written oath practically appointed 'Umar as the caliph. Therefore, the people's allegiance could not be influential in his reign. Finally, we should say that the people's disagreement did not mean he could not be a caliph.

This was indeed a sort of swearing obedience and loyalty to caliph. 'Umar, himself, believed that Abu Bakr's selection as the caliph of Muslims was impromptu and that the government had to be undertaken at the consultation of the believers, but he sat on the seat of caliphate based on an oath. He criticized the way of selecting Abu Bakr but did not say anything about his own odd way of assuming power.

The Caliph’s Character

The caliph was a quick-tempered man(2) and an extremist(3) and both characteristics seriously affected his political and administrative career. Management to him was some kind of strictness by which he did his best to maintain control over the Bedouin Arabs. His inner being was easily detectable in his thoughts and deeds during the lifetime of the Prophet of Islam.

We know that in the war of Badr, he asked the

p: 60

1- al-Khilafa wal-Imama, al-’U³ma quoted from, Andishih siyasi dar Islam mu‘asir, p. 150; before Rashid Riďa, Marwan Ibn Hakam referred to Abu Bakr’s measure of making caliphate hereditary!
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid writes,وكان في اخلاق عمر والفاظه جفاء وعنجهية ظاهرة ‘ Umar’s ethics and words represented self-pride of some kind Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 183
3- The caliph, in appearance, was tall and had a brown-colored face and on front part of head, he was hairless, “Asla‘” According to Muhammad Ibn Habib, he had deceitful eyes al-Muhabbar p. 303; al-Munammaq, p. 405

Prophet (S) to kill all captives. His harsh treatment with Suhayl Ibn 'Amr, in the case of the Hudaybiyya peace deal, has been recorded in history. He also held extreme stances against the Hudaybiyya peace accord. On his first day of caliphate, he said, “O God! I am hot-tempered. Soften my behavior!”(1)

He knew he could not live without his lash. Therefore, he was the first one in Islam who took the lash of “Dirra” in his hand.(2) They have said his cane was more horrendous than the sword of Hajjaj.(3)

As said, Talha objected to Abu Bakr as to why he imposed 'Umar upon them knowing that he is hot-tempered.(4)

According to Ibn Shubba, a man told 'Umar, “People are mad at you; they hate you.”

'Umar asked, ” why.”

He replied, “They complain of your tongue and cane!”(5)

One day, Zubayr's slave was standing in prayers after evening prayers when he saw 'Umar approaching him with his Dirra (cane). The slave fled right then but 'Umar caught him. The slave said, “I'll never do so again!”(6)

After the death of Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan, 'Umar proposed marrying his wife but she did not accept because she believed 'Umar was ill-tempered when both leaving and entering the house.(7) Even 'Ayisha who had close relations with the caliph, prevented his marriage with her sister for the same reason.(8) 'Abd al-Razzaq San'ani quoted Ibrahim Nakha'i as saying that some day 'Umar was passing near a group of women when he smelled a perfume.

He said, “If only I

p: 61

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 274; Abu Bakr Khallal, As-Sunna اللهم إني غليظ فليّنّي O God! I am hot-tempered, make me soft-tempered
2- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 209; Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 137; Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. I, p. 346; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 282 The first one to be lashed by Dirrah was Umm Farwa, Abu Bakr’s sister when she was crying for Abu Bakr after his death and ‘Umar deemed crying for the dead unrightful Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 181
3- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. III, p. 188; Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. I, p. 51; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 188; al-Taratib al-idariyya, vol. II, p. 376; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 281
4- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. VI, p. 343, vol. I, p. 164; Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, pp 128 and 130
5- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 858
6- al-Ma‘rifa wal-Tarikh, vol. I, pp 364-365
7- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 61يدخل عابساً ويخرج عابساً He entered with sullen face and went out in the same way
8- al-Aghani, vol. XVI, p. 93; al-Isti‘ab, vol. I, p. 273

knew whose perfume this is. Then, I would know what to do with her. Women should wear perfume for their husbands only.” According to the same story, the woman who had worn perfume urinated out of fear(1) and another woman who saw her had a miscarriage.(2)

As a matter of fact, no one dared ask a question from 'Umar and he preferred to do it through 'Uthman or someone else.(3)

'Umar considered the criterion of strictness in selecting his rulers for the states.(4) He did not show mercy to offenders, no matter what tribe they belonged to. This made Jabala Ibn 'Ayham, a ruler of Damascus, who had committed a fault flee from Mecca to Damascus and turn away from Islam.(5)

Even governors and the caliph's children were not immune to his wrath. One day, he beat up one of his sons for the exquisite garment he had put on and the son burst into tears. When Hafsa objected, 'Umar said, “He was acting proudly and I punished him to belittle him.”(6)

He beat one of his children to death for drinking wine.(7) Apparently, 'Amr Ibn 'As had lashed him in Egypt for the same reason and on his return to Medina, his father beat him to death. When he was about to die, he told his father, “You killed me!”

'Umar said, “If you should see God, tell Him we observe his punishment (Hadd) on earth.”(8) His severe treatment raised public hatred and dissatisfaction. The people asked 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf to

p: 62

1- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. IV,pp 343-344
2- Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm, vol. II, p. 103; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 174
3- al-Fakhri, p. 106(Persian Translation
4- al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. I, p. 15
5- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. I,p. 265; al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 302-304; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 183 About him, different stories are said of ‘Umar’s treatment and his repentance in manner of treating him Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 147
6- al-Musannaf, vol. I, p. 416
7- Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. I, p. 49; Mus‘ab Zubayri, Nasab Quraysh, p. 356
8- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 841

talk to him in this regard and tell him that girls fear him even in their houses.

'Umar replied, “People will not be reformed except with this method; otherwise, they will even strip me of my clothes.”(1) He, himself, admitted that people feared him because of his harshness.(2) In essence, the same treatments could stop public disagreement on his approach.(3) When the Prophet (S) ordered men not to beat their wives, 'Umar asked the Prophet (S) to let men beat their wives like in the past but he did not accept.(4)

We said that 'Umar's concept of religion had made an extremist out of him. Punishing his son to death for drinking wine was one example. He was very strict towards women and did not let them attend morning and evening congregational prayers. He did not have sensible military courage but he attached special significance to Jihad.(5)

This is why he omitted “Hayya 'Ala Khayr al-’Amal” (Rush to the best deed) from Adhan (the call to prayers, under the pretext that people would not go to the holy war. Of course, he added a good part to Adhan and that was saying, “Prayer is better than sleep”. Iman as-Sajjad and 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar considered “Hayya 'Ala Khayr al-’Amal” (hasten to good deed) obligatory in Adhan(6) and Abu Hanifa believed that “as-Salat Khayr min al-Nawm” (Prayer is better than sleep) should be told after Adhan because it is not part of it.(7)

'Umar was harsh in his conduct with people. This contradicted the

p: 63

1- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 35; ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. I, p. 12
2- Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. I, p. 49
3- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. IV, PP 34-35
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VIII, p. 205
5- al-Aghani, vol. VI, p. 279
6- Huwiyyat al-tashayyu‘, p. 47 from, al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, Sunan Biyhaqi
7- Ibid p. 46 from, Taysir al-usul

fact that he tried to rule as a caliph and not as a Sultan. 'Utba Ibn Ghazwan, who served as ruler of Basra for six months only, and was indeed commander of Muslim forces in Basra made a very illustrative speech.

He points to the economic problems in the time of the Prophet of Islam and the poverty of his companions, he drew a comparison with the time of 'Umar and said each one of the companions had become an emir of a city.

“There is no prophethood not to be abolished by the “land”. I will take refuge in God when prophets turn to be “kings” and I will seek God's shelter when I feel a great man in myself but be despicable in view of people. You will soon see emirs coming after us, and you will know them soon and will deny them.”(1)

It was a general attitude that time and many people were sure that the caliphate would turn into kingdom. 'Umar, himself, used to say he wondered whether he was a caliph or a king. Ka'b al-Ahbar assured him he was a caliph and that he had found his name in the divine books!(2) Apparently, Abu Bakr imagined himself a king.(3)

Despite 'Umar's harsh behavior, many dared criticize him. When Bilal was getting ready to say the Adhan, 'Umar objected to him, saying it was not time for prayers, but Bilal responded, “I knew the time when you were more astray than the ass of

p: 64

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, pp 6-7
2- Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 36; al-Taratib al-idariyya, vol. I, p. 13; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 211; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 306
3- Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. III, pp 475-476

your tribe.”(1)

'Umar used to say, “Guide me if you see a fault in me.”

A Bedouin Arab replied, “We will guide you with a sword if we see a fault in you.” Hearing this, 'Umar thanked God that there was somebody in the tribe to guide him by force.(2) On the contrary, 'Ayisha, daughter of 'Uthman, believed that 'Umar's roughness prevented ordinary people from criticizing him.(3)

'Umar himself, believed that the best policy for leading Muhammad's nation was to act with power and not by force, to be soft but not lax, to bestow but not go to extremes, and to have abstinence but without stinginess.(4)

His strictness showed its signs in the economic segment as well. He preferred a simple life for himself and for his functionaries and family. It appears that the Prophet's lifestyle was still common among people and some of the emirs. 'Umar had an extremist pious understanding of religion.

A sign of this was his understanding of the verses, “أَذْهَبْتُمْ طَيِّبَاتِكُمْ فِي حَيَاتِكُمْ الدُّنْيَا.” “You selfishly used your pure gifts in your worldly life,” that allows Muslims to be so. Of course, he was objected to for this and when he learned that the verse concerned infidels,(5)

he accepted it. His pious life did not mean that he had no wealth during his caliphate;, but rather, it has been mentioned in sources that 'Umar was among the wealthiest of the Quraysh.(6)

Someone asked Nafi', “Was 'Umar in debt?”

Nafi' said, “How could he be in debt when one

p: 65

1- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq vol. XI, p. 276
2- Tafsir al-Manar, vol. XI, p. 266
3- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. IV, p. 34
4- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 879; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, pp 344-345
5- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 182
6- Kashf al-astar, vol. II, p. 303; Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 347

of his inheritors, alone, sold his inheritance at 100000 dhms?(1) 'Umar had set his wife's marriage portion at 4000 dhms.(2) Also once, he bestowed tens of thousands of dhms from his original wealth to his son-in-law.(3) More pious than 'Umar was Salman who warned him against luxury life.(4)

Umar’s Functionaries

With the expansion of this period's conquests, vast lands fell under the rule of the Medina government. Running these lands needed managers with new values who could open the way for more conquests. In fact, the most important point for the caliph and Muslims in those conditions was further enlarging the conquered lands.

For running the affairs of border regions, mostly those people were chosen who had enough military capability and experience. Thus, one of the main criteria of the caliph for selecting a functionary was someone with such an ability who could properly run the city and the region under his control.

A list of 'Umar's functionaries in the cities was as follows.

• Mecca, Muhriz Ibn Haritha Ibn 'Abd Shams; Qunfudh Ibn 'Umayr Taymi; Nafi' Ibn 'Abd al-Harith Khuza'i; Khalid Ibn 'As Makhzumi;

• Yemen, 'Abd Allah Ibn Abi Rabi'a Makhzumi

• Bahrayn, 'Ala' Haďrami, Qudamat Ibn Maz'un, 'Uthman Ibn Abi l-'As, Abu Hurayrah, Ayyash Ibn Abi Thawr

• 'Amman, Someone from the Ansar and then 'Uthman Ibn Abi l-'As

• Basra, Shurayh Ibn 'Amir, 'Utba Ibn Ghazwan, Mughira Ibn Shu'ba, Abu Musa Ash'ari

• Yamama, Salama Ibn Sallama Ansari

• Kufa, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, 'Ammar Ibn Yasir, Jubayr Ibn Mut'im, Mughira Ibn Shu'ba

• Ta'if, 'Uthman Ibn

p: 66

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 935; Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm, vol. II, p. 17
2- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VIII, p. 464; al-Taratib al-idariyya, vol. II, p. 405; al-Bahr al-zakhkhar, vol. III, p. 101; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 190; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. IV, p. 190
3- Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 120; Kanz al-’Ummal, vol. II, p. 317; Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 356
4- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. X, p. 46

Abi l-'As, Sufyan Ibn 'Abd Allah Thaqafi

• Greater Syria, Abu 'Ubayda Jarrah, Mu'adh Ibn Jabal, Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan, Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan(1)

• Palestine, Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan, 'Amr Ibn 'As

• Egypt, 'Amr Ibn 'As

• Hijaz and Adharbayjan, 'Ayaď Ibn Ghanam, Habib Ibn Maslama Fihri, 'Umayr Ibn Sa'd Ansari (2)

It has been stated that, for sometime, Salman used to rule Ctesiphon.(3)

As indicated by the above-mentioned names, 'Umar selected few people from among the companions to run the affairs. Once he was asked about it, 'Umar answered he did not intend to corrupt them with executive affairs.(4) This has been quoted by several historians. Most answers are the same as mentioned.(5)

Sha'bi,who is the reliable source of the Sunnis, however says, ”'Umar did not allow the Muhajir s to leave Medina and told them, “What I fear most is that you will become scattered in towns and cities.” He has added, “If any of them asked permission to go to war, 'Umar would say, “As you have fought alongside the Prophet, that should suffice you.”(6)

Also, Hasan Basri says, “If any of the companions wanted to leave Medina, he had to seek 'Umar's permission.”(7) Preventing the companions' exit, as some people have said, was not limited to the Quraysh; rather, he basically prevented the exit of those companions who could turn into a pivotal figure in any city and could somehow stand against the caliph.

Another reason for his choices was found in that 'Umar wanted to prevent the spread of the

p: 67

1- Khalifa Ibn KhayyaT makes it clear that Mu‘awiya ruled Greater Syria in ending years of ‘Umar’s caliphate
2- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, pp 153-156
3- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 306
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 499
5- al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. II, p. 361; Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 106
6- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 397; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, pp 159-160
7- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 396

Prophet's hadiths in different towns and cities. Khatib Baghdadi has narrated that 'Umar sent messages to Abul-Darda' Abu Mas'ud Ansari and 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud, saying, “What are all these hadiths you are quoting from Prophet Muhammad?” Later, these people were not allowed to leave Medina(1) until 'Umar was killed.

According to the same quote, Qarďat Ibn Ka'b says, “When we were leaving Medina, 'Umar saw us off. Then, he asked, “Do you know why I am seeing you off? I wanted to tell you not to narrate the hadiths of the Prophet for the people in the cities you go. I, too, am your partner.” Qarďat says, “Afterwards, I did not narrate any more hadiths.”(2)

Preventing the exit of the companions and not employing them was a policy 'Umar followed carefully. People such as Sha'bi sought the problem of 'Uthman in his policy which was exactly the opposite of 'Umar's. It is said that once, Zubayr asked 'Umar to let him take part in wars.'Umar responded, “I will not allow the companions of the Prophet to go to different cities and mislead the people.”(3)

Also, it was once protested to him, “Why do you give the affairs to people such as Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan, Sa'id Ibn 'As, Mu'awiya and the like who are from the ˝مؤلفة قلوبهم˝ و˝طلقا˝ 'Those whose hearts are captured as well as those who are the liberated ones but you avoid using 'Ali, 'Abbas, Zubayr and Talha?” 'Umar said he was afraid they would go

p: 68

1- Sharaf Ashab al-hadith, p. 87
2- Sharaf Ashab al-hadith, p. 88
3- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. XX, p. 20

stir trouble in cities.(1)

Also, 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf asked 'Umar, “Why don't you allow them to go to jihad?” 'Umar said, “If I remain silent and refrain from answering your question, it would be better.”(2) The unacceptable justification of Ahmad Amin is that it was due to the importance of Medina that 'Umar kept the Ansar in the city.(3) This viewpoint is different from that of Sha'bi and Hasan Basri!

Ibn Sa'd says, ”'Umar appointed people such as 'Amr Ibn 'As, Mu'awiya and Mughira, but not people like 'Uthman, 'Umar, Talha, Zubayr and 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf because the formers were strong and well-informed in executive affairs. Moreover, 'Umar dominated them and was an awful figure for them. When he was asked why he did not use the great companions of the Prophet, he would say,أكره أن أدنّسَهم بالعمل “ I please not to taint them with action.” (4)

We previously referred to the caliph's behavior. He preferred strict managers, even if they were not so virtuous. One of the problematic cities for 'Umar was the newly established city of Kufa. For a period, it was ruled by Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas who was removed following the people's protests.

After him, 'Ammar Yasir came to power, but he, too, was accused of impotence and 'Umar removed him. The next person was Jubayr Ibn Mut'im who again failed to stay in office. At this time, when 'Umar was greatly baffled, he asked Mughira who he saw suitable for ruling Kufa.

Mughira said,

p: 69

1- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. IX, pp 29-30; al-Fitnat al-Kubra, pp 80-81
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 158; there, he said that if Quraysh were permitted to leave, they would be led to the left and right wings
3- Fajr al-Islam, p. 172
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 183and 283

“Appoint me as the city's governor.”

'Umar answered, “You are a lewd man!”

Mughira said, “My efficiency is for you and my lewdness for myself.” 'Umar liked his response and appointed him as governor of Kufa.(1) Before that, Mughira had ruled Basra for a while. There, he had illicit relations with a married woman named Umm Jamil. This affair was so explicit that four people saw him during adultery. But, only one of them gave false testimony and that saved Mughira from being stoned.

Different sources are unanimous that 'Umar had asked the fourth person to testify in such a manner.(2) 'Umar's policy of choosing such people caused Hudhayfa Ibn Yaman to protest to the caliph about his appointment of corrupt people.'Umar answered, “I use his power (in running the affairs).”(3)

Also, once, someone ho was a governor of Abu Musa Ash'ari in a region of Bahrayn, came to Medina. He asked Yarfa' Hajib, “What character does 'Umar like best?”

He answered, “Toughness.”

That man said, “When I attended the caliph's court, I took on a serious expression. It was then that I realized 'Umar paid more attention to me,” after a while, he asked me.

“Where are you working now?” I answered.

'Umar said, “From now on, you are appointed in that region directly by me.”(4)

One important point about 'Umar's functionaries was his supervision over their manner of treating people and the Bayt al-Mal or the public treasury. 'Umar maintained a special control over them and recorded their wealth at the start of their term

p: 70

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 155; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. I, p. 22; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 80
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 146; al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. VII, pp 384-385; al-Aghani, vol. XVI, p. 94 about other cases, al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. VIII, p. 217-219
3- Gharib al-Hadith, vol. III, p. 239; al-Fa’iq, vol. III, p. 215
4- al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. I, pp 14-15

in office.

In this concern, 'Umar considered almost all his functionaries(1) to be guilty and halved their belongings when they returned from the region of service. He gave half of the wealth to them and gave the other half to the Bayt al-Mal. This act is called the “dividing in two halves of the wealth.”

It was natural for 'Umar to believe that his functionaries had gathered the wealth illegally, but as he did not know a particular way for separating the legal from the illegal. He had decided to divide the wealth as mentioned except in a few cases. One of these governors was Abu Hurayra who ruled Bahrayn. When he returned from his mission, 'Umar divided his wealth and ordered him to be punished. Then, 'Umar asked him to go back to work! Abu Hurayra said he would not accept to return because his money had been seized, he had been disgraced and he had been beaten as well!(2)

'Amr Ibn 'As, too, saw his wealth divided.(3) Other people to have the same fate were Abu Musa Ash'ari, Harith Ibn Ka'b and 'Utba Ibn Sufyan who were in charge of collecting alms in Ta'if.(4)

Abu Bakra was another governor whose wealth was divided. He protested to 'Umar and said, “If all these riches belong to God, who don't you take them all and if they are mine, why are you doing so, then?”(5)

As we said earlier, after dividing the wealth of his functionaries, 'Umar re-appointed them to their posts.

p: 71

1- For example, he accused Abu Hurayra of theft Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. IV, p. 335
2- ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. I, pp 53-54; Futuh al-Buldan, p. 93; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. I, p. 45
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. IV, p. 335
4- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 175
5- al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. I, p. 46

Imam 'Ali has been quoted as having the same protest of Abu Bakr about why the functionaries were returned to work. One such instance was that one of 'Umar's functionaries had returned from Yemen and was wearing an exquisite robe. 'Umar ordered his attire to be taken off and ordered him to return to his post.(1)

Also, 'Umar once heard that his governor in the city of Hims had built a nice house and had set a door- keeper for it. 'Umar sent someone to burn the door of his house, but after a while, sent him back to work.(2)

This act even trapped people such as Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas. Baladhuri has provided a list of those governors whose wealth was divided, Nafi' Ibn Harith, Nafi' Ibn Harith, Bushr Ibn Muhtafar, Jaz Ibn Mu'awiya, Khalid Ibn Harith, Qays Ibn 'Asim, Samura Ibn Jundab, Mujashi' Ibn Mas'ud, Shibl Ibn Ma'bad and Abu Maryam Ibn Muhrash. These people, as said by Baladhuri, were mostly responsible for collecting alms in the cities.(3) Of course, the names of people such as Salman and 'Ammar Ibn Yasir are included on the list.

Controlling his functionaries was a principle in 'Umar's policies. This supervision mostly focused on the financial aspect. When 'Umar heard that 'Amr Ibn 'As had taken some money from the Bayt al-Mal, he wrote to him, “I knew people from the Muhajirun who were much better than you, but I appointed you thinking that you had little need.” After that, 'Umar sent Muhammad

p: 72

1- Ibid vol. I, p. 46
2- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, p. 112
3- Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 210; from, Kanz al-’Ummal, vol. III, p. 166

Ibn Maslama to divide the wealth of 'Amr Ibn 'As.(1)

Another quotation says once 'Umar heard that 'Ayaď Ibn Ghanam was living a luxurious life, wearing exquisite clothes and eating delicious meals. He sent Muhammad Ibn Maslama to fetch him. When 'Ayaď came, 'Umar gave him a walking stick and a robe. Then, he tasked him with taking three hundred sheep to the pasture. He was looking after the sheep for two months.

Once, 'Ayaď decided to get rid of his situation with the mediation of 'Umar's wife. When 'Umar found out, he harshly told his wife, “This is not your business! You are a mere means of joy that is discarded after having fun.(2) Now, you are meddling in the affairs of me and Muslims?” Then, with 'Uthman's arbitration, 'Umar sent 'Ayaď back to his post and committed him not to return to his previous situation.(3)

Sometimes, 'Umar would go to the house of his agents, accompanied by someone. He would remain silent and his friend would ask permission for entry. Then, he entered the house unexpectedly and this way, he tried to supervise their way of life.(4) In one occasion, he heard that Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas had built a palace and had set a portal for the building. 'Umar sent someone to Kufa to set the gate on fire.(5)

Of course, some of 'Umar's functionaries lived luxurious lives, but 'Umar was not strict with them. two instances were 'Amr Ibn 'As and Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan.(6) This could

p: 73

1- Futuh al-Buldan, pp 90,299 and 396
2- انما انت لعبته يلعب بك، ثم تتركين No doubt, you are his plaything and finally thrown away
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 817; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 178(with a little difference
4- Ibid vol. III, p. 836
5- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 124; Futuh al-Buldan, p. 277
6- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 8333

have been due to his trust in their management skills.

In some cases, too, he had special interest in certain persons. For example, he was greatly fond of Zayd Ibn Thabit. Once, Abu Bakr asked 'Umar to appoint Zayd, then a teenager, to a post in financial affairs. When 'Umar came to power and Zayd returned to him with some money, 'Umar bestowed on Zayd all the money he had brought with him.(1)

One day, 'Umar heard that Abu Musa Ash'ari had lashed one of the fighters of the army and had shaved his head. He wrote to Abu Musa that if he had done this in public, he must receive Qisas or get retaliatory punishment in public. And, if he had done it secretly, again he would have to be punished in the same manner. When Abu Musa was getting ready for Qisas, the lashed man forgave him.(2)

At any rate, 'Umar's orders and letters to the governors of different lands, his questioning of the emirs of cities and his urging them to observe justice, have been mentioned in numerous occasions by various sources.(3) This situation, whatever reason it had, did not last after 'Umar. 'Uthman, during his years of caliphate, left his functionaries to themselves. This prevented a personality such as Imam 'Ali from controlling the situation.

The narrator says, “Once, some money was brought to 'Umar. His child took one dhm, put it in its mouth and went away. 'Umar went after him and took the money.” The narrator

p: 74

1- Ibid vol. III, pp 854-855; al-Isaba, vol. I, p. 85
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara vol. III, p. 809
3- See a collection of commands, letters and speeches in, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. XII, pp 194-196 He wrote to the people of cities, “I have not sent my agents to oppress you or seize your property I’ve sent them to teach you religion and tradition Anyone iolated this, complain to me for retaliating him because I saw the Prophet (S) doing so, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. XII, p. 22 and for treating harshly that is because of lack of understanding the Qur’anic verses, Ibid vol. XII, pp 15 and 17

adds, “I was sitting with 'Uthman when some money was brought to him, His child took a coin and then, his servant took one, but he did not protest. I burst into tears. When 'Uthman asked the reason, I told him the story.

'Uthman said, ”'Umar did not give to his relatives for God's sake, but I am giving to my folks for God's sake.”(1)

Among his functionaries, 'Umar did not question one particular person. He was Mu'awiya, son of Abu Sufyan who had converted to Islam even later than his father. Appointing Mu'awiya as the governor of Damascus during the last six years of 'Umar's caliphate was one of the sensitive issues of that time. The caliph was accused of playing a major role in stabilizing the status of the Umayya in Damascus.

'Umar did not remove Mu'awiya from office when he called him the Arab Caesar.(2) Once, 'Umar told Mu'awiya that he did not abide by enjoining to good and forbidding from evil.(3) During 'Umar's rule, the entire Damascus was under Mu'awiya's control.(4) Even at the time of death, 'Umar told the six-man council, “Do not have differences with each other because Mu'awiya is in Damascus!(5)

Also, Qaďi 'Abd al-Jabbar, a fanatic Sunnites, says, “Although 'Umar strictly controlled his agents and sometimes changed them, he never had such a behavior towards Mu'awiya.”(6)

Abu Bakr Asam said, “Mu'awiya was rightful in his war against 'Ali because 'Umar had appointed him.”(7) Later, 'Umar's political and religious conduct turned into a tradition. Once, when there was

p: 75

1- al-Amali fi Athar As-Sahaba, pp 53-54; the heritage the Sunnites know as biography of “Orthodox Caliphs” excluding what Imam ‘Ali said and reflected more in culture of Shia belongs not to Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman but to ‘Umar What history tells of this heritage is legion and the Sunnites typically adopted its acceptability through ‘Umar’s letters and catch phrases It is to admitted that, apart from caliph’s certain matters concerned with Imamate, the Hashimites and some juriprudic rulers as well as religious values, what persists has had and still has a high place in contrast to ‘Umar’s, the Umayya’s and the ‘Abbasids’s biography The Sunnites refomists portrayed this considerably and undeniably See, Tarikh falsafih dar Islam, vol. II, article on “Tafakkur siyasi dar Sadr Islam” is maily vested upon the same acceptability transferred from ‘Umar and presented an idealistic image of the Islamic government and principles of Islamic policy The caliph held that the assets of Bayt al-Mal are not privately owned but it is divine property,”Mal Allah” at his disposal(Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, pp 275-276) while ‘Uthman regarded it as personal propewrty, ‘Umar Himself moved around the city as a “night guard”(Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 281
2- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 61; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. III, p. 365
3- Dala’il As-Sidq, vol. III, p. 312 quoted from Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. VI, p. 184
4- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, vol. I, p. 157 This is against the idea of Ibn Kathir who believes that ‘Umar had him control some parts of greater Syria al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. III, p. 124
5- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 37
6- Tathbit Dala’il al-Nubuwwa, p. 593
7- Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 60

a dispute between Talha and Imam 'Ali over a pitcher at the presence of 'Uthman.

Mu'awiya asked, “Did it exist at the time of 'Umar?”

They said, “Yes.”

He answered, “Can you change something which was fixed during 'Umar's period?”(1)

Before Mu'awiya, his brother, Yazid, was the governor of parts of Damascus. This issue began at the time of Abu Bakr. When he appointed Khalid Ibn Sa'id as the commander of an army in Damascus, 'Umar insisted that he be replaced with Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan because Khalid Ibn Sa'id who was in Yemen on behalf of Prophet Muhammad, returned after the Prophet's demise and complained to Imam 'Ali about Abu Bakr's coming to power.

That was why 'Umar preferred Yazid Ibn Sufyan to him.(2) After Yazid's death, Mu'awiya succeeded him and ruled Damascus during the last four years of 'Umar's caliphate.(3) Jahiz has interesting interpretations about the gradual reinforcement of Mu'awiya's position in Damascus from the time of Abu Bakr until 'Uthman.(4)

Among the caliph's agents, in addition to Mughira, there were other lewd people, too. One of them was Qudama Ibn Maz'un who was a drunkard and was lashed for this.(5) Another governor of 'Umar, Nu'man Ibn 'Adi, wrote poems on wine and drunkenness.(6) It was reported to 'Umar that Nu'man ran the affairs in the best possible way, but did not say his prayers on time.(7)

At the end of this part, it would be suitable to mention some other points considered by the caliph in choosing his agents. During his early years

p: 76

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 499, No 1286; Ibn ‘Asakir mentions various evidence concerningly Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXV, pp 18-25 and 44-73
2- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 454
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 838
4- Rasa’il al-Jahiz, al-Rasail As-Siyasiyya, p. 344
5- al-Ishtiqaq, p. 13; al-Fa’iq, vol. I, p. 431; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. V, p. 560-561
6- Mus‘ab Zubayri, Nasab Quraysh, p. 382
7- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. V, p. 560

in Iraq and Damascus, 'Umar showed that if he did not choose his commanders from among the noble companions, he could not go beyond the limits of the Quraysh and their allies such as the Thaqif and sometimes, the Ansar who were trusted by the Quraysh. Therefore, despite the fact that Muthanna Ibn Haritha had grown his power in Iraq and was apparently trusted, 'Umar did not appoint him as commander in the war against Iranians.

Also, when 'Utba Ibn Ghazwan, the founder of the city of Basra, complained to 'Umar about the way Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas was enjoining to good and forbidding from evil, 'Umar told him why he was not willing to accept the rule of someone from the Quraysh.

Moreover, 'Umar tried to choose his agents from the cities not from nomadic tribes. Once 'Umar heard from Utba that he had appointed Mujashi' Ibn Mas'ud as his successor in Basra and as Mujashi' had not been available then, had appointed Mughira Ibn Shu'ba.

In response, 'Umar said, “It is better that Mughira rules Basra, not Mujashi' because Mujashi' is from nomads and Mughira is a city-dweller.”(1) Mughira was a Thaqafi residing in Ta'if.

Thoughts of the Second Caliph

The second caliph, more than any other personality, influenced the thoughts and ideas of the Sunnites. As his period of caliphate was a highly crucial juncture in the history of Islam, his thoughts and deeds, too, were of great significance for Sunnites Muslims. This is the extent to which he is considered as a role

p: 77

1- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. I, p. 432

model who made no mistakes and every word or act of him can be trusted as a religious tradition. Therefore, it is necessary to talk about him here.

The high status of 'Umar in Sunnites thinking, can not be compared to anyone else. In the narrations told about 'Umar's good traits, the ranking attributed to him is a little lower than prophethood! This status has been interpreted as “Muhaddath”. Muhaddath is said to be someone who receives “revelations”.

In a narration found in Bukhari, Muslim and in addition toothers, Abu Hurayra has been quoted as saying that the Prophet Muhammad said, “There were people among the Israelian tribe who received revelations without being a prophet. If there is anyone in my Umma who is such, that person is certainly 'Umar.” According to Qastalani, the commentator of the book of Bukhari, the “if” in the above-mentioned sentence, does not mean “hesitation” but means “emphasis”.

Besides such quotations, there is, on the whole, a certain idea about the caliph's measures at the Prophet's time, indicating that before God revealed something, 'Umar had ordered that and then, God had sent down some verses in that regard. These instances are known as ”'Umar's Muwafiqat”,or 'Umar's agreement.

It is interesting that in some cases, the viewpoint of the Prophet was in conflict with 'Umar's, but God has sent down verses agreeing with 'Umar's idea! 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar has been quoted as saying that all the verses God sent down about something discussed by 'Umar and others, were

p: 78

in accordance with 'Umar's idea. Some of such examples are saying prayers for Ibrahim, the verse of Hijab, the Badr captives, banning drinking, not saying prayers for hypocrites and so on. It is evident, then, why 'Umar's status was close to prophethood and later, his way of behavior was regarded superior even to that of the Prophet.

Here, we must note the point that 'Umar was as strong in practice as he was weak in thought. He, himself, had admitted this several times and had sought help from others in solving his problems. 'Allama Amini has allocated almost half of the sixth volume of the book of al-Ghadir entitled, نوادر الاثر في علم عمر “ Rare reports about the knowledge of 'Umar,” on these issues.

It was due to this weakness in knowledge that 'Umar did not like religious discussions and debates and once, when someone asked him the meaning of وَالذَّارِيَاتِ ذَرْوًا. “I Swear to pollinating winds,” 'Umar beat him up.(1)

One of the main features of the second caliph's thinking was that he saw himself entitled to vast authorities as a ruler. He considered a special right for himself, not only in political and executive affairs, but also in divine legislation and making laws. Relying on the same authorities during his caliphate, 'Umar made innovations and changes and did not deem himself obliged to anything except having a general knowledge of the Qur'an and the Shari'a.

In cases where he found himself incompetent, he would hold consultations and deliberations with

p: 79

1- al-Ibana ‘An shari‘a al-firqa al-Najiya, vol. I, p. 415; ‘Aqida As-Salaf Ashab al-hadith, Abu ‘Uthman Isma‘il Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman As-Sabuni, pp 67-68

the Companions to get things done. Narrating an interesting story told by Tabari is appropriate here to realize the caliph's idea about his authorities, ”'Imran Ibn Sawad says, “I said the morning prayers with 'Umar and then, followed him.”

He asked, “You have a request?”

I said, “Yes, advice!”

He said, “Bravo! Go on!”

I said, “People find faults with you in several things.”

Holding his lash under his chin, 'Umar said, “Well?”

I said, “You have forbidden the lesser pilgrimage (the 'Umra Hajj) during the months of Hajj while Prophet Muhammad said it was permitted; neither did Abu Bakr act like you.”

'Umar said, “This was to show people that they were not exempt from the main Hajj by doing the 'Umra.”

I asked, “You have banned the temporary marriage of women while the Prophet had allowed it?”

'Umar said, “I am equal to Muhammad; I make them full and do so and so for them. If I do not do so (harsh behavior), I'll abandon the truth (this is ironical of his having right to do so).”(1)

There are two basic points in this quotation containing plenty of proof for approving its inclusion, One is that 'Umar, in response to 'Imran, confirmed his disagreement with the Prophet (S) and also justified it. Second, his response to 'Imran's last objection started with this sentence, أنا زميل محمّد “ I am equal to the Prophet.” “Zamil” commonly means “classmate” and its old usage is referred to two people who ride on camels each of whom takes seat on one side

p: 80

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 225; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XII, pp 121-122; al-Fa’iq fi gharib al-hadith, vol. I, pp 433-434(above translation in brief

or two people ride on two camels separately.

In the above statement, there is an opposite sentence that says, وكان زامله في غزوة قرقرة الكدر ”' Umar has 'Umar been equal to the Prophet in Qarqarat al-Kudr war.”

This sentence had no relation with 'Umar's response to the questions raised(1) but on the contrary, it was really misleading and was intentionally aimed at misleading the minds. 'Umar says he is equal to the Prophet, meaning he could enjoin to or forbid from something or label things as lawful or unlawful just as the Prophet could.

Thus, the caliph considered his authorities as vast as the Prophet and pretended to believe in nothing but the Qur'an.

What has been said about the caliph's ban on narrating hadith and writing is that it(2) exactly conforms to this idea of the caliph. It seems the caliph believed that only the Qur'an could remain unchanged, but not hadith. Therefore, the ruler can act at any time based on his expedience regarding this matter. In other words, what has been quoted from Prophet Muhammad, only refer to his authorities as a ruler and these are authorities 'Umar, too, had as a ruler.

It is unlikely to find any caliph other than 'Umar and 'Uthman who considered their authorities to include divine legislation and interference in religious affairs. Nasr Allah Munshi, in the preface to “Kelilih wa Dimnih”, quotes 'Umar as saying, “What the “state” bans people from is prior to what the “Qur'an” prohibits.”(3)

'Umar cut the share

p: 81

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid presents a worse justification, vol. XII, p. 124
2- Muqaddamihyi bar Tarikh tadwin hadith (An Introduction to History of Compiling Hadith) by the author of the same context
3- Minawi, Translation of Kililih wa Dimnih, p. 4

of المؤلفة قلوبهم “ Those whose hearts are captured,” that God paid from the tax alms, saying, Islam has no fear of them any more.(1) He believed an unclean person who needs water should not say prayers if he cannot find water. When 'Ammar Yasir taught him the Prophet's tradition in Tayammum (making ablution with earth or sand), اتق الله يا عمار “ O 'Ammar! Fear God!”

'Ammar answered, “If you please so, I will not tell you the hadith of the Prophet!”(2)

It is interesting that 'Umar hated Tayammum even during the Prophet's life. Once during a trip, someone from 'Umar's companions got impure at dawn and had to make Tayammum. 'Umar voiced objected to him.

When they got to Medina, 'Umar complained about him to the Prophet, but the Prophet said, “I would have done the same if I were in his conditions.”(3) Of course, if nothing occurred to his mind, 'Umar would follow the Prophet's Sunna.(4)

Ibn 'Abbas says, “During the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr and in two years of 'Umar's caliphate, if someone divorced his wife three times, it would be considered once. But, 'Umar considered it three divorces.(5) Malik Ibn Anas, Imam of Malikiyya, narrates, ”'Umar was afraid that a non-Arab would receive inheritance from an Arab unless he was born among Arabs!”(6)

These rulings were among the caliph's personal Ijtihads which were mostly based on his favored “interests”. Temporary marriage during Hajj and temporary marriage of women are among the main religious affairs allowed by Prophet

p: 82

1- al-Taratib al-idariyya, vol. I, p. 228; al-Iďah, p. 97
2- al-Ghadir, vol. VI, pp 83-85 from, Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. I, p. 53; Sunan Ibn Maja, vol. I, p. 200; Musnad Ahmad, vol. IV, p. 265; Sunan Nasa’i, vol. I, pp 59 and 61; Sunan Biyhaqi, voil I, p. 209 and other sources
3- Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha, p. 249
4- Musnad Ahmad, vol. I, pp 190 and 195
5- al-Ghadir, vol. VIU, pp 178-180 from, Musnad Ahmad, vol. I, p. 314; Sahih Muslim, vol. I, p. 574; Sunan Biyhaqi, ol VII, p. 336; Mustadrak Hakim, vol. II, p. 196; Tafsir Qurubi, vol. III, p. 130; Irshad As-Sari, vol. VIII, p. 127; Durr al-Manthur, vol. I, p. 279 and other sources
6- al-Muwatta’, vol. II, p. 12

Muhammad, but banned by the caliph.(1) As we mentioned, 'Umar believed these affairs were permissible at the time of the Prophet due to certain necessity.

Another example is dropping the line “Hayya 'Ala Khayr al-’Amal” (Rush to the best deed) from the Adhan(2) whereas people such as 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar and Iman as-Sajjad (a) always said this line in the call to prayers.(3)

Word has it that 'Umar was the first person to initiate the rising of Ramaďan. He did it in the 14th year of Hijra and ordered all towns and cities to do so.(4) This is the same nightly prayers of Ramaďan still common among Sunnis. Because 'Umar saw himself entitled to such authorities, he issued contradictory rulings in some cases. Such instances can be found in the issue of inheritance.(5)

Freedom of action in religious affairs could entail more claim of authority in non-religious domains. The caliph did not avoid innovation. The sudden expansion of Islamic countries at the time of 'Umar brought him face to face with numerous problems, so he often tried to find a solution to his problems even if through consultation with the companions. The collection of such solutions which were first based on the Prophet's heritage, second on consultations with the companions and third, on the caliph's innovations, led to the enlargement of the state authority.

Comparing the successful policy of 'Umar and Mu'awiya with that of Imam 'Ali, Ahmad Amin says the former two considered themselves free in interpreting religious texts while

p: 83

1- See the sources in works of the Sunnites in, al-Ghadir, vol. VI, pp 198-213 and more, Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. I, pp 716-720
2- Iman as-Sajjad(a) said: “Due to people remaining strong in Jihad, ‘Umar removed the sentence, حي علي خيرالعمل “ Haste for good deed” From Azan; Kitab al-’Ulum, vol. I, p. 92
3- As-Sirat al-halabiyya, vol. II, p. 110
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 281
5- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 181

'Ali believed in them.(1) Also, Suhayl Zakkar has referred to the point that 'Umar saw himself entitled to interpret new issues.(2) His instructions to Shurayh are also considerable for following the rules.(3)

As mentioned earlier, one principle of the caliph's thoughts was that he tried to only rely on the Qur'an as proof, so he ignored hadiths. His remark which said, حسبنا كتاب الله (4) “We relied on the Book of Allah.”

This has been cited in many historical and hadith sources and implies nothing other than there is no need for hadith. Of course, this has no contradiction with 'Umar's use of the Prophet's quotations if he could not think of a certain solution. However, in return, he would do something if it were to his interest even if Prophet Muhammad had a special belief in that regard.

One such clear example was a wording about the Imamate of Imam 'Ali that was said by the Prophet. Not only 'Umar, but other companions also set aside the words due to some expediency they claimed.

Ibn Abi al-Hadid says, “I asked my master about texts on the Imamate of 'Ali and said, “Is it really possible that they have set aside the Prophet's words?”

He answered, “Those people do not consider caliphate among religious decrees such as daily prayers and fasting, but consider it a worldly affair and an issue like running the land, planning the war and ruling the subjects.

In these cases, too, if they saw it to their benefit, they would

p: 84

1- Zahr al-Islam,vol. IV, p. 38
2- Tarikh al-’Arab wal-Islam, p. 88
3- Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm wa Faďla, vol. II, pp 79-72
4- ‘Umar said this on Yawm al-khamis event when the Prophet asked for pen and paper to write something to prevent people from going astray after he is dead About the sources, ‘Ali-Bukhari, Kitab al-’Ulum, Bab Kitab al-’Ulum; Kitab al-Jihad, Bab Hal yastashfa‘ Ila ahl al-dhamma wa bab Ikhraj al-yahud min jazira al-’Arab; Kitab hglaghazi; Bab maraď al-Nabi; Kitab al-Marďa, Bab qawl al-Mariď: Qumu ‘Anni, kitab hg-I‘tisam, Bab kirahiyya al-khalaf, al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. V, p. 438 and 439; Musnad Ahmad, vol. I, p. 336; Dala’il al-Nubuwwa, vol. VII,p. 183; Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm, vol. I, p. 77; Kanz al-’Ummal, vol. X,p. 292, hadith, 29475; for more sources, Tadwin As-Sunna Ash-Sharifa, Fihrist MusTalahat, under, Hasbuna kitab Allah

oppose the word of the Prophet. For example, the Prophet ordered Abu Bakr and 'Umar to join the army of Usama, but they refused to do so as they did not see it agreeable to the state interests. These happened during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, he saw them and did not deny them!…

The companions, collectively and individually, neglected many words of Prophet Muhammad and this was due to the interests they saw in doing so such as the shares of ذوي القربى والمؤلفة قلوبهم “Relatives and those whose hearts are captured.”

They acted according to their own will in many issues not mentioned by the Qur'an and the Sunna such as the limit of drinking wine,…. They preferred their interests to the Prophet's words, saying, “If you find it right, do it…”

As for the Prophet's words about 'Ali, they (in fact, Abu Bakr and 'Umar) said that Arabs would not accept his rule due to several reasons. Therefore, they agreed not to give him the power because they saw that Arabs would not obey him.

So, they interpreted the Prophet's words; however, they did not deny the word. They just said someone present can see something which the absent person cannot. The Ansar's act, too, helped them. So, they made allegiance with Abu Bakr to eliminate the Ansar's conspiracy. And later, in the face of 'Ali's protests, they said that he was too young, Arabs would not accept him, …and that Abu Bakr was an old man, he was experienced, Arabs

p: 85

love him, etc.

They said if they had chosen 'Ali, Arabs would have turned apostate and …Which way was to their interests? Following the Prophet's words and getting ready for Arabs' apostasy and the return of the Dark Age or deviating from the Prophet's words and safeguarding Islam…People, too, remained silent…

Ibn Abi al-Hadid says, “My master, Abu Ja’far Naqib, did not believe in Imam and did not obey them. Neither did he accept the words of Shi'ites fanatics. Yet, he had such an analysis.(1)

At any rate, this point must be taken into consideration that when 'Umar took the reins of caliphate, it was necessary to expand the administrative organization of the new government. Further conquests and enlargement of the lands under his rule as well as wars and peace deals forced him to forge some laws in order to run his affairs.

These measures are listed by Kattani in the book of “al-Taratib al-Idariyya ” (Administrative Arrangements). Many of his measures took on a jurisprudent aura and in later texts of Sunnis, were used as the basis of Sunnites jurisprudence. Most of his edicts have been collected in the book of “al-Musannaf” by 'Abd al-Razzaq Sanani. Ibn Kathir, too, has gathered these edicts in a book entitled “Musnad 'Umar” ('Umar's Throne).

It was during his period that for the first time, the title of “Amir al-Mu'minin” or “Commander of the Faithful” became a common term to refer to the caliph. Before that, he was called “Khalifa Rasul Allah” or the “Caliph

p: 86

1- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. XII, pp 82-90

of the Prophet”. But, according to quotations, he got the title of Amir al-Mu'minin in the year 17 A.H. from either Mughira Ibn Shu'ba, Abu Musa Ash'ari or 'Adi Ibn Hatim.(1)

One the caliph's measures which had an important role in organizing the ruling system and establishing the government was the formation of “Diwans” in the year 20 A.H.(2) Prophet Muhammad was a pioneer in registering the names of Muslims, especially fighters.(3)

'Umar ordered the registration of the Companions and classified them based on tribal origins and religious records.(4) Then, he divided the huge booties gained during conquests. 'Umar began with the Hashimites and among them, with 'Abd al-Muttalib.50 The policy of the Prophet and Abu Bakr differed with 'Umar's policy(5) in that they divided the riches equally while 'Umar's division was based on different tribes and the people's record in Islam. It is said that 'Umar objected to Abu Bakr for observing equality.(6)

This act of the caliph led to the reinforcement of tribal strata among Arabs based on which, some tribes claimed superiority over others. This remark of Maqdisi who has quoted 'Umar as saying that he had learnt justice from Chosroe(7) gives strength to the probability that he had been somehow influenced by the Iranian system of social classification, though there is no other evidence to prove this claim. Word has said that towards the end of his life, 'Umar doubted the rightfulness of this method and said if he lived more, he would act equally towards all

p: 87

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 150; Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 305; al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 157
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 153
3- Taratib al-idariyya, vol. I, p. 227 Some believe the Prophet has initiated preparing administrative tribunal Ibid p. 228 Some others consider ‘Umar’s policy in preparing it affected by monarchy system Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 209 Some people regard it to be influenced by the Sassanid government; al-Fakhri, p. 38
4- Kattani writes in defining administrative tribunal, دفتر يكتب فيه أسماء اهل العطاء والعساكر على القبائل والبطون He had an account book in which he registered names of those who deserve to be gifted according to tribes Taratib al-idariyya, vol. I, p. 225
5- Taratib al-idariyya, vol. I, p. 226
6- Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 222
7- Ahsan al-taqasim, p. 18


Also, an accurate date that was necessary for administrative affair was set in 'Umar's time. We mentioned elsewhere that during consultations with the companions, he acted according to the opinion of Imam 'Ali based on choosing the date of the Prophet's Hijra as the beginning date of Muslims' history. This was a significant step towards creating administrative discipline.

Regarding the sources of the second caliph's religious and political thoughts, we must note another point. Besides what he had gained from Islamic teachings, 'Umar tried to enrich his thoughts from other sources also. One of these sources was the knowledge of the people of the book and Jews had plenty of such knowledge in Hijaz.

First of all, we must admit that among different Islamic sects, there is a common accusation about 'Umar's use of Jewish knowledge, mostly due to the reason that Jews were greatly despised by the Qur'an and naturally, by Muslims. It should be known however that the people of the book in general and Jews, in particular, have left some traces in the historical texts and hadiths of Muslims.

This influence is more or less seen among practically all sects. Any way, there are some texts available that indicate the people of the book tried to grab a position for themselves in the new society by relying on the knowledge they already possessed and the cultural influence they had inherited from the era of ignorance.

Their religious texts had many things in common with Islam and it was

p: 88

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 154

on this basis that they claimed to have some knowledge about the interpretation of the Qur'an. Moreover, they said that in the earlier texts, the Prophet's ordainment had been announced.

They went on as far as claiming that in divine books, there had a lot of information about the trend of developments in the Islamic society, the story of caliphs, events and wars. Muslims' belief in this issue made it much easier for the people of the book. We had better set aside our general discussion in this regard, which has also been reiterated by Ibn Khadlun(1) and return to our main topic.

When the Muslim Muhajirs came to Medina and Islam spread in the city, the ground was prepared for a cultural relation between Islam and Judaism due to their common origins.

A quotation says, كانت اليهود يحدثون اصحاب رسول الله “ The Jews spoke with the companions of the Prophet (S).” When Prophet Muhammad heard of that, he said, “Do not confirm or deny them.”(2) Though it seems that gradually, things got more serious until the Prophet banned the companions from listening to Jews or copying their works.

When he came to Medina, the second caliph decided to use the people of the book to increase his religious and historical knowledge.

He says, “I copied one of the works of the people of the book so as to add to my knowledge.” The Prophet was really angered to the extent that the Ansar shouted, “as-Silah! as-Silah!”, meaning “Weapon! Weapon!”

Then, the Prophet

p: 89

1- al-Muqaddama, Chapter of the ‘Ilm al-tafsir
2- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. VI, p. 111

said, “I have brought everything for you.”(1) Elsewhere, 'Umar has been quoted as telling Prophet Muhammad, “I came across a “brother from Qurayza” who copied the Torah for me. Shall I offer it to you?” This question angered the Prophet.(2)

Zuhri says that “Hafsa who was 'Umar's daughter and also the Prophet's wife, brought to the Prophet a book of stories about Joseph and read out the book. At the same moment, the Prophet's face turned red with anger and he said, “I swear by God that if Joseph and I were among you and you followed him and abandoned me, you would be mistaken.”(3) The fact that 'Umar and his daughter tried at the time of the Prophet to read the texts of other religions could not have been a mere incidence. This issue is clarified with the point told by Ibn Shahab Zuhri about 'Umar's naming as Faruq, the distinguisher.

He says, “The first people to call 'Umar as Faruq were the people of the book while no news has reached us to indicate that the Prophet called him so.”(4)

When 'Umar came to power, he pondered in this regard with a more peace of mind and right at the time when he encountered a Muslim-turned Jew from Yemen, he could benefit from him more. This person was Ka'b Ibn Mati' Himyari known as Ka'b al-Ahbar.(5)

He converted to Islam after the Prophet's demise at the time of Abu Bakr or 'Umar and then came to Medina. Later, he took permission

p: 90

1- Ibid vol. XI, p. 111; Lisan al-Mizan, vol. II, p. 408; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 207; Gharib al-Hadith, vol. IV, pp 48-49; Sunan al-Darimi, vol. I, p. 116; al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. VI, pp 112-113; Majma‘ al-zawa’id, vol. I, pp 172-173; Taqyid al-’Ilm, p. 52(in the footnote), Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm, vol. II, p. 42; Usd al-Ghaba, vol. IU, p. 235; vol. III, p. 126; Zamm al-Kalam, p. 64
2- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. VI, p. 113
3- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. VI, p. 114; vol. XI, p. 110
4- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. I, p. 66; al-Muntakhab Min Dhiyl al-Mudhayyal, p. 504, It is quoted from Ka‘b al-Ahbar sayting to Mu‘awiya, “‘Umar al-Faruq ” is titled in Torah Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXI, p. 186
5- ِAbout his life, Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, pp 446-447; Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. XXIV, p. 193; Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. VI, p. 45; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXI, pp 181-182; Siyar ’A‘lam al-Nubala’, vol. III, p. 489

from the caliph and headed to Damascus. It seems that his departure to Damascus and at the time of the second caliph, to Bayt al-Muqaddas, was to sign a peace deal with Christians and Ka'b accompanied him. Ka'b al-Ahbar died during 'Uthman's caliphate in the year 32 or 33 A.H in the town of Hims.(1)

This is while a tomb with a high dome was built for him in Egypt. Ka'b al-Ahbar was a trusted and reliable source for centuries and his quotations have filled books of history and interpretation.(2) But currently, given the new researches carried out, the image of Ka'b al-Ahbar has been shrouded in mystery and has made decision-making difficult for Sunnites scholars and religious men.

Ka'b al-Ahbar, on the one hand, received the second caliph's attention and on the other, is an important source for texts known as Israelite in the Islamic culture. These are quotations about the Torah and other Jewish scriptures that have a determining presence in Muslims' books of history, interpretation, Gnosticism and literature.

Ka'b al-Ahbar and Wahb Ibn Munabba are two main sources of the spread of Israelite in the Islamic culture. Since the anti-Israelite current gained force among Sunnis, the task of deciding about Ka'b has been made difficult.(3) We should not forget here that twice as much what Ka'b has quoted from earlier books, has been falsely attributed to him by others and he has been exaggerated.

Dhahabi says about him, “He had knowledge of Jewish books and had a special talent

p: 91

1- Aďwa’ ‘ala l-sunna al-Muhammadiyya, p. 148, footnoteIII
2- More than others, Abu Na‘im Isfahani has quoted one hundred pages from him under his biography section in Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. V and VI
3- In recent times, Mahmud Aburiyya more than any other researcher has talked about negative role of Ka‘b al-Ahbar and the like on outbreak of the Israelites Aďwa’ ‘ala l-sunna al-Muhammadiyya, pp 145-194

in recognizing false and true texts.”(1)

Here, the second caliph's trust in him, despite sufficient evidence, has not been trusted by those who did not believe the Israelites in general and Ka'b, in particular. Ibn Kathir says Ka'b al-Ahbar was the best of them (Muslim-turned Jews) who are quoted. He embraced Islam at the time of 'Umar and quoted the people of the book. 'Umar approved some of his quotations because they were truthful.(2)

Moreover, 'Umar tried to absorb him. Afterwards, the people quoted many things from him in so far as there were exaggerations and he, too, quoted much falsehood while some of his words were true. Ibn Kathir has implicitly admitted that 'Umar helped Ka'b find a place among the people who turned to him. Due to the cultural power of the people of the book, as soon as Ka'b arrived in Medina, people gathered around him and asked him to read them some news about the future events from the books of the predecessors.(3)

What made people trust him was that he claimed his words were all based on “the Revealed Book of God”. Here, book means the Torah about which Ka'b had told Qays Ibn Kharasha, “The Torah says there is no inch of land other than what happens on it until the Day of Judgment.”(4)

Ka'b spread his words among the people by underlining that he was quoting from the “Book of God”. Above all, the second caliph benefited from him and his knowledge. There are

p: 92

1- Siyar ’A‘lam al-Nubala’, vol. II, p. 490
2- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. II, p. 123
3- al-Futuh, vol. IV, pp 326-328; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. XXXXV, p. 315
4- Aďwa’ ‘ala l-sunna al-Muhammadiyya, p. 148; quoted from Tarikh at-Tabari, Biyhaqi as well as al-Isti‘ab, vol. II, p. 533; al-Islam wal-Hiďara al-’Arabiyya, p. 164

several instances to prove this. Hisham Kalbi says, “There was famine at the time of 'Umar. Ka'b al-Ahbar told him, “When the same situation occurred for the Israelian tribe, they resorted to their prophet's Household and said the prayer for rain.

This advice led 'Umar to ask 'Abbas to say this prayer.”(1) Another quotation says 'Umar asked Ka'b to talk about “death” for him. While Ka'b was elaborating on death, tears rolled down the caliph's cheeks.(2) In another case, 'Umar asked him, which of Adam's sons had offspring and he talked in this regard in detail.(3)

When 'Umar wanted to travel to Iraq, Ka'b told him, “Do not go to Iraq because the genies are there, as are their men and nine-tenth of sorcery, too.”(4)

The quotation of Sayf Ibn 'Umar says that during the outbreak of plague, 'Umar called on his courtiers to guide him about different cities. Ka'b said the following about Iraq in response to 'Umar's seeking consultation.(5)

According to 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud who met 'Umar with Ka'b, Ka'b said, “Allow me to tell you the sweetest thing which I have read in “The Books of Prophets”. With 'Umar's approval, Ka'b al-Ahbar quoted parts of the book which is more than a page.(6) 'Umar asked Ka'b to tell him about Ka'ba and he said, “God sent down to earth a hollow sapphire(7) and …” In another occasion, Ka'b was sitting in the mosque when 'Umar entered and asked him to intimidate him and others.

He said, “O Ka'b! Frighten us!”(8)

'Umar said,

p: 93

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, al-juz’ al-thalith, p. 7
2- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. VI, p. 44 vol. V, p. 365
3- al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 26
4- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. VI, p. 23; al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. XI, p. 251
5- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 59-60
6- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. V, p. 391
7- Tarikh makka, vol. I, p. 40
8- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. V, pp 391, 381 and 371; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXI, p. 185

“Prophet Muhammad told me, “My greatest fear for my Umma is from the side of misleading Imam.”

Ka'b said, “I swear by God that fear for the Umma is from no one other than them.”(1) Another quotation says once at the time of 'Umar, Ka'b stood up and asked, “What was the last word of your Prophet?”

'Umar said, “Ask 'Ali.”

And Imam 'Ali answered, “While his blessed head was resting on my shoulder, he said, “Prayers, prayers.”

Ka'b said, “This is the last oath of all prophets to which they have been obliged and ordained.”(2)

Ka'b wanted to show himself well-versed in all books of prophets and in other cases, to make people accept what he said. Apparently later, some people noticed the problem that they could not rely on the distorted Torah.

Therefore, how could they accept the words of Ka'b? To solve this issue, it was made up that Ka'b used a Torah which had not been distorted. In the final hours of his life, Ka'b ordered someone to throw that book of Torah into the sea.

His justification was that he was afraid some people would use that book as a base for their reasoning. After narrating this story, Dhahabi says, “Now, this Torah is not in our hands and after that, we cannot rely on the existing book of Torah.”(3)

However at the same time, Ibn 'Abbas rejected the Torah as distorted and cautioned people against asking questions from the people of the book.(4)

Another narration says 'Umar had ordered someone

p: 94

1- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXI, p. 181; Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 233
2- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. II, p. 262
3- Siyar ’A‘lam al-Nubala’, vol. III, pp 393-394 quoted from Tarikh Ibn Abi l-Khaythama
4- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. VI, pp 110 and 112

to be lashed as punishment. When he was being lashed, he said, “Subhan Allah” or “Praise be to God”. 'Umar told the executioner to stop the lashing. Ka'b al-Ahbar burst into laughter.

'Umar said, “Why do you laugh?”

Ka'b answered, “I swear by God that Subhan Allah is a mitigation of divine punishment.”(1) In another case, 'Umar and Ka'b were standing.

Hutay'a, the poet recited a poem which said, “Someone who does a good deed, his reward will never be wasted because “the good deed” is ever lasting between God and his people.”

Ka'b said, “By God, that it says the same thing in the Torah.”(2)

Once, 'Umar asked Ka'b al-Ahbar about different cities.

He said, “When God created the word and what is in it, Wisdom said, “I shall go to Iraq.” Knowledge said, “I shall be with you.” Wealth said, “I go to Damascus.” Trouble said, “I am with you.”(3)

In another occasion, Ka'b al-Ahbar entered the court of 'Umar and sat down at some distance from him. 'Umar asked him why he had done so. Ka'b pointed to the wisdom of Luqman and said, “One should not sit close to a person of power because someone else may enter the assembly who is more endeared; then, you will have to sit back a little. This way, you will be belittled.”(4)

'Umar asked Ka'b, “How does knowledge leave the mind of someone who has learnt it?”

Ka'b responded, “Through greed and stretching one's hand out to the people.”(5)

Once again, Ka'b told 'Umar, “Woe unto the “Sultan of

p: 95

1- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. V, p. 390
2- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. I, p. 44; Al_Mahasin wal-Masawi, vol.,I, p. 123
3- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol.,I, p. 48; al-Munta¨am, vol. VIII, p. 70
4- Bahjat al-Majalis, vol. I, p. 48; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXI, p. 185; al-Jawhar al-Nafis fi Siyasa al-ri’is, p. 114
5- Bahjat al-Majalis, vol. I, p. 159

the Earth” from the “Sultan of the Heaven”?”

'Umar said, “Unless for someone who checks himself.”

Ka'b said, “I swear by God that this has been mentioned in the Torah exactly.”(1) In another occasion, 'Umar asked Ka'b al-Ahbar to tell him about virtue.(2) Once 'Umar told Ka'b who was seeking permission to go to Damascus, “Do not leave Medina which is the place of the Prophet's Hijra and his city of burial.” Ka'b said he had read in the Revealed Book of Allah that Damascus was God's treasure upon the earth.(3)

In another case, a verse was discussed,

كُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُودًا غَيْرَهَا


“Whatsoever their skin is fried, it is replaced with a new one to taste the pain.” (4)

Ka'b said, “I have an interpretation about this verse which dates back to the period before the advent of Islam.”

'Umar said, “Say it, but we will confirm your words only when they conform to those of the Prophet (S).”

Ka'b said, “It means I will change their skin a hundred times each hour.”

'Umar said, “I heard the same thing from the Prophet (S) !”(5)

In Bayt al-Muqaddas, 'Umar asked Ka'b about the location of the “Sakhra” and he talked in this regard in detail.(6)

Despite these examples, only Abu Zur'a Dimashqi has quoted 'Umar as telling Ka'b, “Quit the narration of “Hadith al-Uwal” the first hadith or I shall banish you to the land of apes!”(7)

In another case, in continuation of a report from a follower of another religion talking about the traits of

p: 96

1- Bahjat al-Majalis, ol I, p. 368; Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. V, p. 389; Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 125 Ka‘b’s policy was that when ‘Umar or Abu Hurayra or others spoke against his taste, he said, “The very word is cited in the Torah He said about Abu Hurayra, “I have never seen anyone like Abu Hurayra who has not read the Torah but his words accord with it this much ´Aďwa’ ‘ala l-sunna al-Muhammadiyya, p. 207 from Taďkira al-huffa¨
2- Maqamat al-’Ulama’ bayn yaday al-khulafa’ wal-’Umara’, p. 163
3- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. XI, p. 251 Ka‘b praised Damascus very much in front of Medina and Mecca This is somewhat religiously and Jewishly rooted and is of a political motive to some extent for strengthening Mu‘awiya They may have been later fabricated by the Umayya
4- Nisa’, p. 56
5- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. V, p. 375
6- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, p. 59
7- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya vol. VIII, p. 110, Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXI, p. 187 Aburiyya has said accordingly, “‘Umar initially paid attention to his speech but later he found his weakness ‘Aďwa’, p. 152-153 As mentioned in the context, there are plenty of examples showing ‘Umar’s giving him freedom of speech

the caliphs in the Torah, 'Umar has been quoted as having cautioned people against quoting the people of the book.(1) Also, once 'Umar heard that someone in Kufa had the book of Daniel. 'Umar called him to Medina and afterwards, that person agreed to burn whatever he had.(2)

Such a position, even if existed, was not so firm towards Ka'b and the instances mentioned earlier, are proofs to our opinion. Once Ka'b came to 'Umar and asked permission to read the Torah. 'Umar answered, “If you know that this is the same Torah sent down by God upon Moses in Mount Sinai, then read it day and night.”(3)

During these consultations, once 'Umar noticed that Ka'b had not given up his Jewish thoughts yet. In the year that 'Umar went to Bayt al-Muqaddas, Ka'b accompanied him. On this journey when there were talks with others including a monk,(4) 'Umar asked Ka'b to determine the place of the mosque of Bayt al-Muqaddas. So, he asked Ka'b, “In your opinion, in which direction should we place the altar?”

Ka'b said, “Towards the Sakhra (Jewish Qibla).”

'Umar said, “You speak in favor of Jews! I also saw that upon entering the mosque, you took off your shoes.”(5) However, even after that, Ka'b's position remained the same to the caliph.

One interesting point here is the claim of Ka'b al-Ahbar and the people of the book about finding the name and characteristics of the second caliph in previous divine books. 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud has been quoted as

p: 97

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol.,III, p. 1081
2- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol.,VI, p. 114
3- Gharib al-Hadith, vol. IV, p. 262; al-Fa’iq fi Gharib al-Hadith, vol. I, p. 651, إن كنت تعلم أن فيه التوراة الّتي أنزلها الله على موسى عليه السلام بطور سيناء فاقرأها آناء الليل والنهار
4- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. VI, p. 7
5- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, pp 57 and 650, al-Manar al-Munif, pp 89-90; ‘Aďwa’, pp 166-167 Once Ibn ‘Abbas hearing Ka‘b speak, اما تركت اليهودية؟ Al-Kaf Ash-Shaf, p. 139 quoted from, ‘Aďwa’, p. 165

saying, ”'Umar was riding a horse when it suddenly threw him off. At that moment, 'Umar's thigh was revealed. The people of Najran who saw a black mole on his thigh said, “This is the same person who, our books say, drives us out of our homeland.”(1)

Later, Wahb Ibn Munabba claimed that 'Umar's description had been mentioned in the Torah.(2) Aqra' who was 'Umar's Mu'adhdhin, says, “The caliph sent me to fetch the bishop. I brought him so that he sat under the same shade with 'Umar.

'Umar asked the bishop, “Have you seen my name in your books?”

The bishop replied, “Yes.”

'Umar inquired, “How?”

The bishop answered, “Like a horn!”

'Umar lifted his lash and said, “What is on my horn?”

The bishop said, “An iron horn, reliable and strong.”

'Umar asked, “Who succeeds to caliphate after me?”

The bishop answered, “A righteous caliph who sacrifices his life for his relatives.”

'Umar asked, “Who is next after him?”

The bishop said, “A righteous caliph who has drawn out his sword has shed blood!”(3) Although this narration is unknown, first of all, it is likely that its beginning part is correct and the bishop said these things only about 'Umar. Second, even despite being an entire fabrication, those people have been mentioned by other bishops and those familiar with the pre-Islamic books.

Ibn Shubba says, “During 'Umar's journey to Damascus, an old man approached the army on the way and complained about heavy taxes. He asked to talk to the caliph.

Talha asked him, “Have you found the news of

p: 98

1- Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 205(in its footnote); al-Mu‘jam al-kabir, vol. I, p. 20; Majma‘ al-zawa’id, vol. IX, p. 61; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 336
2- Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 213
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1078-1079; Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 121 Someone who forged the news had a moderate belief towards ‘Uthman and ‘Ali (a) In a similar quotation we read, ‘Umar sent for Ka‘b al-Ahbar and he was asked, “How do find my attributes in Torah?” Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. VI, pp 25-26

the caliph's descent in your books?”

He said, “Yes, we know the descriptions of your chief and the one before him as well as your prophet.” Then, he mentioned those traits one by one!(1) Amali Muhammad Ibn Habib has been quoted as saying that Ibn 'Abbas said, “Towards the end of his caliphate, 'Umar wished death for himself.

One day when I was with him, he asked Ka'b al-Ahbar, “I see my death close. First, what is your opinion about 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib and second, what do you find in this regard in your books, because you believe that our affairs have been written in your books?”

Ka'b said, “In my opinion, 'Ali is not suitable for his job because he is a strictly religious man. He does not overlook any mistake, does not act to his Ijtihad and this way, he cannot control his subjects. But, what we find in our books is that the government does not fall to him or his sons.”

'Umar said, “Then, who gets the rule?”

Ka'b al-Ahbar said, “We find it so that after the believer in Shari'a and two of his companions, the government will reach those people with whom the Prophet (S) has fought over the principle of religion,(2) that is the Umayya.” Also in another occasion, someone from the people of the book came to 'Umar and said, ” Oh, King of Arab, greetings upon you.”

'Umar asked, “Has such a thing been mentioned in your books? Has it not been said that the “Prophet”

p: 99

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, pp 1079-1080
2- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. XII, pp 80-81; elsewhere it is quoted that the Jews came to ‘Umar and said, “A verse has been called to you, if it were called to us, we would celebrate the day of call The verse reads, اليَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ… I complemented your religion ‘Umar said, “Yes, I do remember that thr verse was sent on the day of “‘Arafa”(9th of Dhi Hajja) to the Prophet!! al-Qand fi Tarikh Samarqand, pp 434-435

comes, then the “caliph” and then “Amir al-Mu'minin”?”

He said, “Yes.”(1) This quotation is evidently a mere lie. At the time of 'Uthman, Ka'b al-Ahbar responded to someone who had said in a poem that after 'Uthman, 'Ali would come to power.

He said, “You are lying. The caliphate will go to Mu'awiya.”(2)

According to historians, Ka'b deviated from Imam 'Ali (a) and Imam, too, introduced him as a “Liar.”(3) Ka'b said he had read the news of the cities' conquests in the Torah and that these conquests would take place at the hands of a righteous man.(4)

'Umar's familiarity with the people of the book, especially his friendship with Ka'b, caused him to sometimes say something or take an action by relying on what the people of the book had stated.

One of the companions says, “Prophet Muhammad (S) had said the afternoon prayers. After that, a man stood up to say prayers. 'Umar grasped him by his clothes and said, “ 'Sit down.' The people of the book were lost because there was no rest between their prayers.”(5) Also, the caliph's important decision in preventing the Prophet's hadiths from being written down was made under the influence of the people of the book.(6)

Zuhri quotes 'Urwa Ibn Zubayr as saying, ”'Umar decided to write down the hadiths and Sunna of the Prophet (S). He consulted the companions in this regard. They all agreed. 'Umar thought about the decision for a month and then said, “I have thought about it. I saw that before you,

p: 100

1- al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. VII, p. 529
2- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXV, pp 24-25; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 434; al-Niza‘ wal-Takhasum, p. 78; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 495, No 1278; al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 208; al-Kamil wal-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 123
3- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 77
4- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 228
5- Usd al-Ghaba, vcol V, p. 199
6- Buhuth ma‘a ahl As-Sunna wal-salafiyya, p. 97; As-Sahih Min Sira al-Nabi ’A‘¨am (S), vol. I, p. 27

the people of the book had written books on the book of God and relied on them. As a result, they abandoned the book of God. But, I will not cover the book of God with anything else.”(1)

Despite the Prophet's clear ban on reading the works of the people of the book – including obvious examples that were addressed to 'Umar, himself(2) some people freely spread these ideas. It is interesting that besides spreading these thoughts, the writing and narration of the hadiths was prevented.(3)

In order to complete this plan one side of which was the permission for spreading Jewish thoughts and the other one was blocking the narration of the hadith, a hadith was narrated, or in better words, was fabricated which quoted Prophet Muhammad as saying, “Do not write any of my words and instead, narrate anything you want from the people of Israel.”(4)

This is while people such as Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud openly voiced concern over the accessibility of the works of the people of the book for Muslims and rejected them.(5)

One of the phenomena which was created in this period and whose origin should be considered as a consequence of the spread of the Israelite, was story telling. Certain people known as “Qas”, the story- tellers quoted the historical-Religious stories of Jews and used them as the interpretation of the historical verses of the Qur'an. Their main source for these stories was the Torah and the verbal quotations common among Jewish and Christian

p: 101

1- Taqyid al-’Ilm, p. 50(in its footnote); Jami‘ al-bayan al-’Ilm, vol. I, p. 64; Kanz al-’Ummal, vol. V, p. 239; Dham al-kalam, p. 63; in another manner in, Taqyid al-’Ilm, p. 51; Taďkira al-huffa¨, vol. I, p. 5; Kanz al-’Ummal, vol. I, p. 174
2- Gharib al-Hadith, vol. IV, pp 48-49; vol. III, pp 28-29
3- Abu Hurayra says, “As long as ‘Umar lived, we never dared say, قال رسول الله The Prophet (S) said, al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. VIII, p. 110
4- Taqyid al-’Ilm, p. 31 لا تكتبوا عني شيئاً الا القرآن… وحدثوا عن بني اسرائيل ولا حرج Quote me just about Quran and unworriedly speak about Banu Isra‘il
5- Gharib al-Hadith, vol. IV, p. 48; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. VI, pp 110,112


These people made speeches for the people before and after the public prayers. This phenomenon did not exist at the time of the Prophet (S) and Abu Bakr, but became common at the time of the second caliph, with his permission and continued later on. The phenomenon of story-telling raised positive and negative reactions among the companions (Sahaba) and the followers (Tabi'in) which we have elaborated on in a special book.(1)

What is concerned here is that for the first time, Tamim al-Dari began story-telling with the permission of the second caliph.(2) 'Umar allowed him to preach through story-telling before the Friday prayers sermons. Later, 'Uthman allowed him to do so twice a week.(3) Tamim al-Dari was a Christian-turned-Muslim and many stories have been narrated about his virtue. This became the basis of a kind of Christian-style piety later greatly spread in the Islamic society.

Examples of these pious people who constantly quoted news from Jews and Christian monks, are abundant in the book of “Hiliyat al-Awliya” by Abu Na'im Isfahani. It has been said that Tamim al-Dari had learnt his stories in the synagogues of Damascus and from the preachers of that land.(4) Also, another person named 'Ubayd Ibn 'Umayr was permitted to tell stories at the time of 'Umar.(5) We will see later that Imam 'Ali (a) was seriously opposed to story-telling.

‘Umar’s Murder

According to certain narrations and more specifically what has been narrated by Tabari, some people have claimed that 'Umar was murdered with the plot of Ka'b al-Ahbar..Historians

p: 102

1- Pazhuhishi darbariyi naqshih dini wa Ijtima‘i qissI khanan dar Tarikh Islam, Qum, 1991
2- Musnad Ahmad, vol. III, p. 449; al-Qussas wal-mudhakkirin, p. 22; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. V, p. 321; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. I, p. 186
3- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. III, p. 219; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. I, p. 11; al-Khitat al-Maqriziyya, vol. II, p. 253; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. V, p. 321
4- al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-’Arab qabl al-Islam, vol. VIII, p. 378
5- al-Qussas wal-mudhakkirin, p. 22

and narrators of Sunnites hadiths brought this news in their books for centuries. However, they believed so much in the predictions and reports of Ka'b and people like him that they did not have the least suspicion about Ka'b's role in the caliph's murder.

Jahiz who is a rationalist critic, has this opinion about what Ka'b has narrated from the Torah (although there is no such thing in the Torah), I believe that many of these reports which have been quoted with phrases such as “We find them in the books” or “written in the Torah”, have in fact been taken from the “Book of prophets” and works from the books of Solomon and Isaiah, the prophet. If the stories quoted from him about the characteristics of 'Umar, are from him (because he, himself, did not fabricate news), the problem cannot be solved unless with our justification.(1)

Therefore, Jahiz Mu'tazili, too, has not been able to have any doubts about Ka'b al-Ahbar. At any rate, forecasting 'Umar's murder before the actual incident and the opinion that Ka'b had seen the news in previous books did not attract the attention of the Prophet's companions and other Muslims. Infact, it is only in recent years that something has been said in this regard.

In our opinion, there is doubt about the truthfulness of what has been said by Ka'b. What has led to the linking of this fabricated news to Ka'b was nothing but the interest of some simple-minded people in the point that

p: 103

1- al-Hayawan, vol. IV, pp 202-203

the caliph's martyrdom has been mentioned in the Torah or other books and especially that the title of “martyr” has been particularly emphasized.

Moreover, many stories have been quoted in different sources saying that others had reported on 'Umar's murder. Some of them have been collected by Ibn Sa'd and most of them have been related to “the invisible voice” or “genie”. They said, for example, a voice could be heard reading a poem and saying the news but no one could be seen.(1) What has come in certain texts is that Ka'b had told the caliph before his murder that he had found him a just and martyred Imam in the Torah.

'Umar had said, “How will he be martyred in Medina?” (2)

After 'Umar received a deadly blow at the mosque, Ka'b came to him and said, “Didn't I tell you that you are a martyr?” (3)

If the news ended here, there would be no problem, but Ibn Sa'd has another quotation from Sa'd al-Jari who was 'Umar's freed slave, Umm Kulthum told 'Umar, “Ka'b, the Jew, says, ”'Umar is standing at one of the doors of hell.” 'Umar sent for Ka'b. Ka'b came to him and said, “I swear by God that Dhil-Hajja will not pass unless you are in heaven.”

'Umar said, “How is it that once I am standing at the gate of hell and the other time, I'm in heaven?”

Ka'b said, “We have found in the Book of God that you are standing at the door of

p: 104

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, pp 334-374, Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, pp 888-891
2- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. V, p. 388, vol. VI, p. 13; See the detailed form in, Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 392; Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 133
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 342; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XII, p. 191; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 40

hell and do not let anyone in, but after you die, people will again go to hell!” (1)

We think what reveals the importance of the matter is a narration by Ibn Sa'd. He has quoted Ka'b as telling 'Umar, “In the tribe of Israel, there was a king who reminds us of you when we think of him. There was a prophet at the time of the king. Once he told the king, “Write down your will. You will die three days later.” The king said, “God! If you see that I am doing justice in my rule and obey you in the affairs, increase my life until my son grows up and my Umma increases in number.”

God conveyed these words to his prophet and said, “I added fifteen years to his life.”

After 'Umar was wounded, Ka'b told him, “If you ask, God will keep you alive.”

The news reached 'Umar but 'Umar said, “God, take my life at a time when I am not blamed and disabled.” (2)

In our opinion, this news has been distorted and it seems as if three days before 'Umar's murder (which in fact was three days before 'Umar's death and after his being wounded), Ka'b had told him, “You will die within three days, so ask God not to die.” Interestingly, it has been said that Ka'b came on the second day and said, “One day is left.” This news seems to be right.

Now, let's go to Tabari's report which is the distorted form of

p: 105

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 322; Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 140; Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. VI, p. 23
2- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 354; Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 154

the original news and has been quoted from Miswar Ibn Makhrama. He says, “After Abu Lu'lu''s negotiations with 'Umar over his taxes and 'Umar's request from him for building a mill, Abu Lu'lu' threatened him sarcastically.

The day after that, Ka'b al-Ahbar went to the caliph and said, “Make your will; you will die three days from now.”

'Umar asked, “Have you seen my name in the Torah?”

Ka'b said, “No, but I've seen your description and that your life has come to its end.”

'Umar did not feel any pain.

The next day, Ka'b came and said, “One day of the three days has passed and two days remain.” Again, Ka'b came the other day and said, “Two days are gone and one day and one day are left.” The next morning, Abu Lu'lu' attacked 'Umar at the mosque and dealt six blows on him.(1)

The above news is evident in that Ka'b knew of 'Umar's murder beforehand, but when this news is compared with that of Ibn Sa'd, we realize that the story was such, Having adopted the news of the Israelian king and the prophet of his time, Ka'b came to 'Umar after he had been wounded and told him that story from the Torah and the three days.

Incidentally, 'Umar passed away on the third day after being injured. However later, the news underwent some changes to sound unnatural. This could have been intentional to gain some credit for the caliph by relying on Muslims' fascination with the divine news of the

p: 106

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 191; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 26; Nihayat al-’Irab, vol. XIX, p. 374 The same report is quoted by Ibn Shabba with a little difference ‘Abd al-’Aziz Ibn ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Awf is the person commonly mentioned in Tarikh at-Tabari’s and Ibn Shabba’s references Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 891

people of scriptures.

The quotation that after 'Umar's injury, Ka'b had told him if he called on God to delay his death, He would do so(1), is a proof to the comparison made by Ka'b between 'Umar and the Israelian king. Out of his interests in the caliph, Ka'b advised him to ask God to delay his death so that he could live for fifteen more years.

As said earlier, despite the existence of quotations from Tabari and others, historians did not have any suspicions about Ka'b al-Ahbar. We believe that the true story was something else but the reason for the historian's belief in Ka'b was their real trust in him and the caliph's virtues.

Meanwhile, some of the new Sunnites researchers who are influenced by anti-Israelism have ignored 'Umar's trust in Ka'b and have interpreted the above-mentioned news as a Jewish plot to murder 'Umar.(2) One of these writers has named Ka'b al-Ahbar as the mastermind of 'Umar's murder, saying he had instigated Abu Lu'lu' to kill 'Umar. His sources are the news of Tabari and the quotation mentioned by Ibn Athir from Tabari.(3)

About the caliph's murder, what has been clearly reported in history indicates that this issue was solely related to 'Umar and Abu Lu'lu' and the motive behind the act was, at least it appears so, that the murderer felt some injustice had been done to him and he had been overcharged.

He complained to 'Umar in this regard. But, the caliph said that the money taken

p: 107

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 361; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. X, p. 225
2- It seems Aburiyya, before everyone else, has mentioned this thanks to Tarikh at-Tabari’s reports ’Aďwa’ ‘ala l-sunna al-Muhammadiyya, pp 153-155; Fi l-‘ubur al-hiďari “Ka‘b al-Ahbar”, pp 200-204
3- Athar ahl al-kitab fil-fitan wal-hurub al-ahliyya, pp 237,240

from him was not so much compared to his abilities and skills and naturally, his income. Some time later, the assassination occurred and it could be natural that the incident was totally or partially related to the argument which had taken place earlier between the murderer and the caliph.

Mas'udi reports the incident as such, 'Umar did not allow non-Arabs to arrive in Medina.(1)

Mughira wrote to him, “I have a servant who has been a painter, blacksmith and carpenter and can be useful for the people of Medina. If you agree, I shall send him to you.” 'Umar agreed and Abu Lu'lu' came to Medina. Mughira got two dhms from him per day. Once, Abu Lu'lu' went to 'Umar and complained about the heavy tax.

'Umar said, “What works do you do?”

Abu Lu'lu' explained his works as a painter, iron-smith and carpenter.

'Umar said, “Considering the jobs you do, your tax is not so much.”

After a few days, 'Umar asked Abu Lu'lu' to build a windmill for him. Abu Lu'lu' said he would build such a windmill for 'Umar that all people would talk about it! 'Umar smelled threat from these words but said nothing.

It was after this encounter that Abu Lu'lu' murdered 'Umar at dawn in a mosque. He injured twelve others six,of whom died later. Then, he killed himself with a sword.(2) Mas'udi said Abu Lu'lu' was a Jew but some sources have termed him as a Christian.(3) This story shows that the murder was personally motivated.(4)

Abu Lu'lu' has been

p: 108

1- According to sources, ‘Umar never let mature Arabs enter Medina As a matter of fact, the same man who was permitted to enter Medina, embraced on killing the caliph Afterwards, ‘Umar reproached those who agreed on entering of these people into Medina and called them his murder Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, pp 889,903,904; al-Nihaya fi Gharib al-Hadith, vol. III, p. 286 Those disagreeing with him said that Medina would be renewed just because of entry of the ‘Alwaj
2- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, pp 320-321; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 888; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 345; Ibn Juzi, Manaqib ‘Umar, p. 210
3- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 190
4- Therefore, it seems unjust for any sect to defend him, although some traditionally knew him a Muslim, believing that his murder arises from religious differences al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 194

quoted as saying that apparently, after 'Umar did not respond to his protest, he said, “How is it that the caliph's justice covers everyone except me?”(1) Among his motives, one can also notice the point that Abu Lu'lu' wanted to take revenge in this way because Iranians felt defeated at the hands of Muslims. However, the evidence for this claim is lacking.

There are several possibilities about who had incited Abu Lu'lu'. One is 'Ubayd Allah, the son of 'Umar. Claiming that Hurmuzan was Abu Lu'lu' accomplice in the incident and he had seen them together the previous day, 'Ubayd Allah killed Hurmuzan as well as Abu Lu'lu''s wife and daughter.

He had no reason for this act and naturally, had to be killed as Qisas, retaliation for the murder of three people for whose blood there was no supporter but the government. Even Ya'qubi says 'Umar had recommended that 'Ubayd Allah receive the Qisas!(2) But 'Uthman did not agree and said, “People will say, yesterday they killed the father and today, the son.(3)

The second guess coming from the caliph, himself, was that maybe some of the Muhajirun were involved in the murder. So, he sent Ibn 'Abbas to them and asked, أعن ملأ منكم؟ “ Did you order my murder?” And they said, معاذ الله! ما علمنا وما اطلعنا (4) “God forbid! We did not know and were not aware of it.”

The date of the caliph's passing has been reported as the 26th or 27th of Dhil-Hajja in the

p: 109

1- Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. I, p. 51
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 161
3- Tarikh Guzidih, p. 186
4- Tarikh Guzidih, p. 184; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 348; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. VI, p. 52; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 904

year 23 A.H whereas, he was only 55 years old.(1) Although elsewhere, Mu'awiya has been quoted as saying that he was 63 years old.(2) This forging may have been done to show that he died at the same age of Prophet Muhammad (S).

In his last days when he had been wounded, 'Umar seemed not be so satisfied with his worldly life. He repeatedly said,

يا ليتني لم أك شيئاً، ليت لم تلدني أمي، ليتني كنت نسياً، يا ليتني كنت حائكاً اعيش من عمل يد


“I wish I were nothing. I wish my mother had not given birth to me. I wish I had been forsaken. I wish I were a weaver and would earn my own living.” (3)

Continued Conquests in Damascus and Egypt

After conquering Damascus, the consecutive victories of Muslim Arabs forced many cities to ask for peace beforehand as they could gain more concessions. The city of Ba'labakk was peacefully conquered in the year 15th A.H. In the month of Rabi' al-Thani of the same year, the city of Hims which was considered one of the biggest cities of Damascus, was invaded by Muslims.

According to Baladhuri, the people of Hims who witnessed the escape of Heraclitos from their city and were aware of the repeated victories of Muslims and their patience and perseverance, took refuge inside the city after a brief encounter outside the town and called for mercy from Muslims.

In the peace deal concluded, in addition to guarantees for their life and properties, it was agreed that the city wall and churches

p: 110

1- Ibn Qutayba, al-Ma‘arif, p. 183; For other sources, Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, from 194 on
2- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 53
3- al-Zuhd wal-Raqa’iq, pp 79-80,145,146; Bahjat al-Majalis, vol. II, p. 399; Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 115; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, pp 360-361; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 920; Sheykh Mufid, al-Amali, p. 50

would remain intact. Only a quarter of the Johannes church was excluded for the construction of a mosque. Muslims, too, settled down in deserted areas and in houses abandoned by their owners.(1)

At that time, Abu 'Ubayda divided the governorship of different regions among army commanders. Yazid Abi Sufyan was chosen for ruling Damascus, Shurahbil Ibn Hasana for Jordan, 'Amr Ibn 'As for Palestine and 'Ubayda Ibn Samit for Hims. Abu 'Ubayda, himself, set off towards Humat and Shayzar for expanding the conquests.

Heraclitos who had now lost key centers in Damascus, once again tried to organize a huge army of Romans, Damascus people, the people of Hijaz and Armenians besides the Arab tribes of Judham, Lakhm and others to fight Muslims. In historical sources, these tribes have been named as “al-Musta'raba”.(2)

This big war took place at the Yarmuk region which was the name of a river. Muslims are said to have numbered at 24000 and the Roman army and its allies at 200000. But, one should not forget that Heraclitos did a last-ditch effort to keep Damascus. This war was so tough for Muslims that even Muslim women had to fight.(3)

The Yarmuk battle ended in Muslims' victory and following his defeat, Heraclitos left for Constantinople. In this war, Jabala Ibn 'Ayham commanded the front line army of Rome. There are different stories in various sources about whether he had converted to Islam or not, why he had taken offense from 'Umar and why 'Umar had repented from his treatment

p: 111

1- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 137
2- Ibid p. 140
3- Ibid p. 141

of him.(1)

One year after the Yarmuk battle, Muslims succeeded in surrounding Bayt al-Muqaddas. Abu 'Ubayda first invited them to either accept Islam or pay Jaziyya (poll tax paid in lieu of conversion to Islam).

However, when they refused, they had to lay a siege on the city. The Nazarene community of the city, who found the situation critical, gave in to a compromise, provided that the caliph would come to al-Quds and sign the contract personally.(2)

'Umar was doubtful about going to Quds. So, he consulted some of the Companions. 'Uthman was opposed to the idea, but in the presence of Imam 'Ali (a), he encouraged 'Umar to go, saying it was to the benefit of Islam and Muslims. 'Umar accepted his idea. After appointing 'Uthman as his vicegerent in Medina, he headed for Quds.(3) He moved towards Damascus arguably in the year 16th or 17th A.H.(4)

A variety of agreements were mentioned in the peace accord 'Umar signed with Damascus's Nazarene community. They received assurances that their lives would be spared. They were also assured that no church would be damaged nor any swastika broken. One of the key conditions of the accord was that Muslims should not allow Jews to live in Quds, nor should there any obligation in faith.

The residents of al-Quds also pledged to pay toll like the people of Ctesiphon. Additionally, the Romans had to leave the city. The people were also free to move their belongings to Rome or anywhere else.(5) It was on

p: 112

1- Ibid p. 141-142
2- al-Uns al-jalil, vol. I, p. 126
3- al-Uns al-jalil p. 250
4- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 145 (some people have said that ‘Umar traveled to Damascus four times during his caliphate ) Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha, p. 56 (footnote
5- al-Uns al-jalil, vol. I, pp 253-254

this trip that 'Umar entered the mosque and inquired Ka'b al-Ahbar about the site of the altar.

“The altar should be built towards the cliff which used to be the Qibla of Jews,” Ka'b said..

'Umar was infuriated at the response, saying, “Your response resembles the words of Jews.”(1)

Some time after the return of 'Umar from Damascus, a dreadful epidemic of plague dubbed ”'Amwas” swept Damascus in 18 A.H. The plague claimed the lives of several Muslims including the top governor of Damascus.

Chief among the victims were Abu 'Ubayda Ibn Jarrah, Mu'adh Ibn Jabal, Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan, Shurahbil Ibn Hasana, Faďl Ibn 'Abbas and Suhayl Ibn 'Amr. Yazid died a few while after Abu 'Ubayda as he had replaced him. After his death, 'Umar appointed Mu'awiya. Abu Sufyan, who had lost his eyesight at that time, appreciated 'Umar for visiting him.(2) In the last few years of 'Umar's caliphate, Mu'awiya was the governor of the Greater Syria.(3)

One of the key towns conquered in the reign of Mu'awiya was Caesarea. It was arguably conquered in 18 or 19 A.H.(4) The Arab troops were conquering further territories in the Greater Syria. In the meantime, the small towns accepted the peace treaty on their own. Many Arabs and Nazarenes adopted Islam.(5)

When 'Umar was in Damascus, 'Amr Ibn 'As asked for his permission to expedite towards Egypt to conquer it. It is said that in the Dark Age, he had gone to Egypt for business. So, he was somewhat familiar with it.(6)

'Umar was

p: 113

1- Ibid pp 256-257
2- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 146
3- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 157
4- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 148
5- Ibid p. 151
6- Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha, p. 53

afraid of launching such a bid. As a result of 'Amr's insistence and his efforts in playing down the risk of the attack, he eventually gave in. Amro, headed by a troop of between 3500 to 4000 men, headed for Egypt. It has been narrated that after the expedition of 'Amr, 'Umar withdrew his support and told 'Amr that if he had not yet entered Egypt, eh should return. However, 'Amr had entered Egypt. It seems 'Uthman had accused 'Amr of expansionism, and had magnified the danger of the elimination of Arab troops before 'Umar.(1)

Egypt's governor whom Arabs called “Muqawqis” had been appointed by Romans to rule the country. He was Coptic. Hence, Prophet Muhammad (S), in a letter to him, had called him the “Chief Coptic”. The war between Muslims and the Muqawqis army lasted two years. In the meantime, Muslims conquered many areas and towns.

The main reason behind the conquest of Egypt was the difference between Egyptian Coptics and Romans. The Coptics were not very willing to defend the Romans. Muqawqis, himself, was doubtful over this matter and waited to see what would happen. His brother, Benjamin, was the bishop of Alexandria.

In the meantime, Cyrus, the envoy of the Roman emperor, had arrived in Egypt to reform the affairs. The stringent behavior further distanced the Coptics from the Romans.(2) The news of the consecutive conquests of the Arab troops in the Greater Syria encouraged further people to surrender.(3)

The prolonged conquest of Alexandria, which dragged on for

p: 114

1- Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha, pp 57-58
2- Atlas Tarikh al-Islam, p. 133
3- One said to another, ان هؤلاء القوم لا يتوجهون الى أحد الا ظهروا عليه “ These people declare war with no one but when they overcome” Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha, pp 59

four months, necessitated the dispatch of auxiliary forces to Egypt.(1) The town eventually fell to Muslims in 20 A.H. There is debate as to whether Egypt gave in through force or peace. The same doubt exists for many other towns. After the deployment of Muslims, they turned the town of Fustat, which was their military base, to their administration center and left Alexandria. This was interesting from political and militarily viewpoints.

Among the troops of 'Amr Ibn 'As, there were some non-Arab fighters, some of whom were ethnic Romans and were called “Hamra'”. The other group was the Yemeni-based Persians who had moved, along with the Arab tribes, to these regions. Following the conquest of Egypt, the Iranians were accommodated in a certain place. According to Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, the mosque raised by Muslims at the site was famous until his age in the 3rd century A.H.(2)

A variety of matters have been mentioned over the reasons for the escalation of Arab conquests. The conquest of every region had certain reasons. The conquest of Iran, for instance, had a totally different reason from that of Damascus. These conquests were entirely achieved by Arab Muslims.

So, it is evident that their will was the first reason for these conquests. This will stemmed, on the one hand, from their faith, and on the other from their leadership and the Muslims' administrative and legal systems over war booties.

Islam allocated a large portion for the warriors and it was natural for the needy and the

p: 115

1- Ibid p. 61
2- Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha p. 129

hungry Arabs to go the battlefield to earn something for their families, provided that they would emerge alive from the battlefield. As a matter of fact, Muslims had no concern whatsoever of being killed, because they saw martyrdom in the path of Allah as a great achievement.

The staggering point about their will and determination was that Muslims had a high sense of self-confidence. Prophet Muhammad (S) promised Muslims victory over the Roman Empire and Iran saying, “The treasures of Caesar and Chosroe will fall to you”. Therefore, Muslims moved towards the battlefield with an iron will and full confidence in the forecast of the Prophet. Initial gains made them stronger, livelier and more confident for later conquests.

Another point is that the power of Muslims did no depend on a particular caliph, because a survey of these conquests from their start to the end of the first century A.H indicates that every caliph who had the chance of conquest, managed to capture several lands. The people's belief in the administration was a driving force of these conquests.

No opposition was raised from the side of Medina rulers. The rulers under the caliph were totally obedient. It should be noted that the caliphs picked their appointees from among the people of the second generation of the Companions who were totally submissive to them. Yet, the significance of the conquests crated an atmosphere in which even potential opponents abandoned their dream of a political rebellion. Under these circumstances, the masses of troops pressed

p: 116

ahead with their conquests more comfortably.

The success of Arabs in Damascus had several reasons, one of which was that the majority of the Damascus residents were Arabs, and in spite of being Christians, they were racially linked to Hijaz. Meantime, they maintained their distance from the Romans. In the early years of the conquests, some tribes including Lakhm and Judham joined Muslims, but when they found out that the war was serious, they fled to the nearby villages and left the Muslims alone.(1)

According to Jabala Ibn 'Ayham, the relationship of the Ansar, who originally came from the southern tribes, to him was, أنتم اخوتنا وبنو أبينا “ You are our brethren and children of our fathers.”

During the conquest of Qinnasrin, the residents of the town hinted that they were also Arabs and did not want to fight against the conquerors. So, Khalid accepted their peace overture.(2) The Taghlab tribe, who had teamed up with the Romans and fought along with them, said in the 13th century A.H that they would fight along with their tribe.(3) There were, however, a number of other tribes who remained allied with the Romans till the end, and immigrated to the Roman territories after the conquest of the Greater Syria by Muslims.

Apart from the Arab residents of Damascus disassociated themselves from the Romans, others including Jews, the Nibti community and the Egyptian Coptics, had the same situation. Faced with the mild dealing of Muslims, they felt they could live up with Muslims and

p: 117

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 570
2- Ibid vol. III, p. 601
3- Ibid vol. III, p. 464

see their rights met. As soon as Muslims captured Hims, they found themselves involved elsewhere in the Yarmuk war.

They believed that they might not emerge victorious out of the Yarmuk battle, they decided to return the money received from the people of Hims to provide for their security. Faced with such a conduct, the people of Hims said, “Your friendship and justice is more likeable to us than the oppression which we are living under. We will defend our town along with you.”(1)

It has been said that the Nibtis aggressively cooperated with Muslims, and as the Romans did not suspect them, they spied for Muslims.(2)

The other point is that the there were religious differences between Damascus and Rome. Considering the fact that the Romans did not treat these people properly from both economic and political viewpoints, the remarks of Will Durant hold true, “As the conqueror Arabs invaded Egypt and the Far East, half the people of those regions welcomed their arrival, because they viewed them as their liberator from the clutches of religious, political and economic oppression of the Byzantine capital.”(3) At any rate, after the expansion of conquests, several towns followed the line of surrender.(4)

Continued Conquests in Iraq and the Conquest of Iran

'Umar's caliphate was accompanied with several conquests of Muslim troops in Syria, which started with the conquest of Damascus. In these circumstances, some measures had to be adopted in Iraq. Firstly they were needed to stabilize its situation in favor of Muslims and, secondly, to expand the conquests. In the meantime, the town

p: 118

1- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 143
2- al-Futuh, vol. I, pp 143-144
3- Tarikh Tamaddun, vol. IV, p. 64; Ash-Sham fi Sadr al-Islam, pp 63-64, footnote
4- See the list in, Ash-Sham fi Sadr al-Islam, pp 60-70

of Hira was freed from the Iranian control. Hence, Iranians were waiting for an opportunity to repel the new threat.

Arab troops were led by Muthanna Ibn Haritha. Yet, Medina's caliph, like the era of Abu Bakr, was determined to dispatch a commander from the known Saudi clans to Iraq. The nominee was Abu 'Ubayd Ibn Mas'ud Thaqafi, the father of Mukhtar, from the Thaqafi clan, which used to be an ally of the Quraysh. Heading a 5000-strong troop(1), Abu 'Ubayd encouraged many tribes on his way to conduct Jihad and win booties.

A large number of people joined him.(2) It was decided that Muthanna work under the command of Abu 'Ubayd. Iranians amassed a troop headed by Bahman Jadiwayh (Men of Shah Hajib) east of the Euphrates, whereas Abu 'Ubayd's forces lined up on the western side of the Euphrates. The Arabs crossed the bridge and launched the battle.

Despite the bravery of Muslims, the mammoth elephants existing in the Iranian army frightened the horses of Arab forces. As the Arabs had damaged the bridge, they had no way back. So, they sustained heavy losses and casualties. At any rate, a temporary bridge was built over the river and the Arabs lost out the war to Iran which was dubbed “Yawm al-Jisr” or the Day of the Bridge with a death toll of 4000 people.(3)

Ibn A'tham, however, has narrated this event in a manner that it seems Muslims could defeat the Iranians and return to their army base.(4) Yet,

p: 119

1- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 165
2- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 251; Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 113
3- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. IV, p. 15
4- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 170

the fact that the Iranians did not chase the Muslims indicates that they lacked the necessary readiness to do so. This even probably occurred in Sha'ban or Ramaďan 13 A.H.(1)

Abu Mikhnaf and others say 'Umar was upset even until one year after the Jisr event. In the meantime, Muthanna Ibn Haritha called the Arabs to Jihad. 'Umar gradually thought of continuing the operation. Afterwards, around 700 people headed by Mikhnaf Ibn Salim, thousands headed by 'Adi Ibn Hatim, and a number of people from the Banu Tamim tribe joined the Arab troops in Iraq.(2) The Bujayla tribe also joined the Arab force, under the condition that one-fourth of the booties would be given to them.(3)

The Arabs clashed with the 12000-strong Iranian troops, headed by Mihran Ibn Mihrbandad (Mihrwayh Hamadani)(4) at the Buwayb, a river branching out from the Euphrates River. Mihran was killed in the battle and the Iranian army suffered a crushing defeat. Several Iranians were captured and Muslims earned large amounts of booties.

Muthanna displayed noticeable bravery in the battle. The poems of 'Urwa Ibn Zayd al-Khayl about the command of Muthanna are notably exaggerating, “Among the commanders of Iraq, we have not seen anybody like Muthanna who belongs to ash-Shayban.”(5) Some time after the event, Muthanna Ibn Haritha died from the wounds he had sustained in the Jisr battle.

The battle occurred arguably in the 13th or 14th A.H. As 'Umar did not take any action for battle until a year later, this event should have not

p: 120

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 114; Atlas Tarikh al-Islam, p. 128 The author made a mistake about the fact that the king, in this time, regarded Iran as the city of Buraz, next, Shiriwayh and then Buran In essence, Yazdgard, since 632, succeeded them and conquering Iraq began from his time
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 114
3- In time of war, Jarir Ibn ‘Abd Allah Bijili promised his tribesmen that they would be the only Arabs to be benefited much in case this city were to be entered Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 115
4- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 114; Ibn A‘tham (Al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 168) says that Mihrdad has been king of Adharbayjan
5- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 115

taken place sooner than 14 A.H. The victory boosted the morale and courage of Muslims and they constantly invaded the Iraqi lands which were still under the control of the Iranians. They also invaded a large market place set up near Baghdad. This issue indicated that Iran was not capable of providing the security of Iraq and had to think of a solution as soon as possible.

According to Dinwari, when Suwayd Ibn Qutba (who had some power around Basra) heard the news of these wars from Muthanna Ibn Haritha, he demanded 'Umar to strengthen the weak situation of southern Iraq and dispatch some forces to the region. 'Umar who seemingly did not have much trust in Suwayd to transfer the military command to him, sent a contingent of 1000 people, headed by 'Utba Ibn Ghazwan, to the region. 'Umar accompanied 'Utba out of Medina.

Referring to the passage of Muslims forces from the Euphrates through Hira to Ctesiphon, he told him to move towards Ahwaz and dissuade its residents from helping the Iranian army. 'Utba reached the place nowadays called Basra where there were only a number of ruined houses. It was the residence of Iranian border guards, who were commissioned with preventing the aggression of Bedouin Arabs.

The first region attacked was Ubulla, on the outskirts of Baghdad. 'Utba wrote the news of this victory to the caliph, describing the town as a harbor of ships coming from 'Umman, Bahrayn, Fars, India and China.(1) When the news of the victory

p: 121

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 116

reached Medina, the people asked 'Utba's envoy about the situation of the region. He told them about the amounts of gold and silver which Muslims had obtained. The news triggered an influx of Arabs towards the region.(1)

Ubulla was located four leagues from Basra. It apparently existed until the 7th century A.H.(2) With the development of Basra, Ubulla lost its grandeur. Ubulla and other towns like Khurayba which was conquered shortly later, were said to be the concentration center of Iranian border guards.

Yaqut says, “Basra was built beside an ancient Iranian city named Vahishtabad Ardishir. This city was ruined in the attacks of Muthanna Ibn Haritha, so when Muslims went to that region to build Basra, they called the city “Khurayba” (ruin).(3) Afterwards, Khurayba became a district of Basra.

According to Dinwari, the conquest and establishment of Basra took place before the Qadisiyya war. The fact that Basra was constructed before Kufa indicates that 'Utba had reached southern Iraq before reaching Qadisiyya. Noting this issue, Yaqut has mentioned that after reaching Qadisiyya, 'Utba moved to southern Iraq and to Basra.(4)

What is important is that around 15 and 16 A.H, two war fronts were opened against Iran, one in Kufa where some troops were advancing towards Ctesiphon, and the other in Basra from where the Arabs were moving to capture the southern Iranian lands in Khuzistan.

The two fronts led to the establishment of the two important towns of Basra and Kufa in Iraq, which later laid the cornerstone of the

p: 122

1- Ibid p. 117
2- al-Tariq Ila l-Mada’in, p. 213
3- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. II, p. 363
4- Ibid vol. I, p. 432

Islamic Iraq, in addition to Baghdad which was built in the 2nd century A.H. It is said Basra refers to a land which has black pebbles.(1) Quoting Hamza Isfahani, Yaqut says that according to Mubadh Ibn Asawhasht, Basra is the Arabic form of “Bas Rah”, meaning so many roads, because several routed led to this town.(2)

After the conquest of Ubulla, 'Utba Ibn Ghazwan asked the caliph to set up a town for Arab immigrants. After studying the regional situation, 'Umar authorized the construction of the town. Thus, Basra was founded. After a while, 'Utba felt that Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas was exceeding his limits in giving him unrelated orders. 'Utba, who considered himself an appointee of 'Umar, protested to Sa'd and left for Medina.

As soon as 'Umar heard the news, he asked, “Why is he not ready to accept the rule of a man from the Quraysh who has been a Sahabi, too?” 'Utba protested that he, too, was a ruler from the Quraysh and that Prophet Muhammad (S) had said, مولى القوم منهم “ Lord of people is from Ahl al-Bayt.”

It seems that 'Umar had asked 'Utba him to return to Basra, but 'Utba died shortly.(3)

In an address to the people of Basra, 'Utba said in 17 A.H that,

إنه لم تكن النبوة إلا تناسخها مُلك، فأعوذ بالله أن يُدركنا ذلك الزمان الذي يكون فيه السلطان مُلكاً “

There is no prophethood not to have been rejected by a king. I seek refuge in that the Allah

p: 123

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 117
2- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. I, p. 430
3- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol.I, p.432.

from the day Sultan becomes the king.”(1)

We said that the Buwayb event frightened the Iranians. This time, the Iranians mobilized a larger army led by Rustam Farrukhzad—the commander of Iranian forces in Adharbayjan—to prevent Arabs' invasion. Ibn A'tham has described the way Bahram, the governor of Hamadan; Shirzad, the governor of Qum and Kashan; Banduwan, the provincial governor of Isfahan and Khurshid, the governor of Riy, dispatched their forces to the battlefield.(2)

In return, the caliph had to find a powerful commander for his troops. 'Umar initially thought he would travel to Iraq, but the Medina notables advised him against it. A number of people were nominated for the command, one of them Imam 'Ali (a). Advised by 'Umar, 'Uthman talked with Imam 'Ali (a). Yet, Imam shunned accepting the responsibility. The next choice was Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas who was suffering from a thigh injury.(3)

He could not even mount on the horseback.(4) So, he did not attend the battle. The battle ever marked the worst defeat of the Iranians was called the “Qadisiyya war”. Qadisiyya was the name of a small border town located amid the Taff Desert, 50 miles from Kufa. The town had a fortress and some palm groves and plantations. Around 4-6 miles from Qadisiyya, there was a resort named 'Udhayb which had a spring, and was virtually the end of the desert. Sa'd set up his camp at 'Udhayb, whereas Rustam camped outside Qadisiyya.(5)468

Wild conjectures have been given over the number of Iranian and

p: 124

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, p. 7
2- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 201
3- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 310
4- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 121
5- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. IV, p. 17

Arab forces. Yet, it can be guessed that the Arab forces numbered between 20 to 30 thousand(1) and the Iranians were between 3 to 4 thousand more. Meanwhile, Ibn A'tham has put the number of Arab forces at 60 thousand.70 Rustam remained at Diyr A'war(2) for four months to settle the matter peacefully. Rustam tried to satisfy the Arabs, whom he thought, were fighting for food.(3)

Additionally, the four months of stay at the camp could weaken the power of Arab forces. On the other hand, Muslims did not abandon their condition that the Iranians should accept Islam and pay toll or engage in war. Acceptance of the first two proposals of the Arabs was impossible, because Iran was a superpower. So, Rustam had to give in to war.

Ibn A'tham writes, “At the request of Yazdgard, Sa'd sent some envoys including Mughira h to Ctesiphon to Yazdgard's court. As they entered the court, they sat on the ground except Mughira h who sat by the king on his seat.

The king asked him, “What are these clothes? What are you wearing?”

Mughirah replied, “It is Yemeni silk.”

Yazdgard took this as bad omen and said in Persian, “Burdand Jahan ra,” meaning “They plundered the world”.(4) So, he ordered the start of the war. The Qadisiyya battle lasted only four days, with each day having a specific name. They were called Armath, Aghwath, 'Ammas and Qadisiyya.(5) The battle ended in favor of Arabs and Rustam was killed during the war. The Iranian forces withdrew as

p: 125

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 119 (he mentions the forces to be twenty thousand people but he further refers to the troops joining him from Basra and other places ) Al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 175 (there, there is a census of tribal people
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 120
3- Ibid pp 120-121 (This was exactly referred when Rostam spoke with Mughira
4- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 197 (Ibn A‘tham mentions the exact speech of the king in Persian
5- Ibn A‘tham cites the names in a different way al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 20

far as Diyr Ka'b where new forces under the command of Nukharijan helped them.

Therefore, the Iranians refurbished their army and made a new onslaught. Dinwari says as Nukharijan entered the battlefield, he began crying out “any man, any man” to invite a contender.(1) Nukharijan was, however, killed by Zuhayr Ibn Sulaym (Mikhnaf Ibn Sulaym's brother). This time, too, the Iranians were defeated and withdrew as far as Ctesiphon.

The Arabs achieved the win very hard, because they suffered huge losses. It is said that a group of Iranians gathered around Iran's black flag, saying, “We will not abandon our place unless we are killed.” and they did so.(2) The bravery of the Iranians made it difficult for the Arabs to defeat them. Abu Raja' Farsi quoted his grandfather, who had been in the Iranian army at the Qadisiyya war, as saying that the Arabs had to spray many arrows on the Iranians and the battle had become so tough for them.(3)

There are differences of opinion on the year of this war. Waqidi has conceded that it took place in 16 A.H.(4) Armenian historian, Ilyas Nusaybini, has cited Jumadi al-Awwal 16 A.H as the date of the war. Meanwhile, Ibn Ishaq has mentioned 15 A.H as the year of the war. A researcher has said that the war occurred in the month of Sha'ban, 15 A.H.(5) During the war, the emblem of the Sassanids troops fell to Muslims;(6) an issue which indicates the crushing blow that the Iranian government suffered

p: 126

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 123 (Dinwari mentions his very calling “a man of challenge” in Persian)
2- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 259
3- Ibid p. 260
4- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 590; Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. III, p. 319
5- al-Qadisiyya, pp 216-232
6- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. III, p. 319

in the war.

In the aftermath of the war, Sa'd found out the necessity for establishing a town named “Dar al-Hijra” for the tribes who had immigrated to the region from Hijaz for war. Had Basra been established by then, it could have been a model for Kufa. Yaqut has cited ten reasons for the naming of Kufa.(1)

It is said that a number of places were surveyed. As the site was suitable for the raising of sheep, horses and camels, 'Umar preferred Kufa(2), which was previously called Surastan.(3) After the site of the mosque and the palace of administration were determined, the nearby regions were divided between the northern and southern tribes.

The town initially seemed transient because the tribes set up their houses from reed. So, at times of Jihad, they removed the reed framework and ceded them to others. As they took their wives with themselves to the war, they had to build new quarters after their return. It was only at the time of Mughira that people began to build clay structures. Yet, they did not build any rooms inside. Under the reign of Ziyad Ibn Abih, brick houses became popular.

Yaqut writes that the caliph wrote to Sa'd, saying the mosque should have enough space to accommodate the participants in the war. So, it was built with a capacity of 40 thousand people.(4)

Hence, Kufa became one of the most important Islamic towns. At the same time, 'Umar sent a letter to the people of Kufa, writing,

p: 127

1- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. IV, pp 490-491
2- ‘Umar wrote to Sa‘d, Arabs resemble camels, wherever camels lay well, Arabs find it well too Futuh al-Buldan, p. 275
3- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 275
4- Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. IV, p. 491

“To the people of Kufa, to the center of Islam.” He also said of Kufa that it was,

إلى أهل الكوفة، إلى رأس الإسلام “

To Kufiyans, to center of Islam.” And saying about that,

هم رمح الله وكن_ز الإيمان وجمجمة العرب “

They are divine spear, treasure of faith and renowned among Arabs.”

Salman has also called Kufa as the place “where there is Islam”.(1)

After the Qadisiyya war, Muslims chased the Iranians and set up a military camp on the western rim of the Euphrates n front of Ctesiphon. According to Dinwari, they stayed there for 28 months, so long that they could eat dates of the palm trees twice!(2) By that time, Muslims had dominated parts of Ctesiphon or Ctesiphon—meaning towns in Arabic.

Ctesiphon consisted of seven nearby towns, protected by barracks. Entry into the greater town was possible through symmetrical gates designed around the city. On the Western side of the Tigris, were the cities of Bih Ardishir (Arabic, Bihrasir), Seleucids (Sulukiyya), Darzijan, Sabat and Mahuza while on the river's eastern side were the cities of Ctesiphon, Asbanbar and Rumiyya which was called Wiya Andyu Khusraw. The king resided at Ctesiphon's white palace and the palace of Mada'in where the banquets and parties were held, was located in Asbanbar.(3)

Muslims captured the Western area after a brief clash and were stationed in Bihrasir. The destruction of bridges by Iranians(4) kept Arabs behind the Tigris for a long time but they finally managed to cross the river and enter the town.

p: 128

1- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 287; al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 288
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 126; Futuh al-Buldan, p. 262
3- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. IV, p. 18 Yaqut speaks of seven-fold cities of Mada’in this way, Isfabur (Isfanbar), Wah Ardishir (Bihrsir), Hanbushafur (Jundishabur), Darznidan (Darzijan), Wah Jundyu Khusruw (Rumiyya), Nunyafaj and Kirdafadh (His mentioned names slightly differ from what has been quoted from Tarikh Iran ) He adds, Mada’in, in our time, is a village six leagues far from Baghdad Citizens are mainly farmers and followers of Imam ‘Ali (a) Salman Farsi’s tombstone rests in eastern Medina Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. V, p. 75
4- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 212

When Iranians saw the Arabs, they cried out, “The devils came! The devils came!”(1)

Kharihzad was initially supposed to stay in Mada'in as long as possible. However, when Arab crossed the Tigris and reached behind the city gates, fled from the town's eastern side and retreated towards western Iran.(2) The Arab's entry into the city was as a big victory for them. Now, the capital of the Sassanids kingdom had been conquered and numerous booties were available to Arabs. Among them, were things Arab had never seen until then. For instance, they poured camphor into their food, thinking it was salt!(3)

Before that, Yazdgard had taken the royal family along with the treasures and other portable belongings and had fled to Qasr Shirin(4) in Iran's western mountains. From there, he went to the town of Hulwan near the present-day town of Sar Pul Dhahab. Kharihzad, too, who had failed to keep Ctesiphon, set off in the same direction and settled in Jalula.

In order to keep Ctesiphon, Arabs had no way but to chase this army. Therefore, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas sent an army led by Hashim Ibn 'Utba to follow them. Iranians dug a ditch around them in Jalula, waiting for the arrival of backup forces from Yazdgard, Jibal and Isfahan. But, Muslims did not wait for these forces and launched the offensive.

In this battle, Hujr Ibn 'Adi commanded the left wing of the army of Islam. Iranian forces were defeated in the war and had to retreat to

p: 129

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 216; Futuh al-Buldan, p. 262
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 127
3- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 263
4- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 278

Hulwan. After that, Yazdgard did not see it right to stay any longer in Hulwan, so he fled towards the region of Jibal in Qum and Kashan. A 4000-strong force of Muslim Arabs was tasked with protecting Iraq against the infiltration of Iranians in Jalula.(1) Now, Muslims were on the eastern side of the Tigris as well and were conquering those regions. Mihrud and Khaniqayn were in that part. Finally, Muslims dominated all regions around the Tigris.(2)

Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas was no longer interested in extending the war towards Hulwan and this annoyed some of his troops. So, he ordered an advance as far as Hulwan.(3) Then, he returned to Kufa and ruled the city for more than three years until he was replaced with 'Ammar Ibn Yasir. According to Ya'qubi, after conquering Ctesiphon, Sa'd came to Kufa and the Jalula attack took place three years later in 19 A.H.(4) Baladhuri, too, has mentioned the same date(5), so it seems to be correct.

Now, Muslims had entered Iran from three fronts, on one side, Ctesiphon was in their hands. On the other side, Abu Musa Ash'ari has come towards Ahwaz from Basra. And the third front which had opened by 'Ala' Ibn al-Haďrami in the beginning of 'Umar's rule in Bahrayn and had achieved some success(6), now had initiated a new move and had made some penetrations in some parts of Fars.(7)

Given the two latter fronts, Fars which was one Iran's important regions, was now threatened by invasion. Hurmuzan asked Yazdgard

p: 130

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 129
2- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 264
3- al-Futuh, vol. I, p. 279-280
4- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 151
5- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 265
6- al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 183
7- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 133

to dispatch him to Khuzistan and Fars for protecting those regions so that he could serve as a barrier on the way of Arabs' advance and even gather forces to help Yazdgard. Hurmuzan, along with an army, set off for Tustar (Shushtar). The news of this army reached Muslims and they started a lot of activities to prepare troops.

'Ammar was tasked with joining Abu Musa along with half of the people of Kufa. Before that, Nu'man Ibn Muqarran and thousands of his men had joined Abu Musa. Even 3000 of the 4000-strong Arab border guards who had stayed in Jalula rushed to help. The army of Islam set off towards Tustar. At first, some clashes erupted outside the city and after 1600 Iranians were killed, Hurmuzan was forced to go inside the city and close the gates.

There were also some martyrs on the side of Muslims. One of the well-known martyrs was Bara' Ibn Malik. The city was besieged for some time until one of the city's nobles showed them a secret way to enter the city. 200 Muslims forces broke into the city from that way and after killing the guards, opened the gates on Muslims.

The city was conquered and Hurmuzan took refuge in a palace. He only gave himself up after getting life assurance and under the condition that he would be sent to Medina to the caliph. 'Umar forgave him in Medina until after 'Umar's murder, hi son, 'Ubayd Allah, killed Hurmuzan under the

p: 131

baseless pretext that he had been seen with 'Umar's murderer, Abu Lu'lu', the day before.

After the end of the war, 'Ammar returned to Kufa and Abu Musa continued conquering other cities of Khuzistan such as Susa (Shush).(1)

At that time, Yazdgard was in Qum, according to Dinwari. He called on all people of Iran to assist him against Arabs who were getting closer every moment. People from Qumis (Damghan), Tabaristan, Gurgan, Damawand, Riy and Isfahan rushed to his help. They gathered a huge army and set off for war against Arab conquerors. 'Ammar wrote the news of this army to 'Umar who called on the people from the pulpit to head for Iraq.

There, 'Uthman asked 'Umar to send the Muslim army from Yemen and Damascus to Iraq. Moreover, he said the caliph, too, should go to Iraq. However, Imam 'Ali opposed this suggestion and said, “This will prompt the Romans to attack Damascus. Also, if Muslims soldiers from Yemen, there will be the threat of an assault from Abyssinia.” Imam opposed the caliph's trip to Iraq because he said Iranians would fight with more fervor if they heard the Arab king's presence.(2)

At any rate, an army was prepared and its command was given to Nu'man Ibn Muqarran, one of the Companions of Prophet Muhammad (S). It was decided that if he were martyred, Hudhayfa Ibn Yaman, Jarir Ibn 'Abd Allah, Mughira Ibn Shu'ba and Ash'ath Ibn Qays would replace him respectively. Two armies were stationed near Nahawand. Nahawand was located

p: 132

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, pp 130-132
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, pp 134-135

between two fronts of Arabs' war against Iranians, one from Ctesiphon and the other from Ahwaz.

The two armies clashed with each other and fought intensely for four days, from Tuesday to Friday. On the last day, the confrontation was really heavy and despite the martyrdom of Nu'man Ibn Muqarran, the Iranian army was defeated.(1) This victory was of great significance for Arabs, so it was named “Fath al-Futuh” (the victory of victories).(2) This battle probably occurred in the year 20 A.H. In this war, a number of Muslim Arabs including their commander was martyred. They were all buried in a graveyard remained in Nahawand's history in memory of the battle's martyrs.

During the years 16 to 20 A.H, conquests continued in northern Iraq as well Muslims advanced as far as Musil, bringing Iraq under their entire control. Among the conquered regions were the cities of Harran, Nusaybin, Qirqisiya' and Samisat and many regions around the Euphrates and the Tigris.

About Iran’s Conquest

The quick conquest of Iran and the fall of the Sassanids dynasty with all its grandeur was a surprising event that cannot be easily explained. Although similar events have occurred in Iran and other world countries and a comparative study of them can help further understanding of realities. In Iraq and Iran, many governments and dynasties, even the long-lived 'Abbasids dynasty, collapsed at the hands of Mongol nomads.

For instance, the Safawids stable and firm for more than 200 years was overthrown by several thousand Ghalzayi Afghans who had come at least

p: 133

1- Ibid pp 136-137
2- al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 182

12000 kilometers to reach Isfahan. However, each of these developments must have its particular reasons. Here, it is suitable to quote a source about the political situation of Iran's government after the defeat of Iranian forces against the Roman government in the year 428 A.D.

After Iran's defeat in the war against Rome, Khusraw Parviz looking for scapegoats to blame them for his failure and among them, he decided to execute Shahrbaraz. But before he could carry out his intention, there was a rebellion and Khusraw was imprisoned and then murdered in late February, 628 A.D. Khusraw's son, Shirwayh, ascended to the throne with the title of Kuwad II.

He had joined the insurgents and had agreed with his father's murder. The new king immediately called for peace with Heraclius and accepted to recall the Sassanids armies from Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor and western Mesopotamia and recognize the pre-war borders.

It was also agreed that all prisoners of war be extradited and the Swastika and other emblems be returned. Both sides were happy with the end of the war operations which had worn out the two empires for several years. But, Shahrbaraz was dissatisfied over the establishment of peace and he was dangerous as he commanded a large army.

Kuwad II passed away after less than a year in power possibly due to plague and his son, Ardishir III, who was a little child, ascended to the throne. Shahrbaraz decided to claim the throne himself.

So, in June of 629

p: 134

A.D, backed by Heraclius, he went to Ctesiphon, defeated Ardishir's forces and murdered him along with several of his prominent figures. Shahrbaraz sat on the throne, but his rule didn't last long and he, too, was murdered in less than two months. Also, another claimant in the eastern part of the empire who was Khusraw's nephew, was killed before he could come to the capital with the title of Khusraw III.

As none of Khusraw's sons was left alive, the nobles named his daughter, Puran, as the ruler. Puran was the first woman to ascend to the throne, but she, too, passed away after less than a year in power. A group of kings took power one after the other and each stayed for only a few months. The only thing we know about them is their names as follows, Puran's sister, Adharmidukht; Piruz II, Hurmuz V and Khusraw IV.

Finally, in the year 632 A.D, the nobles named Yazdgard III, the son of Shahriyar and the grandson of Khusraw II, who was almost the last survival of the Sassanids dynasty, to take the throne. Yazdgard lived in virtual hiding in the Istakhr of Fars and it was there that the last Sassanids king was crowned in a fire temple which was named after the first Sassanids king.(1)

These developments occurred before the start of Iraq's conquest and naturally, they destroyed Iran's political and military structures. It is clear that Yazdgard needed years to put the situation of Iran, which was

p: 135

1- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. III, p. 267

under domestic and foreign pressure, back on track. But, Arabs' assaults stripped him from such an opportunity and further dealt fatal blows on Iran. The conquest of Iraq located near Ctesiphon, the Sassanids capital, was the first deadly incident which rang the alarm bell for the Sassanids rulers. Those consecutive blows disintegrated that hollow government and shattered it into pieces.

Despite the weakness of the Sassanids government, Iran's defeat cannot be entirely blamed on this incompetence. The Sassanids government did its best, as far as it could. From the Qadisiyya battle to Nahawand's Fath al-Futuh, it tried hard to stop the advancing Arabs. Each time, massive troops were prepared, multiplying the Arabs, but the Iranians' bravery and courage could not resist the will of Arabs who were sure of their victory. The most important point was Arab's faith and their full confidence in the victory of their religion because spreading Islam was their main goal.

Spuler writes, “Today, there is no doubt that the religion of monotheism was the strongest driving force behind Arabs' conquest of lands.”(1) We should also remember that while fighting for monotheism, Arabs expected booties, too, after victory. They headed for battlefronts after hearing Prophet Muhammad's words who had promised them, the treasures of Caesar and Chosroe. When 'Umar wanted to provoke them, he said,

أيها الناس! إن الله عز وجل وعد نبيه محمداً صلي الله عليه واله وسلم، أن يفتح عليه فارس والروم، والله لا يخلف وعده ولا يخذل جنده، فسارعوا رحمكم الله إلي جهاد أعدائكم من

p: 136

1- Tarikh Iran, vol. I, p. 7

الفرس، فإنكم بالحجاز في غير دار مقام وقد وعدكم الله عز وجل كنوز كسرى وقيصر، والمواعيد من الله عز وجل مضمونة وأمر الله تعالي مفعول، والقول من رسول الله صلي الله عليه مقبول، وما لم يورثكموه الله عز وجل اليوم، يورثكموه غداً وانكم لن تغنموا حتي تغيروا ولن تسشهدوا حتي تقاتلوا

“O people! The Almighty God certainly promised His Messenger, brought Iran and Rome under his conquest. He keeps His promise and never abandons His troops. God bless thee! Perform a Jihad with Iran's enemies knowing that Hijaz is not a place to stay as He, the Exalted, promised thee riches of Chosroes and Caesaer and be aware that His promises are assured and His decrees are achieved. His Messenger's words are approved as well and what He leaves thee inherited today shall be inherited tomorrow too; thou never attain booties unless thou art changed and never do thou welcome martyrdom unless thou challenge the foes.”(1)

The tyranny and oppression of the Sassanids government was more or less effective in arousing the people's resentment or in other words, destroying their motivation for defending the Sassanids dynasty.

It led to a reduction of military activities of the Iranian army in the battlefield. Apart from temporary collaboration which may be deemed as treason such as the cooperation of some nobles of Tustar(2) and Nahawand(3) in showing the way into the city, the joining of 4000 men from the Qadisiyya army to Arabs cannot be justified as treason.

Baladhuri writes, “4000 men (who were considered

p: 137

1- al-Futuh, vol.I, p.165.
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 131
3- Ibid p. 137

among the king's army) from Diylaman who were at the service of the Sassanids government, were in Qadisiyya with Rustam. When the Iranian army was defeated, they were standing at a corner. Feeling they had no shelter, they decided to embrace Islam.

After that, they called on Muslims to let them live wherever they wished and to ally with any tribe they wanted. Sa'd accepted their demand. A chief was chosen for them who were called Hamra' Diylam. Basically, Arabs called non-Arabs “Hamra'”, meaning having a white complexion. These people took part in the conquest of Ctesiphon and the Jalula battle.(1) There are other examples as well which show that right after Muslims' attacks, some peasants and farmers converted to Islam.(2)

Qazwini has written, “Treacherous and Arabized Iranians! From the provinces' officials and nearby border guards, threw themselves into the arms of Arabs as soon as they felt the Sassanids dynasty was shaky and the Iranian army had been defeated several times at the hands of the Arab troops.

These Iranians not only helped Arabs in their conquests, but also called on Arab commanders to occupy other Iranian lands which were in their territory and had not been attacked by Arabs yet. They submitted the keys of castles and treasuries to Arabs provided that Arabs would let them stay in power in some regions.”(3)

The late Jalal Al Ahmad writes, “Before Islam came to confront us, we invited it. Let's forget about Rustam Farrukhzadi who desperately defended the Sassanids ferocity and the

p: 138

1- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 279
2- Spuler, Tarikh Iran, vol. I, p. 17
3- Bist Maqalih Qazwin quoted from, Khadamat Mutaqabil Iran wa Islam, p. 79

Zoroastrians' backward traditions. But, the people, Ctesiphon went into their alleys with bread and dates to welcome the Arabs who went to plunder the king's palace and the carpet of Baharistan.(1)

The proper treatment of victorious Arabs with the people of the cities they conquered, could encourage the people towards the sincerity of Muslims. Peace accords did not force the people into abandoning their religion and traditions. Even there was no emphasis on destroying the fire temples. The tax paid was, in most cases, less than what was received by the Sassanids government and the provincial governors from the people.

So, what reason could they have to sacrifice their lives for the Sassanids rulers. It has been said in this regard, “The peace accords of Arab armies with different town and cities, which in many cases, entailed much lighter obligations for the people compared to the taxes paid previously to the central Sassanids government, urged many Iranian to give up. They were not interested in fighting for a court that did not pay any attention to them. We should welcome the new gods who take lower taxes instead of fighting against them. This was the psychology of many Iranians.”(2)

Uthman’s Caliphate

Caliphate Council and ‘Uthman’s Election

'Umar consulted with Prophet's (S) companions in several cases while never compelling himself to fulfill their notions. It should be said when 'Umar had no idea in some cases, he benefited others'. In judicial issues, he preferred Imam 'Ali's idea tens of times.

He consulted with companions about Hijra calendering and

p: 139

1- Gharbzadigi, p. 48
2- Tarikh Iran, Cambridge (Persian translation), vol. III, part I, p. 271

conceded Imam's opinion on determining “Prophet's Hijra” as the beginning (era) of Islamic date.(1)

Another example of consulting with Imam leading to his approved idea was about lands of Iraq.(2) The other one is about going out of Medina during the war with Iranians and defining a leader for Iranian troops.(3) In his suggesting to do some things, 'Umar cited favoring companions and consulting with them.(4)

Considering these counsellings, some have said that basically a consultative assembly was regularly taking place in a mosque and the political system during 'Umar's rule was a kind of democracy, even close to a republic.(5)

This view fails to comply with the truth of that time and what history has reported. Occasional counsels are parted from parliaments that adopt the majority of votes and regularly interfere with the affairs. The source of Amir 'Ali's utterance is what Qaďi Abu Yusuf (6) said as in the mosque there was the meeting of upper class among whom were the heads of tribes coming to Medina.

He has named this group “people of Shura.” Mentioning Amir 'Ali's inaccuracy in using words like “parliament,” about the current meaning of this word, and Ibrahim Bayďun says, “There was nothing called “parliament” as an established and influential board in the regime in that age.”

As 'Umar had a great influence in domestic and foreign political and all governmental affairs, this issue is more applicable in 'Umar's time. In fact, the afore-mentioned is the extension of the same thing in the Prophet's

p: 140

1- There is a disagreement on whether the Messenger (S) set Hijra as the originating history or such an action has been taken in time of ‘Umar Seemingly, due to significance of Hijra, Muslims had been using Hijra as one origin in the very beginning years of it but this has been formalized in ‘Umar’s time
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 151-152
3- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, pp 309-310
4- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 227
5- Mukhtasar Tarikh al-’Arab wal-tamaddun al-Islami, Amir ‘Ali, p. 90
6- Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 30

age.(1) It has been quoted from Imam as-Sadiq (a) that emigrants usually sat in the mosque and 'Umar confided the events in them, e.g. he asked them how to treat Magi (Majus), then “Prophet treated them as Muslims”, 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf said.(2)

As said, 'Umar also consulted with the companions about writing traditions and 'Ali, unlike their approval, refused to do so.

In caliph's opinion, another example of consultation is matter of caliphate. For the first time, he confessed the truth of Abu Bakr's election, in his speech in Medina he said that election was without consulting the Muslims, thereafter caliphate should be based on Muslims' consultation; if anyone swore allegiance to someone without consulting, both should be killed.(3)

This speech led to the idea of one principle in choosing the caliph as outlined in this brief narrated phrase of caliph “al-Imara Shura”.(4) What 'Umar said about the matter of succession shows that he himself was perplexed. In the beginning, he wished his old friends were alive to make them caliphs.

One of them was Mu'adh Ibn Jabal.(5) The second person was Abu 'Ubayda Jarrah, third, present emigrants in Saqifa,(6) and the forth one Salim Mawla Hudhayfa who was not of Quraysh.(7) Surprisingly, despite all 'Umar's disagreements with Khalid Ibn Walid,(8) he had been quoted saying, “If Khalid Ibn Walid were alive, he would be my successor.” (9) Thus, it becomes obvious if one of these people were alive, it would not be a turn for Shura.(10)

In fact, all of his

p: 141

1- Min Dawlat ‘Umar Ila Dawlat ‘Abd al-Malik, p. 89-91
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 853; Futuh al-Buldan, pp 266-267
3- Previously the sources of the quotation have been mentioned in detail ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. 5, p. 445; Fath al-bari, vol. 12, p. 124; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 344; Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 63; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 881; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 12, p. 69; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 227
4- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. 5, p. 446; vol. 7, p. 278; vol. 10, p. 103
5- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 590; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 42
6- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 16; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 42; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 412; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 227
7- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 343; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 86
8- When ‘Umar came to power, he said, “I depose Khalid to make known if God helps his religion, Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, vol. I, p. 106
9- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 887; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 42
10- He explicitly interpreted that, “If Salim had been alive, I would have not made Shura responsible for the affairs; Tarikh Abi Zar‘a al-dimashqi, vol. I, p. 272; and he added, “If he had been alive, I would have never doubted his supremacy over the Prophet’s companions; al-Muqni‘ fil-Imama, p. 59

candidates for caliphate had passed away. Thus, it was the turn for those alive.

”'Umar was with an Ansari (one companion),” says 'Abd al-Rahman Qari “when he got assured that the present people were confidant, he asked him about public opinion about his successor. He named some emigrants without mentioning 'Ali's. 'Umar objected and said, “Why not Abu al-Hasan? If he comes to power, he will lead people to the truth.”(1)

Mughira Ibn Shu'ba says, ”'Umar asked me, who is qualified to be the successor?” I responded, ”'Uthman!”

He criticised 'Uthman. I also named five people of the council, on each of whom he placed an imperfection and accused Imam of being witty.”(2) Though he said, “If he comes to power, he will lead all to the Truth.”(3)

'Umar asked Ka'b al-Ahbar (who 'Umar believed was dealing with Scriptures)(4) about his successor, he replied, ”'Ali is not qualified for it and as he had read in the books, those who have quarrelled with the Prophet (S) over faith could be caliphs.(5) It seems that he had meant no one but the Umayyads and ahead of them 'Uthman. 'Uthman had a great influence during the ages of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.

“In your opinion, once he asked Hudhayfa, who was known as prophet's confidant, whom will people accept as the ruler after me?”

Hudhayfa replied, “I think people would leave themselves to 'Uthman Ibn 'Affan.”(6) Hudhayfa's perception was right because the Qurayshites were all 'Uthman's advocates.

It should be mentioned that 'Umar was annoyed by the Hashimites. The

p: 142

1- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. 5, p. 446
2- Ibid vol. 5, pp 447-448; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 880; al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyya, vol. 12, Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 49; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 4, p. 501, No 1291; Kitab al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 85-86
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 4, p. 501, No 1290
4- See, Caliph’s Thoughts
5- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XII, p. 81; Gharib al-Hadith, vol. III, p. 239; al-Fa’iq fi Gharib al-Hadith, vol. II, p. 16; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 87; The Umayya meant that ‘Uthman was among them although he imself never fought with the Prophet over religion Later on, Ka‘b al-Ahbar said Mu‘awiya basically possessed succession after ‘Uthman as if heavenly books reported this way Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 495, No 1278
6- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 333

discussion between 'Umar and Ibn 'Abbas contains notable points.

'Umar, Tabari writes, told Ibn 'Abbas, “Do you know why your tribe, (Quraysh) banned you from being prophet's successor?”

I answered “No.”

Because they detested, 'Umar said, your caliphate and prophecy, then you would have so much vanity and glory. So Quraysh seized caliphate and it was the right thing to do.

“May I speak?” says Ibn 'Abbas.

'Umar said, “Yes.”

I said, Ibn 'Abbas says, about what you say Quraysh seized the caliphate, I should say that if Quraysh had picked what God had chosen, it was on the right path without being involved in any denial and envy. But what you say about their reluctancy of prophecy and caliphate in one family, God has defined hideously such a tribe, ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَرِهُوا مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ. “Such they attested what God had sent, then their deeds faded away.”

O, son of 'Abbas, 'Umar said, I've heard things about you I don't want to believe, if so, you'll be underrated.

If I'm saying the truth, Ibn 'Abbas replied, why my status would be underrated, and if you think it's credal error as wrong egoism he has kept away from himself. “I've heard you said they divested 'Ali of caliphate for (their) envy and oppression”, 'Umar said.

As for oppression, replied Ibn 'Abbas, any ignorant and wise man knows, and as for envy, devil envied Adam, and we who are being envied, are his offsprings too. Also, said 'Umar, By God, O Hashimites! Your hearts are filled with an

p: 143

indelible jealousy.

O 'Umar!, replied Ibn 'Abbas, don't charge the hearts, impurified by God, with having envy and alloy. Prophet (S) 's heart is of Hashimites'.(1) Some time, it was him who refused to recruit Khalid Ibn Sa'id because of his scruple objection with Abu Bakr's caliphate, it was obvious that he couldn't be contented with Imam 'Ali (a) who had sidestepped all this time and also, in the beginning, had withheld to swear allegiance for several months.

However, 'Umar was demoralized in choosing his successor. When Hafsa heard his father thinking of putting no one as the caliph, he told his father, “If you had a shepherd looking after your sheep and if he had left his duty, you would have regarded him as a waster, so considering people becomes worse.”

'Umar said that if he did not put anyone as the caliph, he had treated like Prophet (S) and if he chose someone, then he had done like Abu Bakr(2) both seemed to him religious traditions. 'Umar stated that during his life he had been shouldering the responsibility which he wouldn't want to do so after death.(3) However, he couldn't leave the caliphate.

'Umar said, “Some people, according to Baladhuri, have said (and he himself accepted that) swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr was unbased and without cosultation. This would be done in “Shura” after me.(4) 'Umar chose six people instead of one, putting the responsibility on 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf(5) to consult with each other and choose one of themselves.

I found, 'Umar

p: 144

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 223
2- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, pp 448-449; Hafsa’s reasoning is the simplest one in Shi‘a for the necessity of succession by the Messenger (S) Others also with the same reasoning asked ‘Umar to designate a successor, Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 343
3- al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyya, p. 13; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 342; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 501, No 1290
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 500, No 1288
5- Ibid vol. IV, p. 505, No 1303; Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 33

said, you are public headmen and this should be done by no one but you. Caliph, as said, placed an imperfection on each of them except Ibn 'Awf whom he praised.(1) 'Umar determined the council members as well as saying its quality of task. They were supposed to gather in a house where fifty companions guarded them till they would choose a caliph.

It seemed that Talha was not in Medina; (Baladhuri says this is true) if five people chose someone with whom one person disagreed, he had to be decapitated; if two of them disagreed with four people's decision, they had to be killed; if three people were on one side and three on the other side, they had to agree with 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar's arbitration and if they didn't accept it, the group in which was 'Abd al-Rahman 'Awf, was preferred. And if the other three people disagreed with them, they had to be killed.(2)

'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar's role in this council of six people, had a consultative aspect, but he himself couldn't be as a candidate for caliphate because in his father's opinion, he couldn't even decide about divorcing his wife much less that.(3)

Beyond all this, 'Umar had said this affair was for “people of Badr” as long as one of them survives, after them came people of “Uhud” as long as one of them survives. As for the released ones and their offsprings and the people who became Muslims in Mecca's conquest, they have

p: 145

1- Ibid vol. IV, p. 229; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I2, pp 258-259
2- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 42; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 229; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 504, No 1300,1301
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 343; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 160 An imagination that is not so unbased is that ‘Umar feared heriditary caliphate and he had this as a principle in his mind that ruler should not use his relatives in handling the affairs or assigning them as his successors He mentioned this as an advice to ‘Ali (a) and ‘Uthman adding, “If you became caliph, lest you might have the Hashimites or family of Abi Mu‘ayT dominate people, al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 43

no rights.(1) 'Amr Ibn 'As also tried hard to become a member of the Shura.

But 'Umar told him he would not leave the task to someone who had fought against Prophet (S) (2) and he meant when 'Amr Ibn 'As was an infidel.

In the beginning, 'Abbas asked 'Ali (a) not to enter Shura. But Imam said that first he was afraid of schism, second, what 'Umar had said, “Your tribe doesn't agree with the prophecy and caliphate in the same lineage”, should be proved wrong.(3) When Shura was shaped of members, Imam 'Ali (a)'s opinion was that 'Uthman would be chosen.

Imam's analysis was that ”'Uthman and I are in this congress and we should obey the majority.” Sa'd would not object to his cousin, 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf (who both were of Banu Zuhra). Besides, 'Abd al-Rahman is 'Uthman's brother-in-law and they wouldn't disagree with each other, so 'Abd al-Rahman would choose him;(4) therefore, if there are only two persons remained, that is Talha and Zubayr staying with me, it is of no benefit because of Ibn 'Awf they would be preferred.(5) Moreover, since Prophet's time there was a pledge of brotherhood between 'Uthman and 'Abd al-Rahman'Awf. (6)

'Abd al-Rahman announced that he favored not caliphate, others normally were not disposed to caliphate, Sa'd left the task to Ibn 'Awf, but he said that in his opinion, 'Ali was superior to 'Uthman.(7) Thus, caliphate was exclusive to 'Ali (a) and 'Uthman. Now, schism in society, Quraysh and non-Quraysh came to be

p: 146

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 342
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 503, No 1295; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 230
3- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 189
4- Imam says in Nahj al-Balaghah, ومال الآخر لصهره Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah,, vol. I, p. 184 After ‘Abd al-Rahman payed allegiance to ‘Uthman, ‘Ali (a) said, مال الرجل إلى صهره ونبذ دينه وراء ظهره “ He tilted towards his kins and set religion aside” Al-Jamal, p. 123; ‘Uthman’s sister was Ibn ‘Awf’s wife merely on the part of his mother Umm Kulthum, daughter of ‘Uqba Ibn Abi Mu‘ayT Ibn Abi al-Hadid,Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 189
5- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 230; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 191; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 505, No 1304
6- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 955
7- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 506, No 1308; Makhul Shami says, “Sa‘d was not in Shura because of his abdication Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 507, No 1309


One should know that, here, Quraysh is “political Quraysh” which excludes the Hashimites. According to Tabari, 'Abd al-Rahman had been consulting several nights. All emirs, noblemen and people recommended him to choose 'Uthman.(1) After three days, people gathered in a mosque in the morning. According to Zuhri, 'Abd al-Rahman attended the meeting and Ibn 'Awf said that he had asked people and they had qualified no one but 'Uthman.(2)

“Then 'Ammar Ibn Yasir, Tabari says, cried,”If you don't want “Muslims” to get involved in conflicts, choose 'Ali.”

“He is right ” Miqdad Ibn Aswad ratified.

“If you don't want, said 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh (whom the Prophet ostracized), Quraysh to come into conflict with each other, choose 'Uthman.” Tabari adds that “the Umayyads” and ” the Hashimites” negotiated.(3) 'Ammar and Miqdad were on the Hashimithes' side.

“O, people!” 'Ammar said in the mosque, “God graced us by his Prophet and by his religion, He endeared us. Why do you divest it from his “Household”?”

A man of Banu Makhzum ( he was 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd and was allied, in ignorance, with the Umayyads and Abul- Jahl and Khalid Ibn Walid were of them) replied, “O 'Ammar! You have stepped off your limits! How does the emirate of Quraysh relate to you?” (4)

Then 'Abd al-Rahman called 'Ali, “Do you swear, saying that, if you come to power, you would follow the Book, the biography of Prophet and Sheikhs!”

“I hope I behave in the bounds of my knowledge and ability (Baladhuri, Ijtihad)”, Imam

p: 147

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 928; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 230; Zuhri says, “That night Ibn ‘Awf consulted the outstanding people of Muhajir and Ansar”, al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 482 But we know even if he had consulted all of them, he would have observed only what Quraysh had said; ‘Abd al-’Aziz, al-Duri says, “This supportive counselling of ‘Uthman indicates that the Umayya were active from conquest of Mecca on in achieving a landslide so far as all agreed on ‘Uthman’s coming to power Muqadama fi Tarikh Sadr al-Islam, p. 59
2- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. IV, p. 477
3- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 233; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I2, p. 194
4- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, pp 929-930; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 233; According to Mufid (al-Jamal, p. 122), Miqdad shouted, “Do not swear allegiance to someone who was present in Badr, escaped Uhud and was absent in Riďwan alleginace (he meant ‘Uthman)”; ‘Uthman said, “By God, if I come to power, I’ll return you to your previous conditions, al-Amali, Sheykh Mufid, pp 114-115 Amali, Sheykh Mufid, pp 114-115

said.(1) 'Abd al-Rahman called 'Uthman and he accepted Ibn 'Awf's conditions. Thus, 'Abd al-Rahman chose 'Uthman as the caliph and swore allegiance to him. “You chose 'Uthman to return you to the caliphate”, 'Ali (a) said.(2)

The evidence of Imam's speech was when 'Uthman got sick, then he called his scribe to write a letter of allegiance for 'Abd al-Rahman's caliphate after him.(3) Later, 'Uthman recuperated, the treaty dissolved and evoked hostility between Ibn 'Awf and him.

I haven't seen, Miqdad said, the Prophet (S) 's Household behaves like this after him. I wonder how “Quraysh” leaves a man whom I know no one wiser and more just. People look, 'Ali (a) said, at “Quraysh” and Quraysh does at his “lineage”. If the Hashimites comes to power, they would stay in power forever, but they can rotate caliphate in their lineage.

Talha who came to Medina the same day asked, “Is Quraysh pleased with 'Uthman? ”

“Yes!” they replied. So he swore allegiance.

“You did the right thing to choose 'Uthman”, Mughira Ibn Shu'ba told Ibn 'Awf. “We would not be consent if you were not elected”, he told 'Uthman.

'Abd al-Rahman accused him of lying.(4) Another account of Tabari says about what Shura members said in the mosque.

“We are the lineage of Nubuwwat, mine of theosophy, refuge of earth people and redemptive for those who seek salvation,”(5) Imam 'Ali (a) says. Imam regarded Ibn 'Awf's deal in posing conduct of Sheikhs as a ″deceit″.(6) The narrator has considered that 'Amr Ibn 'As's had a hand

p: 148

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 233,238; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 162; Ya‘qubi says, “In front of the condition of practising according to biography of Shiykhs, Imam said, “Following Book of God and tradition of the Messenger requires hiring of nobody; you’re trying to make me overlook caliphate, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 508, No 1311; al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 192; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 188, vol. I2, pp 194,264 Zuhri fails to mention anything about Imam ‘Ali (a) and only suffices to say, “‘Abd al-Rahman set this condition for ‘Uthman and he approved ”; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 477
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 930; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 233-234; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. III, p. 76
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, pp 1028,1029; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. VII, p. 254
4- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 233-234,239; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 502, No 1294; and concerning Talha, p. 504, No 1300 Talha was rewarded although he was ranked as the worst enemy of ‘Uthman in the course of his seige Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 506, No 1306; Regarding position of Miqdad, Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 163; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, pp 930-931
5- Kitab al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 96-97; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 237, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I2, p. 195
6- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 238-239; perhaps deceit ment the same quotation of Imam by Ya‘qubi as Ibn ‘Awf set the condition to keep him away from caliphate Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 162

in this craft but it's clear that it could not be done without Ibn 'Awf.

'Abbas believed Shura is settled in a way that it would result in 'Uthman's caliphate. Because of this, he asked 'Ali not to join Shura.(1) According to Ibn Abi al-Hadid, 'Umar asked the six people, “Is everyone favored in caliphate?”

Zubayr replied, “Yes. If you become a caliph, our rank and acquaintances would not be less than you in ″Quraysh″.”

Jahiz says, “If Zubayr was not certain of 'Umar's death, he wouldn't dare say it in front of him.”(2) He further says, “Zubayr supported 'Ali(3) and because Talha was of Banu Tamim and Abu Bakr's causin, he was on the side of 'Uthman who was against the Hashimites.” (4)

According to Ibn 'Abbas, 'Umar threatened Shura members, saying that if they are at odds, Mu'awiya would overcome them. He was then in Damascus.(5) After allegiance was sworn, Imam (a) returned home. However, 'Ammar said,

يا ناعي السلام قم فانعه قد مات عرف وأتى منكر

'O thou who declare death of religion, rise up because goodness vanished and badness ruled.” (6)

Here, some points should be noted:

First, since then the Umayyads who were politicians of Quraysh, owned caliphate. This time, 'Uthman represented them and they favored him a lot. It goes to say that, أحبك والرحمن حبّ قريش عثمان 566 “By the Merciful God, I like you as much as Quraysh liked 'Uthman.”

In contrast, Quraysh was hostile to 'Ali and it was 'Uthman who told 'Ali, “It is not my fault that Quraysh

p: 149

1- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol.I, p.189.
2- Ibid vol. I, p. 185
3- Ibid vol. I, p. 187
4- Ibid vol. I, pp 187-188; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 37
5- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I, p. 187
6- al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 193

dislikes you.” (1) But this time, a noble branch of Quraysh came to power while it was not so during Abu Bakr and 'Uthman. Although 'Umar was wealthy (2), he did not lead an aristocratic life. Yet, 'Uthman was a nobleman with an Islamic past.(3) Then, the government gradually moved towards the aristocratic rulership of Quraysh and extremely used tribal norms overly in choosing the caliph.(4)

It is said that at the very moment of election, Abu Sufyan told 'Uthman, اجعل الأمر أمر الجاهلية, by which he meant to say, “Revive the customs of the pre-Islamic era.” And he, of course, meant nothing but caliphate.(5)

As mentioned earlier, being a member of Quraysh was not a constitutional prerequisite for caliphate and the tradition الأئمة من قريش had not yet become the basis of justify the rule of Quraysh, as it is not consistent with 'Umar's idea of making Salim Mawla Hudhayfa his successor, so he wished his survival and being a Qurayshite as an invalid condition, as 'Umar says, is what Shi'a since long has remained critical of. 572

Second, Shura and deliberation about caliphate came to be posed for the first time. This Shura had two aspects, one was the six-member council framework of heads of Quraysh and the caliphate was in hands of no one but them. 'Umar had determined the rules of election and based it on the majority and the minority573 and if equal, set the balance heavier on the part of three people among

p: 150

1- Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 1301; this statement is attributed to ‘Umar that ‘Uthman may probably be named rather than ‘Umar, al-Muqanna‘, p. 110; Manaqib, vol. III, p. 220
2- Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 347ً, Kashf al-astar, vol. II0, p. 303; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 935
3- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. I1, p. 67
4- Muqadama fi Tarikh Sadr al-Islam, pp 58-59
5- When ‘Umar asked Ibn ‘Abbas about ‘Uthman, he said, “He keeps love of this world and the world hereafter in his heart and if he comes to power, he’ll have family of Abi Mu‘ayT rule people; al-Iďah, p. 86 In the very night of succession (beginning of Muharram, 24 H ), when ‘Uthman was on his way to the mosque to say night prayers, there were people ahead of him carrying candles and Miqdad said, “What innovation this is!” (Ya‘qubi, vol. II, p. 163); he referred to starting point of ceremonial functions! Ibn A‘tham quoted Ibn ‘Awf as saying that, “I am pleased with the succession of the doyen of the Umayya ”; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 909

whom was Ibn 'Awf.

Another is Ibn 'Awf's consultation with people lasting several nights according to what is said. Of course, Ibn 'Awf was blamed for choosing 'Uthman because of his kinship and this consultation could cover it. Moreover, just like Abu Bakr and 'Umar, they had made a pledge of brotherhood.

It should be noted that later there appeared a conflict between 'Uthman and Ibn 'Awf and when Ibn 'Awf was badly thrashed by 'Uthman's agents, he passed away while being discontented with 'Uthman.(1) What is important is the role of Shura.

However, Shura consisted of six chosen people and this number could resolve choosing one person out of six. This was a kind of limited Shura among a few Quraysh elites, so no one could interfere save them. This effective method was seen, in the next periods, among some of Imam's opponents as well as among the Zubayrids who were against the Umayyads. This will be dealt with later.

The Third point concerned was allegiance. After Ibn 'Awf and other Shura members swore allegiance, 'Ali (a) still avoided doing so.

“Swear allegiance”, Ibn 'Awf told him, “or I will decapitate you.”

Imam left the house. Shura companions followed him and said, بايع وإلّا جاهدناك “ Swear an allegiance or we will Jihad with you.”

Imam (a) followed them and swore an allegiance to 'Uthman.(2) This is something that is criticized.(3)

“If you are a man of fighting, we will help you.” Miqdad asked 'Ali (a).

Imam said, “Who will help me to fight

p: 151

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 196; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 1033; ‘Ali (a) is said to have cursed Ibn ‘Awf when selecting ‘Uthman and Abu Hilal ‘Askari says, “‘Uthman and Ibn ‘Awf were in disagreement over fulfilment of ‘Ali’s invokation; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XII, p. 196
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 508, No 1311; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IX, p. 55; vol. I2, p. 265; al-Bad’ wal-Tarikh, vol. V, p. 193; Habib As-Siyar, vol. I, p. 496; Imam Himself expressed his statement that he has been told If he failed to swear allegiance, he would be fought He also says, “I unwillingly pledged allegiance; al-Gharat, vol. I, p. 318 However, fanatic narrators have said that ‘Ali was the first one to swear allegiance after Ibn’Awf! Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 63
3- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. I2, p. 259 (according to Sayyid Murtaďa


'Ammar also said the same thing.(1)

This was based on what 'Umar had said, “If anyone refused to swear allegiance, he should be beheaded.”

As mentioned before, 'Umar was one of those who believed in securing allegiance by force (2)- despite what is ascribed to Abu Bakr. 'Umar could not believe some people were trying for schism.

At first, when he appointed Shura members, he said, “If you all choose one person and one of you disagrees with them, you could kill him.”(3) Later, it remains to be seen that after Imam (a) came to power, he ceased to agree to secure allegiance by force from those who refused to do so.

The last point is that one of marginal effects of Shura was the members caprice for caliphate. In 'Umar's opinion, they all had the privilege to seize caliphate and this aroused their expectations.

As said, “When you become a caliph”, Zubayr told him at the presence of 'Umar. “we could also be caliphs because we are not lower in rank than you from the viewpoint of being a Quraysh and our precedence.” (4) Normally, this Shura would make them expect more. There was a reason why 'Amr Ibn 'As and Mughira Ibn Shu'ba were trying to join this council. Such an expectation resulted in provoking next revolts and also objections against 'Uthman and later against 'Ali (a).

Mu'awiya's analysis was that since Talha, Zubayr and Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas supposed that they are eligible for caliphate, 'Umar's Shura raised differences among Muslims.(5) Sheykh Mufid

p: 152

1- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I2, pp 265-266; al-Amali, Mufid, p. 115
2- al-Iďah, pp 187-188
3- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 91; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 61
4- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 185; Abu Bakr said to ‘Umar that he had to be careful of Muhajirun because many of them were capricious of succession; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, pp 16,22
5- al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. IV, p. 281; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. IX, p. 85

also writes about Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, “Personally, he didn't identify himself equal to 'Ali (a) but as he joined Shura, he came to this feeling that he has the authority of caliphate, and this ruined his faith and life.”(1)

Ibn Abi al-Hadid has quoted his professor's analysis that each of Shura members, inside themselves, had this feeling that they were capable of caliphate.This preoccupied them till the next differences appeared.(2)

In Jamal battle, Talha told 'Ali (a), “Resign from caliphate, then we leave it to ″Shura″.” “We were also in Shura, two people who didn't want you, now have passed away, we are also three”, he added.

“You should have said that before swearing an allegiance but now that you have swore, you should be faithful”,(3) 'Ali replied.

‘Uthman’s Caliphate

'Uthman was one of those Muslims who became a Muslim as called by Abu Bakr in the first years. He was one of the Umayyads and his Islam was strange in a family most of whom were anti-Islam people.

He was one of those who migrated to Ethiopia, but soon he returned Mecca and migrated to Medina. There, he married two of the Prophet (S) 's daughters respectively who died soon. Because of his wife's sickness, 'Uthman did not attend Badr. Also, in Uhud he was with the fugitives who, indeed, were blessed. Later, there is no memory of him except in the issue of Hudaybiyya.(4)585

In Abu Bakr's time, he was close to him and was his scribe. It was him who

p: 153

1- al-Jamal, p. 97
2- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. IX, pp 28-29
3- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 95
4- See, issue of Hudaybiyya in Tarikh Siyasi Islam, vol. I, “Biography of the Messenger (S) ”

wrote 'Umar's allegiance - Abu Bakr said - while he was unconscious. Also, he had a great influence in 'Umar's time and was the Umayyads' envoy in that situation.

Afterwards, 'Uthman as Umayyads' envoy and Imam 'Ali (a) as the Hashimites' seemed to be atop of those who will lead the society in the future. 'Umar had probably realized or practically had the inclination that 'Uthman was more capable of leading an Islamic society because of his influence and Popularity in Quraysh.

Whatever his opinion was, it can't be neglected that Quraysh wanted him. When he rather came in grips with Imam in the time of 'Uthman's succession, he told Imam, ما ذنبي إن لم يحبك قريش “ Is it my fault that Quraysh doesn't like you?”(1)586

Ibn Qutayba also declares that 'Uthman was favored by Quraysh, so it was said,

أحبك والرحمن حب قريش عثمان

“By the Compassionate God, I love thee as Quraysh loved 'Uthman.” (2)

As swearing allegiance to 'Uthman ended in the last day of Dhi l-Hajja, 23 A.H., he sat on the Messenger's (S) rostrum. The difference between him and previous caliphs was that Abu Bakr sat one step down where the Prophet (S) used to sit, 'Umar one step down Abu Bakr and unlike them, 'Uthman sat where Prophet sat.(3) When he mounted the rostrum, he couldn't speak. He thought a bit and then, “you need a just Imam more than a lecturer”, he said. Then he came down the rostrum and went home.(4)


p: 154

1- Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 301
2- al-Ma‘arif, p. 192; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 11
3- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 163
4- al-Bayan wal-Tabyin, vol. I, p. 345

first action was to overlook 'Ubayd Allah Ibn 'Umar's punishment. He killed three people, Iranian Hurmuzan and Abu Lu'lu' 's family who were accused of murdering his father, 'Umar. 'Uthman as the ruler dispensed with his Qisas, retaliation, and changed it to blood money and stood against protesters.(1)

'Uthman's caliphate must be considered as the beginning of the Umayyads' caliphate. Ibn A'tham has named him ″Doyen of the Umayyads″ quoting from Ibn 'Awf.(2) The Umayyads thought of lordship but they were ignorant. When people, Abu Bakr Juwhari says, swore allegiance to 'Uthman, “this”, said Abu Sufyan, “was in Taym's hands (Abu Bakr's tribe) while it didn't concern them; thereafter, ″'Adi″ (tribe) took hold that was much farther.” “Now it has returned to its reservation.”

“Leave it hereditary among your offsprings, there is neither a heaven nor a hell”, he told 'Uthman and the Umayyads.”(3)

According to Mas'udi, 'Ammar who had heard Abu Sufyan in the mosque, stood up and began to protest. Miqdad also did the same after him and said he was worried about turning Ahl al-Bayt from this affair.(4) Ibn 'Asakir has also narrated that Abu Sufyan told 'Uthman, اجعل الاَمر أمر الجاهلية “Settle the case out of ignorance.” (5)

Of course, this evidence only specifies Abu Sufyan's idea not 'Uthman's; however, 'Uthman's caliphate is Abu Sufyan's hope for the throwback of the Umayyads' dominance. His caliphate begins with mightiness of Quraysh's nobleness. Therefore, it is said that he was more favored by Quraysh than 'Umar.(6)

The strife of

p: 155

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 294-295
2- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 99
3- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, pp 44-45; from As-Saqifa by Abu Bakr Juwhari; al-Aghani, vol. VI, p. 356; al-Fa’iq, vol. II, p. 117; al-Niza‘ wal-Takhasum, p. 56
4- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 343
5- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. I1, p. 67
6- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 64

Muslim world after the Prophet (S) was indeed the conflict between the Islamic norms and tribal ones. Quraysh's victory was regarded as the triumph of tribal norms; however, in the time of the first two caliphs, this victory was tempered with the Islamic norms but it should not be considered permanent, for Quraysh actually came to power by 'Uthman's caliphate.

'Uthman had never been a weak caliph despite rumors and robustly handled the affairs from scratch. His murder by Prophet (S) 's companions and other protesters did not mean his lack of enough power but because the protest against him was so much that he and his companions could not control it.

Besides, leaving the tasks to people like Marwan or other Sufyani members was not his weakness but he was basically thinking of reposing the caliphate to the Umayyads and he did all this as an introduction to Umayyidize all political affairs. Accidentally as he supposed, he acted intelligently because during the first six years of caliphate, he acted peacefully and tried to consolidate his position.

Later, during the second half of the caliphate, he manifested his radical policies and gradually began to change political structure of various regions. In his initiatives, he had the support of Quraysh. He tried to consider their portion instead. But in the second half, his task was to empower the particular tribe of the Umayyads. This infuriated some people of Quraysh. He disentitled people like 'Amr Ibn 'As and empowered 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd

p: 156

Ibn Abi Sarh. Umayyads's members ruling over people spurred anger of many and instigated people to openly revolt against him.

The main point of his regime was one, the victories and the other, more important, was to study this revolt against him, that had a great influence in the Islamic world and most of the subsequent conflicts in Muslim world were arisen from Muslim's approach towards 'Uthman and his opponents.

Reasons of Anti-‘Uthman Rebellion

There are so many reasons for rebelling against 'Uthman mentioned in historical books. Tabari and other historians did not want to record these facts.

“There is something said about this which I hesitate to narrate”, Tabari says.(1) Narrating all of what the companions have said about 'Uthman may cause the Sunnites to have problematic vciews about companions, especially caliphs. Regarding what is said about reasons of rebeling against 'Uthman, they can be divided into three categories,

(1) The first type of objections concerns the issues through which the caliph was accused of religious heresy.

“How soon you apostatized your Prophet's tradition!” It's quoted from 'Ayisha who told 'Uthman.(2) “His deeds burnt him, he set fire to God's book and abandoned the Prophet's tradition”, said 'Ayisha when she heard about 'Uthman's death.(3) 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf claimed 'Uthman had also violated tradition of Sheikhs.

When he objected to him, he was thrashed.(4) In a letter written to provoke people against 'Uthman, it was said that the Book and the Prophet's tradition have been changed, so has Sheikhs' tradition.(5) 'Uthman's disregarding Hurmuzan's murder by 'Ubayd Allah raised

p: 157

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 356,365; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 167
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 48; al-Aghani, vol. V, p. 130
3- al-Jamal, p. 161; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. VI, p. 216
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 57; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 70; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. I5, p. 223, (India); al-Futuh, p. 2151
5- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 53

public anger. 'Uthman forgave 'Ubayd Allah instead of retaliating him for the death of three people.(1)

For doing this, Imam blamed 'Uthman and said, “You will be upbraided in Dooms Day for Hurmuzan.” “If I see 'Ubayd Allah, I will let him obey divine rule even if some people do not like it.”(2)

When 'Uthman saw this, he forced 'Ubayd Allah away Kufa at night and there, he gave him a land named Kuwayfa Ibn 'Umar.(3)

People said when 'Uthman was enlarging the Prophet's mosque. يوسِّع مسجد رسول الله ويُغيِّر سنَّته “He expands the mosque of the Messenger but changes his Sunna.” (4)

Another clear example was that unlike the Prophet (S), 'Uthman prayed completely in Mina, that instigated some people against him.

“This is my belief”, said 'Uthman when they objected.(5)

'Ammar, who was one of his known opponents, said, قتلناه كافراً (6) “We killed him while being an unbeliever.”

He stood against rebels in the day of Jamal and asked them, “Why do you fight with us?”

“Because 'Uthman was murdered while he was a Muslim”, they replied.

“We fight with you because he was a pagan when he was killed”, 'Ammar said.(7)

“Why did you anathematize 'Uthman?” Zayd Ibn Arqam was asked.

“We had three reasons one of which was not following the Book”, he replied.(8)

Isfahani has mentioned some opponents who told 'Uthman, “Fear God and do not exceed divine limits.”(9)

“He had changed the Book”, said Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr explaining his reason of opposing 'Uthman.(10)

And it's quoted from him, ”'Uthman has treated unrightfully and distorted Qur'an's

p: 158

1- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, p. 147; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 141
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 24
3- al-Jamal, p. 176; Mu‘jam al-Buldan, vol. IV, p. 496; Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, p. 146
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 38
5- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 39; al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, pp 154,171; Sunan Nasa’i, vol. III, p. 12; al-MuwaTTa’, vol. I, p. 282
6- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazana, p. 71
7- al-Jamal, p. 336
8- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. III, p. 51; Ibn Abi al-Hadid says this speech is quoted from Zayd in different ways
9- al-Aghani, vol. V, p. 131
10- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, p. 175


وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الْكَافِرُون

“Whosoever judges not as to what God has said, he shall be an infidel.” َ(1)611

After public objections, he repented in front of them and promised to follow the Book and the Prophet's tradition.(2)

It is quoted from 'Ayisha who named 'Uthman ″Na'thal″, old stupid man. اقتلوا نعثلاً فقد كفر. “Murder 'Uthman who has sought infidelity.” (3)

“At first, 'Uthman behaved as to God's consent but later he changed his path”, is also quoted from Mu'awiya.(4)

One of the objections to 'Uthman was his unifying the existing Qur'ans. At that time, a scatter of companions in cities and Arabic accents problem in reading Qur'an escalated the difference among reciters.

It's said that Hudhayfa wrote to 'Uthman, “If it continues to be so, Qur'an will be distorted.” 'Uthman decided to collect all Qur'ans and eliminate them after arranging a version. He did not consult with some of the people who considered themselves as experts of the job. One of them was 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud.

He was chosen for this job instead of Zayd Ibn Thabit who was young at the Prophet's time. No matter what help 'Uthman should get from people like Ibn Mas'ud and no matter how he treated other versions, (burnt them or ruined in other ways), his original action was right and Imam 'Ali (a) had highly ratified it.(5)

(2) Another objection to 'Uthman was devolving upon people of the Umayyads governing the cities. Concerning Abu Sufyan's suggestion in the beginning of caliphate, this seemed

p: 159

1- al-Gharat, vol. I, p. 284
2- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 216
3- al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 206
4- Tarikh Ibn al-wardi, p. 203; It should be said, ويل لمن كفّره نمرود Woe unto someone whom Namrud excommunicates
5- Concerning this, see, Ukdhuba tahrif al-qur’an bayn Ash-Shi‘a wal-Sunna, pp 89-90

normal unless he did not deem it right to do so in his first six years of caliphate. But during the second half, he tried to increase the Umayyads' political and administrative power.

The routine was that he had certainly considered Mu'awiya or another person of the Umayyads as his successor. The problem was not just using these people but people of this family who had other problems.

Typically, Hakam Ibn Abi l-'As whom the Prophet (S) exiled and Sheikhs did not repatriate, was called back to Medina and was employed to collect charity of Khuza'a's tribe.(1) He also employed Harith Ibn Hakam to work in Medina market.(2) He also gave the rulership of Kufa to Walid Ibn 'Uqba Ibn Abi Mu'ayt who was his uncle.(3)

Walid whom God called evil-doer(4) and the Prophet (S) promised him hell(5), was obviously a man of sin and iniquity. He deserved punishment because he was a winebibber according to the testament of witnesses. First, 'Uthman did not accept the testament and Imam 'Ali (a) blamed him saying, دفعت الشهود وابطلت الحدود “ You led away the witnesses and abandoned divine limits.”

When he accepted, people were afraid of 'Uthman to punish him. Imam 'Ali rose, dropped him on the ground and exerted whip punishment on him.(6)

“Five years in Kufa”, writes a Persian historian about Walid's drinking wine, “Walid lived in serendipity, had pleasurful nights, drank by draughts and in the morning reveled in bodily pleasure from red wine, he went to the mosque witlessly

p: 160

1- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 235; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 151
2- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 151
3- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 347
4- See, Tafsir books in commentary of the verse, يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَنْ تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَى مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ
5- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 235
6- Ibid vol. II, pp 235-236; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 168

and said four units of prayers instead of two as the morning prayers.”

And according to a narration he said, “I'm very cheerful today, I can say more prayers if you want.”(1)

Walid Ibn 'Uqba's successor was Sa'id Ibn 'As who was also of this tribe. At first, he tried to behave peacefully. But a little later, he was fulminated by people because of insulting Hisham Ibn 'Utba who had lost his eye in Yarmuk and ironically was called him one-eyed man.

But the serious problem was Iraq - which is fertile lands of Iraq - all belong to Quraysh”, he said in Kufa. Malik Ashtar was seething with this word. Sa'id wrote 'Uthman about Malik's objection and “people who named themselves readers of Qur'an are indeed crazy doing such and such”, he said. The result was that 'Uthman exiled Malik and some others to Damascus.(2) Later, when Kufa faced escalated riot, 'Uthman said that Abu Musa Ash'ari who was there for 'Umar to be given a rulership.(3)

Basra had not a better situation, there after deposing Abu Musa Ash'ari he placed 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amir, only twenty five, who was caliph's cousin. According to Ibn A'tham, on Friday, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amir Ibn Kurayz wanted to preach. He sat on the rostrum and meeting the crowd he was horrified, so he couldn't talk. ألحمد لله الذي خلق السماوات والأ رض في ست سنين “ Praise be to God (the Exalted) who created heaven and earth in six years”, he said as the

p: 161

1- Habib As-Siyar, vol. II, pp 171-173
2- al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 171-173
3- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 238

prologue. (1)

Another 'Uthman's measure was to depose 'Amr Ibn 'As form ruling Egypt and leaving him to 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh. Tyranny of this man who was outcast by the Prophet (S) towards people of Egypt was one of the causes of these people rebelling against 'Uthman, their coming to Medina to murder him.

“Don't you want”, Imam 'Ali (a) told 'Uthman, “to leave off the Umayyads doing with Muslims' honor and property? I swear if one of your agents tyrannizes people till the sunset, you'll share his sin too.”(2)

This was the same thing some had said about 'Uthman, that is to say he was the first one who began to tyrannize(3) because he did not his agents oppressing people. At the same level, Mu'awiya's reinstatement in Damascus should be mentioned.

Damascus was basically considered as 'Uthman's safe region so he sent his exiles there. The difference between Damascus and Iraq was that Mu'awiya himself had trained them from the beginning but in Kufa people like 'Ammar and 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud had fostered them. Thus, Iraq revolted against 'Uthman while Damascus did not move at all.

According to Ibn Kathir, people protested why he had unseated the Prophet (S) 's companions.(4)

“You have assigned ignorant rulers for us”, was 'Ammar's objection.(5)

'Uthman's policy in employing the Umayyads to handle the country affairs revealed a kind of “Lineal Monarchy” in Islamic caliphate. This way of ruling was the negation of the Islamic values and the settlement of tribal habitudes as

p: 162

1- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 101 (the proofreader in the footnote quoted this part from the Persian translation ) al-Bayan wal-Tabyin, vol. II, p. 251
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IX, p. 15 from “Kitab Ash-Shura” by Waqidi
3- al-Aghani, vol. I7, p. 152
4- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, p. 170
5- al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. I5, p. 221

well as marking the hereditariness of caliphate.

In this kind of statehood, each of the princes came to power in a province. Anywhere the found a fertile land, they possessed. Sa'id Ibn 'As of the Umayyads, ruler of Kufa, named the lands of Iraq “Garden of Quraysh”(1) so people's protest against 'Uthman began here.(2)

(3) The third objection of rebells to 'Uthman was, his prodigality to the Umayyads' family. These prodigality which at first to all Quraysh eminent people and then just to the Umayyads, was at a very large extent. The opposition of Talha and Zubayr was because of this recent thorough turnabout of 'Uthman for the Umayyads.

Thus, “If he gives money to you, you will be satisfied, but if he gives it to his own kinsmen, you'll offend him”(3), 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amr truly said about some of the opponents. Moreover, lavishing and aristocracy in 'Uthman's government versus the past, spurred opposition. In Medina, 'Uthman built a sturdy house of stone with elegant wooden doors(4) and this dazzled a lot of people, comparing financial policy of 'Umar.

When he was objected, “I've made this house using Bayt al-Mal (public property), won't it belong to you after me?”(5) he replied.

He conferred Harith Ibn Hakam (Marwan's brother) the land which is said to be of the Prophet (S) 's charity. Also, Fadak over which Zahra (a) and Abu Bakr had a disagreement and had taken it as public belonging was granted to Marwan Ibn Hakam, caliph's son-in-law.(6) A poet compared Sheikhs' dealing

p: 163

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 529, No 1376
2- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. IX, p. 308
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1115
4- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 332
5- al-Muwaffaqiyyat, p. 602
6- al-Ma‘arif, p. 195

with 'Uthman about Bayt al-Mal in his poem and in the end, he mentioned about granting to Marwan the fifth share of African booties which were nearly equal to five thousands of Dinars.

واَعطيت مروان خمس العباد فهيهات شاَوك ممن سعى

“Thou granted Marwan a share fifth of Allah's servants, thy ideals are actually far from those in pursuit of virtues.” (1)

According to Ibn Qutayba, 'Uthman paid Hakam Ibn Abi l-'As one hundred thousand dhms(2) and according to other sources, three hundred thousand dhms.(3) Also, he conferred Khalid Ibn Usayd four hundred thousands dhms.(4)

'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh had also benefited from African booties.(5) 'Uthman set high marriage portion for his wives too.(6) Considering the given historical information, 'Allama Amini has tabulated these grants to the mentioned people as well as to people like Zubayr, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, Ya'la Ibn Umayya, Zayd Ibn Thabit and the like.(7)

Concerning financial affairs, 'Uthman struggled with some people of whom Abu Dharr was the most important one. It is said that Abu Dharr attaked hard on 'Uthman citing “verse of Kanz”. According to Suyuti, 'Uthman tried to omit “and” (واو) from the beginning of the verse so that it just refers to the people of Book.

But because of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b's strong objection, he turned.(8) Also, 'Uthman had a difference with Abu Dharr over other financial affairs.(9) The result of 'Uthman's opinion which he had gained by asking Ka'b al-Ahbar's legal opinion, was that Bayt al-Mal belongs to the caliph and

p: 164

1- Ibid p. 195; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 27,38
2- al-Ma‘arif, p. 194
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 28 This money came from the poll tax ruled to be received
4- al-Ma‘arif, pp 194,195
5- al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, vol. VII, p. 172
6- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 13
7- al-Ghadir, vol. VIII, p. 286
8- ad-Durr al-Manthur, vol. III, p. 232
9- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, pp 339-340

he can use it in whatever way he wishes.

“You are our “stockman” !” said 'Uthman to Ibn Mas'ud who had the Bayt al-Mal of Kufa.

“I thought”, Ibn Mas'ud replied, “I was “Muslims' stockman”. Now, if I'm supposed to be your stockman, this is the key all yours.”

When Ibn Mas'ud came to Medina from Kufa and gave him the key of Bayt al-Mal in such a way, after outraging, 'Uthman ordered to wallop him and dump him from the mosque. Objecting to 'Uthman, Imam 'Ali (a) took Ibn Mas'ud to his house. Ibn Mas'ud died two years before 'Uthman and had made a will stating that 'Ammar should pray on his body rather than 'Uthman.(1)

The same thing happened to 'Abd Allah Ibn Arqam and he also said he thought he was the Muslims' stockman, but now that it was determined he was the caliph's stockman, he didn't want to take the responsibility.(2)

“O Aba Ishaq!”, 'Uthman asked Ka'b Ibn al-Ahbar in the presence of Abu Dharr, ” what do you think about collecting the money which is given as offerings, spent for desolate people and used for piety (be given to relative).”

“I wish charity for its possessor”, Ka'b Ibn Abi l-Ahbar replied. Abu Dharr boiled and raised his stick to beat his head.(3)

Abu Dharr told 'Uthman quoting from the Prophet (S) “The dearest of you to me is the one who keeps the promise given to me, so that he will join me; you are all involved in earthly things except

p: 165

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 31, 36, 37; Tarikh Ya‘qubi, vol. II, p. 171
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 58,88
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, pp 1306-1307 and in its footnote, Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. IV, p. 232; al-Hilyat al-’Awliya’, vol. I, p. 160; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, p. 2860; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. II, p. 376; vol. III, p. 54; Nihayat al-’Irab, vol. I9, p. 443; al-Tamhid wal-bayan, sheet, 70

me who have kept my promise.” (1)648

Mu'awiya called the property of Bayt al-Mal “Mal Allah” (divine property) to confine possession to himself or basically limit it to himself. Abu Dharr objected why he called “Mal al-Muslimin” as “Mal Allah”.(2) Perchance, this was proved by another story. According to Zuhri, in the treasury of Bayt al-Mal, there was so much remittance 'Uthman had granted some to his kinsmen. Thus, some people quipped him.

“This is “Mal Allah” which is given to anyone I wish”, he said after being told.

When 'Ammar opposed him, they walloped him to fall in a faint.(3) In practical policy of 'Uthman and his agents, there can be seen a strong mammonism. Mu'awiya led these activities and was in power in Damascus. Later, he will be talked about more.

Mawdudi begins to discuss 'Uthman's leaving to his kinsmen the important provinces in his book under the title of “from the leading caliphate to emperorship”. In his opinion, the rule of these agents who were mostly of “suburbs”, had been a kind of tribal reign over Muslim society.(4)

'Uthman entrusted Damascus to Mu'awiya and kept him as the ruler for that region for several years, considering this as one of his faults. He considers it as the result of Mu'awiya's independence and not obeying the headquarters.(5) 'Uthman's justification for this prodigality was that unlike 'Umar who was not interested in piety, he had decided to do so!(6)

As far as dealing of 'Uthman and his companions with Bayt al-Mal is concerned, one

p: 166

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 1040
2- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 83
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 580, No 1485 Abu Dharr said, “Mu‘awiya intends to name Muslims off everything ” This is an interesting idea It will be considered that the reason for attaching caliph to God is for naming off people as well as removing his responsibility in front of the people and God
4- Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat, pp 119-121
5- Ibid pp 129-130
6- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. III, p. 575

of the main reasons of rebelling against 'Uthman should go to the tribes' eminent people who got some property for themselves and other Muslims by force of sword and now seeing that Quraysh, especially the tribe of Umayyads, was ready to seize it.

This challenge actually appeared between the ruling townsmen of Quraysh and warrior nomadic tribes. A scholar(1) indicating this theory, regards the central reign as a sign of Islamic orientation! and consider the protests of cities as crystallizing nationalism of tribes and tribal norms.

He regards murdering of 'Uthman as the victory of “cities” and in fact, victory of tribalism. What seems right is that Quraysh was up to domineer on the fate of Islamic nation resulting in instigation of the tribes. In fact, 'Uthman, in one sense, is the crystallization of departing Islamic orientations towards tribal norms and his killing fails to stand for the end of Islamic orientation and dominating tribalism.

In our opinion, the right view is that the control of Quraysh over the caliphate caused the protest of the tribes which had taken the whole weight of the conquests while watching that Quraysh had confined two things to itself, one was the reign and the other was wealth; in this situation, Iraqi tribes were tricked.

“The city of Iraq”, when Sa'id Ibn 'As Umawi said in Kufa, “which is the rich lands of it, is the garden of Quraysh.”

“Do you consider what God has given us by means of our swords, as a garden for yourself

p: 167

1- Khayr al-din sawi influenced by his professor, ‘Abd al-’Aziz al-Duri in the book, Tatawwur al-fikr As-Siyasi ‘Ind ahl As-Sunna, pp 42-43

and your tribe?”(1) replied Malik Ashtar.

According to al-Duri(2), this financial distinction between Quraysh and non-Quraysh was somewhat originated from 'Umar's financial policy; however, Abu Bakr had equally divided the property and conditioned people's records just as to their divine return. 'Umar divided the property of Bayt al-Mal as to the their records.

This caused the priority of emigrants (Muhajirun) and helpers (Ansar) over Arabs and tribes which shouldered the whole weight of conquests after the Prophet (S). The assets of the headmen of the helpers represent the effects of 'Umar's financial policy which 'Uthman followed. When 'Uthman sent Sa'id Ibn 'As to Kufa as the ruler, he wrote to 'Uthman that, in the city, noble families and pedigree families with a record were subdued and Arabs (tribes) had overcome them.

“Advantage those with a precedence over them”, 'Uthman wrote him back, “and make others follow them, … dedicate to each, his particular status.”(3)

To al-Duri, the main reason of uprising against 'Uthman was primarily anti-Quraysh tribes. It should be mentioned that 'Uthman was the crystallization of tribal orientation towards advantaging Quraysh dominance, especially the Umayyads, over the whole Islamic world.

However, most of the rebels were the idealists who wanted the victory of true Islam. Imam 'Ali (a)'s coming to power is proof of that. Also, Mr. Bayďun finds measure of protesters a kind of Islamic orientation and that of 'Uthman's a tribal one.(4) Of course, it can be said that one of the results of this rioting was to weaken the

p: 168

1- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 337; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 469-470 Concerning the opinion of one of the people in Muhajirun’s ruling for selecting caliph and monopolizing caliphate
2- Muqaddama fi Tarikh Sadr al-Islam, pp 50-58
3- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 279
4- See, Min Dawlat ‘Umar Ila Dawlat ‘Abd al-Malik, p. 107

central government, one main problem of Imam 'Ali (a).

The last word is that a list of 'Uthman's wrongs can be found in a letter the helpers had written to him.(1)

Uthman’s Opponents

The dominating 'Uthmani view of Islamic society since the reign of the Umayyads (41 H.) resulted in acquitting and purifying 'Uthman from any kind of charge. The Umayyads imposed this view on the Islamic society except Iraq which slightly stood up against it.

Thus, the Sunnites assented 'Uthman's oppressedness and rightfulness against the dissenters. With this view, how did they judge dissenters? One way was that they realistically knew his dissenters and considered them as their religion enemies. If they had chosen to do so, the leading companions would be exposed to accusation.

Another way was to consider his dissenters people, with no companions among them, who had come from Iraq and Egypt. They chose this way and when some companions were said to be among 'Uthman's opponents, falsely saying that he had sent their sons to 'Uthman's house to defend him (and it is not apparent why they did not go themselves), they began to support the companions in order not to be accused of being 'Uthman's enemies.

It should be noted that “Sunnites historians” deemed it necessary to avoid mentioning companions' mperfection.(2) If any one narrated their imperfection, it meant that he was a Shi'ites Muslim. Clearly, the implication of one of the companions in killing 'Uthman was obviously regarded as his imperfection. With this compiled policy, most of the

p: 169

1- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 50
2- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal seriously banned Sunnites narrators to narrate the companions’ imperfection He believed if anyone narrated these things about companions, he should be avoided Some time, he Himself listened to traditions through ‘Abd al-Razzaq San‘ani When ‘Abd al-Razzaq retold these kinds of narrations, Ahmad kept away and he was back to class sessions when he began new subjects In other cases, when the companions imperfection were discussed, Ahmad covered his ears with two fingers “It can not be quoted from ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Musa ‘Abasi”, he said because يحدث باحاديث فيها تنقص لاصحاب رسول الله He narrated hadiths which lowered rank of the Prophet’s companions Also he did not allow any one to quote a person who imprecated Mu‘awiya Some times, accounting that companions had said these words while they were angry, he did not permit their narrations It is said that Salim Ibn Abi MuTi‘ took Abu ‘Awana’s book and ruined the main traditions which were concerned with imperfection of companions As for these words and similar narrations, As-Sana, Abu Khallal, pp 500-511

historical facts related to political positions of companions faded away.

Here, forgery happened in two forms, first, not to right the truths of history, second, to make fake news. During the events of this era, Sayf Ibn 'Umar, the lie-maker, radically denied the presence of companions and knew an unknown person called 'Abd Allah Ibn Saba' responsible for all these months-long serious events in which all of Islamic cities, especially the caliphate center in Medina played a great role.

According to Sayf, traveling to different cities, this man had provoked people against 'Uthman(1) and had been able to arouse Kufa and Egypt. In Sayf's opinion, 'Abd Allah was also the founder of Shi'a religion. If Sayf is true, it is not clear what should be said about a society so fragile that a Jewish can induce it against the caliph and it ends up murdering him? What is certain is that first in all scholastic books Sayf is accused of lying and heresy.

Second, there is not such a thing in any of the books which were the first sources of Islamic history and even the name of 'Abd Allah Ibn Saba' is not mentioned. In other words, from all sources of 3rd and 4th centuries remained, Tabari had just used Sayf's books and for this he kept his forgery.

However, in some books like Akhbar al-Tiwal, al-Imamat wa as-Siyasa, Ansab al-Ashraf and Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, there is nothing mentioned about these events. Unfortunately, the next books like al-Bidayat

p: 170

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, pp 378-379

wal-Nihaya and Kamil Ibn Athir which used Tabari have cited these forgeries and in recent years this has been accepted since it is mostly consistent with the Sunnites beliefs.

Now, a lot of Sunnites and Shi'ites researchers and orientalists seriously remain doubtful about it and do not concede it. Of the Shi'ites researchers is Murtaďa Askari (1) and of the Sunnites ones is Taha Husayn.(2) The forgery is also revealed to the orientalists.

Most of the Muslim historians(3), Bernard Lewis writes, attribute the commencement of revolutionary Shi'ism to 'Abd Allah Ibn Saba' who co-lived with 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a). He was a Yemeni Jewish and had been publicizing 'Ali's divinity and finally was burnt because of his deeds.

In this way, the starting point of hard-line Shi'ite Muslims and exaggerators is ascribed to him and to a Jewish principle through him.

Yet, new investigations show that this is some sort of circumstances and second century thoughts into the past rendered by “hadith-writers”. Wellhausen and Friedlander by means of narration and looking into sources have demonstrated that the conspiracy attributed to Ibn Saba' is heresy coming after. Kietani, in a substantiated chapter, has shown that an intrigue with an ideology and organization ascribed to Ibn Saba' is beyond imagination in an Arabially patriarchal and tribal community in 35 A.H..(4)

Anyhow, in so far as it is related to 'Uthman's opponents, a great deal of facts can be obtained through the quest for historical and literary sources. With regard to what has been mentioned

p: 171

1- In his three books, this researcher has studied Sayf’s narrations and has correctly shown his style of writing which is a kind of story telling
2- al-Fitnat al-Kubra, the chapter on ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’
3- As mentioned, “this majority” is the people who used Tarikh at-Tabari, otherwise the first rate books of the third century had not basically cited these events
4- Tarikh Isma‘iliyan, p. 33

in these sources, the companions of the prophet, especially the Ansar, have played a leading role in instigating the people against 'Uthman.

By probing into various sources, 'Allama Amini has stated that more than 80 names of the companions are included among 'Uthman's opponents, such as, Talha, Zubayr, 'Ayisha, 'Ammar, Abu Dharr, 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf, 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud, Miqdad, Hujr Ibn 'Adi, Hashim Ibn 'Utba, Sahl Ibn Hunayf, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Jabir Ibn 'Abd Allah Ansari whose oppositions against 'Uthman have benn quoted by 'Allama Amini.(1)

It should be taken into consideration that all of them did not believe in the murder of 'Uthman or nor did they deem it advisable, yet they criticized his political- religious actions sharply. Abu Sa'id Khudri said, About 800 companions have implicated in 'Uthman's killing.(2) Busr Ibn Artat's bitter talk to the Medinans in 40 A.H. is evidence that Ansar were strongly implicated in killing 'Uthman.(3))

Talha and Zubayr were ranked among the most hardline critics of 'Uthman. Imam 'Ali (a) used to say about them, they are demanding of me a right which they have abandoned, and a blood that they have themselves shed.(4) Numerous sources have revealed Talha's strong enmity towards 'Uthman.(5) Due to this very fact, Marwan Ibn Hakam, who stayed alongside Talha in the battle of Jamal, observing that the war was coming to an end put an arrow in the bow and killed Talha. In this way, he took 'Uthman's revenge against Talha.

Afterwards, 'Abd al-Malik Marwan said, “Unless

p: 172

1- al-Ghadir, vol. VIII and IX
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1175
3- al-Gharat, p. 219 (Persian translation
4- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, pp 247-248
5- al-Ma‘arif, p. 228; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 80; Tarikh al-Madina al-Munawwara, vol. III,p. 1169 كان أشد الصحابة على عثمان طلحة بن عبيد الله Talha Ibn ‘Abd Allah among the companions treated ‘Uthman most harshly

my father had told me that he has killed Talha, I would murder all Talha's progeny in revenge for 'Uthman's blood.”(1) While laying siege to 'Uthman's house, Talha was reportedly the head of house guards and he did not let people, food and water in the house.(2)

Yet, becoming informed of the delivery of food and water, he said, “What sort of siege is this one in which food and water are delivered?”(3) When 'Uthman was stopped having water, Imam met Talha and spoke to him about letting water in 'Uthman's house, however, Talha was unwilling to do so.(4) Some day 'Uthman sent somebody after Imam 'Ali (a) and told him that Talha was killing him through thirst, while it's more worthwhile to be killed with the sword.(5) Sheykh Mufid has devoted a full chapter to his stances against 'Uthman.(6)

'Amr Ibn 'As was also ranked among bitter dissenters of 'Uthman.(7) 'Ayisha also attacked 'Uthman strongly,(8) when her grant of bounty was cut under 'Uthman's order.(9) It was she who called 'Uthman Na'thal, an old stupid man due to his bushy beard.(10)

According to a witness, I was in mosque when 'Uthman entered, then 'Ayisha yelled, “O traitor! O sinner! You spoiled the servants through breach of trust; if five units of prayer never existed, people would come to you and thereby, you were slaughtered as if you were a sheep.”

'Uthman revealed to her(11) the verse related to Noah's wife.(12) It seeds that in these last days, every time when 'Uthman came to

p: 173

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 223; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 1170
2- al-Jamal, p. 141, see, Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 385; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. IV, p. 290
3- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 57
4- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1169
5- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1202
6- al-Jamal, pp 145-146
7- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1089
8- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazana, p. 27; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 37
9- al-Futuh, vol. III, p. 123
10- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazana, p. 27
11- al-Jamal, p. 148; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 225; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VI, p. 215
12- Tahrim, verse 10

mosque for prayer, he was rebuked by 'Ayisha whose house was ajacent to the mosque. As to Baladhuri, once this objection led to a clash between those for and against 'Ayisha and 'Uthman so that they thrashed each other with shoes.

Baladhuri further says,(تلك أوّل قتال وقع بين المسلمين بعد النبي (ص “It was the first clash occurred between Muslims after the Prophet (S).”(1)

Muhammad, the son of Talha, maintained that 'Ayisha is responsible for one-third of 'Uthman's blood.(2)

Sa'd Waqqas also has been quoted as saying, ”'Uthman was killed with 'Ayisha's unshielded swords.”(3)

There is historically much to tell about 'Ammar, Abu Dharr and 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf and many others, insofar as there will be no room for doubt.

At the time when the revolt was kicked against 'Uthman, there were few who would agree with him. Specifically when the Medinans received a letter sealed by 'Uthman to Egypt's ruler in which murder of people was ordered, public anger was fired up.(4) When Mu'awiya put a question to 'Uthman, Umm al-Khayr answered, People selected him as a caliph, which they actually hated him. Afterwards, they killed him, while being pleased to do so.(5)

Ansar were considered to be the main residents of Medina. Their disagreement with Quraysh was the motive behind the first mistake they made in Saqifa. In the event of the assassination of 'Uthman, beloved to Quraysh, most of Ansar were numbered among 'Uthman's dissenters, whereas a few where among 'Uthman's assenters. The anti-'Uthman movement was led by Ansar, Muhajirun and a

p: 174

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 34
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1173
3- Ibid, p. 1174
4- Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. II, p. 261
5- Subh al-a‘sha, vol. I, p. 251

number of the Kufiyans and Egyptians.

Yet, in as much as Medina was Ansar's place of abode, the Umayya put the blame for this event on Ansar. It was then they decided to take revenge of them. As far as Yazid is concerned, the cruel suppression of Medina in Harra event by Muslim Ibn 'Uqba, branded as prodigal due to his abundant massacre, is regarded as 'Uthman's retaliation against the Medinans.(1)

Thabit, the son of 'Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr used to say to 'Abd al-Malik, “The Medinans downgraded 'Uthman in as much as he was killed among them, and they did not support him.”(2) Some time, Thabit insulted the Syrians.

'Uthman's son told him, “You insult them, for your father was killed by them.”

He replied, “Yes!” But O 'Uthman's son! Beware. Your father has been killed by Muhajirun and Ansar.(3)

Sa'd Ibn 'Abd al-Rahman said to Hassan, “A group of Ansar went to Mu'awiya in Syria.

Mu'awiya asked them, “Which one, Quraysh or you, are more helpful?… You humiliated 'Uthman when he was under siege and killed his followes in Jamal.”(4)

After 'Uthman's murder, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amir, Basra's ruler, considered his killing as an unjust action. In Jariya Ibn Qudama's opinion, 'Uthman was killed in the presence of Ansar and Muhajirun, yet they showed no reaction against murderers.(5) In this respect, a poet has said,

إن ابن عفان أصيب وحوله إخوانه وجماعة من الأنصار

”'Uthman Ibn 'Affan was murdered when his brothers and a group of Ansar surrounded him.”(6)

In continuation, this poet regrets that how is

p: 175

1- al-Aghani, vol. I, p. 26
2- al-Muwaffaqiyyat, p. 152; al-Imta‘ wal-Mu’anisa, vol. III, p. 165
3- al-Imta‘ wal-Mu’anisa, vol. III, p. 165
4- Ibid, vol. III, pp 168-169
5- al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 269-270
6- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. III, p. 341; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 263

it possible for those who call themselves the companions of the Prophet (S) not to support 'Uthman. Mu'awiya asked Abu Tufayl, were you one of killers of 'Uthman? He replied, “No, I was present over there, however, I did not advocated him.”

Mu'awiya further asked, “Why?”

Abu Tufayl answered, “Since Muhajirun and Ansar didn't came to his help.”(1)

Thereafter, Sa'd Ibn Musayyib was questioned by people as why did the companions of the prophet (S) downgrade 'Uthman?(2)

'Abd al-Malik used to say to the Medinans, “As long as we recall the Umayya's killing and you remembered Harra, nor can we like each other.”(3)

So due to the Umayya's animosity towards Ansar the Umayya were obliged to induce Akhtal, the poet to, satirize Ansar.(4) Concerning the role of Ansar in 'Uthman's murder, it's interesting to mention 'Uthman's letter to Mu'awiya when bringing him under siege, in which is was written, The Medinans have become atheist, have baulked at following their Imam and have broken their promise.(5) Hassan Ibn Thabit, being one of the tenacious supporters of 'Uthman in these days, points out the matter of Ansar's downgrading 'Uthman in his poems. In fact, in addition to the following interpretation,

خذلته الأنصار اذ حضر الموت وكانت ولاته الأنصار

“Ansar, even though having sainthood, was present when 'Uthman was killed, but they left him alone.”(6)

He further mentions the implication of Talha, Zubayr, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr and 'Ammar in the assassination of 'Uthman. The Umayya's hostility to Ansar, the 'Uthmanids preferred Syria to Medina.(7) Afterwards, Yahya, the son of Hakam

p: 176

1- al-Muwaffaqiyyat, p. 154
2- al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. IV, p. 287
3- al-Basa’ír wal-dhaka’ir, vol. I, p. 18
4- al-Aghani, vol. XV, p. 107
5- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 402
6- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 347
7- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 42; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 71; Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. LXX, pp 204,205,212,223,227; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 421

Ibn Abi l-'As called Medina as an “evil land” and Syria as a “sacred land”.(1) This interpretation reveals their aversion to Islam.

The evidence indicates that Muhajirun and Ansar have played a central role in opposition to 'Uthman. Historians have quoted the content of the letter Muhajirun wrote to the cities (aiming at) asking them to go to Medina for the reform of circumstances.

In the letter it was written as follows:

Form the early Muhajirun and the remaining members of council to the Egyptians including Ansar and followers (Tabi'in). Come to us and find out Caliphate, before it brings the people to an end. Verily, Qur'an has been distorted, the tradition of the Prophet has been changed and the Sheikhs' rules have been altered. We hereby ajure all the remaining of and Tabi'in by Allah to return to us if they believe in Allah and the Resurrection Day… the caliphate coming after the Prophet was the caliphate of Prophet hood and blessing, whereas it's already become kingdom and sovereignty.(2)

Based on another narration, a group of the companions of the prophet (S) assembled and after discussion determined on writing a letter to 'Uthman in order to remind him of his violating the Sunna. This letter, a highly significant document was given to 'Uthman by 'Ammar, yet it was answered in no way but thrashing 'Ammar.(3)

It is appropriate to quote a remark from Hashim Ibn 'Utba known as Abu Mirqal on his answer to a Syrian in Siffin who said that

p: 177

1- al-Aghani, vol. LXXX, p. 334
2- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, pp 53-54
3- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, pp 50.

your Imam does not say prayer and has killed our caliph; what do you have to do with Ibn 'Affan? إنما قتله أصحاب محمد وقرّاء الناس “Verily Muhammad's companions as well as public Qur'an-reciters killed him.” (1)

'Uthman had a scarcity of assenters in Medina, each financially benefited from 'Uthman in one way or another. Among them was 'Abd Allah Ibn Sallam. He was amongst the Muslim-turned Jews who went up the 'Uthman's roof in the course of the siege of his house and said, “I found 'Uthman's name is Torah in which it's been mentioned, Your caliph is the oppressed, the martyr.”

People shouted, O the Jew! He's fed you up and dressed your body.(2) This very narration should have been made at a later time by those who were apt to label 'Uthman as martyr in Torah. Elsewhere it goes to say that such an issue has also been touched upon in terms of the second caliph. Anyhow, 'Abd Allah Ibn Sallam has been ranked among the tenacious assenters of 'Uthman.(3)

Zayd Ibn Thabit was another supporter of 'Uthman once he began to advocate 'Uthman, people accused him of a support which was due to being fed up by 'Uthman. Zayd was keeper of 'Uthman's treasury.(4) He was later on profited by Mu'awiya's treasury.(5)

Waqidi says, “Among the companions of the Prophet (S) no one supported 'Uthman but Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Usayd Sa'idi, Ka'b Ibn Malik and Hassan Ibn Thabit.”(6)

According to Ibn Ishaq, when 'Uthman migrated to Medina, he went

p: 178

1- Waq‘at Siffin, p. 354
2- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 61 Most probably this remark, “… I found ‘Uthman’s name in Torah” has been ascribed to ‘Abd Allah Ibn Sallam afterwards Yet, he has been amongst ‘Uthman’s assenters
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, pp 1175-1186
4- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 222
5- Tarikh Abuzar‘a al-dimashqi, vol. I, p. 190
6- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 60

to Aws Ibn Thabit, Hassan's brother. Thereafter, 'Uthman appealed to Hassan. Then, after his killing, Hassan cried for him.(1)

To Mas'udi, وكان حسان عثمانياً منحرفاً Hassan was both a supporter of 'Uthman and a deviator.” (2)

In addition to the persons mentioned by Waqidi, Abu Hurayra has also been reckoned among 'Uthman's supporters.(3)

Apart from a handful of supporters, 'Uthman died in Medina in such a stranger hood that no one dared to bury him in Baqi'. Only few of them buried him by night in a place called “Hashsh Kawkab”, a garden which was later on attached to Baqi' by Mu'awiya.(4)

‘Uthman’s Contact with Dissenters

As long as 'Uthman found himself in high position, he did not surrender to dissenters' criticisms by no means whatsoever. Yet, he treated harshly to them and tried to render them obedient and calm through trashing and exile. The Umayya was all 'Uthman's concern. Indeed, 'Uthman was yielded and, in a sense, feeble towards the members of this family; however, he treated the great companions of the Prophet (S) having a longer precedence bitterly and with asperity.

This was highly influential in inciting the people once more. Contact with Abu Dharr who had a morally and spiritually special position in community can be mentioned typically. Abu Dharr strived to keep 'Uthman away from extravagance. It was indeed all Abu Dharr's concern. Yet, 'Uthman brought a charge of sedition against him saying, “You are a man fond of sedition.”(5)

Then, Abu Dharr being forbidden from indulging said to 'Uthman, “Even if

p: 179

1- Ibn Hisham, As-Sirat al-Nabawiyya, vol. II, p. 479
2- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. I, p. 347
3- See, Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, pp 89-170 and vol. IV, p. 340
4- al-Ma‘arif, p. 197 Ibn Qutayba says, Hash means garden and Kawkab is the name of a man from Ansar
5- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 158

I am put to the sword, I won't refrain from narrating what the Prophet (S) has said.”

Abu Dharr supported Imam 'Ali explicitly. He used to quote the Prophet (S) as saying, “There will be a sedition thereafter, if you were entrapped by it, so adhere to Allah's Book and 'Ali.”

He further quotes the Prophet (S) as saying, “The first who shakes hands with me in the Day of Judgment.”(1) 'Uthman consulted with Ka'b al-Ahbar whether it is permissible for Imam to withdraw whatever he wants of the public treasury and return it whenever he wishes.

Ka'b replied him, “Yes.”

Then, he was objected by Abu Dharr, “O you the son of Jew! Are you teaching us our religion?”(2) After viewing such a situation, 'Uthman sent Abu Dharr to Syria on exile. There, Abu Dharr did not desist from objecting and criticizing. Thus, through a letter, Mu'awiya deemed his presence dangerous for Syria and even for Iraq and asked 'Uthman to let him return to Medina and so did 'Uthman. Then, Abu Dharr was exiled to Medina on a hard horseback,(3) while his thigh run out of flesh. Afterwards, his objection to 'Uthman resulted in his exile to Rabaďa where he died in isolation.

Abu Dharr, about whom the Prophet (S) had told, “Abu Dharr is the most truthful under shadow of sky, was accused by 'Uthman of being a liar.”(4)

Accordingly, Imam 'Ali was inclined to back Abu Dharr inexorably. At the time of exiling Abu Dharr, 'Uthman ordered people not to see Abu

p: 180

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 118
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 52
3- al-Ma‘arif, p. 195; al-Isti‘ab, vol. I, p. 214; al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 1580-189; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1038 According to Ibn A‘tham, ‘Uthman said to Abu Dharr, “Go out of Medina ” Abu Dharr answered, “I want to go to Syria ” ‘Uthman did not accept Abu Dharr proposed Iraq, but then again ‘Uthman rejected it, and said to him, “ I said you to the worst city, that is, Rabaďa So go over there and never return here ”
4- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 157

Dharr off, however. Imam 'Ali together with his descendants did so. Although, he objected Imam 'Ali,

Imam said to Abu Dharr, “O Abu Dharr! You become angry with them for the sake of Allah and they were afraid of themselves for the fear of their worldly life.” At the time when Abu Dharr was seen off by 'Ali (a) and his descendants, he cast a look at Imam and said, “Seeing you and your descendants reminds me of the Prophet (S) 's remark about you and makes me burst into tears.”(1) He passed away in Rabaďa, while according to his will, nobody including commander, leader and mail had the right to shroud and bury him.(2)

'Uthman's contact with Abu Dharr was so bitter and provocative that afterwards Jahiz wrote, “People killed 'Uthman, for he had exiled Abu Dharr.”(3) It is a ridiculous point to write that, afterwards, Abu Dharr went to Rabaďa through his own will, not on exile.

Not only Abu Dharr, but also most of the Kufiyans who objected to Sa'id Ibn 'As were sent to Syria on exile by order of caliph. In caliph's opinion, Syria was too a secure place. It should be said principally that 'Uthman did the chief part of Mu'awiya.

The on-exile persons, well-known as Kufa's “readers” are as follows, Malik Ashtar, Zayd, Sa'sa'a (Suhan's children), Shurayh Ibn 'Awfi, Hurqus Ibn Zuhayr, Jundab Ibn Zuhayr, Ka'b Ibn 'Abada, 'Adi Ibn Hatim, Kidam Ibn Hadhri, Malik Ibn Habib, Qays Ibn 'Utarud, Ziyad Ibn Hafsa, Yazid Ibn Qays and

p: 181

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 173; see al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 159-160;Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 54
2- Nath ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 78
3- al-Hayawan, vol. IV, p. 277

some others.(1) They all opposed Sa'id Ibn 'As's remarks, inasmuch as he considered Iraq's lands as belonging to Quraysh.

However, after their return to Kufa, they were led by Malik, whereupon Malik hindered Sa'id from entering Kufa, Moreover, he himself called Friday prayer. 'Uthman regarded all these people and their actions as being prompted by 'Ali.(2) 'Amir Ibn 'Abd Qays who went to 'Uthman in order to criticize was also sent on exile.(3)

The companions and followers of Kufa had a key role in the developments of this period. 'Amr Ibn Zurara Ibn Qays Nakha'i along with Kumayl Ibn Ziyad and a man from Banu Sahban were reportedly the first who spoke of dethroning 'Uthman and enthroning the Imam.(4)

Another figure who come to grips with 'Uthman was 'Ammar Ibn Yasir. According to Ibn Qutayba and others, a number of companions convened and decided to inform 'Uthman of his faults through a letter. After the letter was written, 'Ammar was supposed to hand it over to 'Uthman. But 'Uthman averted taking the letter.

Thereafter, 'Ammar told him, “This letter is written by number of the companions as an advice to you.”

'Uthman answered, “O the son of Sumayya! You are lying.” Whereupon, 'Uthman ordered him to be sent out of the house through thrashing, with some of his chest ribs broken. After being knocked unconscious, he was dragged out of the house.

Then, Marwan Ibn Hakam being the major element behind all stimulations said to 'Uthman, “If you kill 'Uthman, you will get rid of

p: 182

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, pp 39 -43
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 45-46; Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 337
3- al-Isaba, vol. III, p. 85
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 30


One of the impacts of 'Uthman's thrashing 'Ammar was that 'Ammar was unable to control his urine up to the end of his life.(2) It appears that 'Ammar had been thrashed before Abu Dharr has reportedly recalled such a thing in his criticisms.(3)

'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud was the other opponent. He got the grips with Walid Ibn 'Uqba, the sinful, in Kufa. Then, through a letter Walid instigated 'Uthman against him. In answer to his letter, 'Uthman called for sending him on exile from Kufa to Medina.

When being in Kufa, he was deprived of getting his due from the public treasury for a period of three years.(4) Based on the will Ibn Mas'ud made at the time of death, 'Ammar rather than 'Uthman was requested to say prayer over his corpse.(5)

To solve the matter with these objections, 'Uthman assembled the members of his own family and consulted with them. Some of them proposed him to send the companions and other protesters to the outlying battlefields so long as he become free of their criticisms.

Some others recommended him to be more benevolent towards people intending to calm them. He along with his family took it for granted that every thing is possible save surrounding to opponents. Mu'awiya urged 'Uthman to set same former agent to work without paying any attention to the opponents.(6)

Once 'Uthman tried to send a commodity to Abu Dharr, yet Abu Dharr sent it back.(7) Mu'awiya also sent some money to Abu Dharr in order

p: 183

1- See al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, pp 50-51; al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 153-155; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 49
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, pp 1099-1100; ‘Ammar may have been thrashed once again See Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 48
3- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 155
4- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1049
5- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 31,36,37; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 171; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. III, pp 42-43 There, ‘Abd Allah’s thrashing and his objections of ‘Uthman have been explained in detail
6- See al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 178-179; Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, pp 237-238; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, p. 135; al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya vol. VII, p. 167; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 44
7- Lubab al-Adab, p. 305

to deceive him.(1) Furthermore, 'Uthman sent 30000 drachmae enclosed with some garments to Ibn Abi Hudhayfa who was one of the bitter critics of Caliph. Then, 'Ali Hudhayfa put the sum of money and the garment in the middle of the mosque saying, O, Muslims! Do you see that 'Uthman is intending to deceive me in the case of my religion?(2)

'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amir also recommended 'Uthman to satisfy opposers through granting money.(3) Kufa's ruler, Sa'id Ibn 'As, also bade his emissary to send Imam 'Ali (a) a gift and tell him that he is given preference over others in this regard whereupon, Imam got the emissary away through a bitter reaction.(4)

'Uthman assumed that he should ravish like 'Umar. Thus, he'd rather behave harshly. Unaware of the fact that 'Umar did not lead such a tranquil life like him. So it was this very fact which got in the way of his opponents. 'Uthman unrightfully believed that 'Umar was not objected by anyone, despite of doing what he did, yet I am objected due to my flexibility.(5)

Of course, 'Umar had also some religious innovations, yet, as stated previously he obstructed opponents financially and even behaved very strictly towards all of his agents. Moreover, he did not set his kindreds to work. By all accounts, 'Uthman was not soft-natured by no means whatsoever, and he had Prophet as well. Once Imam 'Ali (a) objected to 'Uthman concerning Abu Dharr's exiling, caliph said to him, “You yourself are more deserving

p: 184

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 53
2- Ibid, vol. V, p. 51; vol. II, p. 388
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1095
4- Sharh ma yaqa‘ fih l-Tashif wal-Tahrif, p. 107
5- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VIII, p. 113; al-Bayan wal-Tabyin, vol. I, p. 377

of exile!”

A noteworthy point in these incidents is that it was not only allowable but also necessary for the companions to protest against the anti-government measures. They resisted the government hardly as long as they and their caliph could survive. This issue labeled as 'Revolt Against Ruler,' later on became a highly momentous issue and drew the attention of all political and religious sects in the world of Islam. It's suitable here to center upon the aforesaid issue.

A question of a great significance was, in what case the people can come to oppose their ruler? Or principally, whether or not they have the right to do so. In this respect, much has been mentioned in political opinions of Islamic sects. Besides, the opinions of groups such as Shi'ites Kharijites and large groups of Mu'tazilites are totally different from the ruling Sunnites.

On the whole, what has been reported in this regard, like other issues, derives largely from the objectives realities and political events of the advent of Islam. In this regard, there are two various and, in a sense, contradictory issue which ought to be solved. The first issue is that, if an emir orders against Allah's Judgment, whether or not people ought to obey him?

Based on the known religious principles, if obedience to ruler's order leads to disobedience to Allah, it will be inadmissible. A narration supports this, The Messenger of Allah (S) sent 'Abd Allah Ibn Hudhafa, a humorist, to a tribe under the command of a

p: 185

group. After traversing a short distance, they stopped to rest and kindled a fire.

Then 'Abd Allah said to them, “Am I not rightful to be obeyed by you?”

They answered, “Yes!”

He further added, “If it is so, you ought to obey whatever I order.”

They accepted. Then, he ordered them, “According to my right. I order you to throw yourself into fire.” Yet, thereafter he imparted that he was just pulling their leg.

Once the Messenger of Allah (S) was informed of 'Abd Allah's attitude, he said, “Don't obey someone who orders you to disobey Allah.”(1)

This was the Messenger of Allah's conduct which is condensed into the short statement, لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق “ Where a sin is committed, never ever should a creature be obeyed.”

Thereafter, Abu Bakr notified in his first speech that the Messenger was kept infallible through inspiration and he was given care by an angel, yet, to me he seems as a devil who has subdued me occasionally, when I get angry, get away from me …

As long as I obey Allah and his Messenger, obey me; however, at the time of disobedience to Allah and his Messenger I am not rightful to be obeyed by you.(2) 'Umar had a harshly daring treatment to the extent that few people had power or courage to oppose him. Anyhow, some people have been reported to oppose him, and in some cases he responded them positively.

Another point lay behind the principle, لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق Which

p: 186

1- Ibn Hisham, As-Sirat al-Nabawiyya, vol. IV, p. 640; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. XI, p. 335; Sahih al-bukhari, Kitab al-Ahkam Hadith, vol. IV; Musnad Ahmad, vol. III, p. 67; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. V p. 171; vol. XII, p. 104
2- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. XI, p. 336

was contrary to it.

According to this point, a person's opposition to an emir will pave the way for the disunity of the community or the so-called Congregation. While “the order to maintain congregation” being the most vital principle for solidifying the community is quite contrary to the expression of opposition. Naturally, in non-critical situations, this issue can somewhat be solved through toleration on the part of two parties. However, in case of an unusual circumstance or if the objection gives rise to a critical condition, this issue will be more intricate.

In books of Hadith a full section has been devoted to the maintenance of congregation, which is mainly based on obedience to ruler.(1) Of course, it is clear that ruler's benefits lie more in observing the principle of “Congregation” than that of “lack of obedience at the time of disobedience”.

'Abd al-Razzaq San'ani, in his book entitled as “Musannaf” has mentioned some narrations labeled as “the section on the necessity of the community” some of which are to be expounded.

Quoting from the Messenger of Allah (S), Abu Hurayra said, “The one who dies while he has become separately apart from congregation, and does not obey, indeed he has died in ignorance.

The one who has revolted against my people with the sword and strikes good and bad … he's not among my people. According to Ibn 'Abbas, the one who goes out of obedience by an inch, he has died in ignorance.”

It's been quoted that the Messenger of Allah (S)

p: 187

1- See al-Mu‘jam al-Mufahras Lialfa¨ al-hadith al-Nabawi, vol. IV, below the word “Taw‘”, obedience

has ordered five things, compliance, obedience, congregation, immigration and Jihad in the way of Allah; The one who distances himself from congregation by an inch, he will be no longer a Muslim.

'Umar has also quoted the Prophet (S) as saying, “The one who longs for paradise, maybe maintains the congregation.”

Furthermore, he's been quoted as saying, “The one who rebels against any people while they are united intending to divide them, kill him in any possible case.”

Hudhayfa has reportedly said that the people who tried to downgrade “Allah's Sultan on earth”, should be humiliated by Allah. Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (S) has said about the Emirate of the insane people that some emirs will come after me who are not guided by me and do not comply with my Sunna; the one who affirms their lie is helping them with their oppression, so we are not from each other and he won't come on me in the Pond of Abundance (Kawthar).

In another hadith he said, “Nothing is better than speaking in justice before a tyrant Sultan. Avoiding people should not hinder you from speaking in truth.”

The narrator of this hadith, Abu Sa'id Khudri, after narrating it, burst into tears and said, “By God! We refrained from so doing.”

One day Abu Dharr came to 'Uthman and found fault with him. Thereafter, while reclining on stick 'Ali (a) joined them.

'Uthman asked, “What should I do with him?”

'Ali (a) answered, “Allah has said about him that, if he be a liar, on him

p: 188

will be his lie, and if he be truthful, there will befall you some of that which he threatens you with (The Believer, (Ghafir) 28).”

Then 'Uthman said to 'Ali (a), “Keep quiet, woe back onto you! You asked me something and I answered you.”(1)

'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud has also quoted the Messenger of Allah (S) as saying to him, “What do you do while seeing emirs who do not comply with my Sunna and never say prayer on time.”

Ibn Mas'ud answered, “I asked what to do?”

Then, the Messenger of Allah (S) said, “You are asking me what to do! (2)” لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الله

In continuation of this narration and before that numerous narrations have been mentioned concerning these emirs who never say prayer on time. Once seeing that Walid Ibn 'Uqba has refrained from timely prayer, Ibn Mas'ud requested Mu'adhdhin to recite Adhan.

Then, he himself began to say prayer. Thereafter, answering to Walid's objection, he said, “Allah and His Messenger do not accept us to wait for you while you are going about your business.”(3)

Some Scholar as Hasan Basri, Zuhri and Qatada has reportedly said prayer alongside emirs, even if these emirs did not do it on its due time.(4) Concerning 'Uthman, it's been stated that Hasan Basri was questioned in this way, who did say prayer after sermon (in feast of prayer)?

He answered, ”'Uthman always says prayer at the outset and then he makes a sermon.” However, seeing that many people do not stay for sermon,

p: 189

1- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. XI, pp 339-349
2- Ibid, vol. II, p. 384
3- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. II, p. 384
4- Ibid, vol. II, p. 385; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, p. 402

he decided to make sermon at first and say prayer thereafter.(1)

These were samples of narrations quoted by 'Abd al-Razzaq San'ani in this regard. It should be said, however, that opposition to bid for disobedience was once considered as prescription of criticism and the other time as revolt. The second not the first is more momentous concerning separation of community.

Many issues are available as regards 'Uthman as well as historical experience of his caliphate, e.g. for him, opposition and criticism were beyond endurance. Once in 26 A.H, 'Uthman merged some neighboring houses together to develop the sacred Mosque and tried to sponsor for it by public treasury, some people burst into objection.

Hence, ordering to imprison them, 'Uthman said, “What dared you stand against me is your forbearance; otherwise, 'Umar himself did so.”

Eventually, prisoners were all released under the mediation of 'Abd Allah Ibn Khalid Ibn Usayd.(2) However, having remembered the prior conduct in which any criticism was permissible, the comparisons and the followers criticized 'Uthman whenever the ground was prepared. He resisted these objections and never surrendered to them, in cases of a sever pressure-due to the siege of his house-he admitted objections temporarily, yet, as soon as the pressure was removed he acted cruelly.

At the time when Imam 'Ali (a) was accompanying Abu Dharr, 'Uthman said, “Didn't you hear that I ordered not to accompany Abu Dharr?”

Then, Imam answered, “Must we obey your orders, while we find them contrary to Allah's Judgment? By Allah, we don't do so.”

'Uthman became

p: 190

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 385; Musnad Abi Dawud, vol. I, p. 297
2- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 259

angry with Imam 'Ali (a) and told him that Marwan has been given superiority over him. The next day, 'Uthman went to Muhajirun and Ansar so as to grumble about Imam 'Ali (a). He noted that 'Ali finds faults with him and supports those raising difficulty, that is, 'Ammar, Abu Dharr and others. Thereafter, people brought about a compromise between 'Ali (a) and 'Uthman, and 'Ali (a) stated that his accompanying of Abu Dharr had been merely for the sake of Allah.(1)

Marwan Ibn Hakam says, “In midway of Mecca and Medina, I witnessed the contact between 'Ali and 'Uthman, in which 'Uthman banned performing lesser pilgrimage in Hajj months (or both lesser and greater pilgrimage).”

Seeing such a thing, 'Ali (a) said, “I become clothed in a pilgrimage state, then he said Labbayk for both of them.”

'Uthman objected to him asking, “Are you doing what I forbid?”

Imam answered, “I do not give up the Sunna of the Messenger (S) on behalf of anybody.”(2)

Ibn Mas'ud was also one of the tenacious dissenters of 'Uthman. He was some time among those who said, “If 'Uthman says a four rak'at-prayer rather than a two rak'at one in Mina, he is to be obeyed, since opposition is considered as an evil.(3)

Elsewhere he has said, ”'Uthman is Imam, so I do not oppose him, for opposition is considered as an evil.”(4) Though, later on he acted so intensely against 'Uthman.(5)

A large number of companions were unanimous in opposition to 'Uthman. Later, the Sunnis disbelieved the companions

p: 191

1- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, pp 341-342; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 173
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, pp 1043-1044
3- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 268; al-Ghadir, vol. VIII, p. 99, quoted from, Sunan Abi Dawud, vol. I, p. 308; Qaďi Abu Yusuf, al-Athar, p. 30; Shafi‘i, Kitab al-Umm, vol. I, p. 159; vol. VII, p. 175; Biyhaqi, Sunnan al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 144
4- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. III, p. 42
5- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, pp 524 -527; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, pp 1049-1054

under the auspices of disagreeing with the ruler as legitimate political conduct and mainly pretended that a bunch of rascals rose in revolt against 'Uthman. 'Uthman was objected by Imam 'Ali (a) when he said a four rak'at-prayer in 29 A.H. in Mina, because it was contrary to the Messenger (S) and former caliphs' conducts.

In answer to Imam presenting the Messenger (S) 's conduct, 'Uthman said,”This is what I believed in.”(1)

'Uthman's despotism established a modern process in the course of despotism in caliphate organizations. Anyway, due to the relative strength of Islamic values in the community, 'Uthman with all his importunity could not suppress the oppositions; on the contrary, he was removed by increasingly growing opposition. This was a new experience for the history of Islamic caliphate which became later on an essential theoretical issue in Islamic political jurisprudence.

Uthman and Mu‘awiya

Damascus gained victory with the help of Abu 'Ubayda Jarrah, Khalid Ibn Walid and Yazid Ibn Abi Sufyan. After extinction of this generation, 'Umar left their legacy to Mu'awiya from that time on Mu'awiya thought of caliphate. When 'Uthman was enthroned, Mu'awiya's position became thoroughly firm.

He intended to bring 'Uthman to Syria in a tumult of anti-'Uthman objections so as to settle every thing fine for himself. However, 'Uthman rejected him.(2) Anyway, with regard to 'Uthman's policies in employing the Umayya, it seems unlikely for caliph himself to be unmindful of this tendency that caliphate should remain in the Umayya.

Anti-'Uthman revolt was equivocal for Mu'awiya. What should he have done against

p: 192

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 267
2- al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 157

the companions of the Prophet (S) ? He opted to neglect 'Uthman's repeated invitations, his humble requests for support and the dispatch of troops as well as wait for the consequence of domestic quarrel between 'Uthman and the companions.

Put it another way, if 'Uthman reinstated, Mu'awiya could come on power once more, however, 'Uthman's killing would pave the way for a domestic war in which Mu'awiya hoped for victory, that is, a war waged under the pretext of vengeance on 'Uthman. It was currently quite clear to many companions that Mu'awiya looked forward to 'Uthman's killing. Realizing this very fact, though 'Uthman was unable to resolve it seriously. As soon as 'Uthman was killed, his dress was sent to Mu'awiya by his wife, Na'ila.(1)

Meanwhile, Mu'awiya started his efforts to stupefy Syrians against Medinans and the companions of the Prophet (S). He further determined to marry 'Uthman's wife to himself in order to revenge himself on 'Uthman more readily. Anyhow, 'Uthman's wife refused such a thing, and even she broke her teeth to dissuade Mu'awiya.(2)

According to Ya'qubi, 'Uthman when under siege wrote letters to Mu'awiya over and over to request help, yet Mu'awiya refrained from dispatching troops. This negligence was to such an extent that 'Uthman realized the fact of the matter. In last days, Mu'awiya launched 1200 soldiers to Syria and notified their commander to stay over there until they are ordered. In the meantime, he sent someone to 'Uthman; seeing Mu'awiya's emissary, 'Uthman asked, “Have you got any

p: 193

1- Baladhuri has been quoted as saying, Umm Habiba, Mu‘awiya’s sister and the Prophet (S) ’s wife, had brought this bloody dress See Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 291
2- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. IV, p. 62; Balaghat al-Nisa’, p. 139; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. VI, p. 90


The emissary replied, “I've come to become aware of your situation.”

'Uthman said, “No, you've come here in order to kill me.”(1)

After some days, Syrians were informed of 'Uthman's killing, so an army was turned back to Syria. Based on Juwayriyya, following 'Uthman's asking for help, Mu'awiya dispatched an army and declared their commander to stay at Dhi Khushub. They stayed there till 'Uthman was killed. Juwayriyya says that Mu'awiya deliberately did so in order for 'Uthman to be killed.(2)

Imam 'Ali (a) wrote to Mu'awiya, “You came to 'Uthman's assistance when it was for the benefit of yourself, and humiliated him when it brought about your victory.”(3) And in another letter it was written, “Did I kill 'Uthman or you? Since I helped him in any case, while you neglected helping him, despite his request for help, until you heard of his killing.”(4)

According to another letter by Imam Ali to Mu'awiya, “By Allah! O Mu'awiya! No one but you killed 'Uthman and downgraded him.”(5)

Abu Tufayl also said to Mu'awiya, “Why didn't you stand by 'Uthman while people were along with you?”(6)

In Siffin, Abu Ayyub Ansari wrote a letter to Mu'awiya as an answer to his blaming of Ansar for 'Uthman's killing saying, “He was killed by Yazid Ibn Asad whom you sent in an attempt to back 'Uthman, yet he being stopped in his way, wasn't of any help to 'Uthman.”(7) In fact, the afore-mentioned person was ordered by Mu'awiya not to go over there.

In a letter to Mu'awiya, Shabath Ibn

p: 194

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 165
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1289
3- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. IV, p. 169; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IV, p. 57; al-Hayat As-Siyasiya li l-Imam al-Hasan(a), p. 146, from, al-Nasayih al-Kafiya, p. 20; Buhrani, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. V, p. 81
4- Nahj al-Balaghah, letter 28
5- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. IV, p. 212
6- al-Muwaffaqiyyat, p. 154; al-Hayat As-Siyasiya li l-Imam al-Hasan(a), p. 147, from, various sources
7- Waq‘at Siffin, p. 368; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 131; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VIII, p. 44; al-Ghadir, vol. IX, p. 151

Rib'i accused him of failing to support 'Uthman saying, “You liked 'Uthman to be killed, for his killing would give you an excuse.”(1)

Ibn 'Abbas also wrote a letter to 'Uthman saying, “You were interested in killing 'Uthman.”(2)

Afterwards, being accused by Yazid of implication in the assassination of 'Uthman Ibn 'Abbas answered, ” I did not play any role in this event; however, it was your father who neglected to support him and prevented his troops from helping him when requested.”(3)

Shahristani says, “In essence, all Mu'awiya's agents in different cities avoided helping him.(4) Letters by different persons are pieces of evidence for this matter.(5)

Mu'awiya says, “I myself feel sorry for (about) not helping 'Uthman when demanded.”(6)

'Amr Ibn 'As also induced Mu'awiya for disgracing 'Uthman through failing to support him.(7)

Coming together in Basra, Jamal companions remembered to go to Syria and joined Mu'awiya. However, they became frightened of Mu'awiya's failure to help 'Uthman when requested, accordingly they didn't go to Syria.

The last point in this regard is that 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'id Ibn Abi Sarh, 'Uthman's killing and resided over there, since he was unwilling to be alongside 'Uthman. According to him, he hated to be along with a man (Mu'awiya) who liked 'Uthman to be killed.(8)

Imam ‘Ali (a) and ‘Uthman

After Imam 'Ali was withdrawn with power in Saqifa; besides, Imam's efforts to bring power back came to a deadlock, he tried to maintain roots and branches of Islam as well as to keep down through his own religious knowledge.

Meanwhile, he remembered his forgotten

p: 195

1- Waq‘at Siffin, p. 187; al-Ghadir, vol. IX, p. 151; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 270
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XVI, p. 155
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 19
4- al-Milal wal-Nihal, vol. I, p. 26
5- al-Ghadir, vol. IX, pp 149-150; vol. X, p. 333; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 223; al-’Iqd al-Farid, vol. IV, p. 334; Tadhkirat al-Khawas, pp 85,201; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 353
6- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 287
7- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 287
8- al-Ma’rifa wal-Tarikh, vol. I, p. 254; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1153

right in every appropriate atmosphere. The second caliph in spite of strictly employing his opponents attempted to solve judicial and in some cases political problems by using Imam's scientific ability. Some examples of caliph's consultation with Imam were previously mentioned.

There are numerous narrations in sources concerning judicial problems, some of which are compiled by 'Allama Amini in the sixth version of al-Ghadir under the title of “Nawadir al-Athar fi 'Ilm 'Umar”. In this regard, a scripture is in hand showing 'Umar's emphasis in judicial issue on acting Imam's orders.(1)

In this respect, 'Uthman's pride was so much so that we can hardly find any model for it in 'Umar's time. Previous enmities of the Umayyads and Hashimites together with Badr, Uhud and killers of the Umayyads might have been influential in this case. Especially, 'Uthman's enthroning was just followed by removal of Imam 'Ali. 'Uthman's distraction from the proper way and Imam's insistence on defending right caused 'Uthman to be more hostile towards Imam 'Ali (a).

Once 'Uthman determined to exile 'Ammar, yet being objected by Imam, he answered, “You yourself are more deserving of exile!”(2) There are other examples of 'Uthman's bitter treatment with Imam in sources.(3)

According to Sa'id Ibn Musayyib, “I witnessed that a verbal clash occurred between 'Ali and 'Uthman. 'Uthman held up the lash to knock 'Ali, but I hindered.”(4) It's been repeatedly quoted that 'Uthman would have objected Imam before 'Abbas.(5) Imam's resistance to 'Uthman's wrong response induced 'Uthman to object Imam's saying, انك لكثير

p: 196

1- Sayyid Raďi, al-Khasa’is, p. 59
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 54 -55
3- al-Kamil fil-Adab, vol. I, p. 22
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 132
5- al-Muwaffaqiyyat, p. 611; ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. III, p. 92

الخلاف علينا “You put yourself in trouble for us again.” (1)

Iman as-Sajjad quoted Marwan as saying, “I saw 'Uthman in the pilgrimage banning from performing the lesser pilgrimage in pilgrimage days. Consequently, such a thing caused Imam 'Ali to become clothed in pilgrim garment for both lesser and greater pilgrimage.

'Uthman said, “There you do again while I'm forbidding.”

Imam replied, “I do not desist from the Messenger (S) 's Sunna for the sake of anyone.”(2) Apparently, the political conditions of 'Uthman's time gave rise to more public criticisms. Perhaps, public accompaniment with these criticizing movements is one main reason. When Walid Ibn 'Uqba was brought to Medina to be punished, Imam allowing no one to punish him threw him on the ground, thereafter facing 'Uthman's objection to his very action Imam began to punish 'Uthman in Walid's stead.(3)

It can be found out from the whole events of anti-'Uthman revolts that opponents, for the most part, supported Imam in his candidacy for caliphate. Although some of them such as 'Amr Ibn 'As, Talha and Zubayr were not willing to do so, Imam's influence over opponents induced 'Uthman to take a dual line against him.

On one part, 'Uthman believed Imam to be the major motive behind these incidents; on the other part, he having no alternative asked Imam to mediate and calm opponents, in so far as they listened to him.(4)

According to some accounts, Imam was recognized as “the spokesman of opponents”.(5) Anyway, this fact neither meant that they were

p: 197

1- Musnad Ahmad, vol. I, p. 100
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1043
3- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 165; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 33
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 61
5- Ibid, p. V, p. 26

totally under the control of Imam, nor did it mean that Imam was for all their actions. The key question to be posed here is concerning Imam's opinion on 'Uthman. It should be taken into account that Imam living among people who killed 'Uthman couldn't speak freely.

Regarding Imam's political opinion, it can simply be said that neither was Imam for 'Uthman's killing, nor did he deem his killing advisable. Due to realizing that this was not but an action for Mu'awiya's benefit, Imam tried to prevent from 'Uthman's killing in any case.

Even, at the outset, he made effort to reconciliate people with him and suppress the revolt. Once he said about his political supports, I backed 'Uthman to such an extent that I am afraid of committing any sin in this regard.(1) Later on he said that you killed 'Uthman while I was in my house.(2)

It's better, though, to make a distinction between Imam's “religious view” and “political view”. It's likely that Imam believed 'Uthman to be deserving of such a treatment by people due to making deliberate errors regarding Islam and its rules together with destructing the circumstances of the community, although it's impossible to comment precisely on this case. Yet some interpretations are possibly put on Imam's explanations in this regard. Imam was once asked whether he implicated in killing 'Uthman or not. He replied, Allah killed 'Uthman and I'm with Allah.(3)

He further said, “Neither I liked 'Uthman to be killed, nor did I loathe his killing.”(4)

p: 198

1- Subhi, Nahj al-Balaghah, p. 358
2- al-Jamal, p. 417
3- ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. II, p. 207
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 101; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 82

He also added, I am neither happy nor sad about 'Uthman's killing.(1)

Elsewhere Imam called 'Uthman “the element of all wrongdoers”.(2) When he was asked whether 'Uthman was killed in an oppressed manner or not, Imam answered, He sacrificed himself to the people of house in a very bad manner, and you treated him very badly.(3)

Imam wrote to Kufiyans about his contact with 'Uthman, Now, I am appraising you of what befell 'Uthman so (correctly) that its hearing maybe like its seeing. People criticized him, and I was the only man from among the Muhajirun who asked him to seek to satisfy (the Muslims) the most and to offend them the least.

Furthermore, Talha and Zubayr rushed, teased and debilitated 'Uthman very easily. Then, 'Ayisha who was in a rage with him appeared as well and vented her wrath on him, in so doing she gave people an opportunity to overpower and kill him.(4)

At the time when being selected as an ambassador by people, Imam said to 'Uthman, “People are behind me and they have made me an ambassador between you and themselves. But by Allah! I do not know what to say. I know nothing (in this matter) which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware ….

You should not behave as the carrying beast for Marwan so that he may drag you wherever he likes, despite your seniority of age and length of life.” 'Uthman answered, “Don't

p: 199

1- al-Ghadir, vol. IX, p. 29; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 12633 ما امرت ولانهيت ولاسرني ولا ساءني قتل عثمان I neither ordered nor hindered anyone, he neither respected me nor did wrong to me
2- al-Muwaffaqiyyat, vol. XIII; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IX, p. 17
3- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 274; al-Aghani, vol. VI, p. 233; ‘Abd, Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 27
4- Nahj al-Balaghah, letter 1

ask people to grant me respite in order that I can compensate for my oppressive treatment towards them.”

Whereupon Imam said, “So far as Medina is concerned here is no question of time. As for remoter areas you can have the time needed for your order to reach there.”(1)

According to historians,(2) Imam considered Marwan as the major factor behind these movements.(3) Anyway, Imam was opposed to the murder of 'Uthman, primarily due to the dominance of people over their ruler which was, in itself, followed by a brawl. In as much as it's a tremendously risky task to have the mere feeling that it's very simple to kill every ruler.

Muslims recently heard of Sassanids' experience concerning reigning of some kings in about several years and their immediate killing. Hence, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar warned them, “Are you doing it heraclitusly, killing any king whenever growing angry with him?”

The selection of Imam by Medinans, those who entered Medina and some who played a crucial role in anti-'Uthman revolt induced the Umayyads to accuse Imam of killing 'Uthman. 'Amr Ibn Hamiq Khuza'i assuming to be one of the four who attacked 'Uthman's house was ranked among the pure Shi'ite Muslims.(4)

The same is true with Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr. Likewise, once 'Uthman's house was under siege, Imam said feast prayer. And when 'Uthman came in power, initially he said prayers and then he made sermon just like before. Yet, noting that people leave great mosque after sermon, he decided to make sermon

p: 200

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 164
2- al-Fakhri, p. 98
3- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. IV, p. 27
4- Usd al-Ghaba, vol. IV, p. 100 he was martyred by Mu‘awiya’s agents in 50 A H and his head was sent to Syria His tomb was made by Hamdaniyan in Musil Thereafter, an ample clash befell between Shi‘ite Muslims and ‘Uthmanids

at the outset, and say prayer in the end.(1)

However, while saying feast prayer, Imam said prayer firstly and made sermon secondly.(2) It appears that Imam has said feast prayer without 'Uthman's permission. Anyway, 'Uthman had confessed that he prefers 'Ali to take charge rather than any body else.(3)

When 'Uthman's house was under siege, Sahl Ibn Hunayf said congregational prayer, perhaps by 'Uthman's permission.(4) Imam was accused due to his presence in Medina in these circumstances. Thus, it's been said that Usama insisted on Imam's going to Mecca or Yanbu'.(5) Of course, in as much as Imam was a crucial factor for coping with the situations, his leaving of Medina did not seem to be reasonable.

Imam repeatedly rejected the blame for 'Uthman's killing attributed to him, anyhow, 'Uthmanids' propagation was to the extent that it occasioned Jamal and Siffin. Walid Ibn 'Uqba, the wrongdoer, addressed Banu Hashim in a poem, هم قتلوه حتى يكونوا مكانه “ Banu Hashim killed 'Uthman so as to take his place.(6)

He further said, “Walid had the most hostile manner towards Imam”; moreover, according to Nasr Ibn Muzahim's poems, Walid instigated Mu'awiya to wage a war against Imam 'Ali (a). this apart from his father's murder in Badr was due to enforcing punishment of drinking on him by Imam in front of people and 'Uthman.(7)

'Uthman himself put the blame on Imam, on account of opponents' attention to him. He has even revealed ironically in his poem that he is looking forward to Imam's

p: 201

1- Musnad Abi Dawud, vol. I, p. 297; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 964
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1216
3- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1206
4- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1218
5- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1211
6- al-Kamil fil-Adab, vol. III, p. 38; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 104
7- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 350

killing.(1) This was suggested to him by Marwan Ibn Hakam, the sinner, the evildoer. Marwan has been quoted as saying to people, “At the outset, a handful of people came from Egypt, yet they were ordered to come back and assemble a large multitude.”(2)

Imam repeatedly refused to have any role in 'Uthman's murder saying, “If I know that the Umayyads believe something through swearing, I would swear to the Black Stone and the status of Ibrahim that I did not kill 'Uthman.”(3)

Imam wrote to Mu'awiya, “If one judges me, he will certainly imagine that I am the purest man.”(4)

He further said, “I did not kill 'Uthman, nor did I order to kill him.”(5)

Verily, Ibn Sirin said, ”'Ali was accused of 'Uthman's assassination while being selected as caliph.”(6) Ibn Shubba has allocated a full chapter to Imam's statements concerning his refusal of any implication in killing 'Uthman.(7)

It seems interesting to note that despite all these remarks, 'Uthman sought assistance just from Imam and no one else.(8) Typically, when 'Uthman was stopped having water by Talha, he asked Imam for help. Accordingly, Imam came to Talha and requested him to let water into 'Uthman's house. Then, he got his son to take a bowl of water to 'Uthman.(9)

Afterwards, in Karbala Ibn Ziyad ordered not to let Imam Husayn drink any water, as regards 'Uthman was stopped having water when under siege. Under these circumstances in which no one was able to help 'Uthman, nor did he dare to do so, it

p: 202

1- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 63; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 62
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 89
3- Ibid, vol. V, p. 81
4- Waq‘at Siffin, p. 29
5- Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. XV, p. 228; see Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 100
6- Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. XV, p. 229
7- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1285
8- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 82; Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. I, p. 415
9- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1202

was Imam who came to his assistance. Ibn Shubba has labeled a chapter as 'Uthman's asking Imam 'Ali for help.(1)

Another good-to-know note is that Malik, as one of the extreme adherents of Imam, attempted to release 'Uthman from (being under) siege with the help of Hudaj Umm Habiba, while his house was under siege.(2)

Though, not being allowed to enter the house by the besiegers, he seemingly intended to save him from the besiegers in secret. The final word of Ibn Shubba in his chapter is that, in Siffin, Imam did not accept in the presence of 'Uthman's representatives that 'Uthman has been killed oppressively.(3) Consequently, his very statement meant that Imam seems to be guilty at any rate.

Assassination of ‘Uthman

As objections against 'Uthman were gradually intensified, some men explicitly used to stand up before 'Uthman in mosque and object to him. 'Uthman was obliged to use violence so as to calm them and this, in turn, would lead to more clash on the part of them. To 'Urwa Ibn Zubayr, I witnessed that 'Uthman entered the mosque. Some people surrounded him and called him Na'thal, old stupid man.

Then, 'Uthman went up the pulpit and began to speak. Jahjah Ibn Sa'd Ghifari who was among those who swore allegiance to his family began to object. At the same time, the circumstances turned in a way that 'Uthman could not continue to speak, so he came down the pulpit and Sahl Ibn Hunayf said Friday prayer on that day.(4)

Once objections

p: 203

1- Ibid, vol. III, pp 1219-1223
2- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1313
3- Waq‘at Siffin, pp 201-202
4- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1111

against 'Uthman heightened, some Kufiyans and Egyptians departed for Medina at the request of the companions alongside in protest against the Umayya rulers of these cities. This crowd was headed by 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Udays Balawi who was among those who swore allegiance to his family,(1)together with Muhammad Ibn Abi Hudhayfa. Ibn Shubba also carried a letter written by the Egyptians to 'Uthman prior to going to Medina.

They notified the necessity for implementing the divine orders with regard to the Qur'anic verses saying, You are claimant for being rightful to be obeyed by us, whereas based on Qur'an, obedience to the one who disobeys Allah is not permissible. If you obey Allah, in consequence, we'll soon find out that you have it in mind to perish yourself along with.(2)

'Uthman sent 'Ammar there in order to calm the Egyptians. However, he was unaware that 'Ammar himself after being sent to Egypt instigated people against 'Uthman. In the wake of 'Ammar's driving out, some people reckoned to be about 400 to 700 came into Medina. This group visited 'Uthman and his representative and set forth their demands as follows.

Firstly, to return on-exile persons. Secondly, to pay the deprived's rights. Thirdly, to act upon Qur'an and the deprived's rights. 'Uthman repented officially towards them and warned them to avert disunity.(3)

In terms of 'Uthman's agreements, a mutual treaty was written between 'Uthman and Imam 'Ali who was made as an ambassador between people and caliph. Five clauses were laid out

p: 204

1- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1155
2- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1121
3- Ibid, vol. III, pp 1135-1137

in this very treaty, among which three have been mentioned above, and the forth one is to observe justice in distributing and employing people who are worthy and strong enough to manage the affairs. Then, a number of the companions attested to this treaty.(1)

This very action resulted in the Egyptians' return.

Another cultural city for opponents was Kufa. Sa'd Ibn 'As wrote to 'Uthman saying that some people who call themselves “readers” and are indeed stupid have thrashed my chief-police and thereby looked down on me.

'Uthman answered, “Send them to Syria in order that they might fight a war.”

After being sent to Syria, they got to grips with Mu'awiya. Hence, this induced Mu'awiya to send them to Hims. Yet, after a while since Sa'd Ibn 'As was sent away from Kufa by people, they came back to Kufa. It was then the Kufiyans enumerated 'Uthmans' mistakes through a letter. This very letter together with the Egyptians' letter is an indicative of the extent to which people made effort to shed light on caliph's mind not withstanding that 'Uthman never catch on the fact.

The Kufiyans' letter was brought to Medina by Abu Rabi' at al-’Anzi. Thereafter through a letter by 'Uthman, Sa'd was ordered to give him twenty lashes and exile him to Damawand mount.(2)

Once the Egyptians returned to their own city, they met a horsman called Yuhanna and was 'Uthman's slave who was riding rapidly to Egypt, they hold him and grabbed a letter from him. The letter

p: 205

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, pp 1137-1140
2- Ibid, vol. III, pp 1142-1143

had been sealed by 'Uthman and addressed to 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd. as a matter of fact, he was ordered by 'Uthman to kill some protesters and put some others into prison and …

This provoked protesters to return to Medina angrily. After coming back to Medina, first of all they went to Imam 'Ali (a) who was the mediator of peace. Imam took their letter to 'Uthman. But 'Uthman swore that he has not written the letters; besides, he is kept uninformed of it. It is interesting to mention that the Umayyads and even 'Uthman himself blamed Imam by stating, He has written the letter so as to incite the people against caliph.(1) Word came that the Egyptians have Kufa and 100 people from Basra came to Medina and besieged 'Uthman.

As Zuhri states, “I asked Sa'd Ibn Musayyib, How was 'Uthman killed and why did the companions downgrade him?”

He replied, “Once 'Uthman was in power, a discontent befell some of the companions, for he liked his own family, typically, he set an abundance of those who were not reckoned among the companions to work.”

In consequence, his action gave rise to a hatred among the companions. In the second six-year term of caliphate, 'Uthman got the Umayya to take control of affairs; furthermore, he appointed 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd to Egypt. Yet, the latter created an obligation on the part of the Egyptians. As a matter of fact, prior to this, 'Uthman had also some contacts with 'Abd Allah

p: 206

1- Ibid, vol. III, pp 1150-1151, 1155

Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Dharr and 'Ammar which resulted in discontent on part of their tribes.

Then, the Egyptians arrived in Medina. Imam 'Ali (a) acted as an intermediary between them, thus it was determined that another figure will take the position of 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd, namely Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr. 'Uthman signed for his sainthood and then they left the place. They met a horseman on the way who was carrying a letter concerning caliph's bitter instruction to 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd. it was then all the protesters returned to Medina angrily.

Then, all the Medinans vented their wrath on 'Uthman; moreover, as for the people, public complex concerning what befell 'Ammar, Abu Dharr and 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud developed. Imam 'Ali along with a number of people went to 'Uthman. The handwriting indicated that the letter had been written by Marwan. Then, the protesters asked 'Uthman to hand over Marwan who is ordering to carnage so dauntlessly. However, 'Uthman avoided doing so. This very action caused people to besiege 'Uthman and shop him having water.(1)

A noteworthy point is that dissenters did not think of caliph's assassination from the beginning. Rather, in the list stage they pled him to be dethroned. However, 'Uthman refused to be dethroned. It was the first time that caliph's dethronement was spoken. The caliph, in what case, can dethrone himself or do the others have the right to do so?

Such an issue was repeatedly posed during the caliphate history. But historically it was

p: 207

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, pp 1159-1161; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 229; al-Ghadir, vol. IX, p. 180

first raised when rebels asked 'Uthman to dethrone. 'Uthman, in response to their suggestion, said that God has granted caliphate to him and he is not willing to abdicate.

Quoting him, the Messenger (S) said to him, “O 'Uthman! God will put a garment on you and hypocrites of dethronement will ask you for it, don't take it off until you join me.”(1)

This hadith is definitely a forged one and ascribed to 'Uthman and the Messenger (S). But 'Uthman, in essence, believed that caliphate is garment God put him on and he is not willing to take it off. Such a thing indicated that 'Uthman, by linking Caliphate to God, intends to deny public vole and their decision upon his dethronement.

When 'Uthman was suggested dethronement, he said, “Even if I'm beheaded, I'll never abdicate.”(2)

'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar said, “He asked me in the time of 'Uthman's siege, “What do you think of Mughira Ibn Akhnas's suggestion?”

He said, “They want you to dethrone unless you'll be murdered so you should leave it to them.”

'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar said, “I told 'Uthman, is there anything more important than your murder unless you dethrone?”

He replied, “No.”

I said, “To me, you'd better not include such an innovation in Islam that every time a group of rebels revolt in an aim to dethrone their emir; don't take the garment of God has put you on!” (3)

Some who laid siege are heard to say that we just intend to dethrone him not to murder him; 'Uthman said,

p: 208

1- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 61 Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 66
2- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 170, see Tarikh al-Islam, ‘Ahd al-khulafa’ al-rashidin, p. 445
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 567, num 1445 Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 170 Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 66

“Not my dethronement but my murder.”(1)823

When Egyptian opponents, on their way back, found 'Uthman's letter to 'Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd, in which he was ordered to bother, annoy and murder opposes, they turned back to Medina. 'Uthman said that the letter writer was not him and then the fact that the main culpable was Marwan Ibn Hakam was cleared up. He was asked by the opponents to dethrone due to his incapability in government administration, but he rejected. (2)

Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, later on, confirmed, “We wanted him to dethrone but he rejected.” (3)

According to another narration, 'Uthman sent for Malik Ashtar and asked him, “What do people want me?”

Malik said, “One of the two things, either to dethrone yourself and leave the caliphate for people or to retaliate yourself maybe it refers to the retaliation of annoyance done to Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ammar and others; otherwise, you'll be fighted.”

'Uthman said, “I shan't take the garment off God put me on. Abu Bakr and 'Umar were doing chastisement concerning retaliation and such a thing didn't exist. But in the case of my murder, you'll be in a lot of trouble.”(4)

During this time, 'Uthman asked different cities for help. He wrote a letter to people of Mecca to be read in 'Arafa Day. In aforesaid letter, he wrote, “I'm under siege and I've got no food but a trivial supply. I ajure everyone to whom my letter is read to hasten for my help.” (5)

'Ayisha was on her way to Hajj. Marwan

p: 209

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 567 num 1446
2- Tathbit Dala’il al-Nubuwwa, p. 573
3- al-Gharat, p. 104
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, pp 72-73; Tarikh Ibn KhayyaT, p. 170; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba,vol. VII, p. 441, 514; Tarikh al-Islam, ‘Ahd al-khulafa’ al-rashidin, p. 446; see Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 1286
5- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1166; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, pp 54-56; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 217

was sent by 'Uthman to help him in people dispersion but she rejected.(1)

For forty days, 'Uthman was under siege and at last Friday early evening, the 18th Dhi l-Hajja, 35 A.H. he was murdered. His murderer's name is not exactly specified. Someone's name as Aswadan Ibn Hamran from Tujib in Egypt was cited.(2)

Kunana said, “I heard on Egyptian crying around 'Uthman's house that he murdered Na'thal but no one had anything to do with him.”(3)

Quoting 'Urwa, 'Uthman's corpse was in Hashsh Kawkab for three days but no one did prayer on it.(4) Afterwards, four people among whom were Jubayr Ibn Mut'im and Hukaym Ibn Hizam assembled and buried him there out of Baqi' by night.(5)

Ongoing Victories

Geographical extension of Islamic country was the major aim of second caliph. All the tribes were mobilized for this purpose and a great deal were sent to different areas. In this era, stabilization of Arab's rule over conquered areas in east and partly in west was the major action of victories. Alexandria, in 25 A.H., started revolution and made effort to rise up against Muslims by a hidden connection to Romans. Arabs, once more, obliged to conquer this city.

Riy citizens rebelled as well as Adharbayjan so Hudhayfa obliged to calm these areas by force. The gate of Ifriqiya was westerly opened in 26-7 A.H. and Islam was expanded to the heart of Africa. These areas were easily opened and their booties brought Islam a great capital. In 33 A.H., after the renewed revolution in this area

p: 210

1- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1172
2- Ibid, vol. III, p. 1231
3- Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 253; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1308
4- Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 259
5- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 1166

and its renewed opening, its people became calm and tractable. But in Umayya's time, due to excessive pressure on them-in Hisham 'Abd al-Malik time-they rebelled.(1)

First in 29 A.H., Muslims were allowed to pass the sea and open the gate of Cyprus. People of Fars and Istakhr, in the year 29 A.H. started revolution and once more its gate was opened, in an attack, by Muslims. Muslims' first attacks on Tabaristan launched in 30 A.H. and through them, Gurgan was occupied.

Yazdgard, the last Sassanids king after a lot of vagrancy in 32 A.H. was murdered by a miller in Marw and his dynasty was overwhelmed forever. The gate of Khurasan, part of which has been conquered and once again rebelled, was opened. Iranian people being still inclined to accept Arab's rule, due to the lack of a definite leadership, rebelled temporarily.

But such revolutions comparing to Arab's strong and well-organized forces lacked resistance. In other words, since Iranian religious, tribal, and citizenship solidarity has been lost, it couldn't resist seriously. In the same years, people of Khurasan and Kirman violating their peace, were defeated in no time.

Effects of Victories and Islamic Community

Victories were undoubtedly considered as great changes for both Muslims and human world. This movement and its consequences induced great ethnic and religious changes in human world during 100 years and some centuries respectively. Great immigrations changed some areas ethnically and great religions were exposed to restriction. In addition to nearly a full- scale defeat of Zoroastrian religion, in west Christianity and in

p: 211

1- al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, pp 92 – 93

east Buddhist were grounded.

But the new religion conquered the inhabited quarter of the earth and its particular effect. In this regard, some issues should be taken into consideration. When the effects of victories for victorious Arabs are considered, we observe that the majority of Bedouins left their homes in Hijaz for conquered areas. Their only offering for these country was holy Qur'an and to some extent hadith.

Apart from these two, we face Arabs who got used to Bedouin but now have extreme money and wealth. In Peninsula, they lacked any government but now inherit Sassanids extensive government.

Culturally, possessing strict ethnic customs but, for the time being, Arabs in conquered regions encounter a new social and aristocratic life. Hereafter, in conquered lands, there is a sort of cultural duality and Arabs should stake out a clear stand against it. These people's existence cannot naturally be denied or compelled to endure Arabian life.

'Umar dissuated Arabs from imitation and turning into non-Arabs. Such a thing was difficult since most of the Arabs possessed Roman and Iranian slave-girls, they brought them children and a new generation was gradually forming.

'Umar made effort not only to keep them away from fighting against non-Arabs. The residents of conquered lands in Iraq and Iran were allowed to keep them but just pay their land-taxes to 'Umar. Not only leaving the lands for Arabs wasn't technically a right thing due to their lack of expertise, but it brought them about some political problems.

'Umar tried

p: 212

to back non-Arab aristocrats up. Like Arabs, a grant of bounty was determined for non-Arab aristocrats. Some shares like Firuz Ibn Yazdjird, Fulluja farmers, Hurmuzan, and Babul's farmer, Bastam Ibn Narsi have been mentioned. 'Umar considered his aim of doing this as the combination of people's (Iranian's) hearts through attracting aristocrats.(1)

But Arabs as a victorious and rightful nation were considered superior to others and 'Umar made every possible effort not to mix them with others. The presence of non-Arabs (considered as non-Arab unbelievers by 'Umar) by no means was allowed in Medina, the capital of Islamic country.(2)

'Umar was accidentally murdered by a non-Arab unbeliever had come to Medina through Mughira's intercession. His complaint when he was almost to die was, “Didn't I tell you not to have entrance of non-Arabs into Medina”.(3)

Additionally, he was to set free all the captives of wars against Arabs like Radda or the conquest of Iraq and Syria when the number of non-Arab captives was high.(4) He said, “Since God has opened the gates of non-Arab lands to us, it isn't worthwhile having Arab captives for we've got enough non Arab ones.”(5)

For this, a great deal of money was paid from public treasury to set non-Arab captives free.(6) For Arabs not to imitate non-Arabs, 'Umar ordered that no one had the right to speak in any language but Arabic.(7) It was forbidden for an Arab to dress in a non-Arab garment and for Arabs not to be mistaken with non-Arabs.(8)


p: 213

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 153 – 154; al-Ma‘arif, p. 361
2- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 474, vol. VI, pp 51-54; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 345
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. IV, pp 349 – 350
4- ‘Umar’s first measure was to return Arab captives, he said, أول فعل عمر رد سبايا العرب قال: كرهت أن يسير سنة على العرب What ‘Umar did first was to expatriate ‘Umar’s captives saying, “I am happy! This becomes a tradition degrading Arabs Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 139; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. VII, p. 380
5- al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. II, p. 382
6- Abu ‘Ubayd, al-Amwal, p. 133; Futuh al-Buldan, p. 104
7- Rabi‘ al-Abrar,vol. I, p. 796; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, pp 496- 497; Tarikh Jurjan, p. 486
8- Hayat sahaba, vol. II, p. 802

'Umar, Arab Christians should be treated differently from non-Arab ones.(1) In his opinion, Arab was Islam substance (2) and in that time, it was certainly a true thing to be said. 'Umar wanted his rulers not to bother Arabs in their areas in one way or another to bring about their humiliation.(3)

The marriage of Arab women and non-Arabs were severely prohibited by 'Umar.(4) It disturbed him a lot when he learnt Nafi' Ibn Harith placed a non-Arab instead of himself to come to Medina.(5) Ma'mun said to a Nabataean (Nibti) who cried “Alas! 'Umar” in his time, ”'Umar believed that if an Arab is in lack of money and his neighbor is a Nabataean, he can sell him! This is 'Umar's biography, do you like to treat you according to it?” (6)

One time, made up his mind to propose marriage to 'Umar's daughter. It wasn't done for 'Umar's family came and wanted him to abdicate.(7) Meeting people, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar said, “Peace be upon you.” But visiting a Negro, he said, “O Frog, peace be upon you.”(8) It was natural that later on, Khalid Ibn Safwan in the marriage contract of his slave-girl and a slave said, “God's name is superior than being mentioned in the marriage sermon of these two dogs. I announce this adulteress and adulterer, man and wife!”(9)

'Uthman, to some extent, followed the same policy. The most important factors bringing about destruction of Islamic Community, to 'Uthman, are as follow, تكامل النعم، بلوغ أولادكم

p: 214

1- Futuh al-Buldan, pp 185-186; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf,vol. VI, p. 99, al-Kharaj, p. 221
2- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. IV, pp 337 – 339; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf,vol. I, p. 325
3- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. I,p. 2741; Imtidad al-’Arab, p. 22
4- Imtidad al-’Arab, p. 22
5- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf,vol. XI, p. 439; Hayat sahaba,vol. II, p. 150
6- ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. I, p. 230; see al-Mahasin wal-Masawi, vol. II, p. 227
7- Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. I, p. 186; LuTf al-tadbir, p. 199; al-Zuhd wal-Raqa’iq, Juz’ Nu‘aym Ibn Hammad, p. 52
8- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. IV, p. 160
9- al-Bayan wal-Tabyin,vol. II, p. 250

من السبايا، قراءة الأعراب والأعاجم للقرآن “ Abundance, the new generation of captive mothers, and Qur'an recitation by non-Arabs.”(1)

Ethnic mixture in Arab brought some effects about which cannot be prevented. Arabs' possession of some tribal customs and their lack of a disciplined and regular culture were considered the major reasons. Meanwhile, Arab tribal structure strengthened through 'Umar's measure in forming Diwan based on ethnic system played a key role in the protection of Arab culture.

Setting Arab tribes was the aim of stabilization of pure Arab cities however very soon, captives of war and non-Arab immigrants settled there. These cities internally possessed some divided tribes and non-Arabs in there had got special parishes. These cities were distinctive from those in the past for they have been formed through Islamic and Arab features.

The number of Arab immigrants most of whom left Iraq for Iran was excessive. It is said that in Kufa, fifty thousand and twenty-four thousand houses were allocated to Rabi'a, Muďar and other Arabs respectively. In Imam 'Ali (a) time, the number of people whose names existed in Basra administration tribunal touched sixty thousands.(2)852

The quick regional influence of Islam was considered as one of the important effects of Arab residence in Iran. In Adharbayjan, the expansion of Islam was the result of Arab residence there. Arabs bought a great deal of lands there and started a permanent residence. It is said that going to Adharbayjan, Ash'ath Ibn Qays observed a lot of Muslims reciting Qur'an.(3)

Arabs' other residence

p: 215

1- al-Fitnat al-Kubra, p. 72
2- Imtidad al-’Arab, p. 26
3- Futuh al-Buldan, p. 329; Imtidad al-’Arab, p. 23

was Riy due to its significance. Arab cities were few, according to Ya'qubi.(1) Qazwin, because of its frontier significance with Diylam, was the residence of Arabs who left Kufa for this region. In al-Buldan, Ya'qubi considered human geography of cities, which is of great importance, in regard to Arab and non-Arab.(2)

According to some narrations, Qum was basically on Arab residence and some tribes like Ash'ari and Midhhaj settled there. After repeated victories different regions of Iran were permanent residences of Arabs. Meanwhile, unlike Egypt and north of Africa, Iran didn't turn into Arabian, on the contrary, its Arab residents gradually turned into Iranian.

Financially, victories greatly affected Muslims. Arabs, before Islam, severely suffered from economic deprivation. But after victories, they had a comfortable life resulted from booties abundance.

This issue brought about some particular ethnical consequences from which in Islamic community resulted constant corruption due to the lack of continuous training. Figuring out such conditions, 'Umar strictly made effort to keep noble men of companions away from comfort and extravagance. However, in 'Uthman's time, the society severely suffered from sedition and corruption for 'Uthman himself was an aristocrat and unable to control the situation.

The natural point was new community's lack of forces for religious teaching and learning. This problem was to some extent solved by companions but neither their number nor their knowledge can cover such an extensive land.

In 'Uthman's time, companions obtained a lot of wealth and clever Muslims kept the limit of their wealth. Mas'udi made some

p: 216

1- al-Buldan, p. 269
2- Dr Salih al-’Ali, in “Imtidad al-’Arab fi Sadr al-Islam”, studied the Arabs’ jouney and their settlement in cities of Iran based on Ya‘qubi’s source and other books

useful information available to us.(1) In spite of 'Umar's carefulness in this regard, he caused Badri companions to obtain a great wealth in no time through his system for distribution of “grant of bounty”.

Forming an aristocratic life, 'Uthman later on, was a typical of aristocracy prevalence among people. This aristocracy, for the most part, existed among the Muhajirun for their superiority to the Ansar in the arrangement of tribunal based on 'Umar's policy.(2) And this policy of Quraysh's superiority to non-Quraysh, was followed by 'Uthman as well.(3) While religiously comparing Ansar were in a better position than Quraysh.

Ibn 'Abbas said, “Most of the Messenger (S) ' hadiths were available to Ansar.”(4)

It is said that Ansar's women in religion obtained understanding(5) and were more religious than the Muhajirun.(6) Also, in Quraysh, just one person who knew Qur'an by heart existed according to the narration.(7)

Taha Husayn studied 'Uthman's Qurayshi policies and its effect on Ansar's seclusion and the rule of Quraysh over other Arabs.(8) Policy of the Muhajirun's superiority to the Ansar and Quraysh to non-Quraysh was, to some extent, accepted in the community so that its settlement by Imam 'Ali (a), with all his influence, was not possible. Their objection to Imam was why didn't he, like 'Umar, consider them superior to others?(9)

Aristocracy along with the lack of religious training intensified the community problem so that Kufa witnessed adultery of Mughira Ibn Shu'ba and drinking of Walid Ibn 'Uqba, governors of such an important city. Mu'awiya was also a typical

p: 217

1- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, pp 332-333
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VIII, p. 111
3- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 989
4- Sunnan al-Darimi, introduction, section 46
5- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. I, pp 314 -315
6- Hayat sahaba, vol. II, p. 87
7- Ibn Juzi, al-Adhkiya’, p. 102
8- al-Fitnat al-Kubra, pp 68-85-86
9- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I pp 199, 200, 207, 272, 228, 229; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VII, pp 41-43

of that and not wanting to be included in Kanz verse, he made up his mind to omit the first “v” letter so that it might include the people of The Book.(1)

The names of some Quraysh been punished by whip are mentioned by Muhammad Ibn Habib. Among them is 'Umar's son, Abu Shahma, who committed adultery to 'Umar's step-daughter and he was punished by a whip. 'Ubayd Allah and 'Asim, 'Umar's offsprings were whipped by 'Umar and 'Uthman respectively for drinking.(2)

Imam Husayn (a) witnessed the latter and this caused, accordingly to Muhammad Ibn Habib, enmity between family of 'Umar and that of 'Ali. Suhayl Ibn 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf was whipped for drinking.(3)

Among these, the names of other companions' sons had been mentioned. The lack of punishment in the case of others didn't mean that they were in a better position. Take the example of 'Umar, son of Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, who martyred Imam Husayn (a) Karbala. Karbala's event principally indicates the depth of mental and ethical corruption and deviation in the Islamic community.

To caliphs, victories were considered a sacred Jihad which not only had a lot of booties but can save Arabs from hunger. This Jihad is considered sacred even if it is accompanied by some mistakes like that of Khalid Ibn Walid with Malik Ibn Nuwayra. Such mistakes don't bring about the lack of his title, i.e. God's sword.

In second caliph's opinion, if the sentence, حي على خير العمل “ Hasten to good deeds,”

p: 218

1- See ad-Durr al-Manthur, vol. III, p. 232
2- al-Munammaq, pp 367-395
3- Ibid, p. 397

was omitted from the prayer call, Jihad would be most important to people than prayer, people's concern about victories and not having anything to do with the internal affairs was another feature of victories.

For 'Uthman, being entangled in revolution, one of the solutions was to send opposers to the borders to fight there against enemies.(1) But those aware of the reality wrote to the frontier controllers that Jihad exists in Medina not Diylam.(2) Mu'awiya benefited from this weapon for opponents dispersion.(3)

In order to recognize deviations made in the community, in fact, difficulties of Imam 'Ali (a) who made his Messengership the community reform should be recognized.

People depended on public treasury and their grants of bounty to the extent that 'Umar said, “If I want, I can make these people unbelievers.”

They asked, “How?”

He replied, “I'll cut their shares.”(4)

Also Abu Ja’far Naqib said, “No one would object to 'Umar if he changed their Qibla from Ka'ba to Jerusalem or omitted one of the five unit prayers for people made every effort to obtain money and wealth and they kept still when they reached it.” (5)

To Imam 'Ali (a) on the threshold of his caliphate, the situation of the community was like that of pre-Islam.(6)

Imam ‘Ali’s Imamate

Imam ‘Ali alongside the Prophet

In the first version of the book, we proportionately and briefly discussed about Imam 'Ali (a)'s role in the changes of Prophet's significant time. Imam's position and his reliability to the Messenger (S) is briefly discussed. Imam 'Ali (a) had the honor to be brought up

p: 219

1- al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 178- 179; Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 237; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 149; Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. II, p. 1096
2- al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. III, p. 150
3- Ya‘qubi says, “Mu‘awiya by dint of money made the opponents quiet, sometimes he was sent to the war especially the front ” Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 238
4- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 87
5- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XII, p. 96
6- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, p. 189

in the house of Messenger (S).(1)

In this regard, a great deal of attractive narrations collected by Ibn Abi al-Hadid exist. Among them, in a narration by Zayd Ibn 'Ali Ibn Husayn, he said that in that time the Messenger made meat and date soft by putting it in his mouth for being easily eaten and then it was put in Imam 'Ali's mouth.(2) Imam 'Ali (a) was the first one who believed in the Messenger (S) due to this kinship.

He said, “No one but the Messenger took me the lead in prayer.”(3)

Since, in this regard, a great deal of witnesses and evidence exists; therefore, there is no room for doubts of equitable people. Concerning Imam's embrace Islam, it is reportedly said that he was invited by the Messenger (S) to embrace Islam and this indicates Imam's mental maturity.(4)

Mas'udi says, “Some said that Imam in the time of his embrace Islam was not old enough so he was only an infant in that time.”(5)

The prophet truly knew the value of devoted companions, while Imam's self-sacrifice in all the fields was observed, hoe the prophet can consider him like the others. This triggered that in every right time, Imam's reliability and value was expresses to people through the prophet's remarks about Imam's features and characteristics.

These are the issues available to us in reliable sources of history and hadith under the title of Imam's virtues. Later on when in second century, the books of hadith were compiled, their compilers and narrators

p: 220

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 90
2- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XII, pp 198-201
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 131
4- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, pp 68-69; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 112
5- al-Tanbih wal-Ishraf, p. 198

were to the most part influenced by tendencies of 'Uthman's followers who couldn't tolerate any virtue for Imam.

Additionally what the Umayyads and 'Uthman supporters in the Umayya time made about caliphs and companion defenders was narrated. Some of these fakes ascribed to caliphs were, in essence, Imam's virtues. These distortions came to a deadlock for Imam's narrated virtues and their narrators were respectively serious and reliable to be remained in books. Narrators of Kufa, in this regard, played a significant role in keeping these virtues.

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said, ”'Ali is the one for whom a great deal of true virtues is said.”(1)

He said, إن ابن أبي طالب لا يقاس به أحد (2) “No noe deserves being compared to 'Ali.”

Among these virtues, some narrations for whose correctness there is no doubt can be mentioned. Significance of some is to the extent that through them Imam's personality in the Messenger's eyes can be imagined.

Abu Sa'id Khudri said,

كان لعلي من النبي (ص) دخلة ليست لأحد وكان للنبي (ص) من علي دخلة ليست لأحد غيره فكانت دخلة النبي (ص) من علي ان النبي (ص) كان يدخل عليهم كل يوم

“No one met the prophet more than 'Ali, so did the Prophet. The Prophet's meeting was to come up to them every day.” (3)

Also Zayd Ibn Thabit said to Imam, أنت من رسول الله (ص) بالمكان الذي لا يعدله أحد (4) “No one owns thy dignity in front of the Messenger (S).”

These words were said by Zayd when he used to tenaciously support 'Uthman.

p: 221

1- Ibn Juzi, Manaqib Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, p. 160; Tabaqat al-Hanabila, vol. I, p. 319
2- Manaqib Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, pp 163
3- ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. X, p. 140; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 98 and in the footnote of Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXXVIII, p. 33; Amali Ibn Ash-Shiykh, p. 33; Hadith III, section 27
4- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 165

This caused Imam to know the Prophet (S) as long as none of the other companions did so.(1) One evidence indicating the Prophet's heed to Imam was that he married Fatima (S), world selected women, to him. Abu Bakr and 'Umar had popped the question to Fatima before but they were rejected by the Prophet.

But Imam (a) proposing marriage to Fatima was accepted and said, لست بدجال(2) “I'm not deceiver.” “Fatima is yours.”

Having married Fatima, Imam (a) was asked to find a house but it was far from the Prophet's. And this was done through Harith Ibn Nu'man's devotion and leaving his house for 'Ali.(3)

Perhaps due to such a reason, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar said, “For knowing 'Ali's status to the prophet, you'd better see location of his house to that of the prophet.”(4)

In the course of the brotherhood, the Messenger selected 'Ali (a) as his “brother”.(5) When the Messenger made sermon, Imam 'Ali (a) used to repeat his remarks in a farther distance.(6) And in the time of the Prophet's anger, no one but 'Ali (a) dared to talk to him.(7) People made 'Ali (a) as their mediator in solving their problems.(8)

Quoting 'Ayisha, the Sunnites said, “Fatima among the women and 'Ali among the men were the most beloved to the Messenger.” (9)

In Manzalat tradition which is one of the most definite merits of Imam, the Messenger regarded his relationship with 'Ali (a) as that of Moses with Aaron.(10) In case of any problem, when someone was to be

p: 222

1- See Subul al-huda wal-Rishad, vol. VI, p. 642
2- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VIII, p. 22 this can be read in two ways “ لست’ lastu” and “ ´لست lasta” Ibn Sa‘d considered the first one and interpreted as I am not deceiver It means that the prophet had pledged ‘Ali of his marriage to Fatimah A research in the narration of proposal, show there existed no promise So what does the Prophet’s remark mean? Hence the reading lasta seems to be more probable, implying a reference to the previous suitors
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VIII, p. 22
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 180-181
5- Sahih Tirmidhi, vol. XIII, p. 170; Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, vol. XII, pp 62 – 82; al-Mustadrak, vol. III, p. 14; Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. I, p. 807; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 270, vol. II, p. 145
6- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. III, p. 732
7- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 107; al-Mustadrak, vol. III, p. 130
8- al-Taratib al-idariyya, vol. I, pp 56-58
9- al-Isti‘ab, vol. I, p. 378; Tarikh Jurjan, p. 218
10- As mentioned in the text, no one doubts this tradition

sent for settling things, The Messenger sent 'Ali (a).(1)

Once Imam was asked, why is it that you quote traditions more than the other companions? He answered,

لأني كنت إذا سألته أنبأني وإذا سكتّ ابتدأني “

Because When I asked the Messenger a question, He taught me the knowledge and when I kept silent, he started to speak himself.”(2)

Imam used to say, I faced nothing unknown unless I asked of the Messenger about it and committed the answer to my memory(3). I memorized everything he said and never forgot anything.(4) In a letter he wrote,

وأنا من رسول الله كالصنو من الصنو والذراع من العضد “

My relation with the Messenger is that of one branch with another or of the wrist with the arm.”(5)

He said, “I followed the Messenger just as a baby camel follows its mother.”(6)

إني لم أردّ على الله ولا على رسوله ساعة قطّ

“I never disobeyed God or his Messenger at all.”(7)

Concerning the declaration of aquittance, God told His Messenger, This message must be delivered either by you or someone on behalf of you. That is why he made Abu Bakr return midway and handed the message to Imam 'Ali so that it might be read on “Greater Pilgrimage”.(8) There are beautiful sentences, in Qasi'a sermon, about Imam's intimacy with the Messenger. Here are some of his remarks,

“You know my position of close kinship and special relationship with the Prophet. From the very beginning of my life he took me in his lap and kept me embraced to

p: 223

1- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VII, p. 435; al-Taratib al-Idariyya, vol. I, p. p. 443,444;3
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 98
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 208
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 121
5- Nahj al-Balaghah, Letter 45
6- Tasnif Nahj al-Balaghah, p. 355
7- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 195
8- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 382; vol. II, p. p. 123,155

his chest. He used to lay me beside him in his bed, bring his body close to mine and make me smell his fragrance. He used to feed me with his hands often chewing something for me. He never heard me lying nor did he see me doing something wrong. When he was weaned, God appointed his greatest angel to be with him day and night so that he might cover the paths of greatness and avail himself of the worldly virtues.

And I used to follow him like a young camel following in the footprints of its mother. Every day he showed me in the form of a banner some of his high traits and commanded me to follow them. Every year he used to go in seclusion in Hara'.I saw him and no one did so but me. In those days, Islam was the religion of Holy Prophet and his wife, Khadija exclusively. I was the third of the trio. I beheld the divine light of revelation and prophethood and smelled the heavenly fragrance of messengership.”(1)

Being on such intimate terms with the Messenger, Imam said, “By God, there is no verse revealed unless I know about what and where in it was sent.(2) According to Ibn 'Abbas, no verse was sent by God unless 'Ali (a) was Amir and noble. God reproved Muhammad's companions but always spoke highly of 'Ali (a).(3)

Regarding those who wondered at 'Ali (a) being the divider of Heaven and Hell, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

p: 224

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon192
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 99
3- Ma‘rifat As-Sahaba, vol. I, p. 298; al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, vol. XI, p. 264; Hilyat al-Awliya’, vol. I, p. 64

said, “Hasn't this been narrated that the Messenger told 'Ali (a), لا يحبك إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضك إلا منافق “Only the believer loes thee and only the hypocrite loathes thee.” “Yes”, they said. Continued he, “As the believer abides in the heaven and the hypocrite abides in the Hell, 'Ali (a) is the divider of the Heaven and the Hell.”(1)

'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-’Aziz used to say, “If this ignorant people were informed of what we knew about 'Ali (a), not two of them would obey us.”(2)

As Salman states, “Should 'Ali (a) leave you, there would remain nobody to inform you of the prophet's secrets.”(3) How right Ibn Abi al-Hadid is to say, “No one helped the Prophet as much as Abu Talib and his sons,'Ali (a) and Ja’far did.”(4)Once somebody complained to the Prophet about 'Ali (a) and he stated three times, Leave 'Ali (a) alone.(5)

فإن علياً مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مومن

”'Ali is from me and I am from him; he is guardian of every faithful.”

At the night of immigration, 'Ali (a) saved prophet's life (6). In the battle of Badr 30 polytheists were put to death by him. In the battle of Uhud, where many escaped the battle, he remained with prophet and saved his life. One stroke of 'Ali's sword inflicted on 'Amr Ibn 'Abdiwad in Khandaq was considered by the Prophet to be worth more than the worship of Jinn and mankind. This blow put the enemy to rout.(7) In most battles, Imam was the

p: 225

1- Tabaqat al-Hanabila, vol. I, p. 320
2- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. I, p. 499
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 183
4- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VII, p. 174
5- al-Amali fi Athar As-Sahaba, p. 80, footnote of Musnad Ahmad, vol. IV, p. 437, Sahih Tirmidhi, no 3796; Musnad Tayalisi No 829; Traits of ‘Ali (a), Nasa’i, p. 65; al-Hilyat al-’Awliya’, vol. VI, p. 294; al-Mustadrak, vol. III, p. 110; al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, vol. XVIII, p. 128; and see→, vol. IV, p. 322
6- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. I, p. 260
7- Tarikh Mukhtasar al-duwal, p. 95; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah vol. V, p. 7

flag bearer of Muslim's army.(1)

Undoubtedly, Imam's knowledge had no parallel in Prophet's companions. This is an issue cited by the prophet and his companions, and testified by history.

This word of the Messenger, انا مدينه العلم وعلي بابها “ I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali (a) is its door,” bears abundant evidence of this. Uttered on the pulpit, Imam 's remark, سلوني قبل ان تفقدوني “Ask me before you miss me,”(2) was also indicative of the superiority of his knowledge. This claim, according to Sa'id Ibn Musayyib, was laid by no one but Imam.(3)

The Prophet (S) charged him with the duty of teaching ablution and tradition to people.(4) 'Ayisha, whose animosity toward Fatima and 'Ali (a) dated back to prophet's time, said, علي أعلم الناس بالسنة (5) ”'Ali is most conscious of Sunna.”

According to one of the well-known successors called 'Ata', 'Ali is the most impoverished one among the Prophet's companions.(6)

'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-’Aziz also called him the most devout of the companions.(7) Hundreds of pages can be written about Imam's virtues but this amount will suffice our book which is a short review of Islam's history.

Imam ‘Ali and Caliphs

If it is true to assume that at Messenger's time, Muhajirun were of two different political fronts and some were trying to win the caliphate, then one must accept that the relations between Imam and Sheikhs were rather strained.

Reports say nothing to prove their disputes, but nor does any reminiscence show their friendship. On 'Ayisha's own confession, her being at enmity

p: 226

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 91,94; Hayat sahaba, vol. II, p. p. 514-515
2- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 189
3- Tarikh Yahya Ibn Mu‘ayn,vol. III,p. 143
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. IV, p. 52
5- Tarikh al-Kabir, Bukhari,vol. II, p. 255
6- Maqtal al-Imam al-Amir al-Mu‘minin (a
7- Ibid, p. 107

with Imam went back to Prophet's time and this can be considered as bearing witness to the differences between the families of 'Ali and Abu Bakr.

It has been said that when Fatima passed away, all Messenger's wives attended the Hashimites mourning ceremony except for 'Ayisha who feigning illness, didn't participate and even was told to be expressing joy of that.(1)

Anyway, Immediately after Abu Bakr's caliphacy and Imam's insistence on proving his rightfulness, unfriendly relations between them were developed. Attacking Imam's house, Fatima's being in sulk as well as not permitting Sheikhs to attend Imam's funeral,(2) all aggravated the differences, following that, Imam secluded and went on with his own life.

The administration expected Imam, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance, to refrain from assertion of rightfulness and embark on consolidating their authoritative realm while having swords in hand but

He refused to do so. Naturally, adopting such a position Imam was to be humiliated by the administration in front of people. This policy could result in Imam's further solitude.

Cursing Quraysh, Imam said,”Oh God, I seek your help against the Quraysh and those supporting them.” فإنهم قطعو رحمي وصغروا عظيم من_زلتي وأجمعوا على منازعتي أمراً هو لي “ They have cut asunder my kinship,lowered my high position and joined together to contest the right to which I was entitled.”(3)

Continues he, “I looked around but found no one to shield and help me except the members of my family. I refrained from fighting them to death, so I overlooked

p: 227

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah,, vol. IX, p. 198
2- See, al-Mustadrak, vol. III, p. 162; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. VIII, p. p. 29-30; al-Tanbih al-Ashraf, p. 250; Wafa’ al-wafa’, p. p. 995-996,1000
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 172; al-Gharat, vol. I, p. 309

with grieved eyes”(1)

This remark refers to Caliphs' policy of humiliating Imam. In sermon of Shiqshiqiyya, referring to the consultation Imam states, “When he ('Umar) was due to die, he selected a group of candidates and included me among them. Oh, good Heavens! What had I to do with this consultation? I wonder why they never equaled me to the first of them but to these people while I was as competent as him.”(2)

It was intolerable for Imam to be among Talha, Zubayr and 'Uthman who held him in contempt. Strange to say, 'Umar blamed all 6 men chosen by him for some wrongdoings. What Imam was blamed for, in this regard, was extremely unfounded and humiliating. He was blamed for being kind of a joker, فيه دعابة(3). Later, based on this very remark of 'Umar, Mu'awiya(4) and 'Amr Ibn 'As told about Imam, فيه تلعابة (5) “He is a humorous man.”

Seroiusly rejecting this accusation laid against him by 'Amr Ibn 'As, Imam in fact rejected 'Umar's remark. (6) The life of Imam who was secluded in Medina caused him to remain unknown. The time went by fast, and the Imam, by himself, in Medina, particularly among the old companions of Prophet (S) seemed as acquaintance. Yet, no one knew Imam in Iraq and Damascus. Just a few Yemeni tribes seeing him since his few-month-long trip to Yemen were acquaintance to him.

Jundab Ibn 'Abd Allah said, “Once after swearing (on oath of) allegiance to 'Uthman I went to Iraq, therein I

p: 228

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 217; some parts have been added to this sermon of Nahj al-Balaghah; See,al-Jamal, p. 123;Ibid footnote of, al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 155; al-Gharat, p. 204
2- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 3
3- Tarikh Mukhtasar al-duwal, p. 103
4- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 25
5- al-Imta‘ wal-mu’anisa, vol. III, p. 183
6- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 84; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 127,145,151; Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. II, p. 88

quoted 'Ali's virtues for the people. The best answer I heard from the people was, “Discard these remarks. Think of something of your benefit.”

I answered, “These issues are beneficial for both of us.” Yet, after my statement, he was to stand up and leave.(1)

According to Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Muhammad Ibn Sulayman's interpretation was that one of the factors leading to discard in 'Uthman's era was the constitution of council. For, each member of the council had serious aspiration for caliphate. Typically, Talha was among those who looked forward to caliphate.

Besides, Zubayr not only helped him but also regarded himself as deserving of governing. Their hope for the caliphate was more than that of Imam 'Ali (a). Inasmuch as the two Sheikhs discredited him and held him in low esteem.

Hence, he was forgotten. Most of those knowing his virtues had been died at the time of the Prophet (S), and a new generation was found that deemed him the same as other Muslims. What merely left among his honors was that he is the cousin of the Prophet (S), his daughter's husband and his grandchildren's father. The remainder of facts was forgotten. Quraysh also felt such a hatred for him that was never felt for anyone. To the same extent, Quraysh loved Talha and Zubayr, since there was no reason for abhorring them.(2)

Ibn Abi al-Hadid himself, having pointed out that the people in Siffin were waiting to regard 'Ammar's presence in a front as the rightfulness of that front,

p: 229

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IX, p. 58
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IX, p. 28

said, “How surprising the peoples are! Since they accept 'Ammar as the criterion of truth and error; however, they don't regard the very 'Ali (a) as a criterion about whom the Prophet (S) has cited the hadith of sainthood and also said, لا يحبك إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضك إلا منافق “ Only the believer loves thee, and only the hypocrite loathes thee.”

This is because all Quraysh tried to, from the very beginning, cover his virtues, remove public memory from him, ruin his features and eliminate his high status in the hearts of people.(1) Ibn Abi al-Hadid nicely analyzes the reasons behind the Quraysh's grudge against Imam 'Ali (a).(2)

Once Imam was asked:“Do you think if the Messenger (S) had a mature son, Arabs would hand the governorship over to him?”

Imam responded: “If he had done something different from what I did, he would have been killed.”

Arabs hated what Muhammad (S) did and felt envious of what God had granted him… they from that time attempted to disentitle Ahl al-Bayt after his departure. Quraysh found his name a means of domination and ladder of promotion and if other wise, they never worshipped God even one day after him and would become apostate.

A while after, conquests, come one after another, no hunger and poverty remained after starvation and destitution. This led to popularity of Islam and they kept religion in their many a heart because, however, truth brought this about. Afterwards, these conquests were attributed to strategy and thought of emirs. Among

p: 230

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VIII, p. 18
2- Ibid vol. XIII, p. 299-300

them, some were magnified and some others were forgotten,

فكنا ممن خمل ذكره وخبت ناره وانقطع صوته وصيته، حتى أكل الدهر علينا وشرب، ومضت السنون والاحقاب بما فيها، ومات كثير ممن يعرف ونشأ كثير ممن لا يعرف “

We were from someone whose memory was last whose luminosity was cut and whose outcry was stopped as if time swallowed us. Years passed this way, many known figures were dead and those unknown came into stage.

Under these conditions, what curled the son's son do? You know that the Messenger (S) never kept me close to himself for his kinship, with me but he did it in time of Jihad ad and advice.(1) It was just for the same reason of Imam being forgotten in Muslim community he, in his caliphate time, tried to use every chase to introduce himself and speak about his efforts for Islam in the Messenger's time.(2)

Imam held cold relationship with Abu Bakr with no seemingly left memory. In his contact with 'Umar, Imam's memories are many available, that mainly relied upon his judiciary assistance to 'Umar as well as response to some consultations discussed earlier. 'Umar refused to blatantly slander Imam and probably Imam did so.

But 'Uthman was different and never did he bear Imam's ideas and once he told Imam:“You are not better than Marwan Ibn Hakam to me?”(3)

'Abbas asked 'Uthman to stand by Imam.

'Uthman said:“What I first fell you is that if 'Ali wants, no one stands dearer to me than him.(4) Of course, Imam was

p: 231

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XX, p. 298-299
2- For example, Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. II, pp 222,314
3- Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. II, p. 342
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 14

unwilling to overlook deviations for his friendship with him. For this, Imam's relationship with 'Uthman was partly closer and partly harsher.”(1)

Once an Ansari woman had a quarrel with one of the Hashimites women and when she was acquitted, she was told by 'Uthman, “This is your cousin, 'Ali's decision!”(2)

Opposition to government was difficult for Imam. He attempted, in early years, to resort to seclusion to avoid faring the government. Sa'd Ibn 'Ubada was a good experiment. He failed to pay allegiance and immediately in time of caliph I or II, he was told to have been killed by Jinns. Previously mention was made from some sources that his murder had been politically planned.(3)

According to Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Abu Ja’far Naqib (Yahya Ibn Abi Zayd) was asked:“I am amazed how 'Ali survived this long after the Messenger's demise, from all Quraysh's vengeance.”

Abu Ja’far said:“Had he not belittled and isolated himself, he might have been killed.”

He let himself off memories and became engaged in worshipping, Qur'an reading and prayer, leaving his first state of mind and sword as if he were like a sinner who had repented, probing the earth and living on the mountains like a monk. He survived because he obeyed rulers of the time; other wise he would have been killed”.

He then refers to Khalid's action to kill Imam.(4) Mu'min al-Taq also believe that Imam made no political effort in this time because he feared being murdered by jinns (like Sa'd).(5)

Of course, this did not mean that Imam never

p: 232

1- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, pp 1045-1046
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara vol. III, p. 967; Muntakhab Kanz al-’Ummal, vol. II, p. 204
3- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XVII, p. 62
4- Ibid vol. XIII, p. 301-302
5- Ibid vol. XVII, p. 62

tried to use chances to take back his rights. From the very outset, he refused to swear allegiance for a few months.(1) Further, from early times, he joined his family to homes of Ansar to revert back his rights. He insisted so much that he was blamed for having a greedy eye on caliphate.

Imam quoting someone said:“O son of Abu Talib! You raise a greed on this!

He said:“No, by God, you are greedier than I am. You are for from the Messenger (S) and I'm closer to him. I asked for the right I possessed, but you refrain me from having it”.(2)

Imam made reasoning of this kind a lot,

يا معشر قريش! إنا أهل البيت أحق بهذا الامر منكم، أما كان فينا من يقرء القرآن ويعرف السنّة ويدين بدين الحق؟

O Quraysh people! We, Ahl al-Bayt deserve more than you in caliphate! Are there no people among us who read Qur'an and follow Sunna and true religion.”(3)

On Imam's evaluating successorship of three caliphs, it is to be said that he was in no time free to offer his appraisal of Sheikhs. Unlike 'Uthman, what he believed, he found a chance to retell it. It was why his troops in Kufa were included of those, except a few, had approved of Sheikhs and he could not talk freely about them. Once he found a chance to talk some part of his sufferings but he was stopped talking. Upon 'Abbas's insistence, he kept on talking, تلك شقشقة هدرت “ No, Ibn 'Abbas!

p: 233

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1, p. 585; al-Kamil fil-Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 325
2- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 172, al-Gharat, vol. I, p. 307
3- Al-Gharat, vol. 1, p. 307

What you heard was flame of grief that rose.”(1)

Imam with all caution was never prepared to adopt conditions of 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf for caliphate during council of caliphate. Ibn'Awf conditioned that if Imam were willing to act upon conduct of Sheikhs, he would place him caliph.

Imam said:“I would act according to my Ijtihad”.

Imam openly rejected conduct of Sheikhs and believed that it was in the most part against conduct of the Messenger (S) and based on improper Ijtihad. Imam says he has obeyed Abu Bakr in affairs he obeyed God.(2) Imam's words and his approach here show that he never admired past manners.

In later times, Mu'awiya wrote to Imam that he felt envious of early caliphs and rebelled against them!

Imam wrote back, “you think I am against them an dwant to take revenge. If so, why are you worried to be inquired? You are not blamed… and you said you found me like a camel harnessed to swear allegiance. By God, you wanted to scold, praise and scandalize but you're scandalized yourself. What belittles a Muslim who is oppressed and assured of his religion. His certainty is strong and his hesitation is aside? … And I never apologize for caviling 'Uthman because of innovations.(3)

Despite Imam's explicit criticism, particularly his attitude in council, one cannot refer to Imam's familial relationships with 'Umar, or 'Uthman for his belief in their proper rule. Even his praise of some caliphs compared to others cannot be a reason for his basic approval of them.

p: 234

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 3, Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 274
2- al-Gharat, vol. I, p. 307
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, letter 28; Waq‘at Siffin, pp 86-91 Here, Mu‘awiya’s letter to Imam and Imam’s reply are fully mentioned

When he learned that he could not face the party and a campaign waged is not beneficial to Islam, he chose to compromise. Imam justified his allegiance to Abu Bakr and his approval according to Muhajir and Ansar as to a necessity and preservation of unity among Muslims.(1)

Imam referred to Aaron's speech in front of Moses(a) for justifying his silence, Aaron said,

إِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَنْ تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ.

“I feared lest thou shouldst say: Thou hast caused division among the Children of Israel.”(2)

Imam said of Saqifa,

بل عرفت أنّ حقي هو المأخوذ وقد تركته لهم، تجاوز الله عنهم “

When I learned I am withdrawn with my rights, I left to them, may God punish them.”(3)

In the past, Sunnis never accepted that Ahl al-Bayt found themselves more qualified for caliphate than others, that is early caliphs. Yet, now somewhat broad-minded factions of Sunnis admit that 'Ali (a) simply pledged allegiance just for unison with Abu Bakr while knowing himself rightful for caliphate.(4)

Anyway, Imam's isolated life in that society indicates that both Imam and caliphs knew they can not treat others in such a way that it might mean confirmation of their view, particularly about caliphate. Meanwhile, frequenting to the mosque and even establishing familial links like 'Umar's marriage to Umm Kulthum had been usual.

This marriage was insisted by 'Umar and Imam agreed in spite of his early opposition. Not to mention, Imam married Abu Bakr's wife, that is Asma', daughter of 'Umays to himself after Abu Bakr died and

p: 235

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 281; al-Gharat, pp 110-111
2- Taha, verse 94; al-Muqni‘, p. 109
3- Waq‘at Siffin, p. 91
4- Tafsir al-Manar, vol. VIII, p. 224

brought up Muhammad, Abu Bakr's son in his house.

Shi‘ism During Imam’s Caliphate

Muslims' disagreements over caliphacy as well as other fields were dealt with in previous parts in detail. Now in the light of carrying out more precise researches, it is not fair of anyone to deny the existence of the 'Alawites and Quraysh parties in Messenger's time let alone denying it from Saqifa on. al-Duri approves the two parties being present earlier than Saqifa.(1)

This political disagreement which, from the very beginning, had a religious root, fomented the religious differences. For example, it was of great importance that initially, some companions considered merely Qur'an as proof.

In other words, not deeming the decrees of prophet as proof and prohibiting people from writing and quoting traditions did influence theology.'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Awf's laying it down that caliphate will be turned over to anyone accepting to act according to the conduct of Sheikhs, and Imam's stating that he will act only in accordance with his own individual reasoning, indicate the aggravation of religious differences.

As long as 'Umar was in power, the majority of people, excluding Imam's supporters, believed in rulership.

But when 'Uthman, because of heretical religious deeds, was denied by a large number of companions, the problematic question was it that whose words should people regard as the religion and whom should they imitate.

Imam 'Ali replaced 'Uthman. In the very beginning he was not accepted by the people of Damascus. Little by little, though temporarily, Basra went a different way as well. In Medina proper,

p: 236

1- Muqadama fi Tarikh Sadr al-Islam, p. 48

though few, some companions balked at obeying or swearing allegiance to Imam.

Apart from political issues, the important case was elucidating the religion especially in the case of differences or novel matters. Here two political and naturally religious parties began to emerge. The first group consisted of those having accepted Imam and deeming it necessary to obey him. The second group, motivated by 'Uthman's oppressedness, didn't accept Imam's leadership and opposed him.

In this regard, Apostates and Deviators had no difference. At this point two terms, religious and political, were coined ”'Ali's Shi'a and 'Uthman's Shi'a” were gradually distinguished as respectively “Shi'a or al- Shi'a” and “Uthmani or al-’Uthmaniyya”.

Generally “Shi'a” was in opposition to “Uthmani”. But this title was not applicable to all individuals. There were some Shi'ite Muslims who were called so merely because they opposed 'Uthman or stood for Imam as the Shi'istically legitimate caliph.

There were also some who regarded Imam as basically appointed by the Messenger and believed in a kind of divine right for his leadership.

Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that they should have refrained to cooperate with the early caliphs. Conditions being so, Imam himself had kept silent for Muslim interests and had repeatedly notified this point. What should be told about 'Uthmanids is that upholding the idea of Imam's illegitimacy, the Umayyads managed to dominate this view over a great part of Muslim community.

But except for Basra, this opinion was not favored in Iraq. By contrast, in every appropriate accasion, the belief in

p: 237

'Alawi's rightfulness emerged in the field of politics. Hijaz also did not fully surrender to the Umayyads, but tried to maintain another idea, content with Sheikhs. During the first to third century, religious and political changes triggered a great transition in that classification.

Now, the matter related to our discussion is to show that the group known to us as Shi'ite Muslims did believe in 'Ali's divine designation. After swearing allegiance to 'Ali, Khuzayma Ibn Thabit said,” We chose one whom God chose for us.”(1)

In response to 'Umar who said, “Quraysh refrained from choosing 'Ali because they abominated both prophethood and caliphate being in my family.”

Ibn 'Abbas replied, “They abominated what God had sent down.”(2)

Opposing Mu'awiya, Darimiyya Hajuniyya said,

واليت عليًا على حبّه المساكين وإعطائه أهل السبيل وفقهه في الدين وبذله الحق من نفسه وما عقد له رسول الله من الولاية “

He loved 'Ali because the Messenger confined the sainthood to him.”(3)

According to Tabari, once 'Ali returned to Kufa from Siffin and Kharijites parted with him, The Shi'ite Muslims remained with him saying that they are charged with another allegiance, نحن أولياء من واليت وأعداء من عاديت “We are amiable to your friends and opposed to your enemies.”(4)

According to Iskafi, the majority of people, based on the Book and tradition, and Imam's Shi'ite Muslims, on being amiable to the friends and enemies with the enemies, swore allegiance to 'Ali.(5)

The emphasis on such an allegiance as the second allegiance and its content implies that allegiance-swearers tended toward Shi'a. In the original tradition,

p: 238

1- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 51
2- al-Iďah, p. 88; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. XII, p. 53
3- al-Wafidat min l-Nisa’ Ala Mu‘awiya, p. 41
4- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, p. 64; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 348
5- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 194

the emphasis is put on the allegiance of ”'Ali's Shi'a”.

Abu Dharr, passed away at 'Uthman's time, called people toward the People of House and commemorated Prophet's family this way,

ايها الناس! إن آل محمد هم الأسرة من نوح والآل من إبراهيم والصفوة والسلالة من إسماعيل والعترة الطيبة الهادية من محمد، فأنزلوا آل محمد بمن_زلة الرأس من الجسد بل بمن_زلة العينين من الرأس فانهم منكم كالسماء المرفوعة وكالجبال المنصوبة والشمس الضاحية وكالشجرة الزيتونة اضاء زيتها وبورك زندها “

The family of Muhammad (S), is the family of Noah and Ibraham and the selected progeny of Isma'il and saint posterity. Regard them as the head attached to body and the eyes attached to head, the high sky, firm mountains, shining sun and olive tree.” Added he, “Muhammad (S) is the heir of Adam, other prophets are not superior to him and 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the legatee of him and the heir of his knowledge.”

Addressing people he said,” If you, the folk astounded after the Prophet had preferred whom God had preferred, deferred whom God had deferred and confined sainthood and heritage to the People of the House, you would have benefited from all blessings.”(1)

Elsewhere Abu Dharr has been quoted, “Oh, people! In case of being involved in prospective seditions, resort to Imam 'Ali and the Book.(2)When he was to be exiled to Rabaďa and Imam and his children went to see him off, having a look at Imam, Abu Dharr said, seeing you and your children reminds me of what Prophet

p: 239

1- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. V, p. 77; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 171
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 118

told about you and makes me cry.(1)

Expressing regret for people not benefiting from Imam while he lives, Salman said,” I swear by God, after him, no one will inform you of the secrets of your Prophet.”

Quoting the Messenger of God, Miqdad said, “knowing the family of Muhammad (S) is the released from fire, loving his family is the pass from the Path and sainthood of his family is the security from chastisement.(2)

'Ammar also narrated a tradition from the Messenger, I advice the one believing in God and admitting me with the guardianship of 'Ali, son of Abi Talib, “Anyone loving 'Ali, loves me and anyone loving me, loves God.”(3)

There are lots of these quotations from Abu Dharr, Salman, 'Ammar, Miqdad indicating their Shi'istic beliefs. Abu Hatim Razi puts the definition of “Shi'a” this way,” This is the title of those who loved 'Ali during the Messenger's time, for instance, Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad Ibn Aswad, 'Ammar Ibn Yasir and etc.

Commenting on these four, The Messenger stated, “The Heaven looks forward to four men, Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and 'Ammar.(4)

Describing 'Ali, Umm Sanan, the daughter of Khaythama Ibn Kharasha, composed this,

قدكنت بعد محمد خلفاً لنا أوصى إليك بنا فكنت وفيا

“You are Muhammad's remainder to us, He made his will to thee about us and thou art the faithful.”(5)

Inciting 'Ali's troops at Siffin,Umm al-Khayr said,

هلموا رحمكم الله إلى الإمام العدل والتقي الوفي والصديق الوصي

“May God bless you. Hasten toward the sincere, pious and just successor.”(6)

The point that Imam 'Ali is

p: 240

1- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 173
2- Sunan Ibn Maja, vol. II, p. 1270; … 3862
3- al-Muwafiqiyyat, p. 312; Dhakha’ir al-’Uqba, p. 95
4- Kitab al-Zina, p. 259
5- al-Wafidat, p. 24
6- al-Wafidat, p. 29; Balaghat al-Nisa’, p. 67; Tarikh Dimashq, Tarajim al-Nisa’, p. 531

regarded by these and many of his companions as “the Successor”, shows that they imagined him far beyond a caliph who has gained the caliphacy through public allegiance.

The sources contain lots of poems indicating the use of this comment by Hujr Ibn 'Adi, Ibn Tayyihan, Ibn 'Ijlan and other Shi'ites companions of Imam.(1)

Inviting the people to swear allegiance to 'Ali, Malik Ashtar stated, هذا وصيّ الأوصياء ووارث علم الأنبياء “ O people! He is “the successor of the successors” and “The heir of Prophets' knowledge.”(2)

In Siffin, he composed this,

من رآى عزة الوصيّ عليّ إنه في دجى الحنادس نور

“Everyone knows 'Ali, the chief successor, he is the very man who illuminates dark night.” (3)

Lamenting over 'Ali's martyrdom, Umm 'Irban said,

وكنا قبل مقتله بخير نرى مولى رسول الله فينا

“We had a good life before he was killed because we stayed with the Messenger (S).” (4)

A lot of poems composed by the Messenger's companions some of which were 'Ali's supporters, interpret Ghadir tradition as sainthood and leadership. For instance, the poems of Qays Ibn Sa'd Ibn

'Ubada, Hassan Ibn Thabit as well as Imam 'Ali himself.(5) Qays Ibn Sa'd composed this about Ghadir:

وع_ليّ إمام_نا وإم_ام لس_وانا أتى به التن_زيل

يوم قال النبي من كنت مولا ه فهذا مولاه خطب جليل

انّ ما قاله النبيّ على الأم_ ة حتم ما في_ه قال وقيل

”'Ali is our Imam and everyone's, he is the one who has introduced Qur'an

It was on a great day when the Prophet (S) said, ”'Ali is the lord of whomever I am his lord”


p: 241

1- Waq‘at Siffin, pp 18,23,24,46,381,385,416,436; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, pp 143-150; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XI, p. 229; al-Fusul Mukhtara, pp 217-218; See, Nahj As-Sabagha,vol. III, p. p. 55-57; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 246; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 484; vol. III, pp 246,270 246,270
2- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 179
3- al-Futuh, vol. III, p. 226
4- Maqtal al-Imam al-Amir al-Mu‘minin (a), Ibn Abi l-Dunya, Turathuna Magazine,no 12; p. 126
5- See, al-Ghadir, vol. II, p. p. 25,34,78 from different sources, al-Muqni‘ fil-Imama, p. p. 75-76 and in the footnote of different sources This has been quoted from Hassan, in Tarikh al-Ya’qubi ( vol. II, p. 128) and al-Muqni‘ (p. 133) as well as other sources, حفظت رسول الله فينا وعهده إليك ومن أولى به منك، من ومن ألست اخاه في الاخاء ووصيه وأعل__م فهرا بالكتاب وبالسنن Thou safeguarded the Prophet ‘s religion left to thee After all, who transcends thee in front of him Are you not his brother and successor and not the most learned one of Banu Fahr about the Book ans Sunna

the Prophet (S) said to Umma ends up all babbles” (1)

Hassan Ibn Thabit also composed this one about the same,

يناديه_م يوم الغدير نبيهم بخ__م واسمع بالرسول مناديا

فقال له قم يا علي فانن_ي جعلتك من بعدي اماما وهاديا

“Their Prophet called them to obey God at Ghadir Khum, a great herald whose call must be heard

'Ali was told, “O rise up! For I placed thee an Imam after myself.” (2)

The combination of these quotations indicates the recognition of 'Ali as an Imam introduced by the Messenger. They regarded Imam's rightfulness in his legation on the part of Messenger and asked the others to follow him as the legatee of the Messenger.

According to Ibn Tayyihan, verily our Imam and guardian, is the legatee of the Messenger.

Ibn 'Ijlan used to say, “How possibly can we separate while the guardian is our Imam.”(3)

According to Hujr, the son of 'Adi, he is the guardian after the Messenger, and the prophet consented to his being the legatee.(4)

A newly converted man called Zadan Farrukh came upon Kharijites on his way. They asked him about 'Ali, he said, “The Commander of the Faithful is the legatee of the Messenger and the lord of mankind”.(5)

They killed him. In his well-known letter to Mu'awiya, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr mentioned Imam as وارث رسول الله ووصيه “ T he Heir of the Messenger and his successor.”(6)

There is also a poem quoted from 'Ubayda Ibn Samit which is composed during Saqifa.(7)

The measures taken by Imam for propagating the idea of “Divine leadership”

p: 242

1- al-Ghadir, vol. II, p. 68
2- al-Ghadir, vol. II, p. 34
3- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. I, p. 143,149
4- Ibid,vol. I, p. 145
5- al-Gharat, p. 123
6- Waq‘at Siffin, p. p. 118-119 for more uses of the word “Legation”,see,Ma‘alim al-Madrisatayn,vol. I, pp. 295-328
7- al-Muqni‘ fil-Imama, p. 125 for more poems about the same, see, Ibid, pp. 126-127

are among the most important reasons of Shi'istic propagation and its distinction from his caliphate. He himself has composed a poem about the content of Ghadir Tradition, in which he has interpreted the mentioned tradition as indicating the necessity of sainthood over people.

فأوجب لي ولايته عليكم رسول الله يوم غدير خم

“The Messenger (S) deemed his sainthood for you obligatory on the of Ghadir Khum.”(1)

In a lengthy letter to Mu'awiya, Imam has explained this issue in detail. The letter contains significant points about Imam's contribution to the propagation of Shi'istic sainthood. Some major parts of the letter are quoted here for its great importance in terms of “Imamate Thought”.

“The Almighty God says, “Obey God and execute the commands of the Messenger as well as Holders of Authority”. This verse addresses us, The People of the House, not you. Then, Qur'an forbade affray and disunity and ordered surrender and unity. You are the folk acknowledging God and his prophet and admitting them. God informed you that” Muhammad (S) is the father of none of your men, he is the God's Messenger and the Seal of The Prophets “and also said, “Retreat if he is killed or dead ” and Mu'awiya, you and your companion retreated, apostatized and broke your pledge to God as well as your allegiance, and all these will not harm God.

Oh, Mu'awiya! don't you know that Imams are from among us not you. God informed you that Holders of Authority must be capable of deducing the knowledge and

p: 243

1- al-Ghadir, vol. II, p. 25 of Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, p. 377; Tadhkirat al-Khawas, p. 62 and other sources

you must refer to God, his Messenger and Holders of Authority, the bearers of knowledge, in all that you disagree. So anyone keeping his pledge to God, shall find Him faithful to His promise.

We are the family of Ibrahim envied by all and you are those who envy us. There was a party of Banu Isra'il who told their prophet, “Send us a king; we will fight for God's sake.”(1)And when God sent Saul as a king for them, they envied him and said,” How can he hold control over us?” (2)and deemed themselves more deserving of kingdom.

These all are the past happenings and now we narrate them to you and their interpretation and esoteric exegesis are available to us, and anyone ascribing lies to us will fall into despair. You are typical of that… Let it be known to you that we, the People of House, are the envied family of Ibrahim. We were envied as our fathers were envied before.

The Almighty God said, “The family of Ibrahim, the family of Lot, the family of Jacob, the family of Moses, the family of Aaron and the family of David; we, too, are the family of our prophet, Muhammad (S). “Oh, Mu'awiya, don't you know that Allah says, “The closest people to Ibrahim are those who follow him as well as this prophet and the believers, God is the believer's patron.” (3)

We are kins by blood cited in this verse,”The prophet merits more than the believers to themselves

p: 244

1- Al-Baqara, 2:246
2- Ibid, verse 247
3- Ale Imran, 3:68

and his wives are the mothers of believers and according to the holy Qur'an the genealogical relatives are merited over Muhajirun and Ansar (Helpers).”(1)

We are the People of House, God has chosen us “Nabuwwat”, prophethood, is ordained to us the Book, wisdom and knowledge belong to us and Ka'ba and Isma'il's House and Ibrahim's abode belong to us. So we deserve sovereignty. Woe is to you Mu'awiya. We are more deserving of Ibrahim, we are his family and the family of 'Imran are more deserving of Him… and the family of Muhammad (S) are more deserving of him…We are the people of house from whom God has removed all impurity.(2)

Every prophet has an invitation exclusive to him, his progeny and family and every prophet leaves a testament for his family. Don't you know that Ibrahim gave his last testament to his son Jacob and when Jacob was due to die, he also left a will and Muhammad (S) made a will.This was the tradition of Ibrahim and other prophets and Muhammad (S) followed them by order of God.

The Book is sent down to us and the Messenger has been raised up from among us and the verses have been read to us. We depend on, witness, call to and uphold the Book. Oh, Mu'awiya! Do you seek another God but Allah or another book except Allah's Book? Or another Qibla but Ka'ba, the House of God, home of Isma'il and abode of our father, Ibrahim.

Do you want

p: 245

1- Al-Ahzab, 33:60
2- “Tatheer” verse, see, Al-Ahzab, 33:33

another religion but that of Ibrahim or another sovereign and commander but God? God has placed this sovereignty and commandership in us. You revealed your animosity toward us, well showed your spite and jealousy and proved that you break your pledge to God and distort his verses as this one revealed to Ibrahim, “God has selected your religion for you.”(1)

Do you turn away from Ibrahim's religion while God has selected him in this world and he is from among the virtues in the Hereafter. Do you seek another decree but that of Allah? Or another Imam not from our family? The leadership belongs to Ibrahim, his progeny and the believers who follow them and do not turn away from his religion. It was also said, anyone who follows me is from me.”(2)

Agitated at Imam's calling himself the relative of all prophets, Mu'awiya wrote in response,

“Not content with your kinship with the Messenger, now you relate yourself to all the prophets. Beware that Muhammad (S) was one of the prophets raised up for all, he delivered God's messages and had nothing more. Now tell us what is the merit of your kinship and the superiority of your right and where in the Book did you find your name? Wherein is your sovereignty, leadership and superiority mentioned?

Yes, you as well as us, follow the previous Imams and caliphs.”

Then he mentioned his being 'Uthman's heir. Repelling him, Imam accused him of animosity toward the prophets and interest in his unbelieving forefathers and

p: 246

1- Al-Baqara, 2:132
2- Ibrahim, 14:36


“Beware that we are the People of Messenger's House. The infidel dislikes us and the believer bears us no grudge. You have denied Muhammad's leadership and regarded him as Messenger not Imam This denial makes you deny the leadership of all prophet's. But we testify that he was both Messenger and Imam and about your denying my kinship with the Messenger and my right, verily our due and right is mentioned in the Holy Book, and God mentions us as having an equal share with the Prophet where he says,” A fifth of anything that you acquire as spoils belongs to God, the Messenger and the relatives.”(1)

And elsewhere is said, “so give the relative his due.”(2) Don't you see that our due is mentioned with that of God and Messenger and yours is mentioned with the strangers…you deny my leadership and sovereignty. Haven't you seen that in the Book, the almighty God says he has made the family of Ibrahim superior to the world.(3) He is God who has exalted us over all mortals. If you can, separate us from Ibrahim, Isma'il, Muhammad (S) and his family, in the Holy Book.(4)

The aforesaid letter is quoted by Abu Ishaq Thaqafi, a Shi'ites historian of the third century A.H.(283 A.D.) The belief in “divine leadership” of the Commander of the Faithful is completely obvious in the letter and different deductive aspects of it are outstanding.

The most important part is the relation and link between prophethood, succession, and leadership as a

p: 247

1- Al-Anfal, 8:41
2- Rum, 30:38
3- Referring to the Ale Imran, 3:33
4- al-Gharat, p. p. 67-71; al-Gharat, Urmawi, vol. I, p. p. 195-204

noble course of action in the history of prophets. Mu'awiya's denial of the Messenger's leadership is also remarkable in this letter. Anyhow,in his words, Imam has tried his very best in proving the superiority of “The People of House “over others and having a “divine right.”

Proving such a right, Imam considers leadership as an integral part of it, to which the other caliphs are not entitled. There are also some other proofs indicating the Shi'ite thought in works handed down by Imam In a sermon about the People of the House, Imam says, “They (the descendants of Muhammad) are the trustees of his secret.

Anyone taking refuge to them will be led towards God. They are the center of knowledge about him, the preachers of his religious commandments, the protectors of Qur'an and Sunna, and mountain -like citadels which guard the religion and make the Islam stable, firm and powerful.”(1)

Elsewhere he states:

فأين تذهبون وأنى توفكون والأعلام قائمة والآيات واضحة والمنار منصوبة فأين يتاه بكم بل كيف تعمهون وبينكم عترة نبيكم وهم أزمة الحق وأعلام الدين وألسنة الصدق فأنزلوهم بأحسن منازل القرآن وردوهم ورود الهيم العطاش “

Where are you going and when are you due to return? The landmarks are fixed, beacons are lighted and direction indicators are set up. To what extent are you being misled and confused? The descendants of the holy Prophet (S) are amongst you. They are the reins of right, ensigns of faith and speakers in the language of truth. Place them in the best

p: 248

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 3; Rabi‘al-Abrar, vol. III, p. 536

Qur'anic positions turn to them as thirsty camels gather round water springs.”(1)

“We are the tree of prophethood, the centers which receive the messages of God and descending place of blessing angels.

We are mines of knowledge and springs of wisdom. Our friend awaits blessings of God and our enemy awaits punishment and wrath.” (2)

Elsewhere it is said, “Muhammad's progeny revives the knowledge and kills the ignorance; you are informed of their knowledge because of their prudence, their appearance out of their inward, and their silence because of their philosophy of expression. They are neither at odds with the gospel truth nor render it wrong.

They are pillars of religion and the shelter that harbor the people; upon their return, the gospel truth re-settled and the credal error, from there, was driven away and cut off with tongue. They knew, learned and applied the religion as they had to, not just lending an ear to it. Religion narrators are legion but its protectors are few in number.”(3)

Elsewhere it has been stated, “Beware, when infant, my saint progeny is the most patient and when adult they are the most knowledgeable of all. Beware that we are from among the People of House whose knowledge and decree is rooted in God's knowledge and decree. In case, you follow us, you will be guided through our wisdom and if not, God will have you brought to ruin.”

Elsewhere it goes to say, “They embarked on seas of sedition, adopted heresies and abandoned traditions. The faithful were

p: 249

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 87
2- Ibid, sermon 109
3- Ibid, sermon 239

isolated and wicked liars got loud in declaring their views. We are particular people, companions, the treasures of prophethood and the pearls of prophetic mission.

Houses should be entered through their doors and whoever stepping into the house not through their doors should be called a thief. They are true applications of long Qur'anic verses and treasures of beneficent Allah; Once they speak, they tell naught but the truth and in case they remain quiet, they are not outpaced.”(1)

Elsewhere he states this way, “Where are those, who falsely and unjustly deemed themselves and not us as the most knowledgeable. God raised us in position and kept them inferior to us. He has conferred on us the eminence of which he deprived them.

He allowed us the entry to sphere of divine favor from which he dismissed them. With us guidance is to be sought and blindness (of misguidance) is to be changed into brightness. Verily Imams are from among the Quraysh, the tree of which is planted in the family of H?shim. The others do not deserve it nor would others be suitable as heads of affairs.”(2)

In these sentences as well as the previously mentioned letter, a kind of prophetic inheritance for transferring the right of leadership is put forth by Imam This is not the inheritance used for transferring the material rights but the one accompanied by executorship, knowledge, wisdom, purity and inerrancy.

This is the culture raised up by Qur'an among prophets and the right Ibrahim wants for his

p: 250

1- Nahj al-Balaghah,sermon 154
2- Ibid, sermon 144

progeny. God says,” The despots never access to my mission.” Despite the key role that “selection” plays, God considers the prophets as each others descendants. Treating it as an ordinary heritage.

The Sunnites accuse the Shi'ite Muslims of having such an idea about leadership while Shi'a approves of the text which is within the framework of divine heritage existing in Qur'anic culture. In a letter indicating his dispute with Quraysh, Imam wrote about his being insistent on caliphacy, “Am I greedy to ask for my inheritance and the right granted to me by the Messenger and God?”(1) In this phrase, inheritance and divine right are cited together.

More important is Imam's reference to the Ghadir tradition at the threshold of entering Kufa- After suppressing those who broke their allegiance in the battle of Jamal. As several Sunnites sources specify, The people of Kufa as well as Messenger's companions were brought together by Imam at the mosque of Kufa and all those who had witnessed and heard the Messenger uttering the Ghadir tradition were asked to stand up and give evidence of that.

A large number, only twelve of which had participated the battle of Badr, bore witness. Referring to this tradition publicly in fact implied his reference to “divine right “on “Sainthood”.(2) The culture of “Proof” in Qur'an confirms the leading attitude of Imam This concept is applicable only to the Prophet (S) and those chosen by God and resembling them in rank.

Imam has stated, “God never allowed the creation to

p: 251

1- al-Gharat, p. 111
2- Facing Talha in the battle of Jamal, Imam referred to this tradition;Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XI, p. 204

remain without a prophet deputed by Him or a Book sent down from Him or a binding argument.”(1)

Elsewhere he said, “Verily the earth is never devoid of those who maintain God's binding argument either openly and reputedly or fearfully and secretly so that God's binding argument and proof should not be rebutted or his signs overlooked.”(2)

In a letter to the one in charge of collecting alms, Imam included instructions for treating people and telling them,

عبادالله! أرسلني ولي الله وخليفته لآخذ منكم حق الله في أموالكم

“O servants of God! The vicegerent of God and His caliph sent me to you for collecting God's share in your properties.”(3)

The comments “The vicegerent of God and His caliph” Imam attributed to himself are totally Shi'ite concepts. Anyhow, having been formed during the caliphate of Imam, this theory constitutes the main identity of Shi'ites thought about Imamate.

During his caliphate, by referring to upcoming incidents entitled “Malahim wa Fitan” in various sermons, he turned out to be a figure not rivaling an ordinary caliph, he foretold the future but not as a political analyst.

The charisma of Imam's personality in the eyes of gnostic and Sufism, was deeply rooted in the conception leading the public to deem him deserving of “sainthood” in its full sense and also in remarks and conducts of him who officially claimed to be omniscient and asked all people to question him before they miss him.(4)

At the end of these proofs, it will be proper to mention another important

p: 252

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 1
2- Ibid, sayings, No 147
3- Ibid, letter 25
4- See Nahj As-Sa‘ada fi Mustadrak Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. II, p. p. 314,627

narration. When 'Ayisha was ready to revolt against 'Ali, the Messenger's graceful wife, Umm Salama, tried to stop her going.

'Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr said objectingly, “You harbor old animosity towards the family of Zubayr.”

Umm Salama answered, “Do you think people will turn to Talha and your father while 'Ali about whom God said, عليّ وليّ كل مؤمن ومؤمنة ” 'Ali is the guardian of all believing men and women” is present.

'Abd Allah said, “We haven't heard him saying such a thing.”

Umm Salama replied, “You may have not, but your aunt, 'Ayisha, has.”

I myself heard the Messenger saying,

عليّ خليفتي عليكم في حياتي ومماتي فمن عصاه فقد عصاني

Alive or dead, I place 'Ali as my caliph to you, so whoever disobeys him, he has disobeyed me.” 'Ayisha has also confirmed this.(1)

Based on things mentioned, what should be said about the interpretation of comments written in Nahj al-Balagha on the allegiance of Muhajirun and Ansar is that at that time, the allegiance of these two was the principle behind selecting a caliph, and Imam enjoyed this principle. Facing the opposition of deviators and apostates Imam Ali had to refer to this principle.

With this deduction of Imam lots of people followed him and fought his enemies. There is a poem quoted from one of Imam's adherents who compared his pledge to that of early caliphs to prove his rightfulness and public commitments to him,

له في رقاب الن_اس عهد وذم_ة كعهد ابي حفص وعهد ابي بكر

فبايع ولا ترجع علي العقب كافراً أع_يذك

p: 253

1- al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 282-283

بالله العزيز من الكفر

“People owe him just as 'Umar and Abu Bakr do. So swear an allegiance and avoid infidelity, do you excuse yourself in atheism!” (1)

But neither Imam considered this as a legitimate way of leadership nor did his close companions who deemed his leadership far beyond the allegiance of Muhajirun and Ansar, accept such a basis. In conclusion, the differences from Saqifa to the martyrdom of Imam have been influential in many of the Islamic thoughts, but related to our discussion are issues concerning ruler ship and caliphate.

Here, a brief conclusion is drawn from the effects these events had on forming of political views. Obviously, as mentioned earlier, in the course of murdering 'Uthman and 'Ali's caliphacy, Shi'ism changed both in quality and quantity.

Previous to this, only a few companions tended towards Shi'a but because of aforesaid reasons it spread in Iraq. This trend is called ”'Alawites and Shi'ites”. Its full version can be regarded in 'Uthman's rejection and the proof of 'Ali's caliphate. The full version of it includes 'Ali's Imamate after the Messenger and his superiority over the other caliphs. There has been some controversy over the quality and quantity of some exaggerated trends emerging at that time.(2)

The other trend was called ”'Uthmanids”. This trend was crystallized during to wars of Jamal and Siffin.The aforesaid course of action came to a dead end in Jamal but its impacts on Basra remained to be seen and the people of that city were reckoned as ”'Uthmanids”.(3)

The second

p: 254

1- Waq‘at Siffin, p. 46
2- See Ibn Abi Dunya,, Maqtal al-Imam Amir al-Mu‘minin, p. 92
3- This has been stated about Basra, قطعة من الشام نزلت بيننا Tabaqat al-Kubra,vol. VI,p. 333

trend prevailed over Damascus and Iraq during the Umayyads. The Umayyads ruling was the manifestation of 'Uthmanids sect's prevalence. This sect deemed no legitimacy for 'Ali's caliphacy on the pretext of the third caliph being murdered either by 'Ali himself or at his instigation.

They also said not all of the people had approved of him. This has been a common belief among the ancestors of Sunnites who were called the 'Uthmanids. During that period “Shi'ite Muslims” and ”'Uthmanids” were opposed to each other. The 'Uthmanids believed that 'Uthman was to replace Mu'awiya in caliphate. Their legitimacy was based on Mu'awiya 's claim to be a relative of 'Uthman and consequently his blood-wit.(1)

Basra and Kufa, tending towards 'Uthmanids and Shi'a respectively, were rivals to each other. The distinction between Shi'ism and 'Uthmani's sect was the interesting point about the battle of Jamal.

The murderer of one of Imam's companions called Zayd Ibn Suhan said he had killed him while he believed in 'Ali.

Opposing 'Ammar he composed this:

لا تبرح العرصة يا بن اليثربي حتى اقاتلك على دين علي

“O Yathrib-born! Leave not the battlefield so that I might fight you by relying on 'Ali's religion.” (2)

”'Uthman's religion” was coined versus ”'Ali's religion”. A poet from Damascus, told about the Damascus army:

ثمانين الف “دين عثمان” دينهم كتائب فيها جبرئيل يقودها

“80 thousands are those whose religion is that of 'Uthman's, troops who are led by Gabriel.” (3)

A poet participating in Siffin, introduced himself this way,

انا ابن ارباب الملوك غسان والدائن اليوم به دين عثمان


p: 255

1- al-Gharat, p. 70
2- al-Jamal, p. 346
3- al-Jamal, p. 346

am son of king of kings and today I follow 'Uthman's religion.” (1)

In a poem Rufa'a Ibn shaddad told,

انا ابن شداد على “دين علي” لست لعثمان بن اروى بولي

“I am Ibn Shaddad, a follower of 'Ali's religion and never am I guardian of 'Uthman Ibn 'Arwa.” (2)

It has been said that 80 thousand of Damascus army believed in ”'Uthman's religion ”.(3) There was also a third trend, in addition to Shi'a and 'Uthmani, called “Qa'idin”. Nashi' Akbar recognizes this group in two different names and trends. The first one was “Hulaysiyya” who believed that when a sedition is raised one must stay around his/her house.

They deemed both groups as misled and infernal. To them religion was seen as tarry to war and sedition as getting involved in it. 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas belonged to this group. They believed that only one of the two groups was right but the righteous group was unknown to them. Abu Musa Ash'ari, Abu Sa'id Khudri and Abu Mas'ud Ansari were from among this group.

As Nashi' Akbar clarifies,these were called “Mu'tazilites”. Later, Wasil Ibn 'Ata' and 'Amr Ibn 'Ubayd also thought the same about Talha and Zubayr.(4)Considering the situation of that time, these groups put the emphasis on the concept of “Sedition”, to them, being ”'Abd Allah, the murdered” was preferable to being ”'Abd Allah, the murderer”.(5)

People’s Allegiance to ‘Ali (a)

Without doubt, during the caliphacy of the first three caliphs, Imam was not politically active in the current affairs and except

p: 256

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, p. 43
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 233
3- Tarikh Dimashq, vol. VIII, p. 52
4- Masa’il al-Imamah, p. p. 16-17; See, Murji’a, Tarikh wa Andishih, 19-26; al-zina, p. 273; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, p. p. 57-58
5- Masa’il al-Imamah, p. 16

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

p: 257

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.(1)

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(2), 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(3). In continuation of Sa'id Ibn Musayyib's long narrations concerning 'Uthman's murder, it's mentioned that

p: 258

1- From fabricated narrations in Tarikh at-Tabari
2- 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
3- 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

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).(1)

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.”(2)

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.”(3) 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

p: 259

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, al-Juz’ al-rabi‘, pp 559-560, No 1419
2- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 429; see Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 219
3- 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 wal-Muwazina, p. 50

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.(1)

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

p: 260

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 263

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.(1)

As Diyar Bakri relates, All the Badr participants who had lived up to that time swore allegiance to 'Ali.(2)'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.(3) 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.(4)

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

p: 261

1- 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
2- Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. II, p. 261 About the allegiance of Muhajirun and Ansar see, al-Jamal, p. p. 102-110
3- Tarikh Khalifa Ibn Khayyat, p. 196
4- 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

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.”(1)

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.(2)

Following happenings made the hardships of working within sedition and doubts dawn on Imam Once he said, “If I

p: 262

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 92
2- Tarikh at-Tabari,vol. IV,p. 428

knew the heightened situation, I would have never got involved in it from scratch.”(1)

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.”(2)

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

p: 263

1- Ansab al-Ashraf,vol. II,p. 213
2- al-Gharat, p. 112

in grips with the most malignant people who do not obey me at all.”(1)

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.(2) '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.(3)

This, according to Ibn Abi al-Hadid(4) 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

p: 264

1- Akhbar al-Buldan, Ibn Faqih Hamadani, pp 4-5 (Sezgin publication)
2- ‘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
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 136
4- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. IX, p. 31

no allegiance without Muslim's consent.(1)

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. (2)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.(3)

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

p: 265

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 427
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 210
3- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 140; See, al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 105

from “The followers of righteousness”.(1)

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.”(2)

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.(3)

According to Baladhuri, following Jamal, Marwan told 'Ali (a), “Unless forced, I won't swear allegiance to you.” (4)

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?(5) Despite this, Imam gloried in not forcing anyone to take the oath to him.(6)

'Adi Ibn Hatim also told Mu'awiya, ”'Ali (a) compelled no one to take the oath.”(7)

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.(8) Even it has been said that even if Imam were the one killing 'Uthman, he remains the

p: 266

1- This refers to the verse 100,Mu’minun
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 143 See, al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 106
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 73
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 262
5- 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
6- al-Mi‘yar wal-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
7- Waq‘at Siffin, p. 65
8- Ibid, p. 16

caliph, for Muhajirun and Ansar who dominate over people have taken the oath of allegiance to him.(1)

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.(2)

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.(3)

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

p: 267

1- Ibid, p. 45
2- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 143, No 10
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, Letter 6

act in obedience to the orders of 'Ali (a) in combating his enemies.(1)

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.”(2)

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 Sheikhs 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.(3) 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.(4)

One person insisted on including Sheikhs 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.(5)

Imam merely found himself yielded to Qur'an and tradition and unwilling to disobey

p: 268

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 207
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 208
3- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 435
4- al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 246-247
5- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, p. 76

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.(1)

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.(2)

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.(3)

Qa'idin and no Congregation Formation

There emerged no agreement like that of Sheikhs 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

p: 269

1- al-Gharat, p. 75
2- Ibid p. 83
3- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 178-179

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.(1) 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”(2), 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(3) 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

p: 270

1- Tarikh Yahya Ibn Mu‘ayn, vol. II, p. 238
2- This sect was also called” Sufyaniya”,”Nabita” and” Nawasib”
3- Al-Risalat al-Nabita dar Rasa’il al-Jahiz (al-Rasa’il al-Kalamiyya),p. 239

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”.(1)

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.(2)

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.(3)

These people believed that “congregation” is not organized.

Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas said, “I will swear allegiance when I'm the last one”.(4)

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

p: 271

1- al-Hujurat, 49:9
2- 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
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 207
4- 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 wal-Muwazana,p. 106

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.(1)

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.”(2)

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.(3)

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

p: 272

1- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. V, pp 72-73
2- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 106; Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 143
3- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. XXV, p. 35

launching war the only permit to wage war.(1)

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.(2) 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, Dhil-Hajja 18,36 H.

Imam’s Problems

When Imam took charge of caliphate, he faced tremendous problems. These obstacles in addition to political disorder after death of 'Uthman darkly imaged

p: 273

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 240; al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 158
2- Kitab al-Zina, p. 225

the future. Here, problems are reviewed and the solutions ahead of Imam will be discussed.

Before everything it is to known that these problems were important for a person like Imam who showed more sensitivity to observing principles and applications than anybody else. Some time earlier, every caliph had opened a way temporarily and just for the purpose of expanding the conquests.

But now it wasn't obvious that many of those ways were off the roads and time passed had shown this. Typically, 'Umar considered tribal tenets in regulating chancery. Presently after fifteen years, its social and even political negative consequences have turned up. To arrange the issue more, Imam's problems are multi-dimensionally dealt with,

(1) The first problem wasn't to follow economic justice. Earlier referred that 'Umar set the chancery in accordance with the Islamic records of people and tribal shape. Those of the companions who had embraced Islam sooner than others shared more. The same condition kept on during 'Uthman as well.

He began his generosity leading to greater rich-poor distance in the community. All this property includes the fifth of booties and tributes that were annually received and came from the conquered territories belonging to all people. When Imam came to power, he raised equal sharing of this property. His reason rested upon what the Prophet (S) had done.

Imam in his very speech referring to the point that he will act upon the Prophet's biography spoke of his fiscal policy and called virtue of Muhajir and Ansar superior

p: 274

over others, that is kept and rewarded by God.

وإني حاملكم على منهج نبيكم صلى الله عليه وآله

But in this world, anyone who accepts call of God and His Messenger (S) and becomes a Muslim and pray before Qibla, he will benefit from all rights and Islamic rules. You're servants of God, Imam added, and property is God's that will equally be divided among you. The pious people are well rewarded by God.

Underlining his policy, Imam said, “Lest someone tomorrow say”, حرمنا علي بن ابي طالب حقوقنا (1) Imam tomorrow that day ordered 'Ubayd Allah Ibn Abi Rafi', Anyone came, give him three Dinars.

In there Sahl Ibn Hunayf said, this man wasn't my slave who wasn't set free yesterday.

Imam said, “All are given three Dinars and no one is over another.”

A group of Umayyads elites as well as Talha and Zubayr did'nt turn up to get their share. Tomorrow that day, Walid Ibn 'Uqba with a number of people came to Imam and referring to his father's murder by 'Ali in Uhud, murder of Sa'd Ibn 'As in there, humiliation of Marwan's father in front of 'Uthman and….

Asked Imam not to take back at least what has been given to them of the property. Besides, 'Uthman's murderers are retaliated. Imam turned him down and so they started to reveal their discords.

Tomorrow again, Imam made a sermon and based his sharing of property on the Book out of wrath. Imam came down the pulpit and after rendering two units of pray

p: 275

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VII, pp 36-37

sat with Talha and Zubayr on the corner of mosque. These two people spoke of first, Imam's not consulting with them and second,

خلافك عمر بن الخطاب في القسم

A major disadvantage is that you disagree on the way of division comparing 'Umar. You gave our share just like that of others who took no sufferings for Islam.

Imam said, ؛As long as there is a rule in Qur'an, consultation is not required. Otherwise, I would've consulted with you. As for equal sharing, we all witnessed that the Messenger (S) did as the Book says.”(1)

Zubayr said, “This is our reward? We acted in this way for him! To have 'Uthman killed and he today puts people over us whom we were over.”(2)

Ibn Abi al-Hadid regards public habit a major problem for disagreement of companions with Imam while Abu Bakr had the same manner as the Prophet's and nobody opposed him.

Imam in response to companions who objected to his method and referred to 'Umar's manner said, أفسنّة رسول الله أولى بالاتباع أم سنة عمر “ Does obeying the Prophet's tradition stand first or that of 'Umar's.” (3)

Serious disapproval of this manner induced some companions of Imam to go to Imam to ask him to prefer Arab and Quraysh noblemen than Mawali and non-Arabs.

He rejected them and said, “Are you telling me that I gain victory through cruelty.”(4)

Later, Ibn 'Abbas writing to Imam Hasan said, “People left your father alone and went to Mu'awiya because he equally shared the property among them and

p: 276

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VII, pp 37-42; al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 111-114; Da‘a’im al-Islam, vol. I, p. 384; Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, pp 200,415 and Ibid from, Tuhaf al-’Uqul, p. 125;Amali, Ibn Ash-Shiykh, section 44, p. 91, No 5, Rawďa al-Kafi, No 551
2- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. VII, pp 37-42
3- Da‘a’im al-Islam, vol. I, p. 384; Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, p. 229
4- al-Gharat, vol. I, p. 75; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 318

they never endured this act of your father.”(1)Some people explicitly reasoned their opposition as that 'Ali failed to observe their equal rights.(2)

Anyway, one feature Imam became known after wasn't that, قسم بالسوية وعدل في الرعية(3)

(2) Elsewhere it wasn't referred that one of the consequences of conquests wasn't that different races of Arab, Iran, Nabat, Byzantine and Barbar were intermingled with one another. Many of them were gone or taken to other regions by migration or for war.

A large number of them were prisoners from Arab tribes brought to Damascus, Iraq and Saudi Arabia from different parts. The captives released were called “Mawali”. This meant that the prisoner belonged to this Arab tribe and now he is linked to that tribe in one way or another. It wasn't natural that Mawali were of lower class of Arabs and enjoyed less rights.

One of the difficulties the government had wasn't how it should treat this case. What is certain is when Imam came to power, the community had assumed Arab superiority over Mawali a definite principle. This disturbed Imam's justice-seeking morale that never found religiously a reason for veracity of the above-mentioned distinction but adversely equality of Muslims had clear reasons.

'Umar had said that the Arab slaves be released by means of public property,(4) thus differentiating diverse races, Imam rejected the distinction. Two women are said to have come to Imam 'Ali and expressed their destitution.

It is, Imam said, up to us to help you in case you tell the truth.

p: 277

1- Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 16, p. 23; al-Futuh, vol. IV, p. 149
2- Bahj As-Sabaqa, vol. II, pp 197-203
3- al-Mi‘yar wal-Muwazina, p. 227; see,Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 113
4- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 342

Then he sent a man to market to buy them dress and food and pay them one hundred dhms.

One of them said in objection, “I'm an Arab while the other is Mawali, why should we be treated equally?”

Imam replied, “I read Qur'an and I thought, there I noticed no superiority, as small as a mosquito's wing, of Isma'il children over those of Isaac.”(1)

Once Imam intending to divide some property said, “Adam gave birth to neither a male slave nor a female one, servants of God are all free and now some property is with me and I'll divide it among the black and white people equally with no distinction.”(2)

Treating Arabs and non-Arabs in parity was not something endurable for Arabs. Umm Hani, Imam 'Ali's sister, came to Imam to get her grant and Imam granted her twenty dhms. Her non-Arab slave also came to Imam and he gave her twenty dhms. When Umm Hani heard this, she went to see Imam in fury. Imam's response to her accorded with Qur'an that he has not seen any differentiation between Arabs and non-Arabs there.(3)

Imam elsewhere told Muhajirun and Ansar that he never gives anybody anything aimlessly and, لأسوين بين الأسود والأحمر “ The black and the white will be treated in parity.”(4)

Imam's just treatment towards Mawali and non-Arabs raised protest of prejudiced people like Ash'ath Ibn Qays.

When Imam wasn't up on pulpit, Ash'ath shouted, غلبتنا عليك الحمراء “The white Mawali has overcome us and you see that.” 'Ali became angry hearing

p: 278

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 141; al-Gharat (And in footnote from Wasa‘il Ash-Shi‘a, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Bihar al-Anwar) Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 183
2- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, p. 189
3- Ibid, vol. 1, p. 212
4- Ibid, vol.1, p. 212 – 213; from: al-Ikhtisas, p. 151; Bihar, vol. 41, p. 106; Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, vol. 11, p. 93


Ibn Suhan said, “It'll become clear today what status Arabs are placed in.”

'Ali said, “Who excuses me to penalize these sturdy-body people resting in their beds till mid-noon while a group of people stay away their beds because of vigil nights? Are you telling me that I should abandon them and become an oppressor. I swear to One that grew the seed and created the creatures and I heard Muhammad (S) saying,

I swear to God they beat you (Arabs) to return to religion just as you did to them to accept Islam.(1) Mughira Dhabbi says, 'Ali (a) was interested in Mawali and was kind to them but 'Umar loathed them and kept away from them.”(2)

Included in Imam's poetry, there is a piece of poem that talks about negating the effect of racial problems on divine and human honor,

لعمرك ما الإنس_ان إلاّ ب_دينه فلا تترك التقوى اتكالاً علي الحسب

فقد رفع الإسلام سلمان فارس وقد هجن الشرك الش_ريف أبا لهب

“Religion, swear by thy soul, brings value to man

Thou not for a lineage seek divine piety Whilst Abu Lahab was down for no deity.”(3)

(3) More important problem ahead of Imam was religious deviations and the very thing companions accused 'Uthman of that under title of innovationism. Apart from the innovations, the other major problem was that many people were not well-informed about religion and no action was taken to religiously inform them. A few objective typical distortions Imam was engaged are mentioned herein,

One of the problems earlier talked about is that a group

p: 279

1- al-Gharat, p. 186 – 187; Gharib al-Hadith, Abu ‘Ubayd, vol. 3, p. 484; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 19, p. 184
2- al-Gharat, p. 187 (Persian translation)
3- Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 10, p. 46

of companions and a number of caliphs brought up rules despite availability of Qur'an and tradition and merely based on “expediency”.

Inter alia, this regarding tradition is more clearly and substantially is cited in historical and hadith sources. Perhaps what Abu Ja’far Naqib said could be the clearest statement one moderate Sunnites has expressed about.

The companions, he says, unanimously rejected most of the verses {the words of the Messenger (S) and it was because of the interest they discovered in rejecting them such as sharing portion of Dhawi al-Qurba and that of Mu'allafa Qulubuhum.(1)}

Imam criticized this approach while making a detailed speech and at the same time showed his commitment to the tradition. Referring to the fact that for resolving one problem there has been given different views and the ruler has proved all those views, he says this is when their God is One, their prophet is one and their Book is one.

God said to them to go a different direction and they have obeyed His command? Or they have been prohibited from disagreement and they have disobeyed Him? Or what God sent is an incomplete religion and He asked them to help for making it complete? Or they are His partners and they have right to say and God must be pleased of the path they seek? Or the religion God sent was complete and the Prophet (S) has failed in conveying it?

This is while God say, “We avoided not a thing in the Book”.(2)

Imam expresses amazement

p: 280

1- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 12, pp 82-90
2- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 18

in his another speech about the wrongs of different groups and that, “They neither receive a prophet nor the deed of a successor… they follow sceptisism and go after passion and lust.

Well-known to them is something that they know and are pleased of and deny what they are not happy with. In tribulations they only rely on themselves and in undoing the problems they depend on their own ideas. It seems each of them is his Imam who finds, in his rule, to have snatched and used the sturdiest means.”(1)

What was interesting was that “according to caliph II and III” they had the right to have their own special divine legislation in some affairs and put aside the tradition (like 'Uthman who, unlike the prophet and his own pre-caliphs, performed completely his praying service in Mina). Yet, Muslims as a matter of time deemed the actions of caliphs unbreachable as a religious tradition.

'Umar himself when dying said, “Assigning not a successor is a tradition (Prophet!) and assigning is also a tradition (Abu Bakr).”(2)

Therefore, to him, what Abu Bakr did had also been considered “tradition”. After his death, 'Abd al-Rahman had conditioned that he would leave the caliphate to someone who practices the tradition of the Prophet and Sheikhs.

One clear typical response of Imam to these innovations was his approach towards nightly prayers of Ramaďan that 'Umar set up accepting it to be an innovation-though he believed it was a good innovation. When Imam was in Kufa, some people

p: 281

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 88
2- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol.III, p.342.

came to ask him to designate an Imam to perform their nightly prayers of Ramaďan. He banned them doing so. At night they cried out, “O Ramaďan”.

Harith A'war came to Imam and said, “People are moaning and are upset about what you said.”

Imam said, “Leave them alone to do whatever they want and whomever to choose for congregational Imam.”(1)

This quotation shows that what tribe Imam has been dealing with and how they have been following him.

Imam in a letter to Malik, referring to selection of righteous people and about the worldly-minded religious people said,

فإنّ هذا الدين كان أسيراً في أيدي الأشرار ، يعمل فيه بالهوى وتطلب به الدنيا


“This religion has been in the shackles of the wrong people, they moved forward out of passion and captured the world under the name of religion.”(2)

One of the important deviations that essentially led to other ones was that scribing was prevented. Rashid Riďa referred to point that this has irreparably damaged the Islamic culture.(3) Such an action as mentioned earlier was because of disregarding the tradition.

The action of caliphs to collect Qur'an and disregard the Qur'an 'Ali brought as well as to comment and downgrade its verses indicated inattention to the Prophet's speech Imam recorded.

Imam 'Ali regarded doubt and scepticism among people a major cause for emerging civil wars among Muslims,

ولكنّا إنما أصبحنا نقاتل إخواننا في الاسلام على ما دخل فيه من الزيغ والإعوجاج والشبهة والتأويل “

We today fight our Muslim brethren because they mixed Islam with deviation, scepticism and

p: 282

1- Mustatrafat As-Sara’ir, p. 146, and in its footnote, Bihar, vol. 96, p. 38; Wasa’il Ash-Shi‘a, vol. 5, p. 193; Tafsir ‘Ayyashi, vol. I, p. 175
2- Nahj al-Balaghah, letter 53
3- al-Manar, vol. 6, p. 288


Imam underscored the concept of scepticism. He elsewhere said, “Scepticism is called scepticism for it resembles the right.”(2)

(4) Another problem Imam had wasn't social corruption. Serious public welfare triggered loosening of religious ideals and values in society and religion wasn't just valued in appearance. When caliph III turned to serious welfare, His subjects also turned to it and this created a problem for society in respect of religion. The society involved in sedition and corruption cannot simply turn back to moral balance. Imam in one of his speeches introduces his society like that of ignorant one.

He says, “Your condition today looks like the day God raised up His Messenger (S).”(3)

Imam there spoke of reversed values in that society and of the necessity to change it. This society has to be screened, those moved forward be brought back and those left behind be driven ahead.

Know that, he also said, after Hijra -and learning from Shari'a- you were back to nomadic nature and following compromise you were fragmented….. knowing that you cast off your link to Islam, went beyond its limits and failed to follow its rules.(4)

Imam also stated about corruption of the time:

واعلموا رحمكم الله أنكم في زمان القائل فيه بالحق قليل واللسان عن الصدق كليل واللازم للحق ذليل. أهله معتكفون على العصيان، مصطلحون على الادهان، فتاهم عارم وشائبهم آثم وعالمهم منافق وقارئهم مماذق لا يعظم ضعيرهم كبيرهم ولايعول غنيهم فقيرهم “

Know that may God bless you! You are living at a time the truth- seeker is little and tongue falls

p: 283

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 123
2- Ibid sermon 38
3- Ibid sermon 16
4- Nahj al-Balaghah sermon 192

short of truth. Those following truth are humiliated and people are grappling with disobedience and ready to accept compromise. The young are bad-tempered and the old are sinful, the reciter is after profit. Neither the small respects the aged nor do the potent aid the destitute.(1)

Emergence of Mu'awiya as a deceitful and deviated man in the field of Islamic politics wasn't itself the greatest element of sedition and corruption in society, so were the 'Uthmanids tendency in Basra as well as the Kharijites in Kufa. These were ill currents that blocked the way of followers of truth at times by knowing that they were wrong and at other times imagining that they are going after truth.

Observing Mu'awiya's sedition, Imam began to say, “I verified the case and I learned that I have no way but fighting or I stand infidel against what Muhammad (S) said.”(2)

Reformation, Imam’s Fundamental Policy

Imam considered his major mission a reformation. This was because he abided by religion and tradition. In addition, it is to be noted that Imam was basically brought to power by those who had murdered the former caliph due to his corruption and hoped that the new caliph reform the shortcomings.

The aim of this group in proportionate to character of Imam was one of the main reasons of their approach towards him. The policy of early caliphs was to expand the conquests. This also expanded Islam and naturally could be an advantage for caliphs, not to mention, it would fill the pockets of people with

p: 284

1- Ibid sermon 233; Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. 1, p. 96
2- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 54

dhms and Dinars.

Imam now had to make up for the shortcomings of this time. It was very difficult for him to do so because he had to stand against many of the noblemen and influential people. Here, Imam's reformational actions are reviewed.

First, it is to be noted that these actions contained two parts. One part was to be done by means of speech and peaceful social actions, but the second part was to be carried out through war with those who were not ready to observe the rights of the legitimate ruler of society and had rebelled against him. Some of the actions taken in the first part are dealt with here.

One of the moral problems in the society Imam was engaged in was mammonism, welfarism and acquisitiveness of triumphant Arabs. This case had engaged them so much that it can be said Jamal war was resulted and Imam was not prepared to raise shares of Talha and Zubayr more than the others. Under such circumstances, Imam was determined to speak in detail in his speeches about this and protract people from mammonism.

By contrast, he prohibited them from sitting at the majestic entertainment tables by writing letters to his agents, something that was very natural in time of 'Uthman. In case Imam's words about reproaching the world outright, it would become a detailed book.(1)

Nahj al-Balagha is replete with these words and this, in great number, shows that Imam insisted very much in this regard. Presenting an outstanding paradigm

p: 285

1- Zamakhshari has mentioned some parts in Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. 1 from page 41 on

of man with a piety is seen in the sermon known as

″Hammam″. In some of the sermons, Imam explicitly scolds people due to mammonism, “You have forgotten the death in your hearts and deceiving aspirations have been substituted. This world has captured you more than the other world.”(1)

Imam placed elucidation of religion atop of his reformational actions and tried to lead the society to improvement by raising up the Prophet's tradition as well as resuscitating the forgotten rules and positive laws of religion. Imam on explaining his activities for reforming the society says:

ألم أعمل فيكم بالثقل الأكبر وأترك فيكم الثقل الاصغر وركزت فيكم راية الايمان ووقفتكم على حدود الحلال والحرام والبستكم العافية من عدلي وفرشتكم المعروف من قولي وفعلي وأريتكم كرائم الأخلاق من نفسي.

Did I not raise rule of Qur'an among you and my two offsprings - who are the lamp of religion path after me - and did I not leave for you the selective jewels that is the Prophet's progeny. I set up banner of faith among you and separated you from limits of legal and illegal. I clad you in garment of health out of justice and spread the known among you through my word and deed and revealed to you the best ethics through my ethicality.”(2)

Imam in his speech emphatically referred to practicing the Book and the Prophet's tradition. The Imam's faithfulness to the Messenger's tradition is an important point in his reformational policies. Basically, violating the tradition according to him, is one of the

p: 286

1- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 113
2- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 87

blatant signs of deviation.

In the early times when Talha and Zubayr complained of Imam's not consulting with them, Imam said, “By God I had no inclination to caliphate and no need of rulership, but you made me be in charge of that. As I came to power, I looked at the Book and what it has prescribed to us and the rules we are bound to obey and I did so. I followed the tradition set by the Messenger (S). I required not to ask you of your idea about this but you.”(1)

Imam in his contact with 'Uthman about being clothed in a pilgrim state during Hajj or about doing the same in the visitation and Hajj together says on the tradition of the Messenger (S):

ما كنت لأدع سنّة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لأحد من الناس

I never leave tradition of the Messenger (S) because of anybody.”(2)

'Uthman was sick one year of the years he used to perform his prayers in Mina so he asked Imam to perform prayers instead.

Imam said, “If I perform prayers, I'll do it as the Prophet did.”

'Uthman said, “No. Do as I do.”

Imam rejected his request.(3)

Imam said, “If I'm absent, then who will be among you to act upon the Prophet's conduct?”(4)

I was doing prayer service, Mutrif Ibn 'Abd Allah says, along with 'Imran Ibn Husayn (one of the Prophet's companions) behind Imam 'Ali. After the service 'Imran held my hand and said,

لقد صلى صلاة محمد، ولقد ذكّرني صلاة محمد (ص(

p: 287

1- Nahj al-Balaghah sermon 205
2- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. 3, pp 1043-1044
3- al-Amali fi Athar sahaba, p. 50
4- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. 10, p. 124

“He performed the service like that of the Prophet's. He reminded me of how the Prophet said the prayers.”(1)

Abu Musa Ash'ari who performed the service just behind Imam said,

ذكرنا علي بن ابي طالب صلاة النبي (ص(

”'Ali reminded us of the Prophet's prayers.”(2)

It was very important to revive the Prophet (S) 's biography for Imam's reformational policies. The pure companions of Imam realized this fact as well.

'Ammar said about the constructie measures of Imam,

لو أن علياً لم يعمل عملاً ولم يصنع شيئاً الا أنه أحيا التكبيرتين عند السجود لكان قد أصاب بذلك فضلاً عظيماً '

‘Ali has done nothing but reviving two “Allah Akbar” when prostrating back, for this, he has achieved a high virtue.”(3)

Imam declared up on pulpit in the face of 'Umar's policy of not scribing hadith, “Those who are willing to put down knowledge, they can bring paper and pen”.

Harith A'war provided means of writing and wrote what Imam said.(4) Afterwards, Imam Hasan(a) also advised his offsprings to write the Prophet (S) 's hadith.(5) We know that Imam 'Ali himself wrote the Messenger's hadiths. After that, his hadith booklets were available to Ahl al-Bayt and they regularly narrated hadith for Shi'ite Muslims from ”'Ali's booklet”.(6)

As seen in time of caliph II, the story reciters alongside preventing from scription of hadith were permitted to narrate for people in the mosque about the Jewish sagas on former prophets and Christian priests. Imam stood against the development of story reciting and banned it while spreading hadith scription. Imam in principle opposed narration

p: 288

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 2, p. 180
2- Tarikh al-Kabir, Bukhari, vol. 4, p. 33; al-Ghadir, vol. 9, p. 66, vol. 10, p. 201
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 179; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. I, p. 204 (printed in India
4- Taqyid al-’Ilm, p. 90; Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. III, PP 226,294; Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 8, p. 357; al-Taratib al-Idariyya, vol. II,p. 259; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. 6, p. 116
5- Tarjamat al-Imam al-Hasan (a), Ibn Sa‘d, p. 156
6- concerning “ Kitab ‘Ali bi Imla’al-Nabi (S) ”,Ahmadi Miyaniji, the master, completed a detailed research about “Makatib al-rasul” and extracted some cases narrated by the Infallible Imams from ‘Ali’s booklet

of Jewish works.

He is quoted to say, “Whoever has a book from the antecedent, he shall ruin it”.

Imam stood against someone who had narrated story of Rev. David (a) with Awriya from Jewish sources and said, “If someone says it, he'll be executed Hadd, whipping”.(1)

It is known that Rev. David is attributed to murder by intention and adultery in this fake story. When he came to Basra, the story reciters were expelled out of mosque.(2) After him, Imam Hasan (a) was also hindered from story reciting.(3) Iman as-Sajjad (a) stopped Hasan Basri,once being a story reciter, reciting stories and he admitted to do so.(4)

Imam in one of his first speeches said, وإني حاملكم على منهج نبيكم صلي الله عليه وآله “ I will spread tradition of the Prophet (S) among you.”(5)

One of the reasons that caused Imam 'Ali, more than the other companions, to describe the personality and morality of the Messenger (S) in historical books, is that he himself followed the Prophet's manner. For the same reason, he kept in his mind all actions of the Prophet (S) from the very beginning and later he tried to delineate his personality most eloquently.(6)

Hasan Basri in response to someone who asked him of Imam said, أراهم السبيل وأقام لهم الدين اذا اعوجّ “He showed the way to people and straightened religion when it went astray.”(7)

This very well-considered statement made by Hasan exactly accorded with the policy Imam adopted during his caliphate.

Another poet, addressing Imam, composed this:

أوضحت من ديننا ما كان مشتبها

p: 289

1- Majma‘ al-Bayan, vol. 8, p. 472
2- Qut al-Qulub, vol. II, p. 302; Wasa’il Ash-Shi‘a, vol. II, p. 515; al-Tahdhib, vol. II, p. 486; al-Kafi, vol. II, p. 312; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. I, p. 312; Akhbar Isbahan, vol. I,p. 89
3- Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, pp 227-228
4- Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. I, p. 70 Concerning positions of other Imams, “Qissih khanan dar Tarikh Islam wa Iran”,pp 93 - 102, Qum, 1999
5- Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 7, p. 36
6- See one detailed example of that in, Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. I, pp 74-79 and the sources in there We mentioned other sources in the first vol.ume of the book under the topic of “ the historical role of the Messenger (S) ”
7- al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. 12, p. 36

جزاك ربك عنا فيه إحسانا

“What was skeptical is now clarified by you, may God grant thee virtues and benevolence.”(1)

Abu Dharr when describing Imam said, علي رز الدين ”'Ali strengthens religion.”(2)

Imam himself insisted on matching his conduct with that of the Messenger (S) 's. After Jamal war, he talked about his attitude towards Basrans, “I acted in treating Basrans as the Prophet did to Meccans.(3) Imam mentions resuscitation of tradition as one of the functions of “Imam”.(4) Elsewhere, he regards the best servant of God a just Imam who attempts to revive the tradition and the most evil-doing servant of God a cruel Imam who destroys it.”(5)

In general, Imam 'Ali seriously avoids the concept of innovation and says, in this regard, that a tradition fades away when an innovation emerges.(6)

Imam poses two points as his testament, stop blasphemizing and preserving tradition of the Prophet (S).(7)

He considers the saints those people who, يحيون سنن الله وسنن رسوله “ Revive traditions of God and His Messenger (S).”(8)

He says hypocrite dissidents are those who swim in the sea of sedition, use innovations and put aside traditions.(9)

Imam says people are divided in two groups,(10) متبع شرعة ومبتدع بدعة

These statements and the like in Nahj al-Balagha reveal Imam's strong mind in following tradition and avoiding the innovation. This position was adopted in front of those who created innovations at least in some cases and when they were objected, they said, “If they are innovations, they are good ones”.

Imam was not willing to cheat in

p: 290

1- Naqď,p. 496; Tuhaf al-’Uqul, pp 338-342; Musnad al-Imam al-Hadi, p. 207; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 38, p. 245
2- al-Fa’iq fi Gharib al-Hadith, vol. II, p. 108
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, ol II, p. 273
4- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 105
5- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 164
6- Ibid sermon 145
7- Ibid sermon 149
8- Ibid sermon 192
9- Ibid sermon 154
10- Ibid sermon 176

the field of religion and he said,

والله لا أدهنت في ديني “

I swear by God I never cheated in the field of religion.”(1)

Once a man of Banu Asad was brought to Imam for execution of whipping (retribution). Banu Asad asked Imam to dispense with his whipping.

Imam said, “Ask me to do something at my discretion.”

They came out while being contented.

Imam executed whipping for the man and said, “This was owned by God and I had no control over it.”(2)

Imam said about his role of guiding Umma, “O people! I gave you advice the prophets did to their Umma and I let out what the legatees spread out after themselves. I behaved you with the lash of “preaching”, but you rejected and I called you with the speech to bar you from disobeying, yet you failed to do so. By God! Do you expect an Imam but me to join you in the straight path?”(3)

Also, he said of himself, “Verily I look like a lamp in the dark among you; one who steps in the dark, he shall use light of that lamp.”(4)

Anyway, Imam insisted on exact compliance with the Prophet (S) 's tradition such that he even tried to act like the Prophet (S) in his actions.

When Imam objected why he serves people in the mosque with good food but he himself eats wheat germ with bread at home, he weepingly replied, “I swear by God I had never seen bread without wheat germ in the Prophet

p: 291

1- Nahj As-Sa‘ada, vol. II, p. 537
2- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. I, p. 530
3- Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 182
4- Ibid sermon 187

(S) 's home.(1) What Imam said meant that he attempted to have his food like that of the Prophet (S) 's.

Imam in the Face of Infidels (Jamal War)

Only several months after Imam came to power in 36H., the first civil war happened in Jumadi al-Thani of that year among Muslims instigated by a group of promise-breachers led by Talha, Zubayr and 'Ayisha. To further clarify the historical background of this bitter event, it is to review the political lines of then Medina.

It was mentioned in the post-demise of the Messenger (S) that there had been two tendencies of the Umayyads and the Hashimites none of which could attain caliphate after Imam, The Umayyads due to being long-standingly anti-Islam and the Hashimites because of Quraysh's envy and problems they had with Imam 'Ali.

The middle faction of Quraysh, that is Abu Bakr and 'Umar, came to power leading to this group being set aside. No matter what happened during these two men, a suitable ground was prepared for 'Uthman, one of the Umayyads, among all Quraysh.

As said in the section relating to selection of 'Uthman, he was so popular among Quraysh people. When 'Uthman dealt with just the Umayyads around Quraysh, the middle line once again was capricious of caliphate. Among them, Talha, a fellow-tribe of Abu Bakr of Banu Taym, wanted to attain caliphate with the support of 'Ayisha. Zubayr also helped him for a while and he himself was eager to grab caliphate.

When Jamal war was waged, Ibn 'Abbas said to Zubayr, ”'Ayisha wants the government

p: 292

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 187

for Talha, what are you doing here?”(1)

This middle line failed to find an opportunity in Medina and observed that 'Ali of the Hashimites, after abdication of the Umayyads, assumed power. Now what had to be done?

It first approved of the new government assuming that it can play a major role in the new government. Talha and Zubayr suggested to rule over Basra, Kufa or Damascus. Imam smartly said that they were more needed in Medina.(2)

This aim was not fulfilled and Talha and Zubayr, leaders of the middle line, departed to Mecca to do the lesser pilgrimage and there they could talk to 'Ayisha, gone to Mecca before the death of 'Uthman and was still there.

Up to now there are three political lines. The Hashimites, the Umayyads, and the middle line of Quraysh that long time after appeared as “Abna' al-Muhajirun” in rebelling against 'Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr. Jamal movement crystallized showdown of Quraysh's middle line knowing itself follower of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.

Talha and Zubayr could satisfy 'Ayisha to join them and this was the greatest breakthrough for them. 'Ayisha both had familial relationship with Talha and showed mercy on her nephew. In this trip, 'Abd Allah played a major role in accompanying 'Ayisha. They could absorb three thousand people and move up to Basra.

The infidels made excuse for three reasons. First, 'Uthman was oppressedly murdered. This was posed while Talha, Zubayr and 'Ayisha were among those who mostly contributed to rebellion resulting in 'Uthman's murder. They

p: 293

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 252(footnote)of, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 28, p. 67; Tahdhib Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 5, p. 364
2- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 429; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 218

recklessly said that they had repented and now they were ready to make up for what they have done by seeking revenge for oppressed caliph!

Certainly, this was raised for stupefied Muslims who were unaware of the real story. Another point was that they were forced to swear allegiance in Medina; therefore, the allegiance is improper and Imam's government is illegitimate at least to them as they are not committed to obey caliph because of the forcible allegiance according to what they said. The solution they brought up was that everything should be resolved in a way raised in the end of 'Umar's lifetime, that is “Shura”.

When 'Ayisha asked Talha and Zubayr of her duty, she was told, “Go and tell the people that 'Uthman was oppressedly killed and the affairs have to go back to council of Muslims meaning the situation created by 'Umar.”(1)

The council in which Talha and Zubayr took part raised a hope for their caliphate. This council caused Talha, Zubayr and Waqqas to imagine that they are fully illegible for caliphate. Zubayr in the midst of Jamal war told Imam 'Ali that he was not more illegible for caliphate than them.(2)

The Umayyads residing in Hijaz rushed to help this group opportunistically. Marwan Ibn Hakam, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amir,'Abd al-Rahman Ibn 'Attab Ibn Abi l-'As and Sa'id Ibn 'As were among those who instigated people. A little while after, Sa'id Ibn 'As and Mughira Ibn Shu'ba, initially one of the defenders, abdicated.(3)

The Umayyads's assistance, at this time,

p: 294

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 223 Major source on Jamal war is the book of “al-Jamal” by Sheykh Mufid who has prepared it out of tens of sources accessible to him in that time We have used this book as well as others previously written
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 255
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 222-223; Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. 5, p. 34

was just because of opportunism and for believing in what Talha and Zubayr said. We know that Marwan at the end of Jamal war spear-killed Talha in revenge for 'Uthman.

More contemplation has to be made about 'Ayisha, wife of the Prophet (S). 'Ayisha had a high status during her father's rule and 'Umar's, her father's friend. 'Umar gave her share more than the other wives of the Messenger (S) and this wasn't because she played a leading role in changes of his caliphate.(1) 'Ayisha is said to have owed a lot to 'Umar.(2)

'Ayisha said, “During mourning service of 'Umar, she heard jinns(3) elegizing for him. Even in her sleep, she dreamed as if 'Umar were endowed with prophethood.”(4)

By taking advantage of her talent in narrating hadith and credited with being the Prophet (S) 's wife, she maintained this to the end, although she and Mu'awiya could not get along well. 'Ayisha, during these years, tried to recognize herself as the dearest wife of the Messenger (S) leaving behind an acceptable image of herself and her father. She said she was six or seven when engaged and nine when married.(5)

Despite the news that the Prophet (S) at times excused her from Abu Bakr,(6) she said, “Her marriage to the Prophet (S) ordained from God.(7) This is while we know that Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, was the only wife of the Prophet (S) who was so proud of that.(8)

In the later times of 'Uthman's caliphate, 'Ayisha challenged him hard. Having been

p: 295

1- As earlier said, when Abu Bakr said prayers, just one, instead of the Prophet (S), according to Imam ‘Ali, ‘Ayisha was the one who, from inside of home, introduced Abu Bakr
2- Hayat As-Sahaba, vol. II, p. 300
3- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. III, p. 274
4- Tarikh al-Madinat al-Munawwara, vol. III, p. 942
5- Concerning different statements and what she herself said in contradiction to this idea, Hadith al-Ifk, from p. 158 on
6- Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. 8, p. 81
7- Ibid, vol. 8, p. 68
8- Ibid, vol. 8, p. 103

influenced by anti-'Uthman opposition as well as her own criticisms, she stood against him.

Unlike other wives of the Prophet (S), 'Ayisha primarily became involved in politics and naturally had a political personality. She could not remain silent in front of a wave of anti-'Uthman rebellion. The considerable point is that what compelled her to engage in such a venturous political action in spite of a lot of problems she faced?

To us, as far as her disagreement with Imam was concerned, the only incentive she had to take part in this was the vengeance she exerted against the Hashimites, Fatima and 'Ali within the years of the Prophet (S) 's lifetime. Sheykh Mufid has mentioned a few examples of 'Ayisha's grudge.(1) Otherwise, we know that she wasn't the most conscious people to be concerned with 'Ali's exoneration from 'Uthman's murder.(2)

In addition, she wasn't interested in reversion of caliphate to Banu Taym. When anti-'Uthman opposition peaked, 'Ayisha had gone to Mecca for the Hajj. There, she heard that 'Uthman wasn't murdered and Talha succeeded him. She became happy and went up to Medina to reach Saraf. She wasn't told there people have sworn allegiance to 'Ali.

Hearing this news, she returned to Mecca and cried out, “O the oppressed 'Uthman.”(3)

When 'Ayisha heard that people swore allegiance to 'Ali, she said, “One night of 'Uthman equals the entire lifetime of 'Ali.”(4)

After Imam wasn't martyred, 'Ayisha named the child brought to her ”'Abd al-Rahman!”(5)

After Jamal war came to a defeat, 'Ayisha said to

p: 296

1- al-Jamal, pp 157-160
2- See the section on “‘Uthman’s Opponents”
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 217-218; vol. 5, p. 91; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah of Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 6, p. 215
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 5, p. 91
5- al-Jamal, p. 160 and in the footnote from,Ash-Shafi,vol. 4, p. 356; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 32, p. 341

Ibn 'Abbas, “No town I'm more angry at than the one where you, the Hashimites, live in.”(1)

'Ayisha also said when informing about the Prophet (S) 's arrival in ending days of his life, “Two people helped him by his arms. One of them wasn't Qutham Ibn 'Abbas and there wasn't another man!” According to narrator, by another man she meant 'Ali.(2) Of course, she sometimes confessed that the dearest man to the Prophet (S) was 'Ali and the dearest woman was Fatima. When she was questioned why she did so, she said with a brown face, “It was something done!”(3)

'Ali himself mentions the reasons why she exerted vengeance against him:

First, the Messenger (S) had preferred him than her father in different cases.

Second, there wasn't brotherhood between Imam and the Prophet (S) and so 'Umar wasn't selected for Abu Bakr.

Third, keeping doors of companions' houses closed into the mosque and leaving Imam's house door open to it.

Fourth, when Abu Bakr failed to do anything the day before, banner of triumph wasn't handed to Imam in Khaybar war.

Fifth, there wasn't the story of declaring the exoneration for which the Prophet (S) firstly dispatched Abu Bakr, but he wasn't brought back as ordered by God and Imam took charge of it.

Sixth, it wasn't 'Ayisha's grudge against Khadija whose daughter, Fatima, also had experienced that.

Seventh, there wasn't popularity of Imam towards the Prophet (S) in such a way that once 'Ali came up to the Prophet and he

p: 297

1- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 337; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. 4, p. 21
2- Musnad Ahmad, vol. 6, pp 34, 38
3- Rabi‘ al-Abrar, vol. I, p. 821

wasn't given a seat next to him.

The Prophet (S) praised him in response to 'Ayisha's objection. This greatly raised her vengeance against Imam.(1) Sheykh Mufid in his ending part of his book “al-Jamal” details another chapter on why 'Ayisha rendered grudge against Imam.(2)

Later on, when Imam Hasan (a) was to be buried near the Prophet (S), she opposed and said, “Why do you want to bury in my house someone whom I dislike?”(3)

Ahmad Amin explains about the reasons why 'Ayisha exerted vengeance against Fatima(a).(4)

Talha and Zubayr came to Mecca and well learned that they couldn’t do anything without 'Ayisha.(5)

They said to her, “If Basrans meet you, they will be united with you.”(6)

Imam said about 'Ayisha, “She is most obeyed among people.”(7)

Through various talks, 'Ayisha was convinced to join them to Basra. It was not so easy to go because she had to, in the first place, respond to her blatant disagreement on this Qur'anic verse that obligates the Prophet (S) 's wives to stay in their homes, وقرن في بيوتكن.

This verse clearly bans the Prophet (S) 's wives from leaving their homes meaning their participation in political struggles. As said that 'Umar even was doubtful about their going on the Hajj and he only once permitted them to do this by setting a lot of restrictions. Some wives such as Suda and Zaynab were not willing to go on pilgrimage for the same reason.(8)

Umm Salama tried hard to stop 'Ayisha going. Interesting to know is that 'Ayisha had

p: 298

1- al-Jamal, pp 409-412
2- Ibid, pp 425-434
3- Ibid, p. 438
4- Zahr al-Islam, vol. 4, pp 38-39
5- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 451
6- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 144
7- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 238
8- al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, vol. 24, p. 34

asked her to join them to Basra. She said to Umm Salama quoting from 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amir, “One hundred thousand swords are ready in Basra. Have you come to fix this?

In revenge for 'Uthman!, Said Umm Salama, were you not the hardest against him? Were you not the one who called him “Na'thal”, the old stupid man?

Umm Salama described a few virtues of Imam 'Ali and asked him not to oppose someone to whom Muhajir and Ansar have sworn allegiance.

She referred to this speech of the Prophet (S), عليّ ولي كل مؤمن ومؤمنة.

'Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr standing at the door said, “We haven't heard the Prophet say such a thing”.

But your aunt, said Umm Salama, has heard that and this speech of the Prophet who said, علي خليفتي عليكم في حياتي ومماتي. 'Ayisha confirmed that she has heard such a thing(1).

'Ayisha spoke of her action taken for the improvement of Muslims' affairs! She attempted to absorb Hafsa.

He has the same idea, Hafsa said, as 'Ayisha's. In this way, he decided to go to Basra but 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar stopped him helping Jamal companions.(2)

Umm Salama, one of Ahl al-Bayt enthusiasts, wrote to Imam telling about the action of rebels, “By God if the Prophet (S) 's wives had not been banned leaving their homes, I would have come with you. Now I let the most beloved of my loved ones, that is my son, 'Umar Ibn Abi Salama, come with you.”(3)

Umm Salama began to publicize Imam 'Ali among Meccans

p: 299

1- al-Futuh, vol. II, PP 282-283
2- Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 451; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 284
3- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 284

and said to them, “I call you to seek after divine piety and in this time I know no one better than 'Ali.”(1)

When Maymuna, another wife the Prophet (S), heard about Talha and Zubayr's rebellion, she told the bearer of the news, “Join 'Ali because he has never gone astray and nobody has been let astray by him”. She repeated this three times(2).

Umm Faďl, daughter of Harith, in a letter by a courier to Imam, told him about the readiness of rebels.(3)

Medina was already in control of the Hashimites and the rebels could not return. Damascus was also under the yoke of Mu'awiya and it was obvious that they would not benefit from going to Damascus.(4)

Because Mu'awiya is obeyed there and they will become only his plaything. On the other hand, they had the common aim with Mu'awiya and that was they had to prevent from Imam's caliphate. Now that Damascus is in the hands of Mu'awiya, Iraq must be decontrolled by Imam. People like 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Amir, who was after rule of Basra, insisted more on that.

Walid Ibn 'Uqba is said to have stopped them from going to Damascus since Mu'awiya was not ready to help 'Uthman, then how could he leave everything to a guess?(5) Mu'awiya also faild to take any interest in their coming to Damascus, so he falsely wrote to Zubayr that he has secured allegiance of Damascus people.

He asked Zubayr to seize Iraq, Damascus will be ready for him. In that

p: 300

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 224
2- al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, vol. 24, p. 10; Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 9, p. 135
3- al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 286
4- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 221
5- al-Futuh, vol. II, pp 279-280

case, there remains nothing for 'Ali. These talks led to their moving on to Basra hoping that friends of Talha and Zubayr in Basra and Kufa (1) to assist them. Ya'la Ibn Umayya arriving with a lot of property from Yemen, gave them all to rebels and they mobilized a group and mounted them on Ya'la Ibn Umayya's horses and moved up to Basra.

Referring to the fact that she is Umm al-Mu'minin and a rightful mother of Muslims, 'Ayisha tried to attract people towards the rebels.(2)

When the rebels came to Basra, Ka'b Ibn Sur, leader of Azd tribe, intended to abdicate. 'Ayisha came up to him and invited him. He initially insisting on his abdication said that he could not help but fulfilling what his mother said.(3) Anyway, 'Ayisha's name was very effective in attracting the people.

Later, Talha in his speech in Basra said, “God has brought 'Ayisha to you. You know that how dignified she was in front of the Prophet (S) and what status she had in Islam.”

Basrans just for the sake of 'Ayisha declared they would defend the rebels.(4)

When fighting began, Talha said, “O people! 'Ali has come to shed the blood of Muslims. Tell not that he is the Messenger's cousin. Someone who is with you is wife of the Prophet and trustworthy Abu Bakr's daughter, she is the one whose father was the most beloved to the Prophet.”(5)

On the day of attack, one of Basran companions of rebels said in a piece of poetry:


p: 301

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 221-222
2- Nathr ad-Durr, vol. 4, p. 15-16
3- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 144; al-Jamal, p. 322
4- al-Jamal, p. 304
5- al-Jamal, p. 329

نوالي أمّنا الرضية وننصر الصّحابة المرضية

“We hold sainthood of our contented mother and help Companions pleased by God.” (1)

In Basra, 'Abd Allah Ibn Hukaym Tamimi, brought to Basrans the letters Talha wrote to them and used them against 'Uthman and said to him, “Do you know these letters?”

Talha said, “Yes, but I knew repentance and revenging for 'Uthman the only way to compensate!”(2)

Jamal troops moved on. In midway, in Huw'ab region, 'Ayisha heard dogs barking. She all of a sudden recalled a report from the Prophet (S) that he kept away his wives from a sedition trap when hearing barking of the dogs on the way. 'Ayisha became determined to go back but 'Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr brought to her fifty people of Banu 'Amir to testify that the region was not called Huw'ab.(3)

'Uthman Ibn Hunayf was ruler of Basra on behalf of Imam (a). He dispatched Abu al-Aswad Du'ali and 'Imran Ibn Husayn to Jamal rebels near Basra. They asked Jamal companions why they had gone there.

They replied, “We have come in revenge for 'Uthman and that the caliphate be left to Shura.”

'Uthman Ibn Hunayf ordered the people to bear arms. The rebels came to Basra reaching Mirbad region and in there Talha first spoke of the oppressedness of 'Uthman.

He said, “People have sworn allegiance to 'Ali only by force.” He further said that now he must abdicate the resign from caliphate and selection of caliph in Shura be the same tradition of 'Umar Ibn Khattab.(4)

Zubayr and after

p: 302

1- Ibid p. 345
2- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 229-230; al-Jamal, p. 305
3- al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, vol. 11, p. 365; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 224; al-Mustadrak, vol. III, p. 120; al-Isti‘ab, vol. 4, p. 361; (Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says, “This hadith is among the reasons of the Prophet’s prophethood and it is more correctly documented requiring no discussion ”) Futuh al-Buldan, p. 549; al-Futuh, vol. II, p. 288; Nathr ad-Durr, vol. II, p. 227; Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 7, p. 234
4- al-Jamal, p. 306

him 'Ayisha made speech. Some people acknowledged him and some others shouted that he is telling lies. At this time the crowd parted in two and attacked each other with shoes. This resulted in an armed figting.(1)

One of the opponents, of 'Abd al-Qays great men, cried out, “These people were the harshest against 'Uthman. After that they swore allegiance to 'Ali and we were told about that and we too did so.”

Talha ordered to catch him and shaed his head and face.(2) According to Ibn Khayyat, some of the people sheld them with stones when arriving in Basra.(3)

At any rate, after relatively controlling Basra, they signed a contract with Ibn Hunayf saying that they wait for Imam 'Ali to come provided the royal residence, public property and mosque remain in the hands of 'Uthman Ibn Hunayf.

Despite the contract being signed, the rebels breached the contract fearing that Imam might come and they could not stand against him, so they nightly marched into the mosque and arrested 'Uthman Ibn Hunayf while he was up at doing the night prayer. They shaved his head and face and overlooked killing him(4), instead expelled him out of the city merely because they feared his brother Sahl Ibn Hunayf whom Imam had placed instead of himself. Observing him in this condition, Imam began to cry.(5)

The rebels looted the public property after killing about fifty people(6) as well as its watch-outs.

When Talha and Zubayr saw the public property, they said, هذا ما وعدنا الله ورسوله!.(7)


p: 303

1- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 226-227
2- al-Jamal, p. 307
3- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 182
4- al-Jamal, p. 284
5- Ibid p. 285
6- al-Ma‘arif, p. 208
7- al-Jamal, p. 401

to a narration, Talha at the very beginning of his arrival in Basra, asked about dhms that had been promised to him.(1)

With the relative control of rebels over Basra, there emerged a disagreement between Talha and Zubayr over saying the prayers. This conflict temporarily came to an end with a compromise over their saying the prayers each on a day. At this time, Hukaym Ibn Jabala, commander of 'Uthman Ibn Hunayf-led forces, began to fight with the rebels with several hundred people. This fighting led to his martyrdom and his three brothers.(2)

From Basra, 'Ayisha wrote letters to people of Medina and Yamama and called them to support Jamal rebels.

In her letter to people of Yamama, she wrote, “The deviated 'Uthman Ibn Hunayf calls people on the way to hell while we call people to the Book of God.”

She had written this letter before Imam's arrival to justify the crimes of rebels in Basra event.(3) She also wrote to Medinans telling them about the victory of rebels in Basra. The letter dated Rabi' al-Awwal 5th, 36 H.(4)

When Imam (a) heard about the departure of rebels, he substituted Sahl Ibn Hunayf in place of himself and quickly moved to Iraq accompanied by a large number of the Prophet's companions and some other Medinans who are reportedly considered to be four thousand people.(5) According to Sa'id Ibn Jubayr, eight hundred people of Ansar and four hundred of those who attended the Riďwan allegiance, joined Imam (a) in Jamal.(6)

When Imam sent Hashim Ibn 'Utba

p: 304

1- al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. 15, p. 283
2- al-Jamal, pp 283-284
3- al-Jamal, pp 301-302
4- Ibid pp 299-300
5- Tarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyat, p. 184
6- loc cit

Ibn Abi Waqqas from Rabaďa to tell Abu Musa to mobilize people to join Imam. Abu Musa disagreed on Kufiyans support from Imam. By saying that this is a sedition and being absent in sedition is better than attending it(1), he did not allow people to rush to support Imam (a).

In addition, he threatened Hashim as well. Hashim came up to Imam and Imam sent 'Abd Allah and Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr to mobilize people in Kufa, but they failed to do so. This time, Imam sent his son, Imam Hasan (a) along with 'Ammar to Kufa. Besides, he deposed Abu Musa and posed Qaraza Ibn Ka'b Ansari over Kufa.

The enthusiastic speech of Imam Hasan (a) caused nine thousand six hundred and fifty people of Kufa to join Imam's troops.(2) Hujr Ibn 'Adi, of Kufa pure and virtuous men called people to support Imam. Afterwards, people were set to back their Imam up under any circumstances.(3)

Imam Hasan (a) appearing as the Prophet's descendant played a key role in inciting Kufiyans. Similarly, 'Ammar, once ruller of Kufa, was known after piety and people recognized him as a criterion of credal error and gospel truth based on the narration, (4) الحق مع عمّار يدور معه حيث دار

Kufiyan troops joined Imam in Dhi Qar and moved towards Basra.

Basran tribes were subdivided in three groups. One group including Rabi'a joined Imam. Another group such as Banu Dhabba joined 'Ayisha and the other one such as Ahnaf Ibn Qays, of Banu Tamim leaders, resigned

p: 305

1- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 145
2- Ibid p. 145; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 234-235
3- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 145
4- Dinwari (Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 147) says, “when Zubayr heard that ‘Ammar is with Imam ‘Ali, he remained doubtful due to hadith of «الحق مع عمار» and hadith «تقتلك الفئة الباغية » This statement seems incorrect thanks to Zubayr’s spoiled soul ‘Ammar was from the very beginning with Imam, how has Zubayr not thought of this so far?”

from the war.(1)

Abdication of a large number of tribes showed that it is very difficult for many to make decisions. Some of the tribes appearing in the two sides brought about to some extent tribal disputes.

Talha in his speech in time of war said, “Some of the Muďari hypocrite dissidents, Rabi'a Christians and Yemeni foot soldiers helped Imam 'Ali (a).

His speech raised objection of those who had come to war imagining defense of cause of rebels and this made them resign.(2)

Many people deemed rebellion right merely because it was led by Talha, Zubayr and 'Ayisha.

Harith Ibn Hut told Imam, “Do you think that Talha, Zubayr and 'Ayisha are unrightful?”

Imam replied,(3) اعرف الحق تعرف اهله، واعرف الباطل تعرف اهله

Apart from ten thousand Kufiyans with two thousand people from 'Abd al-Qays and twelve thousand people comprising Imam's troops,a large number of Basran tribes in addition to a great multitude of Medinans among whom there were scores of the Prophet (S) 's companions, accompanied Imam.(4)

Imam 'Ali by no means was willing to wage this war. Hence, three days after arrival in Basra, by sending frequent massages, he asked the rebels to join back to “congregation” and “obedience”. But he received no positive response from them.(5)

Imam sent Sa'sa'a Ibn Suhan with a letter to Basra. He spoke with Talha and Zubayr but when he talked to 'Ayisha, he felt that she intended to raise wrong doing more than the other two. After Imam's return, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Abbas was sent to Basra.

He said

p: 306

1- Concerning the tribes and their positions, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 237
2- al-Jamal, p. 330
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 239,274
4- About the attendance of the Prophet’s companions, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 267-269 (footnote).
5- Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 147

to Talha, “Haven't you sworn allegiance?”

Talha said, “I was forced by sword to do so.”

Ibn 'Abbas said, “I myself observed that you voluntarily swore an allegiance.”

Talha spoke about 'Uthman's blood.

Ibn 'Abbas said, “Was it not true that 'Uthman drank water from his own house well for ten days? and you did not let him drink fresh water. Then 'Ali came to you asking you to let him drink water.”

After that, Ibn 'Abbas talked to 'Ayisha and Talha.

'Ayisha was so confident about her victory that she did not show any flexibility.

Ibn 'Abbas attempted by making sound reasoning to warn them of the danger waiting for them, yet they failed to accept it.(1)

However, Imam insisted that war not take place. He stopped his companions launching the war and officially announced that no one has the right to launch war.(2) Even on the day of war, before noon, Imam (a) handed a Qur'an to Ibn 'Abbas to go to Talha and Zubayr and talk to them while calling them to Qur'an.

Ibn 'Abbas talked to Talha and Zubayr but 'Ayisha even did not permit them to talk and said, “Go and tell your lord that sword will rule between us.”

Ibn 'Abbas says, “I was not very far from them when they showered us with their spears.”(3)

On the morning of Jumadi al-Awwal 10th (4), Imam's division was prepared. Khurayba was the region of fighting where existed before Basra and later it became a place of Basra. That day up to noon, Imam resisted against the

p: 307

1- al-Jamal, pp 314-318
2- Waq‘at al-Jamal, p. 36
3- al-Jamal, pp 336-339
4- Ibid p. 336; According to Baladhuri, war happened on Jumadi al-Thani 10th Ansab al-Ashraf, p. 238; Imam’s letter to Kufiyans telling about the triumph over Jamal companions is dated Jumadi al-Awwal al-Jamal, p. 399

rebellion troops and advised them.

Imam (a) said to 'Ayisha, “God ordered you to stay at home, fear God and go back.”

Imam scolded Talha and Zubayr for bringing 'Ayisha. Malik was placed commander of the right wing, 'Ammar Yasir as the commander of the left wing, Nu'man Ibn Rib'i Ansari, according to some sources, Jundab Ibn Zuhayr Azdi was placed over the infantry and the banner was given to Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya Khariba.

Imam (a) with his fiery speech prepared the troops for battling the enemy.(1)

On the other side, 'Ayisha rode on camel-litter covered with armor. She appeared in the battlefield and made speech regularly talking about the oppressedness of 'Uthman.

Imam primarily handed a Qur'an to one of the 'Abd al-Qays people to go to the battlefield calling the rebels to Qur'an and warning them of disunity. The rebels speared him martyred. Mother of this young man present there jumped herself over her son. The companions helped bring his body to Imam.(2)

Imam (a) who, until that time, had ordered his troops not to launch the war by observing martyrdom of that man commanded Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya to attack the enemy.(3) Fighting kept on from noon to night. It was most intense around 'Ayisha's camel and as said over seventy hands were amputated wanting to reach her camel's reins. 'Ayisha picked a handful of soil and tried to stupify people and did just as the Prophet (S) had done. She spattered the soil towards Imam's troops and said, “Woe betide you!”

Imam said to

p: 308

1- al-Jamal, p. 334
2- al-Jamal, pp 339-340; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. 7, p. 537; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 241
3- Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, pp 240-241

her, وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ رَمَى. “One who speared was not thee but the devil.” (1)

When rebelling troops were defeated, Marwan Ibn Hakam knowing that the murderer of 'Uthman is nobody but Talha, speared him killed.(2)

Interestingly, Ibn Khayyat says, “Once the war was begun, the first one killed was Talha.(3) This shows that Marwan mainly has come to war to kill Talha. Later on, he felt proud of this such that he himself told the story to Iman as-Sajjad (a).(4)

It has been said that Imam (a) called Talha in a battlefield and said to him, “Go Abu Muhammad! Do you remember what the Prophet said about me?” اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه “ O Allah! Love his friends and loathe his enemies.” Talha replied, “I ask the repentance from God! If I had remembered that, I would have never risen up.(5)

Zubayr stayed with the troops to the insistence of his son, 'Abd Allah and did not leave the battlefield even with the Imam's speech. In one case, Imam (a) remembered what the Prophet had said, “Your aunt's son, that is Zubayr, will rebel against you.”

Zubayr acknowledged the report.