The Life of Imam Al-Hassan Al-Mujtaba

Chapter VII: At the Time of Uthman

Part 1

We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.[1] Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (a.s), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands. When the battle ended, al-Hasan (a.s) headed for the capital of his grandfather (a.s). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them.[2] Because of his blessing, Allah made them conquer it and made the standard of Islam flutter over it. For the public interest and serving the religion, which are the best of all the other considerations, Imam al-Hasan (a.s) entered the fields of jihad and struggle, and paid no attention to displeasure he had hidden in his soul due to losing his father’s right (of

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ibn Khaldun, al-‘Ibar, vol. 2, pp. 128-129. It has been mentioned in it: “Uthman sent an army to conquer Africa in the year 25 A. H. The commanders of the army were Abdullah bin Nafi‘ and Aqaba bin Nafi‘ bin ‘Abd al-Qays. The army went to Africa. Its number was ten thousand (fighters). When the army arrived in it, it was unable to conquer it. So it made peace with its inhabitants provided that they should pay money. Then Abdullah bin Abi Sarh, Uthman’s foster brother, asked Uthman to conquer Africa and to supply him with an army. So Uthman consulted the companions (of the Prophet), and most of them encouraged him to do that. As a result Uthman supplied him with an army from Medina. Among the army were Ibn Abbas, Ibn al-Aas, Ibn Ja‘far, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They headed for Africa and conquered it in the year 26 A. H. The author of al-Futuhat al-Islamiya has not mentioned that al-Hasan and al-Husayn joined the army.

[2] Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk, vol. 5, pp. 57-58. Al-‘Ibar, vol. 2, p. 134. Al-Futuhat al-Islamiya, vol. 1, p. 175. In all these books it has been mentioned: “Sa‘eed bin al-‘Aas conquered Tabaristan in the year 30 A. H. Al-Asbahad made peace with Suwayd bin Miqren provided that he should give him money during the days of Umar bin al-Khattab. When Uthman became a caliph, he prepared an army and sent it towards them. Sa‘eed bin al-‘Aas was the commander of the army. Al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Abdullah bin Abbas, and the like joined the army. When they arrived in it, they conquered it.” In his book Muhadharat al-Arba‘a, al-Raghib al-Asfahani has said: “Al-Asbaheed is the owner of the mountain (sahib al-jabal); and it is the correctness, not al-Asbahad.”

authority). This is a wonderful lesson the political parties standing in the country must use to refrain from party fanaticism and to take care of the interests of the country and society.

Uthman ruled the country for some years, but his policy was very far from the Sunna of Allah’s Apostle (a.s); likewise, it was very far from the sunna of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar). Moreover it was very far away from the essence of that time, for it did not agree with the religious and social sides; for this reason it failed and was deserted. The reason for that is that the Caliph Uthman was unable to manage the affairs of the community and the government. He had a weak willpower in all his acts. Emerson is truthful when he says: “Most surely, willpower is the secret of success, and the success is the goal of existence. That is because willpower has immortalized the names of Napoleon, Krant, Alexander, and the like from among the men of history. Many men of history are famous for bravery, experience, and cleverness, but their desertion resulted from their hesitation and their weak willpower. It is impossible for us to enter the battle of life and hope for victory without having a willpower.”[1]

Willpower has a perfect effect on forming person and his immortality in life. It is impossible for the weak, helpless person to achieve any goal for the community or to build its entity. Islam has taken great care of removing the weak-willed person from leading the community and preventing him from practicing the government. For such a person subjects the country to dangers, brings about to it hardships and misfortunes, takes away the prestige and morale of the government, encourages those powerful to mutiny against him and to disobey him.

Most surely, Uthman had no willpower to a far extent. He had no power to face the events, nor had he an ability to overcome them. As a result he entrusted the affairs of the government to Marwan, and he acted freely. On the authority of his Sheikhs, Ibn Abi al-Haddeed has narrated that the real caliph was Marwan, and that Uthman had nothing except the name of the caliph.

Anyway, it is necessary for us to explain Uthman’s story and to understand its reality, for there is a close connection between it and our research. Some historians claim that Imam al-Hasan (a.s) was Uthmani in inclination, defended him on the day of the house, showed severe sadness for him after his murder, and criticized his father because he did not help and protect him.

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Emerson, Willpower.

Dr. Taha Husayn has inclined to this viewpoint and sent it to readers as an axiomatic without pondering on it. We cannot understand the reality of this viewpoint unless we come to know Uthman’s policy and behavior. It, and nothing else, will show us the falsehood of these affairs and their disagreement with the reality of Imam al-Hasan (a.s) who carried the guidance of his grandfather, Allah’s Apostle (a.s).

Before we speak about Uthman’s policy, we would like to explain that we, in many of our researches, do no agree with Dr. Taha Husayn, for he tried to justify Uthman’s actions and deem him far above the accusations fastened on him through some ways far and void of scientific research. In the introduction to his research, he has disowned all kinds of inclination and tribal fanaticism. He has indicated that he is not a follower of Uthman, nor is he a follower of Ali; rather, through his researches he tries to be loyal to reality as far as possible.[1] However, he has not conformed to his promise. He has set out to cling to some weak ways in order to correct the mistakes of Uthman’s policy, which, throughout its stages, did not keep abreast with Allah’s Book, the Sunna of His Prophet, and the Sunna of the two Sheikhs. Accordingly, the good and righteous Muslims bore a grudge against him, and the Muslim regions revolted against him. The Muslim masses surrounded him. They demanded him to be moderate in his policy and follow the clear, white way. However, he did not respond to them, so they killed him. The community was unhappy during the period of his government and was liable to a trial after his death.

It is incumbent on us to ponder on these events carefully and honestly and to explain their results, for there is a close connection between them and our religious life. We have no right to find an excuse to any person when his practices oppose the Islamic teachings, principles, and precepts. We mention to readers some of the criticisms facing Uthman’s policy:

His Pardoning Ubaydillah

Uthman received the caliphate with pardoning Ubaydillah bin Umar, who took vengeance on those who killed his father. For no reason, he killed al-Hurmuzan, Jufayna, and the daughter of Abu Lu’lu’a. He intended to kill all the captives in Medina. However, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas went to him, said soft words to him, overcame him, and took the sword from him. Ubaydillah was thrown into prison until Uthman decided his case. When Uthman became a caliph, he went up on the pulpit and told the Muslims about Ubaydillah’s

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Dr. Taha Husayn, al-Fitnatu al-Kubra, vol. 1, 5.

case. He said to them: “It was a decree of Allah that Ubaydillah bin Umar killed al-Hurmuzan. Al-Hurmuzan is among the Muslims. He has no inheritor except the Muslims in general. I am your Imam. I have pardoned him; therefore, will you pardon him?”

Some people expressed their satisfaction and acknowledged the pardon. However Imam Ali (a.s) criticized Uthman and was dissatisfied with his decision. He said to him: “Punish the sinner (Ubaydillah bin Umar), for he has committed a great crime! He has killed a Muslim for no reason!”

The Imam said to Ubaydillah: “O Sinner, if I won a victory over you, I would kill you for al-Hurmuzan.”[1]

Al-Miqdad bin Umar said to Uthman: “Most surely al-Hurmuzan is a follower of Allah and His Apostle, so you have no right to grant that which belongs to Allah and his Apostle!”[2]

The honest, righteous Muslims were not satisfied with such a kind of pardon. They regarded it as a kind of aggression against Islam and a violation to its bounds. Accordingly, when Ziyad bin Labeed met Ubaydillah, he said to him:

O Ubaydillah, neither escape nor refuge nor guard will protect you from Ibn Arwa.

You have shed blood unlawfully. The murder of al-Hurmuzan has a danger.

For nothing (you have killed him). However a sayer has said: “Have you accused al-Hurmuzan (of killing) Umar?” So a fool has said, and the events are numerous. Yes I accuse him (of that). He has advised and commanded.

The slave’s weapon was inside his house, and the affair is considered through an affair.

Ubaydillah complained to Uthman of Ziyad. So Uthman summoned Ziyad and prevented him from that. However, he did not refrain from that; rather, he went on criticizing Uthman, saying:

O Abu Amr, Ubaydillah is hostage to the murder of al-Hurmuzan; therefore, you must have no doubt (about that).

For you have pardoned him; the reasons for the mistake are two racehorses. You have no right to pardon.

Uthman became angry with Ziyad and rebuked him until he refrained from criticizing him.[3] He commanded Ubaydillah to leave Medina for Kufa. He

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Al-Baladhiri, al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 24.

[2] Al-Ya‘qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 141.

[3] Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 41.

gave him a house there. The place was ascribed to Ubaydillah and was given the name of Kuwayfa bin Umar. Al-Tabari has narrated: “Uthman consulted the companions (of the Prophet) in respect of the affair of Ubaydillah, and they advised him to pardon him. They said to him: ‘Umar was killed yesterday; and his son is killed today?’ Some of them advised him to kill him. Among them was Imam Ali (a.s). However Amr bin al-Aas said to him: ‘Most surely, Allah has exempted you from the event that happens while you have an authority over the Muslims. This event had taken place when you had no authority.’ As a result, Uthman responded to his viewpoint. That was when he said: ‘I am a ruler over them. I have decided that the punishment should be a blood money, and I will pay it from my own wealth.’”[1]

This procedure faces the following criticisms:

1. Islam has required rulers to administer the prescribed punishments, not to show tolerance and leniency in respect of them, that regulations may be kept, and souls may be protected from aggressions. The ruler has no right to show tolerance and leniency toward an aggressor irrespective of his high social position. The Prophet (a.s) declared that and applied it to real life. He was asked to pardon a female thief due to the nobility of her family, and he replied: “Those before you perished because they punished the weak when they stole and left the noble. By Allah, if Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter, stole, I would cut off her hand.”[2]

2. He (a.s) flogged those who told lies (ashab al-ifk). Among them was Satih bin Athatha, who took part in the Battle of Badr.[3] This is required by Islamic justice, which makes no difference between the white and the black, the weak and the powerful, the head and the subjects. They are equal before the law. However, Uthman turned away from that. He opposed what justice required. He did not punish Ubaydillah, for he was Umar’s son and from Quraysh. He preferred to please al-Khattab’s family and Quraysh through pardoning him and he sent him far from Kufa and gave him a house to live in. Through that he opened a door to chaos and corruption and empowered the influential to punish the weak who had no authority to resort to.

3. The public interest required killing Ubaydillah bin Umar, and not pardoning him, for if Uthman had killed him, he would have put an end to corruption and murder, and no influential would have committed such a

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 41.

[2] Al-Nizam al-Siyasi fi al-Islam, p. 227, quoted from al-Kharajj, p. 50, by Abu Yousif.

[3] Usd al-Ghaba.

crime. The Caliph’s son killed al-Hurmuzan; however, Uthman paid no attention to the public interest and responded to his personal purposes, which opposed the community’s interest.

4. The Imam’s authority is established when he comes to know that the killed one has no inheritor. As for al-Hurmuzan, he belonged to Persia. Therefore, Uthman had to look for his inheritors. When he had come to know that al-Hurmuzan had no inheritors, his authority would have been established. However, he did not do that; rather he claimed that he was his inheritor and ruler.

5. The ruler has no right to pardon someone out of giving blood money; rather he has the right to make reconciliation for it. Al-Hanafi says: “Most surely the Imam has the right to make conciliation for blood money, but he has no right to pardon, for the punishment is the right of Muslims due to the fact that his (the killed one) inheritance belongs to them. The Imam represents them in administering the prescribed punishments. Pardon means canceling their right completely. This is impossible. For this reason father and grandfather do not have it (pardon) though they have (the right) to administer a full punishment on the criminal. The Imam has the right to make conciliation for blood money.”[1] According to the Hanafite religious verdict, Uthman had no right to pardon Ubaydillah bin Umar for blood money. This paradox is recorded against Uthman according to that some of them narrated that he pardoned him for blood money. Uthman faces these criticisms because he pardoned Ubaydillah, and did not kill him.

Taha Husayn’s Defense

Dr. Taha Husayn tried to justify Uthman’s actions and did not hold him responsible for them. His excuse has no scientific nature. We will mention to readers the places of his defense:

1. Uthman did not want to start his caliphate with killing the Qurashi boy, who was Umar’s son. He did not want to shed the blood of a Muslim and two dhimmis (non-Muslim citizen). He preferred wellbeing. From his own wealth he paid the blood money to the Public Treasury of Muslims and spared Ubaydillah bin Umar’s blood. His deciding the case in such a way was a wise policy if the people considered the case through a pure political consideration.[2]

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Badayi’ al-Sanayi’, vol. 7, p. 245.

[2] Al-Fitnatu al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 66.

Most surely if Uthman had started his caliphate with killing Ubaydillah, he would have fulfilled his covenant toward the Muslims. That was when he told them that he would follow Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet and apply the Islamic law to the real life. However he followed the political fields; so, he preferred wellbeing and neglected the religious precepts. His Eminence Imam Kashif al-Ghita’, may Allah have mercy on him, has commented on this excuse, saying: “Firstly, this excuse is among the clear mistakes, for the Islamic law had decided to shed Ubaydillah’s blood and not to spare it. Secondly, the murder was intentional, and its precept was administering the prescribed punishment, and not blood money. The first made a mistake, and the last came to justify their mistake through another mistake.”[1]

2. We return to say that Uthman had an authority over the affairs of the Muslims; and he, according to this authority, had the right to pardon. We add to that that when he pardoned Ubaydillah, he did not cancel any of the punishments prescribed by Allah, nor did he shed the blood of al-Hurmuzan and of his two friends. Rather he paid the blood money on behalf on them to the Public Treasury of the Muslims, whom only he inherited.[2]

His Eminence, late Kashif al-Ghita’ has commented on it, saying: “This is also a mistake (which is) more cunning and bitterer, for the duty of the one who has authority over the affairs of the Muslims is to administer the punishments prescribed by Allah, and not to cancel them. As for paying blood money for releasing someone from killing without pleasing the blood heirs is regarded as arbitrariness in the Islamic laws and playing with the religion.”

3. The Prophet said that there was no penalty on suspicion criterion. Perhaps Uthman repelled this prescribed punishment from Ubaydillah out of the suspicion that resulted from his anger for his father and his rushing due to his unruly desire. And Allah has made Muslims like pardon when they are able (to pardon) and rewarded them good for it.

This is among the horrible mistakes, for it is not right to repel the prescribed punishments out of anger; otherwise, it is incumbent to repel the prescribed punishments from all killers according to justice, for, most times, killing results from anger and unruly excitement. The rule of no penalty on suspicion

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Imam Kashif al-Ghita’s important commentary on al-Fitnatu al-Kubra is a hand written book available at al-‘Amira Library. Taha Husayn’s defense and Kashif al-Ghita’s commentary are based on al-Tabari’s narration, which says that Uthman paid the blood money from his own wealth and did not pardon ‘Ubayd Allah.

[2] Al-Fitnatu al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 67.

criterion is not applied to the case we have discussed, for it has special sources, and this source is not of its proofs. If anger was a reason for canceling killing, then Uthman would use it as an excuse and defend himself through it when Imam Ali (a.s) and the like of him, criticized him. Therefore, is Dr. Taha Husayn more knowledgeable than Uthman in the meanings of the sunna?

Most surely Dr. Taha Husayn’s defense is void of inquiry and has not legislative quality. Such a defense cannot justify Uthman’s procedure and send far the responsibility from him.

Anyway Uthman pardoned Ubaydillah in order that he might please the hearts of al-Khattab’s family and Quraysh, and not to take the community’s interest into consideration.

His Fiscal Policy

Islam has taken severe precautions in respect of the state’s wealth. It has made it obligatory on rulers and governors to spend it on public interests, reforming life, combating poverty, helping the weak, spending on the helpless such as widows and orphans. The rulers and the governors have no right to save anything of the public wealth for themselves, nor have they the right to choose anything of it for their children. That is because it is not their own, nor it is their property, that they may spend it wherever they wish. Imam Ali (a.s) said to Abdullah bin Zam‘a when he asked him for money during his caliphate: “This wealth does not belong to me and you; rather it is theFay’ of Muslims and earning of their swords. If you shared them at a battle, then you would have the like of their share; otherwise, the earning of their hands will be for nothing other than their mouths.”[1]

Imam Ali (a.s) wrote to Qatham bin al-Abbas, his governor over Mecca: “Reflect on the wealth of Allah you have gathered. Spend it on those who have families, and suffer from hunger, hitting with it the places of poverty and lacks. If something of that remains, then send it to us, that we may divide it among those we accept.”[2]

Allah’s Apostle (a.s) says: “The men who spend Allah’s wealth without any right shall have the fire on the Resurrection Day.”[3]

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 461.

[2] Ibid., vol. 2, p. 17.

[3] Saheeh al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 17.

This is an outline on the viewpoint of Islam in respect of money, for Islam makes it incumbent on the responsible ones to spend the state’s money on refreshing the subjects, and saving them from misery and neediness. The responsible have no right at all to employ it to buy consciences and to gift those who are not needy. However, Uthman did not apply that to all circumstances. He controlled the Central Budget and generously gave money to the Umayyads and Abu Ma’eet’s family, that he might strengthen their influence and their position in the country. So they exploited the Muslims, played with their fates, and controlled their destination. He also gave plentiful money to the prominent persons and the heads of whose side he was afraid and of whose power he was careful because of their political influence in the country. This policy led to inflating wealth and accumulating properties with a group of people who were perplexed in spending them. Of course such a policy led to spreading neediness, poverty, and misery among the people; and this affair opposes Islam, which takes great care of making society happy, spreading welfare and ease among people. We will mention some examples as proofs for what we have mentioned:

His Gifts to the Umayyads

Uthman gave the properties of the Muslims to his family and relatives, who denied and opposed Islam and battled against it. He gifted them and was kind to them. He empowered them over the Muslims. He gave them plentiful wealth to enjoy and to go too far in spending. We mention to readers some of those upon whom he spent lavishly:

Abu Sufyan

Uthman gave Abu Sufyan a hundred thousand (dirhams) from the Public Treasury.[1] He gave him this gift while he (Abu Sufyan) was the head of the polytheists at the Battle of Uhud and the Battle of al-Ahzab. He was on top of those who harbored malice against Islam. The religion did not enter his heart, nor did it remove from him the beliefs of pre-Islamic era. It was he who went to the grave of Hamza and kicked it and said: “O Abu Imara, the affairs for which we engaged in a sword fight is now at the hands of our boys; they are playing with it.” Then he happily came in to Uthman after he had become blind. He said to him: “O Allah, let the authority be similar to that was before Islam, the kingdom be ruled by the usurpers, and the projections of the earth be owned by the Umayyads.”[2]

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 67.

[2] Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh, vol. 6, p. 407.

Therefore, is it an act of justice and fairness that the Muslims’ properties were given to such a hypocrite whose soul was full of enmity and hatred against Islam? Dose the Islamic law permit giving such wealth to such a person who did not believe in Allah at all?

Al-Harith bin al-Hakam

Uthman gave generously to al-Harith bin al-Hakam, his son-in-law on the side of his daughter A’isha. He gave him three hundred thousand dirhams.[1] He gave him the camels of charity when they came to Medina.[2] He gave him a market in Yathrib (Medina) named Tahruz, while the Prophet (a.s) had given the market to the Muslims as charity.[3] Why was al-Harith worthy of such enormous properties? Did he render a service to Islam or perform a deed through which he benefited Islam, that he might be worthy of giving such wealth? It is worth mentioning that the camels of alms had to be spent on the poor and the needy. Moreover how did Uthman single out al-Harith with the alms of Allah’s Apostle (a.s) while they belonged to all the Muslims? Therefore, Uthman had no justification for giving such funds through which he disobeyed Allah and turned away from the community’s interest.

Abdullah bin Sa’d

Uthman gave his foster brother, Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh, all that which Allah had given to the Muslims who conquered al-Maghrib (Morocco) in Africa, which was from Tripoli to Tangier. He made none of the Muslims share him in such wealth.[4] It is worth mentioning that al-Harith was among the prominent polytheists and one of those who denied Islam and its values. We will mention his biography in the chapters that follow to prove that. Therefore, how was it possible for Uthman to give him such enormous funds and such plentiful wealth?

Al-Hakam bin Abi al-Aas

Before we mention Uthman’s gifts to al-Hakam, we have to know his reality and some of his affairs. It may be clear that he was worthy of estrangement, be sent away and that there was at all no justification to give him the Muslims’ funds. We will mention that to readers as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 5, p. 52.

[2] Al-Ansab, p. 28.

[3] Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 67.

[4] Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 67.

His Fighting against Islam

Al-Hakam resisted propagating Islam. He urged the people to go on worshipping the idols and prevented them from embracing Islam. Marwan (bin al-Hakam) met with Huwaytib and asked him about his age, and he told him about that. However Marwan said to him: “Your Islam is late, O Sheikh, to the extent that the boys preceded you (in embracing it)!”

Huwaytib said to him: “By Allah, I intended to be a Muslim more than one time, but your father prevented me and said: ‘Do you want to leave your honor, abandon your fathers’ religions for a new religion, and be a follower?”[1]

Most surely al-Hakam and the rest of the Umayyad family resisted Islam and spared no effort to repel propagating it. But Allah repelled their scheme, supported Islam and strengthened His religion.

His Disparaging the Prophet

Al-Hakam was the bitterest enemy to Allah’s Apostle (a.s). He harbored malice against him. He went too far in hurting, disparaging, and making light of his high position. He walked behind him, slandered him, sneered at him, and moved his mouth and nose.[2] The Prophet turned and saw him do that. He said to him: “May you be so!” Accordingly, al-Hakam was trembling and shaking until he died. Abdurrahman bin Thabit rebuked him for that. He satirized Abdurrahman bin al-Hakam, saying:

Most surely your father is cursed; therefore, throw away his bones. If you throw away, you will throw away someone who is trembling and crazy.

He enters into evening small-bellied and remains big-bellied due to (his) evil deeds.[3]

The Prophet curses him

This evil, cunning person (al-Hakam) asked the Prophet (a.s) for permission to enter his house, and he (a.s) said: “Shall I permit him? May Allah’s curse be on him and on those who will come out of his back (offspring) except the believers who will be very few; they are the possessor of cunning and deception. The world will be given to them, but they shall have no portion of the hereafter!”[4] The Prophet (a.s) ordered Imam Ali to bring al-Hakam as a ewe was brought. He fetched him. He took him by the ear and made him stop before Allah’s Apostle (a.s). The Prophet cursed al-Hakam three times, and

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ibn Kuthayr, Tarikh, vol. 8, p. 70.

[2] Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 27.

[3] Al-Isti‘ab, vol. 1, p. 118.

[4] Al-Sirah al-Halabiya.

then he said to Imam Ali: “Make him stay at a place! A group of the Muhajireen and the Ansar went to him, and he summoned him again, cursed him, and said: “Most surely, this (person) will oppose Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet. Future troubles will come out of his back (offspring). Their smoke will reach the heaven.” Some people said to him: “He (al-Hakam) is too low to do that!” “Yes,” he (a.s) said, “some of you will be his followers.”[1]

The Prophet banishes him to al-Ta’if

This dirty, wicked person (al-Hakam) distorted the traditions of Allah’s Apostle (a.s). He went too far in hurting him. So the Prophet banished him to al-Ta’if and said: “Let him not live with me in one place!”[2] Al-Hakam and his children lived in their place of exile throughout the caliphate of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar). However, Uthman interceded with them for him, and they did not respond to him. Accordingly, al-Hakam and his children remained there.

His Return to Yathrib (Medina)

When Uthman became caliph, he released al-Hakam. Accordingly, al-Hakam returned to Yethrib wearing a worn out garment. He was driving a goat, and the people were looking at his worn out garments and his bad state. He came in Uthman’s house, and then he went out wearing a silk jubbah and pallium.[3] Moreover, Uthman gave him a hundred thousand (dirhams).[4]

His Undertaking the Endowments

Uthman appointed him over the endowments of Quda’a, which amounted three hundred thousand dirhams.[5] He gave him this sum of money. This policy made the people displeased with him and criticize him for his lodging the one banished by Allah’s Apostle (a.s) and gave him the endowments Allah had appointed for the poor, the deprived, and the needy. Therefore, how was it permissible for Uthman to give them to such a person cursed by Allah’s Apostle (a.s)? The decision on this problem is up to readers.

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, p. 39.

[2] Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 27.

[3] Al-Ya’qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 41.

[4] Al-Ma’arif, p. 84.

[5] Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 28.

Sa’eed Bin al-Aas

Uthman gave Sa’eed bin al-Aas a hundred thousand Dirhams.[1] It is worth mentioning that Sa’eed bin al-‘Aas was among the Umayyad sinners and dissolute. His father was among the prominent polytheists. Imam Ali killed him at the Battle of Badr.[2] This gift moved people’s displeasure against Uthman. Trustworthy, righteous Muslims criticized him for it.

Al-Waleed Bin Aqaba

Al-Waleed bin Aqaba was Uthman’s foster brother. He was a dissolute sinner. He did not respect Allah, just as we will explain that when we talk about the governors appointed by Uthman. He went to Kufa and asked Abdullah bin Mas‘ud for a loan of enormous money from the Public Treasury, and he lend it to him. Abdullah bin Mas‘ud asked him to return the money, but he wrote a letter to Uthman about that. Uthman wrote Abdullah bin Mas‘ud a letter in which he said: “You are our treasurer; therefore, do not ask al-Waleed to return the money he had taken!” As a result Abdullah bin Mas‘ud put the keys before Uthman and said: “I thought that I was the treasurer of the Muslims. If I am your treasurer, then I am in no need of that!” He resigned and lived in Kufa.[3] How was it possible for Uthman to disperse the Muslims’ money and to give it to the enemies of Allah and the opponents of Islam? The decision on this problem is up to readers.

Marwan Bin al-Hakam

Allah’s Apostle (a.s) cursed Marwan bin al-Hakam when he was in his father’s back. This tradition was narrated by Imam al-Hasan (a.s).[4] When Marwan was born, he was brought to Allah’s Apostle (a.s). The Prophet said: “He is a cowardly, unsuccessful one, son of a cowardly, unsuccessful one. He is a cursed one, son of a cursed one!”[5] Imam Ali (a.s) looked at him and said: “Woe unto you! And woe unto Muhammad’s community because of you and your household when your temples become white!”[6]

Marwan bin al-Hakam was among the hypocrite heads and one of the prominent men of misguidance and falsehood. He was given the nickname of Khayt Batil (the thread of falsehood). Concerning him the poet has said:

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 28.

[2] Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 2, 310.

[3] Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 30.

[4] Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 10, p. 72.

[5] Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, vol. 4, p. 479.

[6] Ibn Abi al-Haddeed, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 2, p. 55.

By your life I do not know how the beaten-backed one does.

May Allah curse the men who have appointed Khayt Batil as a commander over the people. He gives and prevents whatever he wishes.[1]

He was famous for treachery, and breaking promise and covenant. Imam Ali (a.s) said when (the Prophet’s) two grandsons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, talked with him about Marwan’s pledge of allegiance to him: “I am in no need of his paying homage. It is a Jewish hand. If he pledged allegiance with his hand, he would betray with his own forefinger. He will have an authority (that lasts as short) as a dog licks its own nose. He is the father of the four rams. The community will meet a red day because of him and his sons.”[2]

Uthman was charitable to this cowardly, unsuccessful, dirty person (Marwan bin al-Hakam). He empowered him over the Public Treasury, and he gave and prevented whomever he wished. We will mention to readers the enormous gifts Uthman gave to Marwan. They are as follows:

1. He gave him the one fifth of the booties of Africa, which amounted five hundred thousand dinars. Uthman was criticized for that. Abdurrahman bin Hanbal satirized him, saying:

I will swear by Allah as far as possible, Allah does not leave an affair to be in vain.

However you have been created as an affliction for us, that we might be tried through you, and you tried (through us).

Most surely the two trusted ones have made the road sign on (which) guidance is.

They did not take any dirham illegally, nor did they place any dirham in caprice.

You have summoned the cursed one and brought him near contrary to the Sunna of those passed away.

You have unjustly given Marwan the one fifth (of the money) of the people.[3]

2. He gave him a thousand and fifty okes; we do not know whether they were of gold or silver. It was among the affairs that brought about the displeasure with him.[4]

3. He gave him a hundred thousand (dinars) from the Public Treasury, and so Zayd bin Arqam, the treasurer, brought the keys and put them before Uthman. He wept, but Uthman scolded him and said to him: “Are you weeping because I have retained my kinship?”

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Al-Ansab, vol. 4, p. 348.

[2] Nahj al-Balagha.

[3] Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 168.

[4] Al-Halabi, Sirah, vol. 2, p. 87.

“But I weep because I think that you have taken this money as a compensation for that which you spent in the way of Allah during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle (a.s). If you gave Marwan a hundred dirhams, it would be much,” retorted Zayd.

Yet Uthman rebuked him and shouted at him, saying: “Put the keys, O son of Arqam! We will find someone other than you!”[1]

4. He gave him Fadak as a gift.[2] Anyway it was not permissible for him to give Fadak as a gift, for if it had been given to Fatima, peace be on her, as a gift, as she said, then it would have belonged to her children. If it was alms, as Abu Baker claimed, then it belonged to all the Muslims. Therefore, Uthman had no right to act freely in respect of it in both cases.

Anyway, which service did Marwan render to the community? Which noble deed or achievement issued from him, that he might deserve such a plentiful giving and be given such enormous wealth? These are some of the gifts the Caliph (Uthman) gave to his family and relatives. Without doubt these gifts do not agree with Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet. They required the rulers to treat those near and far equally, demanded them not to prefer a people to another, and to apply justice to all fields.

Uthman is criticized

Of course such a policy moved the displeasure of the good, the righteous, and the religious. Rather it moved the displeasure of the general populace who had doubt about the Islam of the Umayyads. They thought that such giving would expand the Umayyads, strengthen their influence, and spread their authority. Abdurrahman bin Awf, who elected Uthman and appointed him as a ruler over the Muslims, harbored malice against him and said: “Anticipate him before he goes too far in his governing.” He said to Imam Ali: “Take your sword, and I take my sword, for he (Uthman) has broken the promise he gave to me.” When he was about to die, he recommended not to (let him) pray over him.[3]

Grumbling spread among the Muslims because of this crooked policy. The special associates and the general populace criticized Uthman when he alone possessed the jewels in the Public Treasury. He took some of them to adorn some of his family, and then he went up on the pulpit and said: “We will take our need from this Fay’ in spite of the people.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ibn Abi al-Haddeed, vol. 1, p. 67.

[2] Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 168. Al-Ma‘arif, p. 84.

[3] Al-Balathiri, al-Ansab.

This speech moved the people’s displeasure. Imam Ali (a.s) opposed him, saying: “You shall be prevented from that, and we will come between you and that.”

The Prophet’s great companion, Ammar bin Yasir confirmed the Imam’s statement and expressed his displeasure with Uthman, saying: “I bear witness that I am the first unwilling one.”

When Uthman gave a hundred thousand dirham to Sa’eed bin al-Aas, Imam Ali (a.s) and a group of the leading companions of the Prophet blamed and criticized him for that. But he said to them: “He is my relative.”

They refused his justification, saying: “Did Abu Bakr and Umar have no relatives?”

He answered them: “Abu Bakr and Umar thought of depriving their relatives (of giving), and I think of giving my relatives.”[1]

The Muslims harbored malice against Uthman, and their good ones were displeased with him, for he alone possessed the Fay’, gave the Muslims’ properties to the Umayyads, and did not establish through his policy the social justice that Islam brought.

Uthman apologizes

Uthman apologized to those who criticized his policy for his gifting his relatives and being kind to them, for he thought that he had committed no sin, nor had he broken the Islamic law. It is necessary for us to pause before this apology, that we may come to know its reality and rightness. If we carefully consider it, we will conclude that such a speech is incorrect, does not agree with the Islamic law, and does not serve the community’s interests. The reasons for that are: Firstly, the properties he gave to his family were not his own, that he might have a choice in spending them on his relatives. Rather they belonged to the Muslims; therefore, it was incumbent on him to spend them on them. The ruler had no right to act freely in respect of them. For example, once, Aqeel went to Yathrib. He was poor and was in need of his brother Imam Ali (a.s). He asked him to settle his debts. So the Imam asked him:

- How many dinars?

- Forty thousand (dinars).

- I do not have them. Be patient until I receive my pay, and I will give it to you.

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 28.

-The public treasuries are at your hand, while you delay me to your pay.

- Do you order me to give you the Muslims’ wealth, while they have entrusted me with it?[1]

This is the speech of Islam, this is its justice, and this is its equality. It makes no distinction between the near and the far; all people are equal in pay and other than it.

Secondly, the members of his family, to whom he was charitable, were worthy of boycott and deprivation. They opposed Islam and battled against it. They are the cursed tree in the Qur’an. Ibn Abi Hatam has narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar, who said: “The Prophet (a.s) said: ‘As if I see the sons of al-Hakam bin al-‘Aas on the pulpits. They look like apes. So Allah revealed: And we did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur’an as well. He has meant al-Hakam and his sons.”[2] A’isha said to Marwan: “I have heard Allah’s Apostle (a.s) say to your father: ‘Abi al-‘Aas bin Umayya, you are the cursed tree in the Qur’an.”[3] Allah has prohibited showing love toward His enemies and made it forbidden to be kind to them. He, the Most High, has said:You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Apostle, even though they are their (own) fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk.[4]

Uthman loved the Umayyads very much. He would say: “If the keys of the Garden were at my hands, I would given them to the Umayyads, that they all might enter it.”[5] This violent love for his family put an end to him, moved the Islamic forces to revolt against him, to overthrow his government, and to kill him.

His Gifts to the Leading Personalities

Uthman gave the Muslims’ money to the dignitaries, the leading personalities, and those who had political influence, for he was afraid of them. He gave two hundred thousand dinars to Talha.[6] Talha was in debt to Uthman for fifty thousand (dinars). Talha said to Uthman: “Your money is ready that you may receive it.” Uthman gave him the money as a gift and said to him: “It belongs

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 3, p. 423.

[2] Al-Tabari, Tafseer, vol. 15, p. 77. Al-Qurtubi, vol. 10, p. 283.

[3] Al-Durr al-Manthur, vol. 4, p. 191.

[4] Qur’an, 58, 22.

[5] Ahmed, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 62.

[6] Ibn Sa ‘d, Tabaqat.

The Nasibis Kufr Fatwa - that the Prophet (s)'sparents were Kaafir (God forbid)

For this section we have referred to a number of authentic Sunni works.

Sahih al Muslim page 360, Volume 1 Kitab "Janaiz"

Sunan Ibn Majah, Bab Majah fi ziyarata kubul mushrikeen

Sunan Nasai, page 9 Chapter 4 "Ziyarathul Kaboor"

Sunan Abu Daud, Volume 3 page 218 "Ktab al Janaiz"

Sunan al Kubra, page 76 Bab "Ziyarthul Kaboor"

Mishkat Sharif Volume 1, page 139 Bab "Ziyarathul Kaboor"

Musnad Abi Awana page 99 Volume 1 Bab "La yad khul al Jannatha al nufs masala"

Musnad Abi Hanifa page 105

Musnad Imam Ahmad and Abdullah bin Masud, page 297 Volume 5

Sharra Fiqa Akbar by Mullah Ali Qari page 128

Kitab Fatawi, Maulana Abdul Hai page 84

Kitab Tafsir ibn Kathir page 394, commentary on the verse Tauba Chapter 6

Tafsir Khazain page 129 verse Tauba verse 115

Tafsir Kabir by Fakhradin Radhi page 315 Chapter 6 Surah "Shaurah"

Tafsir Rul al Maani page 11 Surah Tauba verse 115

Tafsir Ghraib ul Qur'an page 30 Chapter 5 Ayat 115

Tafsir Mazzari page 306 Chapter 4

Tafsir Durre Manthur page 184 Chapter 3 verse Tauba

Kitab Naudi Sharra Muslim, page 214, Chapter 1

Kitab Murqat Sharra Mishkat, page 113 Chapter 4 "al Kaboor"

Tafsir Fattah al Qadeer page 392, Chapter 3 Surah Tauba verse 151

Tarikh Khamees page 230 Chapter 1 Dhikr Aaya al Buya

Muradhij ul Nubuwwa Section 3 Chapter 4, Part 21 page 179

Siratthul Halabiyya, page 82 Chapter 1 "Wafat walida a Nabi"

Sirathun Nabawiyya page 239, Chapter 1 "Lum yuziu Islam abwiyya"

Al Bidayahwa al Nihaya page 281, Volume 4 "Raza al Nabi"

In Sharra Fiqa Akbar we read that the Prophet (s) parents died Kaffirs (God forbid). This is the Fatwa of the Imam of the Deobandi Nasibis, elevated as a great man! These Nasibis are in fact swearing at the Prophet (s) because to swear at his parents is tantamount to swearing at him.

Sharrah Al Fiqah'al Akbar, page 130

The greatest insult that one can hurl at a fellow Muslim is to accuse his parents of apostasy. There is no doubt that if such a comment were made to the Nasibi on the street he would react violently. The reaction if of course natural, it is a personal attack, for an insult on them is in turn an insult on him - and the violent reaction is so as to defend their honour as well as his own. This is how they would react if this allegation was aimed at them - and yet these same Nasibis have no shame whatsoever in declaring that the Prophet's parents were kaffir. What explanation will they provide to for uttering such obscenity on the Day of Judgement?

According the Nasibis / Wahabis if someone disrespects the Prophets Sahaba hes a kaffir, what fatwa should we pass on those that have issued takfeer against the parents of Rasulullah? Imam Abu Hanifa is your Imam and declares the Prophet (s)s parents kaffir hence calling Shi'as kaffir is not surprising.

The Nasibis leader's Fatwas that the Prophets parents were Kaffir

When confronted by the faithful about this belief they side track or remain silent, but the book of the Nasibis are not silent, and their Imam Ibn Taymeeya writes the following from his cursed hands:

"The Prophet's parents are in hell and he was forbidden from asking for their forgiveness". Ikhthaza us Sirathul Mustaqim by Ibn Taymeeya, page 401 (Arabic)

"Ikhthaza us Sirathul Mustaqim" by Ibn Taymeeya, Urdu translation by M. Hamid Fakeeh page 401 Ibn Kathir another devotee of Mu'awiya writes:

"Why can't the Prophet's parents and grandparents be in Hell? They were idol worshippers and died with that faith yet this did not effect the Prophets lineage because a Kaffirs marriage is valid" Ibn Kathir makes efforts in both his books referred (see his footnote 21) to prove the Prophet (s)'s parents were kaffir (unsuccessfully). How can the poor Shi'a survive from takfir when the parents of our beloved Prophet (s) are not even protected from such blasphemy?

Fakhradin Radhi's kufr Fatwa on the Prophets parents

Another scholar Radhi in his Tafsir al Kabir writes:

"The Shia's believe the Prophet's parents were momins and they have relied on this verse and we believe that according to the companions they were kaffir". It is interesting that Radhi admits that the belief of his school is in line with the opinion of the Sahaba, rather than the verdict in the Quran and the testimony of the Ahlul bayt (as). At the forefront of those that have declared the Prophetsparents kaffir are Imams Abu Hanifa, Radhi, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathir.

To counter this we present the writings of Allamah al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti and Qadhi Ibn Arabi:

"Whoever declares the Prophets parents to be 'Kaffir' is hell bound and cursed".

"Manifa fi abbaya Shareefa" by Allamah al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti

"Risala Turzul Imama" by Qadhi Ibn Arabi

Another Nasibi attack on the parents

Imam Muslim in Sahih (see footnote 21 in Sahih Muslim); writes the following:

Abu Hurayra states that once the Prophet visited hismothers grave and cried profusely so much so that those with him did likewise, he said I asked my Lord if I could pray for my mothers salvation this was denied me This is the high-ranking second of the Sihah Sittah, most authentic after al-Bukhari. It declares that the Prophet (s)s parents were kafir, Suyuti said those who say this are cursed, the Wahabis call each other kafirs, if the enemies of the Sahaba are kafir enemies of the Prophet are even more cursed.

The Nasibis further slander on the Prophets parents

In Mukhat Sharra Mishkat we read from the pen of Mullah Ali Qari:

The Prophet went to the grave of his Kaffir mother because he wanted to show the importance to the Ummah of a mother, despite her kaffir status, he prayed for her forgivenessIt is curious the Nasibis regard those that insult the Prophet (s) as Imams.

Another Fatwa on the Prophets parents being in hell Mullah Moin Kashafi revered by the Sufis in his Maarij Chapter Miraaj he writes:

The Prophet states on the night of miraj I was near hell and saw a man and woman burning. I inquired from the person in charge of Hell, Who is this? The reply was I am ashamed to introduce them to you, you ask them he (The Prophet) asked the woman said dont you recognise us? I am your mother Aminah and this is Abdullah your father. Thousands have been saved by your intercession but not your parents, the Prophet heard this was saddened and tears filled his eyes a voice came from the hiddenEither save the Ummah or save your parents the Prophet chose the Ummah and left his parents to the decree of Allah.

Ma'arijj by Mullah Moin Kashafi Chapter "Miraaj"

Can we rely on kufr Fatwas made by these individuals that insult the Prophet (s) question his faith as a child and insult his parents?

Shi'a belief about the Prophet (s)'s parents

The Shi'a book Usul by al-Kafi records the following:

Imam Jafar (as) said the Prophet (s) said that Gibrael came to him and said, Oh beloved of God, Allah showers his blessings on you. The fire of hell has been made haram on your male lineage from whence came your light and that womb that carried you and that lap from which you was raised. Male lineage means your father Abdullah and his ancestors and womb is that of your mother Aminah and lap refers to that of your Uncle Abu Talib"

Usul, by al Kafi Chapter 1 "Mawalid Nabi" page 247

The Nasibis believe that the Prophet (s)'s parents were kaffir we believe that they were momin and are in heaven.

Nasibis attack on the Prophets lineage

The Sunni scholar Ibn Qutaybah in Al Maarif on page 20 of his "Dhikr Ansab ai Arab" writes:

Kannanah is the son of Khuzayma and he married his fathers wife, her name was Barra binte Murr, their son Nazar was born from them. Rasulullah comes from the lineage of Nazar. Ibn Qutaybah is a renowned adherent of the Sahaba, and yet a clear blasphemer. These people accuse the Shia of disrespecting the Sahaba our answer is clear, what of Nasibi / Wahabis who accuse the Prophets lineage of incest?

The Nasibis defamation of the Holy Prophet (s)

As part their propaganda campaign the common lie spread by the Nasibi is that we believe that we elevate Imam Ali (as)s virtue above those possessed by the Prophet (s). When saying so they pay no notice to the rank that we given the infallible Prophet in our books. When the Nasibi make the comparison they do so next to their deviant blasphemous depiction that lowers the position of the Prophet (s) to that of an ordinary man on the street going about his daily business.

It is the Shia alone thatbelieve that the Prophets (S) were infallible in all regards. We are proud to believe that the Holy Prophet (s) was free from error, whose obedience is unconditional. Curiously the Nasibis attack us for adhering to this belief! This is what their Imam Ibn Taymeeya writes:

The view that the Prophets were protected from major sins (kabaair) but not from minor sins (saghaair) is the view of the majority of the scholars of Islam and all the sects It is also the view of the majority of the scholars of Tafseer and hadeeth, and of the fuqahaa. Nothing was reported from any of the Salaf, Imams, Sahaba, Taabieen or the successive generation that does not agree with this view...

Most of the reports from the majority of scholars state that they were not infallible with regard to minor mistakes, but they were not allowed to persist in them; they do not say that this could never happen at all. The first suggestion that they were completely infallible came from the Raafidis, who say that they are so infallible that they could never make any mistake even by way of forgetfulness and misunderstanding.

Majmoo' al-Fataawaa, by Ibn Taymeeya Volume 4 pages 319 -320

The Nasibi belief in the Prophet (s) is the sort of belief that Salman Rushdie would be proud of. Suffice it to say they believe that the Seal of all Prophets would urinate whilst standingup( 1) sleep with nine wives in one night(2) fondle his wives during their periods(3) mistakenly lead the prayers whilst Junub (in an impure state) (4), forget the number of rakaats that he had prayed(5) was affected by witchcraft(6) and was unsure as to would happen to him on the Day of Judgement(7).

"Sahih al Bukhari", Arabic-English, translated by Dr Muhsin Khan

1. Volume 1 hadith number 225

2. Volume 1 hadith number 165

3. Volume 1 hadith number 298

4. Volume 1 hadith number 682

5. Volume 7 hadith number 661

6. Volume 2 hadith number 334

This is what these self declared defenders of the Sunnah want us to believe is the position of our beloved Prophet (s) or should we state a lack of one. How are we going to invite non-Muslims to Islam when we have Nasibis propagating filth like this? If a Kaffir interested in Islam read these types of accounts would his respect for the Prophet (s) increase or decrease? With this pathetic Nasibi position let us now delve in to the rank they give to the Prophet (s).

The Nasibi fatwa that Rahmat Lil Alameen is not an exclusive title for the Holy Prophet (s)

We have in the previous chapter highlighted the beliefs that the Nasibis hold about the Prophet (s) the mercy of mankind, the greatest of Allah (swt)s creations. Of interest is the fact that these Nasibis dont even apply much significance to this sacred title bestowed on Rasulullah (s) in the Quran. The prominent Nasibi the late Rashid Ahmad Gangohi delivers this fatwa:

The title Rahmatul Lil Aalameen (Mercy to all the Worlds) is not an exclusive attribute of the Holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu 'AlaihiWa Sallam). Other saintly persons also can be called Rahmatul Lil 'Aalameen.

Fataawa Rasheediyah, by Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, 218Is there anything more insulting than this? To state that a title Allah (swt) bestows on his beloved can also be held by fallible human beings like us!

Nasibi attack on Rasulullah (s)'s knowledge

Deobandi Nasibi Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi commenting on Rasulullahs knowledge of the unseen states:

The knowledge of the unseen that was possessed by Rasulullah (s) is nothing special it is just like that possessed by madmen and animals" Hifzul Iman, by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thavi page 8

With comments such as these one wonders why the Muslims were so outraged by the comments of Salman Rushdie. Here we have a Deobandi scholar equating Rasulullahs Ilm ai Ghayb to animals and lunatics. Had a Christian missionary written this it would not have been as bad, after all they dont believe in Rasulullahs Prophethood and will hence seek to play down any of the miracles he possessed. Unusually we are here presented by a Deobandi Mullah seeking to cast doubts on Rasulullahs knowledge of the unseen in effect suggesting that it means nothing. Perhaps the Deobandis could elaborate and tell us how many mad men and animals had foretold future events such as wars, famine and the coming of Imam Mahdi (as).

The Nasibi belief to think about the Prophet (s) during prayers lowers you to the status of a donkey

This is what the high ranking Nasibis Shah Ismail Shaheed and Sayyid Ahmad Shaheedwrite : "If fornication comes into your mind whilst offering Salat it is better to think about having sex with your wife. If you think about anyone during prayers, even about the Prophet, then you are worse than a donkey".

Siratul Mustaqim, page 169 by Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed & Shah Ismail Shaheed, Maktaba Salafiyya,Lahore Does thinking about the Prophet (s) reduce an individual to a donkey? Would anyone with sincere love for the Prophet (s) hold such an opinion? Salat is undoubtedly for Allah (swt) alone - but to suggest that to lapse and think about the Prophet reduces ones status to that of a farmyard animal is the type of comparison that is only fitting, having been uttered by those Shah Abdul Aziz had compared to animals.

The Nasibi fatwa that Shaythan can take the form of the Prophet (s)

This is the filth written by Ibn Taymeeya: Angels cannot help the people, but Shaytan can by appearing in human form, sometimes he can take the form of Ibrahim, Esau, Prophet Muhammad, Khizr ..." Al Waseela, by Ibn Taymeeya, translated into Urdu by Ehsan Ali Zaheer page 41, (Idara Tarjamun ul Sunna - Sheeysh Muhall) The Nasibis readily accuse others of being deceived by the devil and yet their Imam believes that the Devil can deceive the people by appearing as the Prophet (s).

The Nasibi fatwa that Shaythan fears Hadhrath Umar and not the Holy Prophet (s)

In Ahlul Sunnahs authentic Mishkat al Masabih we read:

The Prophet returned from one of the Holy Wars. When he came back a black girl came and said O Apostle of Allah! I have taken a vow that if Allah takes you back sound I shall beat this Daf in your presence with a song. The Apostle said if you have taken a vow then beat, and if not, not. Then she began to beat. Abu Bakr entered while she was beating, Thereafter Ali entered while she was beating. Usman entered while she was beating. Thereafter when Umar entered, she threw the Daf under her buttock and sat on it. The Apostle of Allah replied O Umar the Devil certainly fears you. I was sitting and she was beating, then Ali entered and she was beating. Then Usman entered and she was beating. When you entered O Omar she threw down the Daf.

Mishkat al Masabih by Tabrizi, English translation by al Haj Maulana Fazlul Karim under the Chapter dealing with the virtues of Umar Volume 4 hadith 14

This is an alleged hadith that the Nasibis propagate to their followers. First and foremost it is haraam for a man to listen to a woman singing. The Nasibis are therefore suggesting that the Prophet (s) was indulging in a sin! Then the Nasibi would want us to believe that Hadhrath Umar was the hero of the hour who brought this activity to an end. Hadhrath Umar saved the Prophet (s) from the clutches of Shaytan he had been taken in by the activity, as were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Ali.

There is no other interpretation possible the words of the Prophet Only Shaytan is afraid of you proves that Hadhrath Umars rank is above that of the Prophet (s). Perhaps those that allege we view Imam Ali as better in rank than the Prophet (s) should stroke their long beards and ponder over this matter! Shaytan fear Hadhrath Umar not the Holy Prophet (s)! What utter nonsense! But then Nasibi ideology is nonsense. They proudly relay flaws in the Prophet (s)s character citing books joyfully recollecting the filthy fabricated traditions that we have cited earlier.

The Nasibi dont even flinch when they narrate these fairy tales the fact that this is the type of filth can only best be described, as ammunition for Christian Missionaries does not bother them in the slightest! Highlighting the Prophet (s) alleged wrongs are tolerated and permissible, but to highlight flaws in the companions can never be tolerated and makes you a kafir! The Nasibi have more respect for the companions than they do the Holy Prophet (s) hence an even more absurd fatwa.

The Nasibi belief that Hadhrath Abu Bakr was superior to previous Prophets

The Indian Nasibi Maulana Muhammad Naeem Lucknawi declares the following:

Hadhrath Abu Bakrs superiority can not be matched by Musa or Esa. Kitab ay Shahaadat by Maulana Muhammad Naeem Lucknawi, Volume 2 page 11 (Kurzan Press Publishers)

Can you believe this!This coming from the Nasibis mock the Shias for believing that the position of the Prophet (s) designated Imam is superior to previous prophets. We of course are referring to the duty upon the Imam is greater and cite countless Sunni traditions proving that Hadhrath Esa (as) will pray Salat behind Imam Mahdi (as). Compare this to the belief of the Nasibis one that degrades the Prophet (s)s life, believes that a stick is better than him, wants us to accept that Shaytan is scared of Hadhrath Umar and not the Prophet and that Hadhrath Abu Bakr is superior to previous Prophets!

The Nasibi substitution of the Kalima with the name of one of their Ulema

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (d. 1943) was a very famous leading Deobandi / Nasibi scholar from Pakistan. In his monthly magazine Al-Imdad he had the audacity to publish a letter written to him by one of his beloved Salafee adherents. This is what he wrote:

I see in a dream that while reciting the Kalima, There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah', I am using your name instead of 'Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah'. Thinking that I am wrong, I repeat the Kalima, but despite wishing in my heart to say it correctly, my tongue involuntarily says 'Ashraf Ali' instead of the Holy Prophet's name. When I wake up and remember my mistake in the Kalima, to make amends for the mistake I send blessings upon the Holy Prophet. However, I am still saying: 'O Allah, bless our master, prophet and leader Ashraf Ali', even though I am awake and not dreaming. But I am helpless, and my tongue is not in my control.

Al-Imdad, issue for the month of Safar, by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi 1336 A.H., circa 1918, page 35

Thanvi in his reply to the letter (also printed straight after) interprets the dream as follows:

"In this incident, it was intended to satisfy you that the one to whom you turn [for spiritual guidance, i.e. Ashraf Ali]is a follower of the Holy Prophet's example"

Al-Imdad, issue for the month of Safar, by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi 1336 A.H., circa 1918, page 35

Is there anything more outrageous than this? The Nasibis love for his Master is such that he substitutes the name of the Prophet (s) with that of Maulana Thanvi. Rather than condemn his follower for this kufr act, Thanvi seeks to rationalise the dream in order to elevate his position to his audience. Would it not have been incumbent on Thanvi to put his follower in his place putting this dream down to a Devils deception? If a Nasibi scholar condones an action that takes you out of Islam, and fails to rebuke the perpetrator for this act, what religion are the Nasibis following? What is left of Islam and the finality of the Prophethood if a Nasibi can substitute the Shahada in preference of his teacher and yet this is not deemed kufr? What faith should anyone have in the Nasibi Ulema in light of this blasphemy?

Nasibi alleged Dreams prove their disrespect of Rasulullah (s) and his Ahlul bayt (as)

In their efforts to prove their piety to the faithful the leading Deobandi scholars have been particularly fond of quoting alleged dreams. Whilst hadith can be disputed the alleged recipients of these dreams were so pleased with what they saw that they sought it fit to put pen to paper and present these dreams to a wider audience. We would ask our readers to look at these dreams and then decide whether this constitutes respect for the dignity of Rasulullah (s) and his Ahlul bayt (as).

A Deobandi Nasibi Maulana saved Rasulullah (s) from falling in to Hell

The Deobandi scholar Maulana Hussain Ali Bujruwee proudly alleges that he saw the following in a dream: I saw Rasulullah (s) and he took me to the bridge leading to Heaven, I saw him slipping from the bridge and I saved him. Mubsuraath al Bulgha Ahraan, by Maulana Hussain Ali Bujruwee, page 8 Rasulullah (s) came as a Mercy to the World to guide people to the right path, to ensure that they did not suffer eternal damnation in the next world, and here this third rate Deobandi Mullah claims he SAVED Rasulullah (s) from the fire. Those that allege that the Shia deem their Imams superior to Angels should take note.

Rasulullah (s) was taught Urdu by the Nasibis

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, whilst extolling the virtues of the Deoband Madrassa (The main school of learning in Nasibi ideology in the Indian subcontinent) writes the following:

` Once a great scholar saw the Prophet (saws) in a dream speaking Urdu, he asked him where he learnt to speak Urdu when he was an Arabic speaker, the Prophet (saws) replied I learnt Urdu following my contact with the Deoband Madrassa.

Al Baraheynul Kathahaat, by Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, page 26 (published in Kutubkhana Imdaadeyaa, Deoband,Uttar Pradesh)

Is there no level that the Nasibis will stoop in seeking to deceive the people? They have the audacity to proclaim that they taught the Seal of all Prophets - whose sole mission was to teach mankind. This is the belief of scholars who claim that they and they alone are the upholders of truth. The ordinary Muslim would view seeing the Prophet (s) blessed shoe as better than his life and here we have a Nasibi scholar declaring that not only did he meet the Prophet (s) in a dream but also he attended the Madrassa of the Nasibis! We would like to pose this question to the Nasibi since their Imam ibn Taymeeya said that the devil can appear as the Prophet (saw), how do they know that it wasnt the devil who appeared as the Prophet (saw) claiming to have learned urdu from the Deobandis and not the actual Prophet? Was it not possible that Shaythan had appeared in order to give the Deobandis a false sense of superiority?

Sayyida Fatima (as) embraces a Nasibi Scholar

Allamah Ashraf Ali Thanvi claims to have been inspired by this dream:

"I dreamt that I saw Fatima (ra) taking me to her bosom, thereafter I became good" "Hafazathul Yaumia Thanvi" Volume 6 page 37

Thanvi might not have any shame but we would urge Muslims to think about the status of the person being defamed here, this is the daughter of Rasulullah (s), the Leader of the Women of Paradise (this hadith can be found in Sahih al Bukhari (English translation Volume 4 hadith number 819). Sayyida (as) exemplified piety and perfection and Muslims look to her as the perfect role model as a mother and daughter. Yet this third rate Nasibi claims that Sayyida Fatima (as) would embrace him, a non mahram man! May Allahs curse be upon thesepeople.

The Nasibis assault on Hadhrath Ayesha

Nasibi slander on Hadhrath Ayesha

Ibn Kathir writes the following:

Hadhrath Ayesha was accused of illicit relations. Those responsible for spreadingthis allegation were Hadhrath Abu Bakrs cousin Mustha bin Hasasa and the Prophets sister in law Humna binte Hajash and the poet Hasan bin Thabit. The Prophet ordered that they be flogged and they were punished accordingly"

al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir on page 160, Chapter "Dhir Ahfak" To those Nasibis who say that we slander Ayesha and thus are Kaffirs we invite them to ponder, the first to slander her were the companions hence they are kaffirs!

If you base Iman on love for Hadhrath Ayesha then we should remind the people that the Nasibis are guilty of this insult and yet target the Shias. This can be proven from the next wonderful hadith.

Nasibi attack on HadhrathAyeshas dignity

Before analysing the text let us pose the following questions to those with rational minds:

If two of your relatives went to your home and asked your mother about how to perform Ghusl after sex how would you react? Is it not an insult to ask such a question to your mother?

How would you feel if your mother then provided a practical demonstration by removing her clothes and taking a bath? With this in mind we invite you to ponder over this hadith:

Abu Salama b. 'Abd al-Rahman reported: I along with the foster brother of 'A'isha went to her and he asked about the bath of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) because of sexual intercourse. She called for a vessel equal to aSa ' and she took a bath, and there was a curtain between us and her. She poured water on her head thrice and he (Abu Salama) said: The wives of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) collected hair on their heads and these lopped up to ears (and did not go beyond that).

Sahih Muslim, Book 003, Number 0626:

Perhaps the Nasibis would be so kind as to answer these questions:

As the query was with regards to Ghusl after intercourse, could the two men not have obtained the information from one of the male companions?

As the matter was linked to Sexual intercourse both men must have been married so why couldnt they send their respective wives to ask this most delicate question?

Why would Aisha find it necessary to take a bath to demonstrate the point could she not have simply relayed actions verbally with her clothes on?

If there was a net between them that presumable acted as purdah does this not defeat the object of Aisha removing her clothes and demonstrating how Ghusl is performed?

The net clearly was NOT very thick, since they were able to observe that Aisha had placed her hair over her head they could even SEE her ears through it.

Is such a hadith not an insult on the dignity of Hadhrath Aisha?

Alhamdolillah we the Shi'a do NOT believe such hadith that attack the dignity of Hadhrath Aisha, it is unfortunate that Nasibis regard such traditions as Sahih. If those that slander Aisha are kaafir what about those that regard this hadith to be Sahih?

The Shaykhain's attack on Hadhrath Ayesha

We read the following in Sahih Muslim - Book 009, Number 3506:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him.

He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allahbe pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess.

They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allahbe pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents.

She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.

The fact that the Shaykhain attacked their respective daughters is irrelevant BECAUSE they are Umm'ul Momineen of ALL MUSLIMS.

This being the case, Nasibis answer this:

If insulting Ummul Momineen makes you a kaafir what about those that attack them physically?

What sort of respect is this, attacking Rasulullah (s) wives in his blessed presence?

Hadhrath Abu Bakr attacks Hadhrath Ayesha and declares her an enemy of God

Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Abdul Hamid Ghazzali records the following in his classic Ihya Ulum-id-din:

Once there was an altercation between the Prophet and Hazrat Ayesha when they found Hazrat Abu Bakr as judge. Hazrat Ayesha said to the Prophet: You speak but dont speak except truth. At once Hazrat Abu Bakr gave her such a slap that blood began to ooze out from her mouth".

Ihya Ulum-id-din by Imam Ghazali, Volume 2 page 36, ChapterThe secrets of marriage English translation by Maulana Fazlul Karim. For those Nasibis who accuse the Shia of criticising Hadhrath Aisha we suggest they analyse this narration carefully. Can you get any greater insult that declaring the mother of the faithful an Enemy of God?

The Nasibis Kufr Fatwa on Hadhrath Ayesha

In the renowned book Mawaddathul Qurba by Imam of Ahlul Sunnah, Sayyid Ali Hamdani we read the following:

Hadhrath Ayesha narrates the Prophet said Allah asked meWhoever doesnt accept Alis khilafath and rebels and fights him as a kaffir and will perish in the fire Someone asked her Why did you rebel and fight him? She replied I forgot this Hadith on the Day of the Battle of Jamal, I remembered it again when I returned to Basra and I asked for Allahs forgiveness, I dont think that I will be forgiven for this sin"

Mawaddatul Qurba by S. Ali Hamdani page 32 under the chapter Mawaddatul Saum

We will all die one day and will reply for our deeds, look at your books and ponder over Hadhrath Ayeshas own admission. Mufti Muhammad Qulli has also recorded this Hadith in "Tashdheed al Muthain" and the Nasibis have expunged these words 'Wa ma asee un youqoon'

Hadhrath Ayesha's kufr Fatwa on Hadhrath Uthman

The pages of history are replete with these words uttered by Hadhrath Ayesha against Hadhrath Uthman:

Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever"

63 Tarikh by Ibn Athir, v3, p206

Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Masur, v14, p141

al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290

Qadi Burhaniddin in Sirathul Halbiyya writes:

"Ameerul Momineen Alibin Abi Talib prior to Jamal write a letter to Ayesha saying "Only yesterday you said kill Uthman, May Allah kill him, Uthman has become a kaffir"

Sirathul Halabiyya Volume 3 page 356 "Muhjizatha Nabi"

Other classical Sunni sources have also recorded the same words of Imam Ali (as).

The issuing takfir on Uthman by Hadhrath Ayesha has been eulogised in poetry by Ubayd bin Abi Salmah:

"You ordered the murder of Uthman by stating he had become a kaffir".

Tadhkirathul Khawaas al Ummah, Ibn Jauzi page 38 "Dhikr Jamal"

Al Manaqib al Khawazmi page 117

Nasibis should know that kufr Fatwas are not just on Shias but also on your leader Uthman by your mother Ayesha. The issuing of takfir is a very serious matter, Abu Tharr narrates he heard Rasulullah (s) state:

"If somebody accuses another of Fusuq (by calling him 'Fasiq' i.e. a wicked person) or accuses him of Kufr, such an accusation will revert to him (i.e. the accuser) if his companion (the accused) is innocent."

Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 8 hadith number 71

In addition to this we also read that:

Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said: If a Muslim calls another kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is himself a kafir.''

(Abu Dawud, Book of Sunna, edition published by Quran Mahal, Karachi, vol. iii, p. 484) Since Ayesha issued takfir upon Uthman then one of them became an infidel. The Nasibis need to decide which of themis the kafir here .

The Nasibi verdict that Hadhrath Ayesha hated Ali (as)

'Ali Muttaqi al Hind records the following:

Hadhrath Ali says Hadhrath Ayesha fought me because firstly being a woman she possessed a weak judgement and secondly she bore enmity towards me and it would open in the same way a pot is opened. She would have never fought anyone other than me in that way.

Kanz ul Ummal, by 'Ali Muttaqi al Hind Chapter 8 Kitab "Mawa azafee katheeya'thul taweela" In the authentic "Umdah al Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari", by Badr al Din Hanafi we read that:

HadhrathAyesha, could not bearing hearing a good thing about Ali, and this is solid evidence of her being an enemy of Ali, for Nasibis to proclaim that the narrators of these Hadith are weak is not a valid excuse, because this is testified in the annals of history. "Umdah al Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari", by Badr al Din Hanafi Sharrapage 720, Chapter 4 "Hud ul Mareez"

Hadhrath Ayesha's pleasure at the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)

In "Sharh Nahj ul Balagha", Ibn al Hadid records the following:

"When the Prophets daughter died all the wives except Ayesha came to console Banu Hashim and she said that she was unwell and the message which she sent to Hadhrath Ali (as) clearly depicts her joy at this sad occasion".

Sharra Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn al Hadid page 439 Chapter 2

The only way the Wahabis get round these texts is to declare them daif (weak).

The Shi'a position on Hadhrath Ayesha

We do not curse Hadhrath Ayesha; rather we only quote what can be found in the text of the Ahlul Sunnah as well as Allah (swt) words in the Quran. It is sad that when we quote Sunni texts we are called kaffir! Furthermore after a detailed analysis of the Quran and Sunnah it cannot be proven that the standard for determining Iman is Hadhrath Ayesha.

Nasibis rather than attacking the Shia why not answer these questions:

Are the Sahaba and wives of the Prophet (s) EXEMPT from Sharia? If Allah (swt) or Rasulullah (s) state something does that apply to ALL Muslims, or can the Sahaba and the wives of the Prophet (s) ignore these words?

Are the Sahaba liable to punishment if they commit transgression? Now with these answers in mind we should point out that your esteemed books are replete with traditions that make it clear that Rasulullah (s) said: "Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of hypocrisy."

Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643

So Nasibis could you answer us this:

(1) Are these hadith Sahih?

(2) Does it apply to all people?

(3) Did Ummul Momineen Ayesha hate Ali?

Moving on we also find this hadith:

Zaid bin Arqam narrates:

"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (Allahbe pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war",

1. Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81;

2. Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350;

3. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149

So Nasibis, answer us:

(1) Is this hadith Sahih?

(2) Does it apply to all people?

(3) What is the position of one who is at war with the Prophet, Muslim, Murtad, Munafiq or Kaafir?