In line with their Master advocates Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir and Shah Abdul Aziz – Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi had sought to play down the situation with the claim that the two parties had resolved hostilities and that the battle of Jamal was in fact started by the followers of Ibn Saba hiding within Imam Ali (as)’s army, and it is they (not Aisha et al.) that should be blamed for the fitnah. Their modern day spiritual sons put to paper the same lies, with some additional baseless claims to sensationalize the dossier of evidence against the Shia. This chapter shall seek to untangle the lies that had spun and shall lift the lid on their status and liars of the highest order.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The truth is that both Umm Al Mumineen (Mother of the Believers) Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Amir Al Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were innocent of the Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal). The real culprits who instigated the Battle of the Camel were the Shia, who have historically been the cause of much Fitnah.
In our article ‘Who really killed Uthman’ we submitted a detailed discussion about the unreliability of the reports which mention the role of Ibn Saba during the era of Uthman and subsequent events, since they are all narrated by the notorious liar Sayf Ibn Umar. Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi’s failure to cite the specific narrations relating to the Sabaite role in killing Uthman at various points in their articles, entitles us to assume that they are relying on the very fabrications narrated by Sayf Ibn Umar. If other narrations / chains existed we are sure that these Nawasib would have cited them with the complete chain highlighted in gold. Our suspicions become stronger when (later on) we see them switch to a narrative in a summarized manner from Tabari.
If our claim is wrong, we would invite Ibn al Hashimi to substantiate his claim, firstly by citing those Sunni sources that mention the role of the Sabaites in the Battle of Jamal and then evidencing that each of those chains is Sahih. It is only then, that he will have a valid ground to make such an assertion.
Let us for arguments sake accept Ibn al Hashimi’s assertion that the Sabaites were involved in ‘Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal)’ the battlefield is that place wherein all manner of rumor / misunderstanding can take place. If the Sabaites had been party to this during battle, who was responsible for bringing Aisha and her armed supporters onto the battlefield in the first place? Did the Sabaites bound and gag Aisha onto a camel and then dump her in Jamal? Were her supporters under some evil Sabaite hypnosis that duped them to gather en masse at Jamal? Was some medieval superglue used to attach swords to their hands? Did the Sabaites deceive these pious individuals and tell them that Maula Ali (as) had invited them all to an outdoor picnic at Jamal, but they should bring their swords with them as no small cutlery was available? Ibn al Hashimi needs to recognize that battles do not just occur overnight. It takes time, strategic planning and crucially soldiers that Aisha had at her disposal.
If Aisha was averse to any form of Fitnah why did she:
1. allow her supporters to violently take control of Basrah, killing innocent Shia in the process
2. allow the capture, torture and expulsion of Imam Ali (as)’s appointed Governor of Basrah
3. become party to rallies in Basrah that talked of overthrowing Imam Ali (as) due to him being unfit for office?
When Basra was taken by force, from where these rallies were convened that sought to attract support and stoke up animosity towards the Head of State, then would such conduct not fall within the definition of Fitnah?
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Ali’s Caliphate(رضّى الله عنه)
After Uthman’s death (رضّى الله عنه), the Shia’t Ali asked Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to declare himself Caliph. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) refused, namely out of anger at his own Shia who murdered Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did not want to be associated with these trouble-makers. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider very authentic. [It should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah believe the Nahjul Balagha to contain many forgeries.] The Nahjul Balagha contains the sermons and letters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and in it we find sermon after sermon in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) condems his Shia–particularly the Saba’ites–for their extremist actions.
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191
Ali says to his Shia:
“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan] Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people…You have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its commands!”
[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm]
[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/91.htm]
Look at the dishonesty used by Ibn al Hashimi, he claims to quote it verbatim under the heading ‘Ali says to his Shia’: but when we look at every online version that has quoted from he says Condemning his people. Having sought to suggest that the sermon was referring to his Shia, he then again used the term Shia in the text, whereas the English says parties he writes ‘and have become different Shias after having been once united ‘ – so as to suggest that the entire sermon is a condemnation of his Shia adherents. When Imam Ali (as) was the Khalifa over the Islamic State then all of its citizens were ‘his people’ whether they accepted him willingly or grudgingly, so that included those that:
● deemed him the rightful Caliph after the Prophet (s)
● deemed him the rightful fourth khalifa (political Shias)
● were prepared to give bayya subject to Imam Ali (as) apprehending Uthman’s killers
● hated him and refused to recognize him as the Khalifa (Uthmani Shias)
This sermon was Imam Ali (as)’s criticism of the conditions at the time. It was a severe condemnation of the state of the Muslim Ummah, that had divided into groups with differing agendas and this was contrary to the spirit of brotherhood and unity dictated by the Quran and Sunnah. This sermon was therefore a wakeup call by our Imam (as) to all his subjects, making it clear that this atmosphere of division and hostility ran contrary to Islam, and was in effect a mirror reflection of conditions during the time of jahilyya. What is wrong in a leader assessing the situation in this way? It is commonplace for a leader to galvanize public opinion and call for unity by striking fear into the hearts of his subjects making it clear that anarchy is harmful to a functioning society. This sermon was an accurate description of the conditions that Khalifa Ali (as) faced at the time, it was not a sermon (as Ibn al Hashimi would suggest) addressed to the Sabaites in his party. If it was, could Ibn al Hashimi kindly point us to that part of the sermon or for that part any sermon in Nahjul Balagha wherein Imam Ali (as) mentions the word Ibn Saba or Sabaites or condemns his Shia for killing Uthman? If you can’t then you have no right to interpret this clear cut sermon in this manner!
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91
When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of Uthman, Ali said:
“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you, I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever [anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whosoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.”
[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/91.htm]
Ibn al Hashimi’s ability to infer something from Shi’a texts without a shred of evidence is indeed amazing. He has suggested that Imam Ali (as) refused to become the Khalifa because he wanted nothing to do with the Sabaites that killed Uthman. Where does he state this in this and the preceding sermon? By linking this second sermon with his discussions on the Sabaites it seems that this Nasibi is suggesting that Sabaites forced Imam Ali (as) to become the fourth Khalifa. By alleging this he has blasphemed the Sahaba, since it was the companions of Madina that approached our Imam and asked that he lead them through these tough times. To suggest that these Madinan Sahaba were Sabaites is indeed a blasphemy that Ibn al Hashimi should be ashamed of! Imam Ali (as)’s refusal was because he knew the sorts of challenges and hostility he was due to face, that had been a direct consequence of the policies of his predecessors, particularly Uthman. Undoing such policies would court criticism from various quarters and our Imam (as) was fed up with the people and preferred to live a life of peace. When the pressure of the Sahaba became too much he accepted this leadership role. Such facts don’t bother Ibn al Hashimi who persists in pursuing the same conspiracy theory, clear from his next allegation…
Ibn al Hashimi states:
At first, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) refused to be Caliph. However, he eventually accepted the position and became Amir Al Mumineen. Upon his announcement as Caliph, there was a large grumbling from people who accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of being an accomplice in the murder of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), since it was well known that it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the seige of Uthman’s house (رضّى الله عنه). This accusation made against Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is recorded in Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha which is titled “About those who accused Ali of Uthman’s killing.”
We find it amazing that Ibn al Hashimi suggests that the above is an established fact by stating ‘it was well known that it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the siege of Uthman’s house’ – when in reality those that were involved in the siege were the Egyptians and certain prominent Madinan Sahaba. There is no evidence to suggest that they were Shia’t Ali. We invite Ibn al Hashimi to read our article ‘Who killed Uthman?’ that will inshallah open his bigoted eyes to the truth. The problem with shameless Nawasib like Ibn al Hashimi lies in the fact that they seek to propagate the belief of the Nawasib of that time as correct viewpoints. Take the allegation about the Shia of Ali (as) killing Uthman at Maula Ali (as)’s behest – this was not a common Muslim belief at the time, if it was well known then it was well known false propaganda of the Nawasib of the time, as can be evidenced from the testimony of Ibn al Hashimi’s beloved Ibn Taymiyya in Majma Al Fatawa, Vol. 27, pg. 277:
كان طائفة من شيعة عثمان يتهمون عليا بأنه أمر بقتل عثمان
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”
What was the conduct of Uthman’s Shias? Ibn Taymiyya informs us in Minhaj al Sunnah Vol. 6 pg. 20:
“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Note how Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to suggest Nasibi beliefs as those of Muslims. Does this not expose him for the shameless Nasibi that he is?
Ibn al Hashimi has presented the stance of those that cursed Imam Ali (as) as an established fact. To those who really want to know whether Ibn Saba did indeed kill Uthman through a movement devised by him, we invite our readers to read this chapter. [LINK UTHMAN]
It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi cites Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha suggesting that this sermon relates to the Shia of Ali (as) that killed Uthman that in turn falsely implicated Imam Ali (as) on account of association. If Ibn al Hashimi had any decency he would have shown his readers that in Sermon 22, our Imam refutes such propaganda and rather than accept any blame on his part or that of his Shia, makes it clear that his political opponents wanting Qisas for the killing of Uthman are the same individuals that killed him. Let us quote sermon 22, verbatim
SERMON 22 – About those who accused him of `Uthman’s killing
Beware! Satan has certainly started instigating his forces and has collected his army in order that oppression may reach its extreme ends and wrong may come back to its position. By Allah they have not put a correct blame on me, nor have they done justice between me and themselves.
They are demanding of me a right which they have abandoned, and a blood that they have themselves shed. If I were a partner with them in it then they too have their share of it. But if they did it without me they alone have to face the consequences. Their biggest argument (against me) is (really) against themselves. They are suckling from a mother who is already dry, and bringing into life innovation that is already dead. How disappointing is this challenger (to battle)? Who is this challenger and for what is he being responded to? I am happy that the reasoning of Allah has been exhausted before them and He knows (all) about them.
The threat to Wage War against them
If they refuse (to obey) I will offer them the edge of the sword which is enough a curer of wrong and supporter of Right.
It is strange they send me word to proceed to them for spear-fighting and to keep ready for fighting with swords. May the mourning women mourn over them. I have ever been so that I was never frightened by fighting nor threatened by clashing. I enjoy full certainty of belief from my Allah and have no doubt in my faith”.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Qisas
There was a public outcry for Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute Uthman’s killers], and no doubt Uthman’s family and tribe were anxious to see the murderers brought to justice. However, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) decided to delay enacting Qisas for the reason that he was too preoccupied facing a civil war from people who were accusing him of murder, and this was not the time to be searching his own ranks for murderers. It was a time when people were ready to rebel against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), so the last thing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) could afford to do was lose more supporters by interrogating his own Shia’t Ali. Because of this, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) decided to delay enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had the sincere intention of eventually finding and prosecuting Uthman’s killers even though they were from his own camp. Such was the noble nature of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
As a consequence of Ali’s decision (رضّى الله عنه) to delay justice [i.e. delay enacting Qisas], hundreds of people were taking to the streets in protest. Many of these were from the same tribe of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه); for example, the governor of Syria–Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه)–was Uthman’s cousin (رضّى الله عنه) and he was one of the people demanding Qisas.
To suggest that Imam Ali (as) was knowingly harboring the killers of Uthman is indeed a shameless accusation and a slur upon the character of Imam Ali (as). Imam Ali (as) was unable to implement Qisas because those elements demanding it were themselves directly involved in killing Uthman and there is no historical evidence that handed themselves in for punishment! As for the processions this Nasibi should know that these were not widespread processions, rather they were limited to Syria wherein Muawiyah was using the killing of Uthman as grounds to oppose Imam Ali (as). There was no sincerity whatsoever; it was just propaganda. If these demands were sincere then we would like Ibn al Hashimi to explain whey the demand for punishing Uthman was not submitted as a condition during the arbitration at Siffin? The grounds for opposing Imam Ali (as) was mysteriously forgotten when it came to negotiations, why is that? Did Ibn al Hashimi’s beloved Imam experience amnesia at the negotiation stage on account of post traumatic stress disorder he suffered whilst hiding in his tent during the Battle of Siffin? If it was amnesia, at least his memory didn’t fail him when he demanded that the empire be split with him being made the Head of Syria.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
So it was that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), Talha (رضّى الله عنه), and Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) met Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to urge him to find the murderers of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). It should be noted that during Uthman’s Caliphate, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) also went to Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) to urge him to do many things at the behest of the Beduins who opposed Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). Hence, it can be seen that there is nothing wrong in negotiating with the Caliph and urging him to do something, as long as this is done in a peaceful and productive manner; in fact, this prevents bloodshed and violence.
We agree that the prevention of bloodshed should be the prime motivation to enter into negotiations. The problem is how can these three be deemed lovers of peace when they had already spilled the blood of many on route to Jamal? Is that how you negotiate? Kill hundreds and then try to negotiate a settlement?
Ibn al Hashimi knowingly failed to cite the text to substantiate his above claim. If we examine the History of Tabari Vol. 16 that deals with the events leading up to Jamal we see only one reference wherein all the above named personalities were present. It is recorded in the History of Tabari pg. Vol 16, pg. 115 (Arabic):
“Umar – Abu Bakar al-Hudhali – Qatadah: Ali left al-Zawiyah, heading or Talhah, and al Zubayr and Aishah left al-Furdah, heading for Ali and they all met at the place of the castle of Ubaydullah b. Ziyad…..”
Whilst Nawasib might seek to argue that this pre meeting evidences a desire amongst Talah, Zubayr and Aisha to have an amicable settlement, they should inspect the chain before jumping with joy. Abu Bakr al-Hudhali has been criticized by the scholars of rijal which hence makes this narration worthless. For example and he has been declared ‘unreliable’ by Imam Dhahabi (Al-Kashif, v2 p414), ‘Matruk’ by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani (Taqrib al-tahdib, v2 p369) and Imam Nasai (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46), ‘Very weak’ by Mura (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46) while Ibn al-Madini said about him: ‘Worth nothing’ (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46). This leaves us with just one other narration that would suggest pre war peace efforts from Tabari. The Nawasib of Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com of course were keen to quote the narration.
Ansar.Org states:
Al-Tabari assures that the people who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims are the murders of Uthman: “When people came together and became in ease, Ali, Talha and Al-Zubair came out, agreed, and talked in the matters they disagreed with each others. The did not find a better solution than peace and to end the war when they saw the matter is started to be cleared and not achievable through war. They departed from each other agreeing on their resolution. Ali came back to his barracks and Talha and Al-Zubair wnet back to their barracks. In the evening, Ali sent Abdullah bin Abbas to Talha and Al-Zubair who sent Muhammad bin Talha to Ali in a job to talk to their comrades. They all said yes for a peace. At night – that was in Jamadah Al-A’akhirah – Talha and AL-Zubair talked to the leaders of their comrades, and Ali talked to the leaders of his comrades except those people who ate Uthman. They ended up on peace and they slept in a night that they never had before because of the goodness they are near to and because they got away from what some people desired and embarked on whatever they embarked on. And the people who provoked the matter of Uthman had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite the war in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them, they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers. Then the people of Al-Basrah got angry and every people fought his comrades who were stunned …..”
The same event has been recorded from Tabari in a condensed fashion by the Ahlelbayt.com site…
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Uthman’s Killers
The murderers of Uthman [the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali, i.e. Saba’ites] obviously did not want Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to be successful in convincing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to prosecute them. “And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]
Both Nasibi websites have yet again humiliated themselves since the chain of this narration is weak. The narration is located in the History of Tabari Vol. 16 pg. 122 under the heading ‘return to Muhammad and Talhah’s account’. The chain of narration from where this narrative begins appears on pg. 120 and it is al-Sari - Shuayb - Sayf - Muhammad and Talhah
Yet again, the presence of Sari and Sayf renders this narration worthless.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718] Aisha’s contingent (رضّى الله عنها) then returned fire in order to defend the Prophet’s wife, and soon the matter escalated into an all out conflict.
We would invite Ibn al-Hashimi to corroborate this claim by citing the narration from Musanaf along with the chain of narration proving that it is authentic. Our suspicion is he never read the text himself, since the History of Tabari Vol. 16 pg.s 131-2 does not place this event at the beginning of the battle of Jamal, on the contrary the Sabaite attack was when Aisha’s troops had been routed. The narration is as follows…
““Return to Sayf’s account…
…and in the rout the men retreated toward al-Basrah. But when they saw that the camel had been encircled by Mudar they rallie and reformed as a center [of the army], as they had been when thy [first] engaged in battle, and returned to fight anew, while Rabiah of al-Basrah, some as a right flank, some as a left. “Kab!” leave the camel, and go forward holding the Book of Almighty and Glorious Allah, and then call them to it!” said Aishah and thrust the Quran copy at him. Then up came the forces headed by the Sabaiyya fearing that peace would be made, and Kab met them with the Quran copy. Ali was behind them, restraining them, but they insisted on advancing, and then when Kab called them they all shot [their arrows] at him at the same time and killed him…
They then shot at Aishah in her howdah, and she started calling out: “My sons [Remember] the recompense [of Allah]! The recompense!” She raised her voice very loudly “Allah, Allah! Remember Almighty and Glorious Allah and the reckoning!” But they insisted on advancing. So the next thing she did when they insisted was to cry out: “You men! Curse the killers of Uthman and their various supporters!”
When we look at the narrations free of Sayf we see no mention of the Sabaites in Jamal. On the contrary we are quick to learn who initiated the battle. Since Ibn al Hashimi felt happy citing Tabari allows us to likewise cite a narration from Tabari with a chain free of Sayf bin Umar. We are quoting from Tarikh Tabari Vol 16, pg. 126 - 127 (Arabic):
He then said to those around him: ‘Which of you will hold up this copy of the Quran and what is in it before then? Should his hand be cut off he shall then take it with the other one; if that is cut off he shall take it with his teeth”. A young boy said, “I will”. Ali put this to everyone around him, but none volunteered except the boy, so Ali said to him “Hold this up before them and say, ‘Every word in this shall judge between you and us, and I beg of you for Allah’s sake to stop shedding our blood and yours”. But with the copy of the Quran in his hands the boy was attacked. His hands were cut off so he took it into his teeth until he was killed, Ali then said, “Battle is now justified, so fight them!”.
Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dhahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dhahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhri: Dhahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam al nubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).
We also read in Fath Al Bari Vol 13, pg. 62:
Ibn Abi Shayba narrated with a Sahih chain that Zayd Ibn Wahab narrated “Ali withheld (from fighting) until they initiated battle, so he fought them
Imam Ali (as) had every right to declare war against these rebels and start the battle, but he did not. He gave them a last chance to ascertain their motive. When aggression was initiated by Aisha’s side, Imam Ali (as) deemed it legitimate grounds for him to go into battle.
The Nasibi author was so desperate to impress this on his Sunni readership that he repeated the same assertion on three occasions. Ibn al Hashimi states:
“And so the Battle of the Camel was initiated, not by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) nor by Aisha (رضّى الله عنها); rather it was Uthman’s killers who attacked Aisha’s envoy (رضّى الله عنها) for fear that her negotiation mission would succeed and result in the subsequent capture of those responsible for the death of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). Ali (رضّى الله عنه), Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), Talha (رضّى الله عنه), and Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) found their contingents fighting each other, not even knowing who fired the first shot; little did they know that it was Uthman’s killers who had initiated this entire operation, hoping that it would cause Aisha’s mission (رضّى الله عنها) of negotiation to fail. The Saba’ites would blame the entire matter on Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), and we see clearly today that their descendants–the Ithna Ashari Shia–have continued this tradition of blaming Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). This is yet another solid link between Abdullah ibn Saba and the modern day Shia, both of which slander the Prophet’s wives and his companions.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The reality is that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), Talha (رضّى الله عنه), Zubair (رضّى الله عنه), Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), and hundreds of other people wanted Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to apprehend Uthman’s killers who were in his camp. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) always planned on doing this, and it is likely that he would have agreed to Aisha’s request (رضّى الله عنها) to speed up the process. Uthman’s killers did not want this, and they attacked Aisha’s envoy (رضّى الله عنها) on its way to Medinah, thereby initiating the Battle of the Camel and saving their own skin.
This is a crucial reference for Ibn al Hashimi as he has sought to stress how deceptive the Sabaites were, they didn’t give peace a chance as they killed Aisha’s envoy when negotiations were nearing a positive end. If this event was true, why has Ibn al Hashimi failed to cite its primary source? The biggest deception Nawasib do is when they provide the summary of a text to their readers without citing the pg. number or reference. That way readers are left assuming that the text has been quoted verbatim, and those seeking to verify such texts are in effect forced to find a needle in a haystack. Shameless hypocrites like Ibn al Hashimi do this intentionally, after all most people don’t have the time to delve into books and verify such citations, they are just led to rely on the integrity of the ‘trustworthy’ author. In this instance, Ibn al Hashimi has severely abused his position of trust.
Ibn al Hashimi by suggesting this incident at the negotiation stage, prior to the commencement of battle was seeking to create public revulsion towards those he deemed the ancestors of the Shia, after all they were so evil they did everything to prevent the likelihood of a peaceful settlement, stooping as low as slaughtering the peace envoy of Aisha! Firstly the narration that Ibn al Hashimi relied on regarding the pre Jamal negotiation is weak on account of Sayf bin Umar in the chain. Secondly, what would be the logic in the envoy of Aisha being killed on his way to Madina? Why was he heading in the direction of Medina when the hostile parties were already camped in Jamal? All the main players were in Jamal, so what was the logic in this envoy heading elsewhere? If he was on his way to Madina, what were his precise coordinates at the time of death? The distance between Jamal and Medina is thousands of miles, how did those camped at Jamal receive news of the Sabaites killing this envoy, via email?
Reply Three – Why was Aisha silent on the alleged killing of her envoy?
If the envoy of Aisha was killed, thus frustrating the negotiation mission, can our opponents provide us with a single authentic reference from Aisha with regards to this? The battle of Jamal occurred in 32 Hijri and Aisha died in 57 Hijri, can any authentic reference be produced wherein Aisha attested to be an envoy being assassinated by unknown miscreants that triggered the commencement of hostilities at Jamal?
Knowing Ibn al Hashimi’s shameless approach to polemics we can envisage him seeking to rebut all we said by pointing to the fact that Sunni and Shia texts record the existence of Ibn Saba. Let us for arguments sake accept his existence, does that mean that we automatically accept every historical allegation attributed to him without ascertaining its accuracy? Ibn al Hashimi needs to understand that there is a difference between proving the existence of Ibn Saba and proving that the same Ibn Saba contributed to every act of Fitnah from the reign of Uthman until the martyrdom of Maula Ali (as). Let us expand on this with an example:
“There has been a large increase in crime in New York. A known prolific offender resides in that same York. Does that automatically mean that every criminal act committed in that City should be attributed to him? No fair minded person would deem a process wherein a prolific offender is charged with every criminal offense, because he happens to live in that New York to be fair or legally sound. Justice would dictate that the police investigate every offense in an unbiased manner to identify the perpetrator. Police intelligence / suspicions about this prolific offender may indeed be justified, but they remain baseless if no evidence can be located placing this prolific offender at the crime scene. If no physical evidence, such as DNA can be located at the scene the police will need to seek eyewitness testimony. If no eye witnesses can be located the police will seek out hearsay evidence, taking evidence from those that had heard eye witnesses disclose what they had seen. From a legal perspective hearsay evidence is the weakest form of evidence that the police can rely on, sometimes it is so weak that it is in effect rendered inadmissible. Judges are often loath to accept secondary evidence as grounds to convict, particularly when the stakes are so high (a loss of liberty). If the prosecution are going to rely on hearsay evidence as part of their case, it is pivotal that the witness giving hearsay evidence is of good character, and has nothing that could undermine his reliability as a witness. If this witness is widely known amongst men of repute as a dishonest liar his evidence in effect becomes useless. If it emerges in court that the hearsay evidence of the same witness has been previously used by the prosecution to secure the successful conviction of the same offender on several occasions, this coincidence would be enough to cast serious doubts on his testimony in court.
Applying this example to the facts here, if Ibn al Hashimi is enjoying his cult status as Chief Prosecutor before his Sunni jury in a trial that is seeking to convict millions of twelver Shias for the crimes of their ‘ancestor’ Ibn Saba, he needs to be certain that the evidence that he submits proves Ibn Saba’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Justice dictates that Ibn al Hashimi successfully proves his case citing each and every narration, quoting the book and its accompanying chain of narration. What justice system entitles Ibn al Hashimi to present his case on the basis of one reference from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (without citing the chain), one without any reference (the Sabaites killing Aisha’s envoy) and all the remainder narrations from Tabari (all of which have been coincidentally by narrated by Sayf bin Umar, unanimously graded by the Sunni scholars as a liar). Since Ibn al Hashimi relied on Tabari to expose the wicked ancestry of the twelver Shia, namely the Sabaites we thought it only right to analyze all those chains wherein the term Ibn Saba and al Sabaiyya are mentioned in the History of al Tabari. The Tabari narrations of Ibn Saba and the Sabayyite movement span from Uthman’s reign through to the Battle of Jamal and its immediate aftermath. During that time Tabari mentions the name Ibn Saba or his other title al Sawda on 14 occasions and Al Sabaiyya on nine occasions. Tabari makes no further mention of Ibn Saba or al Sabaiyya at Siffin, Nahrwan or at any other point during the Caliphate of Imam Ali (as). Had Ibn al Hashimi bothered to look through these narrations, rather than simply quoting from the oxygen thieves of Najd he would have realized that every single narration in Tabari that makes reference to Ibn Saba and al Sabaiyya has been narrated through Sayf bin Umar! Ibn al Hashimi don’t you find it odd that the only narrations that Tabari found about the powerful Ibn Saba and Sabayyites that successfully ousted Uthman and caused the battle of Jamal, were from a known liar? Did this reality pass every other witness who lived through that troublesome era? We are sure that any just man would cast doubts on the fact that something as significant as the Sabaites would have and should have been narrated by a plethora of witnesses, and not just a notorious liar! This being the case, why has Ibn al Hashimi deemed it appropriate to take narrations about Ibn Saba and the Sabaites from Tabari? Ibn al Hashimi, is it not shameful that you have sought to rely on narrations that you know to be weak, with the hope that your Sunni readers will find the twelvers guilty of the sins of their Sabayyite ancestors?
We appeal to justice. Has Ibn al Hashimi proven his case against Ibn Saba through this methodology? By bringing such a pathetic case against the Shia as a mechanism to hide the sins of his Sahaba ancestors, Ibn al Hashimi has only succeeded in proving one thing, that he is a dishonest liar of the highest order, whose every word should be looked at with suspicion, after all Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book (49:6):
O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.
Having spun this web of lies as part of his deception, the shameless Ibn al Hashimi lets his imagination run away with him and as part of his closing submission seeks to point to a nexus between the Sabaites, Munafiqoon of the past and today’s Shia. Let us see his assertions:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
It is the characteristic of the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to accuse the believers of having alterior motives; in fact, the Quraish leaders accused the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of trying to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was the reason he claimed prophethood.
Ibn al Hashimi do you really believe that this is the definition of a hypocrite? If doubting the Prophethood of the Prophet (s) is indeed the characteristic of a hypocrite what opinion should we then hold of the second Sunni Khalifa Umar who at Hudaibiya said:
“I never doubted Prophethood as much as I did on this day”
Ponder over the words ‘as much as I did on this day’ meaning that doubts continually dogged Umar’s mind and reached their peak at Hudaibiya that occurred in 8 Hijri. And then we have Yazid the sixth Sunni Khalifa who said following news of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) as recorded by Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Vol. 11 pg. 631
“Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies neither was there any revelation”
If those that doubt the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) fall within the definition of munafiqoon why are these two individuals afforded respect as caliphs in the eyes of Ibn al Hashimi?
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Munafiqeen accused Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) of using the Caliphate to empower his family.
Who are these munafiqeen according to Ibn al Hashimi? Who else can it be than the Shia! This is what he claims at another point in his article:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Uthman’s Assassination (رضّى الله عنه)
During the reign of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), the third Caliph, the Islamic state had expanded far and wide, but the empire was experiencing grave financial troubles. Many poor Beduins felt that Uthman’s policies (رضّى الله عنه) were tilted in favor of the Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by the Shia scholars today, who love to slander Uthman (رضّى الله عنه); they accuse him of nepotism and mismanagement.
The legal definition of slander is:
A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.
The crucial thing is the word ‘false’. Tell us Ibn al Hashimi do you really expect your Sunni readers to accept that there was no nepotism and mismanagement during the reign of Uthman? Was this merely a Sabaite concoction that was cascaded through the Shia generations?? This is just a further example of the intellectual dishonesty of Ibn al Hashimi, nepotism and mismanagement was a sad reality associated with the reign of Uthman, something recorded in the annals of Sunni history and likewise accepted by the Sunni Ulema. We have in fact cited examples of his mismanagement here:
His nepotism is a historical fact, and one can pick up any book of Sunni history to see blatant examples of it. This has been acknowledged by modern day Sunni Ulema like Syed Qutub Shaheed who said in Social justice in Islam, pg. 222:
“Even apart from money, there were also the governorships which Uthman scattered profusely among his relatives. Among these was Muawiyah, whose power Uthman expanded considerably, giving him control of Palestine and the district of Hums he granted to him a single control of four armies and thus made it easier for Muawiyah later to aspire royal power during the caliphate of Ali by which time he had acquired money and built up armies.”
It is also interesting that he in the same article showered the term Imam on a scholar that happened to be a severe Uthman critic, Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi. Ibn al Hashimi states:
Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)
‘Imam’ Maudoodi whilst discussing the third khalifa’s reign leads into the discussion by citing the advice the outgoing Khalifa (Umar) gave to Uthman:
“If after me you become the khalifa, do not let your relatives ride over the necks of the Muslims’, but when Uthman subsequently became the Khalifa he gradually ignored the policy and gave high posts, one after the other to his relatives, and gave them concessions that normal people did not have. This invited objections from other”.
Khilafat aur Mulukiyat, pg. 106
Ibn al Hashimi, if this Imam’s opinion is being advanced by you to defend Aisha, then that same Imam’s severe critique of the nepotism and mismanagement of Uthman in his famed work ‘Khilafat aur Mulukiyat’ should likewise be accepted by you. As you can see the highlighting of Uthman’s corruption is not the exclusive domain of the Shia scholars, rather the very individual that Ibn al Hashimi deems an Imam was uncompromising in his criticism of Uthman’s corruption! Imam Maudoodi’s book courted much criticism and was the subjected to refutations and counter refutations. One such counter refutation is a book called ‘Khilafat aur Mulukiyat aur Ulema Ahle-Sunnat’ wherein the author seeks to corroborate Maudoodi’s comments on Uthman’s corruption as follows:
Maulana Ahmed Ali Lahori (rh) further states under the topic of ‘A tragic incident regarding the martyrdom of Uthman (ra)’:
“Ibn Asakir says that Zuhri asked Saeed bin Musayib of Uthman’s martyrdom, [he replied] ‘the situation was this, some Sahaba deemed Uthman’s Caliphate unacceptable as everybody was aware that he was aiding his relatives. He was the Khalifa for twelve years, during that time he helped many Banu Ummayya, they were not Sahaba of the Prophet (s), they were those that the Sahaba did not like, they sought to advise him for six years, but he failed to remove them. He was for the next six years favorable to his uncle’s family, showing them kindness and support he appointed Abdullah bin Sharh as the Governor of Egypt, the Egyptians complained of his injustices” [Khudaamudeen, 19 July 1957]
Khilafat aur Mulukiyat aur Ulema Ahle-Sunnat, pg. 41-42 (Maktaba Ahle Sunnay, Gujranwala, Pakistan)
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Munafiqeen accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of taking the Caliphate after supposedly killing Uthman
Now this is where things get very interesting. If the Munafiqoon were indeed those that accused Imam Ali (as) of killing Uthman, then allow us to submit the testimony of one such individual Marwan ibn al Hakam. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Muhammad bin Yahya in al-Tamheed wa’l Bayan fi Maqtal al Shaheed Uthman, pg. 181, quoted the fact that Marwan had accused Imam Ali (as) as follows:
“If you Ali had not struck the murdered man openly, you surely struck him in secret”.
Now justice would dictate that Ibn al Hashimi deem this individual a munafiq, but rather than do so, we see whenever he mentions Marwan on his site, he refers to him as (ra) for example:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Shia curse Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) for taking Fadak away from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and giving it to Marwan (رضّى الله عنه).
On the one hand Ibn al Hashimi defines Munafiqeen as those that accused Ali (as) of killing Uthman, and on the other hand he deems Marwan who had that opinion to be ‘(ra)’
