SECOND PART:
THE REASON BEHIND THE DISSEMINATION
OF SEEF'S LIES INTO THE
RELIABLE BOOKSOF THE CALIPHATE SCHOOL

After having mentioned the list of valuable books of the
Caliphate school wherein one can find Seef's traditions,
we shall now discuss the reasons behind the spread of
these rather astonishing traditions of this dualist in
the authentic books of the Caliphate school.

Here, we shall read the sayings of two eminent
scholars belonging to the Caliphate school:-

(A) The high-ranking Judge and leading exegetist and
historian of the Caliphate school, «Ibne-Jareer Tabari»
in his book of 'Tarikh' (which is recognized to be the
most important reference to Islamic history) mentions the
event of the year 30 A.H. as such:

«In this year (i.e. 30 A.H.), the incident which
occured between Muawiya and Abu-Zar was this that the
former sent Abu-Zar from Syria to Medina. In this regard,
numerous accounts have been narrated most of which I do
not like to set forth. However those who have wanted to
bring an excuse for Muawiya in this affair have narrated
a story which Serri²⁹⁵ has
written. He says that Shoaib has narrated this from Seef
that....»

Then, Tabari records in his «Tarikh», the rest of
Seef's tradition which was about the incident of Abu Zar
and Muawiya.

The compendium of his tradition is this that
«Ibn-Sauda'a (i.e. the same Abdullah-ibn-Saba'ee created
by Seef and introduced by him as a Jew who had apparently
accepted Islam and had formed the group of Sabas and was
given the title of Ibn-Sauda'a) instigated Abu-Zar to
revolt against Muawiya and Uthman. In this and other
traditions, Seef introduces Abu-Zar the great companion
(of the Holy Prophet) as the follower of Ibn-Saba and
regards him to be amongst the group of Sabas.»

Thus, Tabari here (in spite of the fact that most of
the traditions narrated about the events between Muawiya
and Abu-Zar have not been mentioned by him in his
«Tarikh» because of his dislike towards them) has not
completely neglected the entire traditions but, amongst
all of them has selected the tradition of Seef who was a
pretext for Muawiya's shortcomings and the one to justify
his actions - Even though in this traditions, we know to
what extent «Abu Zar», - the great companion of the
Holy Prophet - has been insulted and degraded and to what
extent Seef has taunted his religiousness, introduced him
as foolish and stupid person, put up unfair accusations
against him and introduced him as one of the followers of
Abdullah-ibn-Saba, - the Jew.

This is because in this tradition, the truth has been
shown on Muawiya's side and his pretext to be plausible.
Such leading historians like Tabari sacrifice and
consider as insignificant character and honour of a great
companion (of the Holy Prophet) like Abu-Zar just for the
sake of safeguarding the respect of a character like
Muawiya.

(B) Another great and renowned scholar of the
Caliphate school, Ibn-Athir says in the book of
«Comprehensive History» as such:

«It was in this year (i.e. 30 A.H.) that the incident
of Abu-Zar and his expulsion by Muawiya from Syria to
Medina took shape. With regards to the reason behind this
act, numerous matters have been written. Amongst them,
Muawiya cursed Abu-Zar and threatened to kill him. All
along the way from Syria to Medina, he made him ride on a
camel with no litter and his banishment from Medina was
so deplorable and shocking that it is not befitting to
mention it!!!»

Although, Ibn-Athir has followed in the footsteps of
the leader of the historians and has omitted the event of
the clash between Muawiya and Abu -Zar and instead has
divulged the same fable of Seef, nevertheless he has been
more just than Tabari as he has given hint of the manner
in which Abu- Zar was taken from Syria to Medina as well
as his banishment from Medina. Like them, the other
historians too have followed Tabari and have narrated in
their well-known books, the fictitious fables of Seef,
the dualist.

As Seef has fabricated traditions wherein he has
narrated the incidents right after the Holy Prophet's
demise up to the event of the battle of Jamal i.e. from
the beginning of 11 A.H. until the year 37 A.H. - taking
into account the apostary wars and the Islamic conquests
and exhibiting in his traditions the stories of the
ruling Caliphs and the encounter of the companions,
disciples of the companions and the other Muslims
contrary to the realities, consequently his traditions
give shape to the special insight of the Caliphate school
with regards to the historical events of this period.

The tradition of other narrators - like Tamim-Dari
(the true Christian) and Kab al-Ahbar (the true Jew) too
form the philosophy of the Caliphate school. For
perceiving the importance of this matter it is necessary
to summarize the previous discussions which God-willing
we shall do so in the coming chapter.

So far, we have brought a gist of the traditions which
had been forged and entered into Islam for the sake of
the Caliphate court. With the fabrication of those
traditions, the Caliphate school and the branch of
Sunnism came into existence.

Sometimes too, due to the reliance of the scholars of
the Ahl-e-bayt school on these books, these traditions
have found their way into the dignified books of the
Ahl-e-bayt school. Now, we shall mention some of them as
examples:-

A FEW EXAMPLES OF THOSE TRADITIONS OF THE CALIPHATE SCHOOL WHICH HAVE ENTERED THE
DIGNIFIED BOOKS OF THE AHL-E-BAYT (A.S.) SCHOOL

FIRST:

The first person about whom the author of the book
«One hundred and fifty fictitious personalities» has
devoted more than seventy pages is a character by the
name of Q'aqa'-ibn-Amro Tamimi created by Seef-ibn-Omar
(perhaps other fabricators too had cooperated with him in
this affair).

Anyhow, the makers of this phoney name and the related
fables have introduced him as one of the companions who
after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) had
joined Ali (A.S.) and had become one of his special
Shias. This was so that they could level charges of bad
training against Imam and his special companions and
propagate them in their fables under this very name.

As an example, they deceived Imam Ali (A.S.) as long
as the battle of Jamal took place.

Thereafter, Hazrat Ali despondantly and expressed his
regret for this battle and the blood-shed which took
place in this battle.

Moreover, under this name, they have attributed unfair
things to Malik- Ashtar and other companions of Imam and
have ascribed them with the false things which they have
made.

It is more than twelve centuries that these matters
have been propagated and spread in the references of
Islamic history of the Caliphate school so much so that
Shaikh Tusi has mentioned him to be one of the companions
of Imam Ali (A.S.) in his book of «Rijal».

After him, other scholars of Rijal like Ardabeli (born
in 1101 A.H.) in «Ja'ame ar-Revah» and Qahpa'ee (lived
in 1016 A.H.) in «Majmah ar-Rijal» have narrated the
very remarks of Shaikh Tusi from his book «Rijal».
Mamaqani (born in 1351 A.H.) in his book «Tanqih
al-Maqal» after narrating Shaikh Tusi's statement says:
It has come down in «Osd-ul- Ghaba» as such: This
Q'aq'a left a great impression by the killing of the
Persians in Qadesiyyah and other battles.

He was one of the most valiant personalities and
possessed a great influence. He accompanied Imam Ali in
the battle of Jamal and other battles. Imam Ali sent him
to Talha and Zubair. He spoke to them in good words as a
result of which people came close to a peace treaty. He
settled down in Kufa and about him Abu-Bakr has said:
«The very voice of Qa'qa in the military (might and
power) is equal to a thousand soldiers.»

Well, up to this point, Mamaqani has narrated from
«Osd-ul-Ghaba» and Allama Shushtari too has brought
these informations in «Qamoos ar-Rijal» from
Osd-ul-Ghaba». If we refer to Osd-ul-Ghaba, we will
discover that he has narrated from «Est'eeab» of
Ibne-Abdul Ber and if we refer to «Est'eeab» we will
discover that he has in turn narrated from Seef-ibn-
Omar.

Therefore, the scholars of «Rijal» (biography and
criticism of traditionists) have not found any document
other than the very traditions of Seef-ibn- Omar (which
we reckoned to be in the third category amongst the
influential elements of the Caliphate school)

SECOND:

In explanation of the verse of «Efq», Shaikh Tusi
has brought in his book «Tibbiyan» the fables which
have been narrated from Ayesha.

Later, scholars like Sheikh Tabarsi (born in 548 A.H.)
and Abul-Fotouh Razi (born in 554 A.H.) have narrated
this from Sheikh Tusi in «Majma-ul- Bayan» and
«Tafseer-e-Rauzal-Janan» respectively. Gaazur (who
lived in the year 722 A.H.) has brought this in Tafseer
Jalah al-Azhan» from «Rauzal-Janan» and «after him
Mulla Fathullah Kashani (born in 988 A.H.) has narrated
this matter in «Minhaj-ul-Sadeqin» from Tafseer of
Gaazur and all the other afore-mentioned names.

However, the verses have been revealed about Mary the
copt and her acquittal from [Arabic text] (slander) the
details of which have come down in the second volume of
the Traditions of Ayesha²⁹⁶. Sayyed Hashim
Bahrani (born in 1107 A.H. or 1109 A.H.) too has referred
to both the tradition in his Tafseer of «Al-Burhan».

In short, the criteria which Sheikh Tusi (may Allah be
satisfied with him) and the scholars after him used to
employ in measuring the reliability of legal hadiths was
not observed by them in the case of these two recent
traditions. They have unconditionally accepted the
traditions, recorded them in their books and placed them
at the disposal of all the readers. Unfortunately, they
have not at all referred to the story of slander [Arabic
text] against Mary and her acquittal.

THIRD:

In «M'eraj as-Sa'adah», Mulla Ahmad Naraqi (born in
1245 A.H.) has written about the Holy Prophet as such:

The flames of love and attraction towards God has so
intensified in the center of his heart that if on
occasions, water was not sprinkled over it his heart
would have burnt and his blessed body would have been
affected and thus broken up the parts of his prosperous
existence. And the aspect of his immateriality was so
dominant that if the worldly things had not affected him,
he would have escaped entirely from the materialistic
world and his soul would have flown to the extreme end of
the spiritual world.

For this reason, Hazrat seeked several wives and made
himself busy with them so that his attention to this
world would always remain in him and the superfluity of
his absorption in God would not lead to the disengagement
of his heart. It was for this reason that whenever
excessive absorption (in God) enveloped him he would
touch Ayesh's thigh with his blessed hand and would say:

[Arabic text]

('O Ayesha, converse with me and make me busy with
this world). It was for this reason that some of Hazrat's
wives who had entered into wedlock with him by Divine
Will were in extreme wretchedness so that by means of
superfluity of wretchedness, their worldly aspect would
remain powerful and they would be able to face the holy
aspect of Hazrat. And since they engaged Hazrat, the
latter would pay attention to this world. ²⁹⁷

Mulla Ahmad Naraqi has narrated this matter from
«Jaame'h-ul-Sa'adat» written by his great grand-father
Mulla Mahdi Naraqi (born in 1209 A.H.). ²⁹⁸

Mulla Mahdi Naraqi too has narrated this account from
«Ehyah- Uloomuddin» of Ghazali (born in 505 A.H.).

In the chapter: [Arabic text] Ghazali says as such:-

[Arabic text] ²⁹⁹

For recognizing Ghazali, suffice it to narrate the
following two sentences from him:-

In the chapter [Arabic text] he says:

If it is asked whether it is permissible to
curse Yazid for being the one responsible for killing
Hussein or giving orders for his death, we reply as such:
Basically, such an affair has not been proved and it is
not lawful to say that Yazid had killed Hussein or had
given orders for his death. Such an affair has not been
proved let alone the matter of cursing Yazid....'

If it is asked whether it is lawful to say: May Allah
curse the killer of Hussein or may Allah curse the one
who issued orders for Hussein's death, we reply. It is
proper to say: May Allah curse the killer of Hussein if
he has died without repentence although it is possible
for Hussein's killer to have died after repentence....³⁰⁰

This is an example of the Ma'refat (gnosis) of the
leader of mysticism belonging to the Caliphate school.

FOURTH:

Sayyed Ali-ibn-Ta'oos (born in 664 A.H.) in the book
«Al-Mujtana-min ad -Du'a al-Mujtana»:

This section consists of prayers and noble hadith
which Ibn-Athir has brought in the third section of his
«Tarikh» in the story of renegation of the people of
Bahrain:

In that battle, a monk from Hejr who had accompanied
the Muslims had accepted Islam, when he was asked the
reason for his acceptance of Islam, he said: When I came
across three things, I feared that if I would not then
bring faith, God would metamorphose me in the form of
animal:

(i) Appearance of water in the desert (for the Muslim
soldiers).

(ii) Opening of the sea-waves (in order that the Muslim
soldiers walk over the waves)

(iii) I heard the wizard in the air (angels) reciting
this du'a:

[Arabic text]

Ibn-Athir (born in 630 A.H.) has narrated this part of
his «Tarikh» from the «Tarikh» of Tabari (born in 310
A.H.) and Tabari in turn has narrated this fable from
Seef-ibn-Omar.

In this fable, Seef has fabricated some miracles for
the Caliph's soldiers. For example, a pond of water
appeared in the desert for the Muslim warriors and as
soon as the water of this pond quenched their thirst, it
disappeared. And when they reached the sea, they began to
walk over it and the waves under their feet became soft
like sand and monk heard the prayers of the Angels in the
heavens who had been delegated for the assistance of the
warriors.

* * *

In the previous examples, we saw how the eminent
scholars of the Ahl-e- bayt school of thought have
brought down in their books the fables from the Caliphate
school by relying on the books of biography and history
of the Caliphate school. And how often the objections
which have on occasions been levelled against their
writings have been due to this very reason and nobody
seems to realize that these fables which are a matter of
objection have been narrated from the books of the
Caliphate school. This reality is manifest in the
following example:-

FIFTH:

Many criticisms have been levelled against
«Bihar-ul-Anwar» of Majlisi. For example the fables
which have come down in 264 pages of the biography of the
Holy Prophet in the recent edition - Vol. 15/26-104, 299
329, 371-384 and Vol. 16/20-77 and are similar to the
fables of one thousand and one night [Arabic text] or
even more.

For example, the fables which, while mentioning the
initial creation of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.), have
come down in Vol. 15130 and its text is as follows:-

«Then God created an angel which was unparalleled in
might. This angel was placed on earth while her legs did
not rest on anything below.

So God created a huge rock and placed it under this
angels foot. However this rock itself did not rest on
anything. So God created a very big bull which was so
enormous in built and its eyes so sparkling that nobody
had the awe to look at it - to such extent that if the
seas were placed in one of its nostrils then (in
comparison) it would be like dropping grains in an
endless desert. This bull which is called as «Lahuta»
bore the weight of the rock and carried it over its back
and its two thorns. However, the legs of this bull did
not rest on anything. So God created a mighty fish by the
name of «Bahmut». This fish spread under the
four-legged bull and the bull rested over the fish.

In this manner, the whole earth rests on the angel and
this angel on the rock and this rock on the bull's back
and this bull on the fish and this fish over the water
and water over the air and the air over a (monstruous
formation) darkness and gloom.»

Where in the heavens has Majlisi brought these fables
from? He has narrated these fables all from the seven
sections of the book: [Arabic text] written by
Abul-Hassan Ahmadi-ibn-Abdullah al-Bakari al-Ash'ari.

He has been called as «Al-Bakari» because he was
from the progeny of Abu-Bakr, the first Caliph. ³⁰¹

Shaikh Hur Amali (born in 1104 A.H.) has copied this
book in his own hand-writing and annexed it to the end of
the book «Uyoon al-Mu'ajezat» of Shaikh
Hussein-ibn-Abdul-Wahab.³⁰²

In «Seerah (biography of) Amir-ul-Mumineen (A.S.)
too, Majlisi has brought from «Meqtaal» of Abul-Hassan
al-Bakari (Vol. 42, Pg. 259-300) ³⁰³ and in
Seerah of Hazrat Zahra (A.S.) too, he has brought
from Mesbah al-Anwar of Al-Bakari³⁰⁴
in Vol. 43 of recent edition³⁰⁵.

In the chapter of the biography in «Bihar», Allama
Majlisi has quoted many views from these books of the
Caliphate school and has noted down many unfounded fables
by relying on the «Seerah» (biographies) and «Tarikh
» (history) of the Caliphate school. All these have been
put to criticism while in the chapters of jurisprudence
of this same «Bihar», Majlisi, like all other eminent
Shia scholars has narrated traditions from authentic
books of Ahl-e -bayt school and for this reason these
chapters have not come in for criticism.

Those who have criticized these type of fables have
never realized that these fables have been quoted from
the books of the Caliphate school. The wise will
hopefully not find any fault with whatever mentioned so
far.

In the matter of Imamate, you discuss and do research
and rely, in your debate, on those traditions which have
come down in the very books of the followers of the
Caliphate school. This is because the status of debate
necessitates that one should reason about things which
the opposite person believe and admit. This is possible
only if you refer to the books of the opposition and
present its contents as an evidence.

This matter can be witnessed in all the books of
debate of the people of discussion and research. They
refer to the books of those group of people who are in
disagreement with their views and opinion and narrate
those part of their belief which is accepted by them and
have come down in their books. However, what is important
is this that a debator should have utmost assurance in
the correctness and authenticity of whatever he narrates
from the books of the opposition as evidence.

For example, we see Shaikh Mufeed narrating in his
book «Jamal» a few traditions from Seef-ibn-Omar where
the first of them is as follows:-

«It has been narrated from Seef-ibn-Omar, from
Muhammad-ibn-Abdullah Sawad from .... that after Uthman's
death, the city of Medina was left with no governor
except for the five-day rule of Ghafeqi-ibn-Harb Akki. At
the outset, the people were in pursuit of someone who
would accept their recommendation of Caliphate. However,
they could not find anyone. The Egyptians searched for
Ali. The latter concealed himself from them and sought
shelter behind the walls of Medina. Finally they found
him and put up their offer to him - i.e. acceptance of
the responsibility of Caliphate. However, he did not
agree to bear this responsibility and hence rejected
it.» ³⁰⁶

This tradition is the only one which contains the
following points:-

(1) The chain of transmission of this tradition is
Muhammad-ibn-Abdullah- ibn-Sawad-ibn-Nuwaira where in the
book of «Rewat-Mukhtalqun» we have proved with
documentary evidence that such a person never existed at
all and is in fact counted to be one of Seef's imaginary
creations.

(2) The tradition speaks about the five-day rule of a
person by the name of «Ghafeqi-ibn-Harb Akki» in
Medina. We tried to seek the trace of this Ghafeqi and we
finally traced that this name has come down in five of
Seef's traditions in Tarikh-e-Tabari where his name has
been mentioned to be the leader of a certain group who
had come from Egypt to confront Uthman.³⁰⁷

We have not found his name or trace in any hadith or
book other than in Seef's traditions in the book of
Tarikh-e-Tabari. As such, we reckon him to be amongst the
fictitious characters made up by Seef to be ruler or a
governor.

In this tradition, it has come down that the city of
Medina was without any governor or ruler save the
five-day rule of the afore-said Ghafeqi!

The invalidity of such talks can be proved by paying
attention to the fact that the name of «Ghafeqi» has
not come in any tradition other than the tradition of
Seef, the fabricator of traditions.

In spite of this, we have further referred to the
historical books in order to see what they have to say
about the city of Medina after Uthman's assassination.

In this connection, they say as such:-

On the same day when Uthman was killed, allegiance was
given to Ali-ibn- Abi Talib³⁰⁸. The details of
this matter has come down in Tarikh-e-Tabari and the
traditions other than Seef's traditions.

Uthman was killed on Friday 18 Zilhaj after twentyfive
years of the Holy Prophet's demise.

Similarly Tabari writes under the title «Traditions
about the Caliphate of Amir-ul-Mumineen Ali-ibn-Abi Talib
and those who gave allegiance to him and the period of
his allegiance» as follows:-

«It has been narrated from Muhammad-ibn-Hanafia as
such: When Uthman was killed, I was standing
besides my father Ali (A.S.). My father arose and went
towards his house. The Holy Prophet's companions
approached him and said:

This man (sarcastically referring to Uthman) has been
killed and the people are having no alternative but to
have an Imam and leader amongst themselves. Today, we do
not know anyone more worthy for the position of Imamate
and leadership of this nation than you and it is not
because of your previous services to Islam or even being
the Holy Prophet's son-in- law. We will not let you alone
until we have given allegiance to you. My father replied:
This act should take place in the mosque because
allegiance to me should not be conducted in a concealed
manner.

Muhammad-ibn-Hanafia says: My father entered the
mosque (mosque of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) in Medina)
followed by the Muhajirs (emigrants) and Ansars
(helpers). They gave allegiance to my father and then the
common people pursued in the same manner.»

Tabari has also narrated from «Abu-Basheer A'bedi who
said:

«I was in Medina at the time of Uthman's death when
Muhajirs and Ansars - including Talha and Zubair
approached Ali and said:- We have come to give allegiance
to you.....»

In the third tradition, Tabari writes:- «Uthman was
killed on Saturady 18th Zilhaj and people gathered in
order to give their allegiance to Ali....»

Conclusion of this Analogy:

(1) In the chain of transmissions of Seef's tradition,
one can see the name of
Muhammad-ibn-Abdullahibn-Sawad-ibn-Nuwaira who is the
outcome of his imaginary creation.

(2) In the text of the traditions, one comes across
the five-day rule over Medina by a person called
«Ghafeqi-ibn-Harb» who is of course one of Seef's
fictitious rulers and governors.

(3) After Uthman's death, nobody ruled over Medina
even for an hour except Imam Ali.

(4) The Muhajirs (emigrants) and Ansars (helpers) did
not leave Imam and on the very day of Uthman's death,
they gave their allegiance to Ali.

Moreover, this fact that the Muhajirs and Ansars did
not leave Imam until they gave allegiance to him and that
Medina was not ruled even for an hour by anyone other
than Ali did not escape the attention of the eminent
scholar like Shaikh Mufeed. But, since from Muawiya's era
up to the time of the great Shaikh it had become famous
that Ali was Uthman's killer and that Imam had taken
allegiance from the people by force and intimidation and
for this very reason Muawiya had made obligatory the
practice of cursing Imam in the Friday-prayer sermons,
the great Shaikh wanted to bring evidence from the
traditions of the Caliphate school that Imam had not
taken allegiance from the people by force or intimidation
and called to witness the traditions which the historians
like Tabari have brought in their «Tarikh» (history).
Thus, he brought this hadith in order to argue that Imam
had no role in Uthman's murder and for some days he did
not even agree to accept allegiance from the people.

In this section, we shall discuss two points in two
parts:

(A) The condition for referring to the primary sources
of Islam.,

(B) The condition for referring to the Holy Quran.