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:-
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)
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.
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.
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:-
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.