History of the Caliphs

By: Rasūl Ja’farīan

Translation by: Ali Ebrahimi

p. 198-210
Without doubt, during the caliphacy of the first three caliphs, Imām was not politically active in the current affairs and except for counseling some Judicial cases and, to a lesser extent political issues, did not take an active part in politics. In other words, he did not take part in the ruling system of caliphs, but just led the opposition party indirectly. His victory after ‘Uthmān, in large measures, indicated the domination of anti-Quraysh and anti-Umayyads. These opponents enjoyed the support of Iraqi tribes, Egyption migrants and also the assistance of Ansār and native Medinans.Some of Muhādjirūn at the head of which was ‘Ammār Ibn Yāsir, were reckoned among this group. These formed a part of ‘Uthmān’s adversaries. But because of ‘Uthmān’s being inattentive to a group of Quraysh itself and his overattention to Umayyads, the former had also joined the opposition party. Talha, Zubayr and ‘Āyisha were presiding over this group. ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ās who was deposed from Egyptian rule, opposed ‘Uthmān. Of course all these claimed that ‘Uthmān had stood aloof from the practice of Prophet. Therefore the overall direction of the rebellion was returning to the Prophet’s conduct, fostering justice and not being cruel or unjust to people. The head companions who had lived up to that time, and participated in ‘Umar’s election council- especially Talha who was supported by ‘Āyisha were candidates for caliphate. Their joining to the opposition party was a glimmer of hope for caliphate. Despite their fame in Iraq and Hidjāz, concerning records, knowledge and piety none of them could hold a candle to ‘Alī; moreover, ‘Uthmān’s failure as the representative of Quraysh naturally resulted in the power of ‘Alī, the representative of the opposition party who had opposed the ruler’s policy from the very beginning.[1]

From the starting-point of public opposition to ‘Uthmān, Imām ‘Alī (a) was as the mediator of the two parties or on the other hand, opponents’ spokesman and he transferred people’s oppositions to ‘Uthmān. Although being considered as the mediator, Imām (a) acted moderately. Having objected to ‘Uthmān’s some indecent behaviors[2], Imām (a) under the conditions of being mediator obeyed ‘Uthmān’s rights, took him on oath of promise and calm opponents along with obeying opponents’ conditions. It was natural that although Imām (a) didn’t play any role in ‘Uthmān’s murder and his coming to power, the Umayyads and some parties of Quraysh accused him of doing so. In spite of it, most of those being of Imām’s close companions ranked among the opponents and even being accused of having a hand in ‘Uthmān’s murder. Imām’s supporters were all anti-‘Uthmān. And as indicated before, this was the starting-point of Shi‘ism forming among people of Kūfa whose important political activity was opposition to the ruling caliphate. They were indeed satisfied with Abū Bakr and ‘Umar.

At any rate, Imām’s supporting party consisting of Ansār, the majority of companions as well as Kūfa’s Qur’ān reciters was strong to the extent that Talha and Zubayr weren’t allowed any appearance. Also there existed no reference to Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās[3]. In continuation of Sa‘īd Ibn Musayyib’s long narrations concerning ‘Uthmān’s murder, it’s mentioned that after that ‘Alī (a) came to his house and all the people rushing to his house asserted ‘Alī (a)’s caliphate.

They wanted him to reach out his hand to people for allegiance but Imām (a) said, “Allegiance is Badr’s companions’ not yours. And the caliph is the one they choose.”

After that, all the people of Badr who were alive came to ‘Alī (a) and called for allegiance to Imām (a).[4]

Confronted by the insistence of the Prophet(s)’s companions, Imām averted the admission of caliphate. Tabarī quoted from Muhammad Ibn Hunayf that after ‘Uthmān’s murder, a number of companions came to my father, saying that we know no body more deserving of caliphate than you.

‘Alī (a) said, “It’s better for me to be your vizier rather than your emir”.

They answered, “We admit nothing but swearing allegiance to you.”[5]

Imām said that his allegiance ought to be in mosque rather than in secrecy.

According to Ibn ‘Abbās, “I feared lest a problem might be arisen in the mosque.”[6] When he went to the mosque, Muhādjirūn and Ansār went there and pledged allegiance to him. Besides, Abū Bashīr ‘Ābidī has been quoted as saying that after the assassination of ‘Uthmān, the people went repeatedly to ‘Alī (a) till they managed to compel him admit the caliphate.

Imām ascended the pulpit and said, “He was not in want of caliphate and he admitted it reluctantly, and shall accept to govern them providing that people will adhere thoroughly to him.”

It’s been noted in the narrations that Talha and Zubayr were within this throng of the people as well. When all gathered in the mosque, Talha was the first to swear allegiance. Averting allegiance, Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās said that he won’t swear allegiance as well. Tabarī points out a narration with respect to the belief that Talha and Zubayr’s allegiance arose from their fear of Mālik’s sword. However, the narration is not in conformity with the other ones. Imām asked them to be caliph themselves, and he shall swear allegiance to them. Yet, in so far as, by no means, they found themselves apt, they were satisfied with swearing allegiance to Imām, in order that they hereby find a position for themselves. By chance, their later remarks made it known that by compelled allegiance they meant that they didn’t have anybody at Medina to whom they swear allegiance, whereas Imām ‘Alī (a) has had abundant number of supporters.

Previously, in our discussion on allegiance, we’ve pointed out that, in principle, Imām was among those compelling others to swear allegiance. As after the riot of Djamal rebels, he never forced Marwān to swear allegiance as quoted by him.[7]

Immediately after allegiance Imām was asked to turn over Basra and Kūfa but he refused to do so.

Muhammad Ibn Hanīfa says, “All Ansārs except a few, swore the oath of allegiance to ‘Alī. The opponents consisted of Hassān Ibn Thābit, Ka‘b Ibn Mālik, Maslama Ibn Mukhallad, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and some others reckoned among the ‘Uthmānīds, ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar, Zayd Ibn Thābit and Usāma Ibn Yazīd were among non-Ansār opponents who all benefited from generosity of ‘Uthmān’s caliphate.

Tabarī says, “As far as we know, not even one of Ansārs infringed the allegiance to ‘Alī.[8]Hence, some, who allegedly did not swear allegiance to ‘Alī were probably those not taking part in battles of Djamal, Siffīn and Nahrawān not those not taking the oath of allegiance to ‘Alī.[9] As Diyār Bakrī relates, All the Badr participants who had lived up to that time swore allegiance to ‘Alī.[10]‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Abzī has been quoted, 800 of us who were present at Ridwān allegiance, took part at Siffīn 63 of whom including ‘Ammār were killed.[11] As Ibn A‘tham narrates, at first Imām rejected the allegiance saying, “I beheld in everything a profound disintegration which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept.”

Then, accompanied by people, he went to Talha and asked him to accept the caliphate.

Talha said, “There is no one more deserving than you.”

The same happened to Zubayr and both of them undertook not to do anything contrary to Imām’s will.[12]

Ibn A‘tham talks about the role of Ansār in taking the oath of allegiance to ‘Alī and about their deputies who addressed the people in the mosque some of whom where Iraqi and Egyptian migrants.

People said,” You are “God’s helpers” and we will do what you say.”

They too introduced ‘Alī as the caliph and the cheering people approved him as well. That day people left the mosque and next day Imām entered the mosque and said, choose someone that fits your purpose and I shall follow you.

They said, “We haven’t changed our mind since yesterday.”

At first, Talha who was paralyzed in hand took the oath. This was considered as ill omen! Then Zubayr took the oath and following him Muhādjirūn and Ansār and all Arabs, non-Arabs and kinsfolk present in Medina did so.[13]Imām’s words, better than anything else, are expressive of why he refused to accept the burden of people’s allegiance. The first reason was that to him, the society was so decadent that he couldn’t either lead it or enforce his criterion and intentions.On the day of allegiance he told,

“Leave me alone and go in search of someone else. We are facing a matter with several faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept The clouds of sedition have darkened the skies thoroughly and the right path can’t be discerened. Let it be known to you that if I accept your request I shall make you act according to my own judgments and will not care about the suggestions and blames of the reproachful.”[14]

Imām knew that amidst those seditions, leading the society properly was beyond the bounds of possibility. Once he got that people won’t leave him to himself, he managed to place them under the obligation of obeying him fully and resigning themselves to his will.[15] Following happenings made the hardships of working within sedition and doubts dawn on Imām. Once he said, “If I knew the heightened situation, I would have never got involved in it from scratch.”[16]Later on, he wrote about the day of allegiance,

“When you revolted against ‘Uthmān and killed him, turning toward me you wanted to swear allegiance to me. I balked at doing so and held my hand back. You struggled to open my hand and I prevented it. You pulled my hand and I resisted. You crowded so densely round me that I thought you will either kill each other or me, you said” we swear allegiance to you for we find no one but you and will consent to no one except you and after the allegiance we will neither get separated nor will there be in any disagreement between us.” so I felt compelled to accept your request and called the people to take the oath of allegiance. I accepted the allegiance of any one swearing at will.Not taking aversion to the one not willing to take the oath, I left him to himself. Talha and Zubayr were from among those swearing allegiance to me and if they didn’t want to do so, I would compel neither them nor any one else.”[17]

Once, in Kūfa, Imām saw a man called Abū Maryam from whom he asked the reason for his coming there.

He answered,” I have come for my promise to you because you said if you had come to power, you would have done so and so.”

Imām said, “I have kept my word, but I am in grips with the most malignant people who do not obey me at all.”[18]

There are some significant points about ‘Alī’s election as the Community leader. First, people’s participation in the first Caliph’s election was initially confined to the participants in Saqīfa and evidence shows some sort of previous conspiracy or at least coordination of anti-Hāshimites party earlier than allegiance.[19] ‘Umar was appointed through a will and ‘Uthmān, too,was selected by a confined council. By contrast, ‘Alī’s election was largely demanded by Medinans.

As a matter of fact, this was the only allegiance and election which can be called a public one. The new point about this allegiance was the participation of Iraqi and Egyptian delegates in addition to Muhādjirūn and Ansār. Of course, based on the common, well-establishd tradition of those days, according to which only Muhādjirūn and Ansār were of good standing, no credence was attached to their choice. Despite of that, their presence did increase public turnout in Imām’s election. This was not an unknown phenomenon for Imām and the others. During a sermon Imām said,

Your allegiance to me was not a hasty and precipitate action nor is my and your position the same. I seek you for Allāh’s sake and you seek me for your own benefits.[20]

This, according to Ibn Abi l-Hadīd[21] is an allusion to Abū Bakr’s election. In order to prevent the idea of opportunism and conspiracy in public opinion, Imām didn’t allow people to take the oath at his house, stating that, “There can be no allegiance without Muslim’s consent.[22] The allegiance should not take place secretly. I go to the mosque, anyone who wishes can come there to take the oath to me.” Then he entered the mosque and people took the oath to him. [23]This is one of the reasons of Imām’s delay in accepting people’s request.

Secondly, Apart from what was set forth about Imām and his true Shi‘ite Muslims’ belief in his Imamate, the “tradition of allegiance” was fully established and Imām could not trespass it. This was a good proof against Imām’s opponents and for him who was publicly selected. According to Dīnwarī, during a speech following allegiance Imām stated, “Oh, people! You took the oath of allegiance to me in accordance with the previous traditions. Prior to the allegiance, the choice was yours but after that you have no choice. Imām must be firm and the folk must resign themselves to his will. This was a public allegiance, anyone denying it, has in fact denied Islam, allegiance to me was not precipitate.[24]

Notwithstanding, Imām was determined not to force anyone to take the oath. He even didn’t call to account those who had sworn the oath but were inattentive in settling the case of apostates. When Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās, ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and Usāma Ibn Zayd made some excuse for not performing Imām’s command, Mālik Ashtar said, “Oh, the Commander of the Faithful! Although we are not from among the Muhādjirūn and Ansār but we are from “The followers of righteousness”.[25] Despite Muhādjirūn and Ansār’s superiority in Islam, they are not supreme in what they share with us. This has been a public allegiance, anyone going back upon it deserves to be reprimanded. Coax those who intend to violate the allegiance and imprison them in case they refuse.

Imām stated, “I call them but they are decided in their very votes.”[26]

Hasan and Husayn told their father,” Marwān –who after ‘Uthmān’s murder, had sworn allegiance and now was taken into captivity in the battle of Djamal – will take the oath to you.”

Imām answered, “Did he not swear me allegiance after ‘Uthmān’s murder? I don’t need the allegiance of such a treacherous person with a hand like that of Jews.[27]

According to Balādhurī, following Djamal, Marwān told ‘Alī (a), “Unless forced, I won’t swear allegiance to you.” [28]

Obviously, not taking the oath differs form rebelling. Once according to the accepted standards the oath is taken and the public allegiance is accomplished anyone disobeying rebelliously or claiming caliphate, must be restrained;otherwise, what the caliphate would mean?[29] Despite this, Imām gloried in not forcing anyone to take the oath to him.[30]

‘Adī Ibn Hātim also told Mu‘āwiya, “‘Alī (a) compelled no one to take the oath.”[31]

The third point is that the accepted method of allegiance, was that of Muhādjirūn and Ansār based on which, Imām was nationally accepted as the caliph and apostates were rejected.[32] Even it has been said that even if Imām were the one killing ‘Uthmān, he remains the caliph, for Muhādjirūn and Ansār who dominate over people have taken the oath of allegiance to him.[33] Obviously, Imām relied on this method with the purpose of convincing his opponents who, based on the same method, approved Muhādjirūn and Ansār and the legitimacy of previous caliphs. Not to mention that in addition to Muhādjirūn and Ansār, the delegates from Iraqi tribes and some Egyptians had also sworn allegiance to ‘Alī (a), and this point was taken into consideration by Mālik Ashtar.[34] In a letter to Mu‘āwiya Imām wrote, “Those who took the oath of allegiance to Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, have sworn allegiance to me in the same way.” Now he who was present at the election have no right to go back upon his oath and he who was absent has no right to deny the oath of participants. Consultation is confined to Muhādjirūn and Ansār.God feels satisfaction at they gathering round a man and selecting him as their caliph. Should anybody go against such decision or fall into heresy, they will return him to the position from where he kept away and should he refuse to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him.[35]

As far as the initial caliphs were in power, this was deemed as an acceptable principle, except for the time when some ‘Uthmānids relied on a few companions not swearing the oath and they also, making an excuse of Muslims fratricide, evaded to act in obedience to the orders of ‘Alī (a) in combating his enemies.[36] Mu‘tamir Ibn Sulaymān narrated, “I told my father, people say the allegiance to ‘Alī (a) was not accomplished. He answered, “My son, allegiance belongs to the people of Mecca and Medina who did take the oath.”[37]

Another point is that on what allegiance was sworn. ‘Uthmān was recognized as outcast because he violated divine rules and in early caliphs time, it was an acceptable principle to act upon the Book and the Prophet’s tradition. Although a few of them disregarded some dimensions of the Prophet’s biography and even Qur’ān, after ‘Umar, condition of Shiykhs biography was included in allegiance that Imām ‘Alī rejected. According to Tabarī, swearing allegiance to ‘Alī happened to say that Book of God has to be referred about the close, the mean, the endeared and the stranger.[38] This position reflects issues during ‘Uthmān.

An Egyptian, Ibn A‘tham says, named Sūdān Ibn Hamrān Murādī who is to be murderer of ‘Uthmān said, “O Abū Hasan! we swear allegiance to you provided that if you acted like ‘Uthmān,you’ll be killed”.

That’s right, replied ‘Alī (a), then people acted according to Book of God and the Prophet’s tradition.[39]

One person insisted on including Shiykhs biography as terms of allegiance in addition to above two, yet Imām disapproved and saying that even if Abū Bakr and ‘Umar act upon something except the Book and the tradition, they are untruthful.[40]

Imām merely found himself yielded to Qur’ān and tradition and unwilling to disobey it and so were his companions and commanders.

O people!, said Qays Ibn Sa‘d, we swore allegiance to a man better of whom we never know after the Prophets(s). Rise up and swear allegiance to the Book and His Prophet.If we failed to do so, allegiance is withdrawn.[41] Muhammad Ibn Abī Bakr, Egyptian ruler said if you observe in my deeds obedience and fear from God, I praise God because of this gift bestowed upon me and it has guided me. If not, I have to be scolded.[42] Imām himself disapproved those who wanted to condition the allegiance to make Imām overlook what they have in their hands and said the only right they have in front of him is to comply with the Book and the tradition and nothing else.[43]

Qā‘idīn and No Congregation Formation

There emerged no agreement like that of Shiykhs time in the course of swearing allegiance to Imām and despite allegiance of the Ansār and Muhādjirūn. A few people opposed in the course of allegiance to Abū Bakr but congregation formed since, later, opponents also swore allegiance. Then, ‘Umar claimed that the opponents must join “congregation”. This congregation faced no problems in time of ‘Umar. It wasn’t first time when a rebellion shaped in time of ‘Umar and congregation split apart. ‘Uthmān’s improper attitude led to fragmentation in the Islamic community. In that time Kūfiyāns and a major part of Egyptians found ‘Uthmān a wrongdoer if not willing to kill him, they didn’t know him to be qualified for caliphate either. This idea wasn’t strongly rooted in Kūfa and ‘Uthmān was never admitted by people. Later on, it wasn’t known that if anyone wants martyrdom, he shall go to Dār al-Bittīkh in Kūfa for compassion of ‘Uthmān.[44] Medinans were hesitant about this and they are said to be followers of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar. They never approved ‘Uthmān.

There were people of Damascus and Umayyads who retained sanctity of ‘Uthmān and founded “‘Uthmānids”[45], recalled as “anti-Shī‘a religion”. As a matter of time, the Sunnites approved ‘Uthmān. From third century on, the ‘Uthmānids with a gradual change of name into people of Sunnat and Djamā‘at approved ‘Alī (a). Anyway, “Djamā‘at” persisted till ‘Umar and up to mid-rule of ‘Uthmān[46] and broke up into branches. This congregation in a real sense ceased to return until Mu‘āwiya that strangled all opposition by force and trick. However, it is obvious that the congregation differed from that of the old one foundationally. Allegiance to Imām ‘Alī met the requirements of a proper one. Muhādjirūn and Ansār in addition to emissaries of Iraq and Egypt swore allegiance to him. But due to disagreements continued by Qā‘idīn, the wicked ones, the deviators and the apostates and that a full-scale congregation came not to be formed, the subject congregation wasn’t so legitimate in the eyes of the majority of the companions through support of which the disagreements can be challenged and their founders can be called “rebels”. This wasn’t accepted by the Sunnites save the basis of the mentioned rebellions on the part of the companions that wasn’t regarded as “Idjtihād”, exertion, and so they were exonerated. They didn’t analyze the Khāridjites this way calling them real rebels. The “legitimate congregation” resisted against “rebellion” through support of a Qur’ānic verse in the chapter of Hidjrat that says, “If two groups of the faithful began to fight each other, try to bring them to a compromise. And if one offended the other, try to fight the offender to bring it back to bow to God. If it did so, make a just peace between them and exert justice for God love just people”.[47]

If, Abū Hanafiyya said later, Amīr al-Mu’minīn(a) had no conduct of Djihād with the rebels, we didn’t know the rules of fighting with them.[48]

The Commander of the Faithful held that the mere swearing no allegiance and even expressing dissent verbally can not justify armed campaigning against them. The first disagreement came from Qā‘idīn, those who likely swore allegiance to ‘Alī but refrained from helping him in his war with the Infidels and the Deviators. Balādhurī narrates that they didn’t swear allegiance.

Some of such as ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar said that they will be the last people to swear allegiance.[49]

These people believed that “congregation” is not organized.

Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās said, “I will swear allegiance when I’m the last one”.[50]

Imām left them alone in front of these oppositions. Here it is to be noted that there must be a distinction between the particular and general allegiance when a forcible allegiance is in question. In fact, when the “particular” people swear allegiance, caliphate is established, afterwards all must attend the general allegiance. Mālik Ashtar’s speech against the disagreement of Qā‘idīn denotes such a case. Imām rejected force too.[51] When the Khāridjites opposed, they were said to be silent, if they want to be safe. If they say something, they will be given reasons and in case they turn to swords, they will be resisted.

And he further said, “As long as you remember Allāh, we keep our mosques open to you and as long as you stay with us, we keep your share of booty but if you pull your swords out, we launch a war with you.”[52]

Anyway, Qā‘idīn regarded “congregation” incomplete to justify their opposition and naturally questioned ‘Alī’s caliphate. They said people of Damascus would complement this congregation whilst until then allegiance of people of Haram wasn’t considered sufficient. Mu‘āwiya too having a large number of Damascus people in his control denied forming of “congregation” along with ‘Alī and naturally rejected his caliphate.

In front of ‘Alī’s call, Mu‘āwiya wrote to people of obedience and congregation, “The community you’re talking about is also available to us.” He accused ‘Alī of murdering their caliph and dispersing their community.[53] There is no reasonable justification about the Infidels. The evidence show that these people opposed merely because of authoritarianism despite the commitments they had in allegiance. Imām tried hard to rehabilitate peace and in no case he resorted to weapon. Imām regarded their launching war the only permit to wage war.[54]

Aside from all incentives and internal problems, the events in period of caliphate resulted in different sectarian and religious tilts that left behind works not only in jurisprudic-ideological matters but also in the field of Imamate issues. Later, “political community” came to posed again and the Sunnites calling themselves independent of “people of innovation” and devaluing their participation in or separation from “congregation” named themselves “people of congregation.”

Abū Hātim Rāzī writes about the term of congregation for the Sunnites, “Since the majority of people accepted caliphate of the Umayyads during Mu‘āwiya and after in Marwānīds time, people from the followers asserting this called themselves people of congregation…. And saying that “if anyone opposes us, he breaks apart the unity, opposes Umma and abandons the tradition. By “people of Sunnat and Djamā‘at”, they meant that they named themselves so because they were unanimous by the same Imām despite all sectarian differences they had.[55] The pivotal role in “congregation” is in fact the same Imamate. According to a Sunnites mind, community appears when all people generally agree on an Imām who is in power in whatever way. Such an Imām is entirely legitimate according to a Sunnites. In Shī‘a thinking, Imām is beyond a mere political consensus and community normally has its given sense.

Allegiance wasn’t sworn to Imām on Friday, Dhi l-Hadjdja 18,36 H.

[1] From fabricated narrations in Tārīkh al-tabarī
[2] Sa‘īd Ibn Musayyib said, “I witnessed ‘Alī (s)’s rebel contention and that of Uthmān until Uthmān wanted to scourge ‘Alī (a) and I caused them to make up with each other. See Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. IV, p.132, No.112
[3] Sa‘īd in the conflict of arbitration claimed that no one but he is of superior quality in caliphate, for having no hand in Uthmān’s murder and the recent seditions. See Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p. 344
[4] Ansāb al-ashrāf, al-Djuz’ al-rābi‘, pp.559-560, No.1419
[5] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol. IV, p. 429; see Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p. 219
[6] In Iskāfī’s narration it’s been cited, I was afraid that some of the ignorants might say something in mosque or the ones who have lost their own fathers or uncles in the Prophet’s Maghāzī might object, al-Mi‘yār Wa l-Muwāzina, p.50
[7] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.II, p.263
[8] See, Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol. IV, p.p. 427-431; about Imām’s conversation with Talha see, p. 434; about Talha and Zubayr’s demanding the ruler ship of Kūfa and Basra see, Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p. 218
[9] Herein some other evidence will be mentioned. According to Ya‘qūbī, All people took the oath except three of Quraysh one of whom swore the oath thereafter. See, Tārīkh al-ya‘qūbī, vol. II, p.p. 178-179
[10] Tārīkh al-khamīs, vol. II, p. 261. About the allegiance of Muhādjirūn and Ansār see, al-Djamal, p.p. 102-110
[11] Tārīkh Khalīfa Ibn Khayyāt, p. 196
[12] These two were also tied to seizing caliphate and Talha was supported by ‘Āyisha. Balādhurī states, When ‘Uthmān was murdered, ‘Āyisha was on her way from Mecca to Medina. Hearing about people swearing allegiance to Talha she cheered up, but being informed of ‘Alī’s caliphate, she returned to Mecca and declared she would take revenge for ‘Uthmān, Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p. 213.
[13] al-Futūh,vol.II.p.p.243-245
[14] Nahdj al-balāgha, sermon 92
[15] Tārīkh al-tabarī,vol. IV,p.428
[16] Ansāb al-ashrāf,vol.II,p.213
[17] al-Ghārāt, p. 112
[18] Akhbār al-Buldān, Ibn Faqīh Hamadānī, pp. 4-5 ( Sezgin publication)
[19] ‘Abd al-Aziz al-Dūrī denies Lammens’s belief considering Saqīfa as the result of Abū Bakr,‘Umar and Abū ‘Ubayda’s conspiracy but confirms the former agreement of Anti-Hāshimites party. Muqadama fī tārīkh Sadr al-islām,p.56.
[20] Nahdj al-balāgha, Sermon 136
[21] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol. IX, p. 31
[22] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol. IV, p. 427
[23] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p. 210
[24] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p. 140; See, al-Mi‘yār wa l-muwāzina, p. 105
[25] This refers to the verse 100,Mu’minūn
[26] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p. 143 See, al-Mi‘yār wa l-muwāzina, p. 106
[27] Nahdj al-balāgha, Sermon 73.
[28] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p. 262.
[29] In a letter to Mu‘āwīya, Imām wrote,…and now the fact about deeming yourself different from Talha and Zubayr is that there exists no difference between you. Because mine has been a “public allegiance” to which no body disagreed. So necessarily it is to be accepted by all. Waq‘at Siffīn, p. 58.
[30] al-Mi‘yār wa l-muwāzina, p. 52; al-Djamal, p. 131.This has been stated in the first letter in Nahdj al-balāgha,“People swore me allegiance freely and willingly.” Trying to emphasize the role of Mālik, ‘Uthmānids and Umayyads intend to prove that people took the oath for fear of him.
[31] Waq‘at Siffīn, p. 65.
[32] Ibid, p. 16
[33] Ibid, p.45
[34] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p. 143, No.10.
[35] Nahdj al-balāgha, Letter 6
[36] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p. 207
[37] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. II, p.208
[38] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.435
[39] al-Futūh, vol.II, pp.246-247
[40] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, p.76
[41] al-Ghārāt, p.75
[42] Ibid. p.83
[43] Tarīkh al-ya‘qūbī, vol.II, pp.178-179
[44] Tārīkh Yahyā Ibn Mu‘ayn, vol.II, p.238
[45] This sect was also called” Sufyāniya”,”Nābita” and” Nawāsib”.
[46]Al-Risālat al-nābita dar Rasā’il al-Djāhi¨ (al-Rasā’il al-kalāmiyya),p.239
[47] al-Hudjurāt, verse,9
[48]Sharh Usūl al-Khamsa, p.141; al-Bahr al-rā’iq, vol.VI, pp.151,153; Ahkām al-qur’ān, Djassās, vol.III, p.400, Djawāhir al-kalām, vol.XXI,p.332
[49] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.II, p.207
[50] Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol.II, p.207; Iskāfī says that they said that they accept allegiance but they resent to war with the people of prayer. In return, Imām said, “Abū Bakr
permitted war with them(Imām meant people who refused to pay tax alms). How didn’t you oppose him? See al-Mi‘yār wa l-muwāzana,p.106
[51] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, pp.72-73
[52] al-Mi‘yār wa l-Muwāzina, p.106; Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.143
[53] Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XXV, p.35
[54] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.II, p.240; al-Mi‘yār wa l-Muwāzina, p.158
[55] Kitāb al-zīna, p.225
Source: maaref-foundation.com

more post like this