SHI'A MYTHS AND
LEGENDS
HADHRAT AAISHA [radhiallaahu anha] ADVOCATED THE MURDER OF UTHMAAN
[radhiallaahu anhu]
Q: Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman.
How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on
the premise that his killers should be apprehended? During her lifetime Hadhrath
Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated
his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against
Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she
leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from
Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was
it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)? History records that
she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for
he is unbeliever", see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141,
al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
A: The questioner has assumed as an historical fact the claim
drawn from the named sources that Sayyidah A'ishah advocated the killing of
Sayyiduna 'Uthman. He labours under the common misconception that the simple
fact that the moment something mentioned is in a history book it is an
incontrovertible fact. He fails to understand the need for authentication.
The fact of the matter is that in order for narrated
information to be regarded as a valid basis for making claims that affect one's
belief system, or influence the way one views personalities, the information HAS
to be authenticated. Leave aside reports of history; even the ahadith of
Rasulullah sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam have to be authenticated by rigorous
criteria before store can be set by it.
What does authentication entail? Does it amount to providing a
mere reference to a source or two such as what the questioner has given? Anyone
who regards this as authentication hasn't got the vaguest idea of what
authentication is or what it entails. The questioner and other like him would be
well advised to equip himself with some knowledge of the discipline before
venturing boldly into making claims that may well affect their destiny in the
hereafter.
Coming now to the issue under discussion: The questioner
provides the following four references for his claim that history records
Sayyidah A'ishah as saying about Sayyiduna Uthman, "Kill this old fool (Na'thal),
for he is unbeliever":
1. History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
2. Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141,
3. al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
4. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
LISAN AL-'ARAB
The book "Lisan al-'Arab" by Ibn Manzur is a not a work on
history, but a lexicon of the Arabic language. Does the questioner not see the
utter ridiculousness of his endeavour to establish historical truth by quoting a
dictionary? His attempt is comparable to quoting scientific material from an
anthology of poetry.
SHARH IBN ABIL HADID
Ibn Abil Hadid was an extremist Shi'i whose beliefs would be
repugnant even to the "moderate" Shi'ah themselves. His views of the
near-divinity of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib are reflected in his poetry, some
of which is reproduced in the editor's introduction to his commentary on "Nahj
al-Balaghah". As an extremist Shi'i, his being cited on a matter concerning the
Sahabah cannot be free from prejudice, and must therefore be called into
question seriously.
If we are going to accept everything the Shi'ah say about the
Sahabah, we will eventually end up having to accept that beyond inciting the
murder of Uthman, Sayyidah A'ishah was also guilty of adultery, [as recorded by
Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir (vol. 2 p. 377), Hashim al-Bahrani in al-Burhan
(vol. 4 p. 358) and Abdullah Shubbar in his Tafsir (p. 338)]; that the sixth of
the seven doorways of Hell will be exclusively for her [as stated in Bihar al-Anwar
vol. 4 p. 378; and Tafsir al-'Ayyashi vol. 2 p. 243]; and that she was a
hypocrite who, along with the vast bulk of the Sahabah turned apostate openly
after the demise of the Nabi sallallahu `alayhi wasallam.
AL-'IQD AL-FARID
Ibn 'Abd Rabbih's book "al-'Iqd al-Farid" is a literary book
about which the author states in his introduction, "I have written this book,
and I have chosen its rare jewels from amongst select gemstones of literature."
He makes no claim that everything in his book is historically accurate and
authentic. Again, the absolute inappropriateness of establishing historical
truth from a source as unsuited for this purpose as a literary omnibus seems to
escape the notice of the questioner.
IBN AL-ATHIR'S HISTORY
The fact that the questioner names this work as the " History
of Ibn Athir" appears to reveal that he himself is unfamiliar with the book, and
happens to be citing it from second or third hand sources. For his information,
the book's proper title is "al-Kamil". Had the questioner been familiar with
this book he would have been aware of the fact that this book is directly based
upon Ibn Jarir at-Tabari's work; and had he been familiar with Tabari's work he
would have known that Tabari has recorded the material in his book complete with
chains of narrations. He would also have known that Tabari himself, in a
disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol. 1 p. 24) declares that in terms
of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of
narration through which it has come down to him.
In light of the above, let us now proceed to evaluate the
authenticity of the statement which the questioner has so boldlessly and
recklessly (and also - mind you - ignorantly) ascribed to Sayyidah A'ishah.
This statement is to be found on page 226 of the 5th volume of
the edition of Tarikh at-Tabari published by Dar al-Fikr, Beirut in 1418/1998.
It is recorded by Tabari on the authority of the following chain of narration:
Tabari narrates from 'Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-'Ijli, who
narrates from Husayn ibn Nasr al-'Attar, who narrates from his father Nasr ibn
Muzahim al-'Attar…
Up to this point the following flaws present itself in the
chain:
1. Of Tabari's immediate source, 'Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-'Ijli,
no trace can be found in the biographical works of narrators. He is thus an
unknown person.
2. The next person in the chain is Husayn ibn Nasr ibn Muzahim.
Of him too, no trace is to be found in the biographical literature ¯ hence
another unknown person. The only thing that is known about him is the fact that
he is the son of Nasr ibn Muzahim.
3. Nasr ibn Muzahim presents a major problem. He was known in
his lifetime as a forger of historical material, and was condemned for it by,
amongst others, the hadith expert Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb. His general
unreliability as a narrator of historical material is echoed by al-'Uqayli, Abu
Hatim ar-Razi, ad-Daraqutni, al-'Ijli, al-Khalili and Ibn 'Adi. He is described
by a number of these experts as a hardcore extremist Shi'i. (See Lisan al-Mizan
vol. 7 p. 187) Even a non-muhaddith such as the literary biographer Yaqut al-Hamawi
describes him as an extremist Shi'i who stands accused of forgery and is
generally unreliable. (Mu'jam al-Udaba vol. 19 p. 225)
As may be expected, Shi'i hadith critics are generally more
affable towards Nasr ibn Muzahim. However, even they have located a problem with
the historical material which he transmits. The Shi'i hadith critic Abul 'Abbas
an-Najashi, for example, remarks about him that while he himself was a person of
righteous conduct, his problem was that he transmitted material on the authority
of unreliable sources. (Rijal an-Najashi vol. 2 p. 384) This statement of an-Najashi
is corroborated by al-'Allamah al-Hilli in al-Khulasah. (Jami' ar-Ruwat vol. 2
p. 291)
With this background on Nasr ibn Muzahim, let us now proceed
to investigate the sources on whose authority Nasr ibn Muzahim has ascribed this
alleged statement to Sayyidah A'ishah.
Nasr produces two separate chains of narrators through which
he claims to have received this information. They look as follows:
1. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Sayf ibn 'Umar, who narrates
from Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-A'lam.
2. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from 'Umar ibn Sa'd, who narrates
from Asad ibn 'Abdullah, who narrates from some learned men whom he met.
The first chain of narration shows glaring defects. Sayf ibn 'Umar
is that historian whose total unreliability has been a matter of much
discussion, especially in Shi'i circles. The contemporary Shi'i scholar, Murtada
al-'Askari has written an interesting book in which he has pointed a finger of
accusation at this very same Sayf ibn 'Umar. The charge which he levels against
Sayf ibn 'Umar is that he is responsible for inventing of the personality of
'Abdullah ibn Saba. Despite the flaws in al-'Askaris' research (upon which some
light has been cast in an article that may be read at) this book has been highly
acclaimed in Shi'i circles, and everyone climbed on the bandwagon of labeling
Sayf ibn 'Umar as a shameless liar and forger. But suddenly, when the material
which Sayf transmits is not about Ibn Saba, but disparages Sayyidah A'ishah, his
unreliability is conveniently forgotten, and an-Najashi! 's complaint of Nasr
ibn Muzahim narrating from unreliable sources is cast to the wind. Such
"objectivity" leaves one in complete amazement.
Furthermore, Sayf ibn 'Umar's two sources, Muhammad ibn
Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-A'lam, are completely unknown entities.
Nasr ibn Muzahim's second chain of narration suffers once
again from the same defect. His immediate source, 'Umar ibn Sa'd is unknown, as
is 'Umar ibn Sa'd's source Asad ibn 'Abdullah. The person or persons from whom
Asad ibn 'Abdullah allegedly received the information are not even named at all.
In summary it may therefore be said that not a single person
in the entire chain of narration, from Tabari up the final sources, may be
relied upon at all. Is it on the basis of such worthless historical material
that the questioner wishes us to believe that Sayyidah A'shah advocated the
killing of Sayyiduna 'Uthman?
If the questioner can bring himself to accept such worthless
material, it creates a question in the mind as to why he would do so. It cannot
be because of the intrinsic value of the report itself, for it has been
adequately demonstrated here that the report has no value at all. The only
reason for his acceptance of such narrations will have to be his own sectarian
prejudices. He himself will have to answer to Allah for accepting and believing
information provided by such worthless and unreliable sources.
As for the rest of us, we abide by the instruction of Allah
Most High: "O you who believe, when an evil-doer comes unto you with news, then
ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly, and afterwards regret
what you have done." (49:6)
And since Sayyidah A'ishah was of the Muhajirin, it may be of
interest to the questioner to note what attitude Allah has instructed those who
come after the Muhajirin and the Ansar to adopt towards them: "And those who
come after them, they say: Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our brethren who
preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancour towards the
Believers. Our Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful." (59:10)
Moulana M Taha Karaan
Darul Uloom al-Arabiyya al-Islaamiyyah, Western Cape, SA
| 