History of the Caliphs

By: Rasūl Ja’farīan

Translation by: Ali Ebrahimi

p. 354-371

In Mu‘āwiya’s term, one of the crucial issues was the Shi‘ites beliefs amongst a number of people specifically Iraqis. We have already discussed the emergence of Shi‘ism. Now we are to evaluate the interactions between Shi‘ite Muslims and the Umayya.

Beyond any doubt, Shi‘ite Muslims have always been Mu‘āwiya’s arch enemies as the Khāridjites were considered as other foes for him. Nevertheless, the Khāridjites were not of great significance. The universal pessimism on the part of Muslims about them, their oppression as well as their baseless position-taking had resulted in having no support among people. On the contrary, Shi‘ite Muslims particularly in Iraq were all endowed with a mighty support like Imām ‘Alī (a) and others from Ahl al-Bayt (Prophet’s infallible household).

The culture disseminated by Imām ‘Alī (a) in Iraq was indeed thoroughly Islamic and although people had to keep silence under Mu‘āwiya’s compulsion, they were all able to distinguish ‘Alī’s truthfulness and Mu‘āwiya’s wrongfulness.

Mu‘āwiya and with his agents confronted this process with diverse ways, from reconciliation and gentleness to vast harshness. The latter was wide-ranging especially in Iraq. Creating hatred for ‘Alī (a) was one the most critical approach used. Mu‘āwiya and other Umayyads succeeding him have persistently been endeavoring to wipe ‘Alī (a) off the face of the earth and introduce him as an element, aggressive, bloodthirsty and the like. In Holy Prophet’s term and later on in caliphs’ terms and his own caliphate especially, Imām ‘Alī’s life verified his unique glory in both scientific and practical domains. His sermons were narrated chest by chest. The statements regarding his scientific supremacy, the Hadiths quoted from the Holy Prophet (s) concerning his excellence as well as his praiseworthy and extraordinary judgments were all recounted by people to one another in hadith assemblies. These all led to dissemination of that culture among people, the culture which prompted Imām ‘Alī’s disciples to retain this affection for him even at the cost of their martyrdom. And above all, this culture could naturally perpetuate among Imām ‘Alī’s descendants, from Prophet’s household. Inasmuch as the Umayya had perceived this fact, they consequently were determined to stigmatize the Imām, express their disgust for him in every assembly and curse him. Ibn Abi l-Hadīd has written a chapter entitled “the hadiths counterfeited by Mu‘āwiya concerning ‘Alī (a) through stimulating a number of disciples and Tābi‘īn” in his book.[1]

When Marwān Ibn Hakam was asked why they were doing so, he responded,
[لا يستقيم لنا الامر الا بذلك[2 “Our governorship will on no accounts be abiding but through this way.”

Principally, the Umayya’s sovereignty could never perpetuate except the policy of insulting ‘Alī (a). Cursing His Excellency, highlighting other caliphs as well as introducing them as superior to ‘Alī (a) were constantly pursued. As stated by some, since Hadith-fabricators aimed to approach the Umayya with recourse to these Hadiths, most Hadiths concerned with disciples’ virtues had been fabricated in the Umayya’s tenure.[3] At this juncture, individuals like ‘Āyisha were introduced as a source for Hadiths[4] and others like Zayd Ibn Thābit, being on ‘Uthmān’s side, were appointed to be the source of advice on legal or religious matters for Mu‘āwiya.[5] Attributing Hadiths by Imām ‘Alī (a) to himself or others was among what Mu‘āwiya did so that others could at times attribute them to Mu‘āwiya as well. Djāhi¨ who had realized the fact denied the attribution of such Hadiths to Mu‘āwiya owing to the fact that he had no relation with the devout.[6]

This Hadith narrated by Imām, [ما رأيت سرفاَ الا الي جانبها حق مضيّع[7 “I have seen no lavishment unless someone’s right was disregarded therein” was ascribed to Mu‘āwiya.

In another case, one of Imām’s Hadiths was attributed to a Bedouin.[8] “We ascribe ‘Alī’s letter to Muhammad Ibn Abī Bakr to Abū Bakr”, Mu‘āwiya himself had confessed.[9]

‘Alī’s malediction to the Kūfiyāns was attributed to ‘Umar.[10]

Insulting and cursing ‘Alī was prolonged as a tradition until it was ceased in ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘Azīz’s time.[11] Mu‘āwiya himself stressed that it must be spread to the extent that the offspring mature with this slogan, the youths grow old and no one narrates his excellence.[12] From among the disciples, some contributed to Mu‘āwiya in this regard. There existed a Hadith by Abū Hurayra concerning the mischief-making among the nation that says it is about ‘Alī, yet, the Holy Prophet (s) has cursed such a person.[13] It has also been narrated that Mu‘āwiya rewarded Samura Ibn Djundab with 400,000 dhms to alege that the following verse had been revealed about ‘Alī (a),

وَمِنْ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلَى مَا فِي قَلْبِهِ وَهُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ.

“And among men is the one whose speech about this worldly life causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allāh to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries.”[14]

Ibn Abi l-Hadīd has written that Mu‘āwiya had stimulated a number of disciples to narrate some Hadiths against Imām ‘Alī(a) among whom were Abū Hurayra, ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ās, Mughīra Ibn Shu‘ba and ‘Urwa Ibn Zubayr.[15]

In his letters to his agents in cities, Mu‘āwiya wrote, “The Hadiths regarding ‘Uthmān’s virtues are being augmented in cities, as soon as you received my letter, urge people to begin narrating the excellences of companions and caliphs and also narrate a Hadith contradicting any Hadith narrated concerning Abū Turāb’s (Imām ‘Alī) virtues.”

Accordng to Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, most of them in order to get closer to the Umayya fabricated Hadiths expressing disciples’ excellences.[16] To replace the Hadith about the brotherhood between ‘Alī(a) and the Holy Prophet (s), they counterfeited it therein the Prophet(s) stated, “If I intended to designate a successor for myself, he would undoubtedly be Abū Bakr.”

They had fabricated the hadith of “Khawkha” opposite to Hadith of “Sadd al-Abwāb”.[17]

Mu‘āwiya was extremely bound to curse Imām ‘Alī (a) as the conclusion of his sermons.[18] He even compelled Imām’s disciples to go up the pulpit and curse him.[19] Any agent of Mu‘āwiya who did not abide by the tradition of cursing was deposed and replaced right away.[20] He had eaniced people into daring not to name their babies ‘Alī[21] but call them Mu‘āwiya instead.[22]

He had announced that if anyone narrated the excellences of ‘Alī, he would never warrant his security. Subsequently all preachers expressed their disgust for Imām ‘Alī (a) and cursed him.[23] However, in return he commanded his agents to support the one narrating ‘Uthmān’s excellences.[24] A great number also lived either in Damascus or Iraq who loathed Imām ‘Alī (a) for their kins’ murder. And now the opportunity was provided to them to disclose their rancor by insulting and cursing him. When Harīz Ibn ‘Uthmān was asked why he cursed Imām (a) seventy times every morning and night, his response was, “How can I abstain from it whereas he has beheaded my forefathers with suspicion.”[25]

We will discuss later that the pressure exercising on Ahl al-Bayt was wholly for the sake of hindering ‘Alī’s name to be commemorated. As one of the reasons for murdering Hasan Ibn ‘Alī(a) by poison, Ibn Djawzī has pointed to his entry into Damascus[26] which was naturally intolerable. All of these harsh treatments in order to wipe ‘Alī’s name off the face of the earth occasioned people not to have the courage to narrate ‘Alī’s virtues. Awzā‘ī, a renowned traditionist, did narrate nothing concerned with Ahl al-Bayt’s virtues save the Hadith to inform the revelation of the verse of “Tathīr” (purification) about them[27], the same as Zuhrī who narrated not more than a virtue.[28] It seemed quite natural that all these repeated and universal curses could eventually influence people’s hearts, particularly in Hidjāz and Damascus, and gradually change public opinions. It was, in every respect, what Mu‘āwiya sought. Because Islamic leadership lay with Imām ‘Alī, eliminating him could lead to elimination of the religion from the society. As an emphasis, Mu‘āwiya secured allegiance from people by prerequisite of loathing ‘Alī (a)[29] in the same mannar that he had forced them for the first time to swear.[30]

Mu‘āwiya’s another action facing Shi‘ite Muslims was excercising compulsion. The manifestation of his rancor to Imām and Shi‘ite Muslims was in his brutal treatments. Imām Hasan Mudjtabā’s martyrdom, a conspiracy by Mu‘āwiya, was in line with this very policy. It is what historical sources have reported and accordingly, they have in truth discredited Mu‘āwiya among Muslims. The opposition of Umm al-Mu‘minīn (mother of the faithful, ‘Āyisha) in Imām’s burial beside the Prophet (s) exhibited the immense oppressedness of Imām together with his Shi‘ite Muslims.[31] Mu‘āwiya who believed that it was not feasible to delude the people of Iraq in the same way as silly people of Damascus, he had to choose the route of slaying and chastizing. Besides, Iraqi dwellers, including both Shi‘ite Muslims and non-Shi‘ite Muslims, were so sensitive that even a slight irritation could result in chanting bitter slogans against the Umayya although they were all obedient under the sword of Ziyād and Hadjdjādj. The common term describing Shi‘ite Muslims was “Turābiyya” in the Umayya’s tenure.[32] It was derived from “Abū Turāb”, (the father of soil), the title use by the Umayya for scorning Imām ‘Alī (a); nevertheless, later on a number of “Ghulāt” (the Exaggerators) availed themselves of it for proving the Divinity of Imām ‘Alī.

Slaying Shi‘ite Muslims had begun since Imām ‘Alī’s term. After Imām’s forces dispersed and there was no security found but in Iraq, Mu‘āwiya deployed his troops along with some envoys to various areas among whom were Busr Ibn Artāt, Sufyān Ibn ‘Awf Ghāmidī and Dahhāk Ibn Qays. Their responsibility in cities was to trace and, فيقتلوا كلّ من وجدوه من شيعة عليٌ “Kill any Shi‘ites they noticed at Mu‘āwiya’s behest.”

Busr set out to Medina were he martyred many of ‘Alī’s disciples and enthusiasts and demolished their houses as well. He then went to Mecca and Sarāt respectively and slayed any Shi‘ite Muslim he discovered. Ultimately, he left there for Nadjrān and martyred ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abd al-Muddān as well as his son. Earlier we presented a profile of his crimes.

Among areas that Busr passed en route and plundered was an area the residents of which were from the tribe of Hamdān, ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims.

Ambushing them, Busr killed numerous men and captured a number of women and children. For the ever-first time Muslim women and children were captured.[33] These measures were once again adopted later in Karbalā. About Busr, Mas‘ūdī has written that he slayed a number from the tribes of Khuzā‘a and Hamdān together with a group known as al-Abnā’ (from Iranian race) in Yemen.
[ولم يبلغه عن أحد انه يمالي علياَ او يهواه الا قتله[34 “He killed anyone of whose attachment to ‘Alī he heard.”

Setting out to Anbār, ‘Awf Ibn Sufyān martyred Ibn Hassān al-Bakrī in addition to Shi‘ites men and women.[35]

After Hasan Ibn ‘Alī (a) had to compromise with Mu‘āwiya, one of the menaces Imām felt was the security of ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims. Hence it was stipulated within the contract that ‘Alī’s disciples should be all endowed with security. Although Mu‘āwiya had conceded it, immediately on the same day he announced that he would disregard the entire commitments.

Since Kūfa was the center of Shi‘ite Muslims’ political and religious tendencies, Mu‘āwiya had to appoint one who can curb such people. Following the clashes between ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ās and Mughīra Ibn Shu‘ba who could keep up with Mu‘āwiya in deception, Mughīra eventually flourished to be appointed as the governor of Kūfa.

Mu‘āwiya’s endeavor was to have politically peaceful treatments towards the opponents as much as he could. The bases of two groups of the Umayya adversaries such as the Khāridjites and Shi‘ite Muslims were in Iraq. The Khāridjites revolted several times but were suppressed with all possible haste. But on the other hand, Shi‘ite Muslims by virtue of the contract signed between Hasan Ibn ‘Alī and Mu‘āwiya, did not permit themselves to transgress. Mughīra also intended to take no action except against the one revolting. As a result, even the Khāridjites of Kūfa also had apparent relations with one another.[36]

Among the Iraqi tribes, the tribes of Rabi‘a, Hamdān[37], Banū ‘Abd al-Qays and Khuzā‘a (few in Iraq) had Shi‘ites inclination.

In his remarks addressing the tribe of Banū ‘Abd al-Qays, Sa‘sa‘a Ibn Sūhān said, “When apostasy was common, you did remain beside the religion and when some followed ‘Āyisha, Talha, Zubayr and ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Wahb Rāsibī, you declared that,
[انا لا نريد إلا أهل البيت الذي ابتدأنا الله من قبلهم بالكرامة [38 “You seek naught save Ahl al-Bayt, at first by whom Allāh had granted you blessing.”

Sa‘sa‘a under other circumstances availed himself of the opportunities provided for spreading his beliefs which were mostly censuring ‘Uthmān and eulogizing ‘Alī (a).

When Mughīra was notified of such movements, he summoned Sa‘sa‘a and told him, “Far more than you we are acquainted with his excellences butهذه السلطان قد ظهر وأخذنا بإظهار عيبه للناس فندع كثيراً مما أمرنا به ونذكر الشيء الذي لانجد منه بداً نرفع به هؤلاء القوم عن أنفسنا تقيّة [39] “Because as soon as this ruler appeared, we had to denounce ‘Alī and relinguish many of what we were ordered to merely in order to extricate ourselves from this race (the Umayya).”

Anyhow Mughīra the same as other agents were compelled to denounce Imām ‘Alī (a) and exonerate ‘Uthmān. Owing to this fact
[يتعرّض لعليٍّ في مجلسه وخطبه ويدعو لعثمان ويترحّم له[40 “He variably denounced ‘Alī (a) in every assembly and sermon in the mosque but commemorated ‘Uthmān and pled mercy for him.”

Subsquent to Mughīra’s death (probably in 49 or 50 A.H.) the status quo converted. Although Ziyād Ibn Abīh was the governor of Basra at that time, Mu‘āwiya added Kūfa to this realm as well. At the time of Imām ‘Alī (a), Ziyād Ibn Abīh was the governor of Fārs. Since Mu‘āwiya’s intention was deluding ‘Alī’s disciples, he decided to delude Ziyād too. His defect was lacking a definite begetter that Mu‘āwiya solved the problem by naming him Ziyād Ibn Abī Sufyān. Despite Imām ‘Alī’s forewarning to him[41], Ziyād did never resent it and ultimately a while after of compromising he took refuge in Mu‘āwiya’s side.

Ziyād as well as his toughness were quite well known to Mu‘āwiya. He also knew that Ziyād had been in Iraq for some time and knew ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims all well. Accordingly, first he despatched him to Basra and added Kūfa to his realm after Mughīra’s death. Mu‘āwiya might realize that the Shi‘ite Muslims in Kūfa enjoyed relative freedom and at times could openly object in presence of Mughīra in the mosque. It was considered a real threat which Mu‘āwiya removed by Ziyād’s dispatch.

The first measure taken by Ziyād was cutting off the hands of those (nearly eighty) who were not convinced to swear allegiance to him.[42] Ziyād’s harsh treatment in Basra, with a group of the Khāridjites in addition to Shi‘ite Muslims, was proverbial. He had declared a kind of martial law in Basra. At nights, following the night prayer, the opportunity people had for staying outdoors was as long as reciting the Sūra (chapter) of The Cow. During the curfew, Ziyād’s soldiers slayed anyone they traced.[43] Historians have introduced Ziyād as the ever-first one who drew his sword to people, arrested them by accusing them and chastized them with suspicion.[44] Among the Shi‘ite Muslims martyred by Ziyād were Muslim Ibn Zaymur and ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Nudjā who were both from the tribe of Hadram. In a letter to Mu‘āwiya succeeding Hudjr’s martyrdom, Imām Husayn (a) had commemorated their martyrdom too.[45]

Ziyād’s main mission was to suppress the Shi‘ite Muslims of Kūfa throughout Iraq.

“He was always seeking after Shi‘ite Muslims and anywhere tracing he slayed them”, Ibn A‘tham said.

He cut off the limbs of people and blinded them. Mu‘āwiya himself murdered a great number as well.[46] Elsewhere it has been written that Mu‘āwiya had issued the verdict of executing a group of Shi‘ite Muslims.[47] Ziyād assembled Shi‘ite Muslims in a mosque in order to make them express loathing for ‘Alī.[48] He also searched for Shi‘ite Muslims in Basra to kill.[49] In a letter Imām Hasan (a) objected to Mu‘āwiya in this regard.[50] Treating the same way, Samura Ibn Djundab, a substitute for him in Basra, had allegedly augmented the number of orphans in Basra and massacred nearly 8000 people until Ziyād objected him.[51] Although the accuracy of the abovementioned figures is not definite, it manifests a profile of their atrocities. Ziyād’s treatment towards ‘Alī’s friends was unjust, in a real sense[52] exactly the same as that of ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Āmir, Mu‘āwiya’s another governor.[53] Nu‘mān Ibn Bashīr, ex-governor of this area, on account of his acute rancor to dwellers of Kūfa did not even want to obey Mu‘āwiya’s order to increase their provisions from Bayt al-Māl (public fund).[54]

Under the guise of a peace-seeking character, Mu‘āwiya had commanded Ziyād to decimate anyone at ‘Alī’s religion.[55]

“Kill anyone amongst you who is from ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims or accused of his amity”, he wrote to his agents, “and for it find evidence even hidden under the rocks even though it was solely an assumption”.[56] “Exclude the name of the one for whose amity to ‘Alī you found any proof from Bayt al-Māl”, he added, “and discontinue his provision.”

He then wrote in conclusion, [من اتهمتموه بموالاة هولاء القوم فنكّلوا به واهدموا داره [57 “Kill any one from among yourselves who is accused of having devotion to ‘Alī and demolish his house as well.”

Ibn Abi l-Hadīd has also written that as far as Ziyād was well-aquainted with Shi‘ite Muslims, [قتلهم تحت كل حجر ومدر وأخافهم وقطع الأيدي والأرجل وسمل العيون وصلبهم على جذوع النخل وطرًّدهم وشردّهم [58 “He massacred them all anywhere whom he noticed, intimidated them, cut off their limbs, blinded them, hung them from tree branches and banished them.”

The impetus of such treatments was totally obvious. According to Ahnaf Ibn Qays, one of the headmen of Banū Tamīm tribe had told about Mu‘āwiya that he had captured Iraq not by force but through commitement and contracts;[59] Anytime it was probable for people to revolt against Mu‘āwiya or “a catastrophe”, as he called it, take place.[60] It was as a result, necessary that any rebellion be suppressed. Dissatisfied with the Umayya’s the people of Iraq had to yield to them reluctantly. Imām Hasan (a) also had reminded Mu‘āwiya of this point.[61] By the same token, as mentioned by Djāhi¨ it was in truth a blunder that Mu‘āwiya had named 41 A.H. as عام الجماعة “The year of congregation” on the contrary, it must have been named as, عام التفرقة “The year of separation”[62]

These all accounted for the lack of factual collaboration and even the potential enmity of the Kūfiyāns towards Mu‘āwiya. In spite of the compulsion exercised by individuals like Ziyād and deception practised by Mughīra to impede the growth of adversaries, Shi‘ite Muslims were still wholeheartedly faithful to their allegiance. Imām ‘Alī (a) had recommended them to curse him if they were under duress, but neverever loathe him.[63] Anyhow, Kūfa was like fire under ashes that should have been thwarted with great effort not to catch fire again.

The Suppression of Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī’s Shi‘ite Movement

Hudjral-Khayr or Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī who had been among the Holy Prophet’s disciples, did later range himself with ‘Alī’s firm and devoted Shi‘ite Muslims. He belonged to the tribe of Kinda, a southern tribe in Hidjāz, who had migrated to Iraq in 17 A.H. This tribe was involved in Iraqi events as participants in Siffīn and later on in Mukhtār’s uprising.[64] A crowd from among them was at odds with Husayn Ibn ‘Alī (a) in Karbalā. In the course of Siffīn, his activity was utterly broad and he played a role as a commander in ‘Alī’s army, yet when many a bandoned Imām (a)[65], up to the very last moment he stayed beside him.[66] Hudjr could be found amid the most pious disciples of Allāh’s Apostle(s). Hukaym Niyshābūrī called him the monk of Prophet’s disciples.[67] After ‘Alī’s martyrdom, he was amongt the ones stimulating the nation to swear allegiance to Hasan Ibn ‘Alī (a). In the process of compromising, Hudjr seemed discontented but Imām elaborated that he had to consent merely due to protecting the lives of individuals like him.[68] Nontheless later Mu‘āwiya by no means remained faithful to his pledge and martyred both Hudjr and his followers.[69] During the governorship of Mughīra over Kūfa that lasted until the beginning of 50s, in spite of relative freedom, insults were still hurled at Imām ‘Alī (a) in the masque. The leadership of ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims was lain with the characters such as Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī and ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq Khuzā‘ī.[70] Hudjr was among those who frequently objected to Mughīra accustomed to insult Imām ‘Alī (a). When Mughīra was paved the way to send a caravan carrying some properties to Mu‘āwiya who was in need, Hudjr intercepted the caravan and declared that as long as he has not granted the rights of the rightful, on no accounts would he allow these properties to be conveyed.[71] At Mu‘āwiya’s behest, Mughīra had commanded them to take part in the congregational prayer at the mosque.[72]

Once Hudjr was urged by Mughīra to go up the pulpit and curse Imām ‘Alī (a) he went up and said, “Mughīra propels me to curse ‘Alī (a), curse him you all.”[73]

Immediately, the congregation perceived that his intention had been Mughīra himself. Mughīra, however, had already declared that he never intended to be the first one murdering the celebrity of Kūfa and as a result contribute to Mu‘āwiya’s grandeur in this world and his own abjectness in the Hereafter.[74] This statement was the response to those objecting why he did not arrest or harass Hudjr.

Following the demise of Mughīra and Ziyād’s governorship over Kūfa, the status quo altered perceptibly.

Ziyād, from the very first night of his governorship, did commence his rigors. His exceptional sermon for threatening Kūfa people, has been recorded as a typical Arab sermon in historical sourcesat that juncture.

Well acquainted with Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī, he warned him stating, “You and I have been in the same situation that you know yourself (concerning ‘Alī’s amity) but today anything has converted. Hold your tongue and stay at your home. My throne can be yours too. I will doubtlessly meet all your demands provided that you get along with me although you are rash”.

Seemingly, Hudjr who was convinced went away.[75]

Once again the status quo changed. It is said that one time Hudjr interrupted Ziyād’s remarks protracted and the time of prayer was elasping, yelling out, “Al-Salāt” (prayer).[76] It is also narrated that he along with other Shi‘ite Muslims had been convening meetings after Ziyād’s departure to Basra. Ziyād’s substitute, ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth, wrote to Ziyād that if he desired to maintain Kūfa, he should return without delay.[77]

In this respect, Hudjr was not merely solitary, but also he was under any circumstances accompanied by a number of Shi‘ite Muslims. Quotedly, when Hudjr protested against Mughīra in the mosque, more than one- third of the audience validated his remarks.[78] As written by Abu l-Faradj, in the absence of Ziyād, being in Basra, Hudjr together with his companions occupied one-third or half of the mosque and began denouncing and vilifying Mu‘āwiya.[79] Ziyād himself had denounced the nobles of Kūfa that
[أنتم معي وإخوانكم وأبنائكم وعشائركم مع حجر[80 “You are on my side whereas your brothers, offspring and tribes are on Hudjr’s side.”

After a while, a multitude of those on Hudjr’s side dispersed since the chiefs of tribes had menaced the members of the tribes. Therefore, there was no more companion remained with Hudjr.

When a group was sent to arrest him, he addressed his friends as saying, “Since you are by no means able to defy them, there is no way for any struggle.[81] Eventually, Hudjr conceded to surrender provided that for drawing deduction he should be taken to meet Mu‘āwiya.[82]

Having accepted the condition, Ziyād was making an attempt on the other hand to expose him to murder. By the same token, he compelled four characters having been appointed as the chiefs of the tribes in Kūfa to make an affidavit against Hudjr. It was stipulated in the affidavit that Hudjr had formed some assemblies wherein Mu‘āwiya had been cursed. His belief was that no one merited the caliphate save those from Tālib’s lineage. As stated by them having caused chaos within the town, he had expelled ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth, the governor; furthermore, he had not only saluted ‘Alī, but expressed his disgust for his foes and those having combated him.

Ziyād who had on no accounts approved the aforesaid affidavit ordered Abū Burda, son of Abū Mūsā Ash‘arī, to prepare a more pungent one. What he wrote as a result was, إن حجر خلع الطاعة وفارق الجماعة ولعن الخليفة ودعا إلي الحرب والفتنة وجمع إليه الجموع يدعوهم إلى نكث البيعة وخلع اميرالمؤمنين معاويه وكفر بالله كفرة صلعاء “Hudjr has declined to comply with the caliph and seceded from “Djamā‘a”. He has cursed the caliph and summoned all to a battle and sedition. Having congregated the people around himself, he has urged them to breach their pledges. He dethroned Mu‘āwiya, Amīr al-Mu’minīn, from the caliphate and blasphemed against Allāh in addition.”[83]

This time Hudjr was labeled a blasphemer. Abū Burda who was one of the eminent Sunnites traditionists bore the witness of it.[84] Ziyād persuaded others to sign it too. Among the signitories were Ishāq and Moses, sons of Talha, Mundhir, Zubayr’s son, ‘Umar, son of Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās and ‘Umāra, son of ‘Uqba Ibn Abī Mu‘ayt.[85]

As narrated by historians, while Hudjr was being arrested, he yelled out, “I am still faithful to my allegiance”. He was absolutely right because he neverever intended to revolt againt Mu‘āwiya. What he insisted on was about ‘Alī not to be insulted. And it was precisely what had been stipulated in Mu‘āwiya’s commitment and conceded by him Fascinatingly, it was specified in the affidavit that Hudjr believed that caliphate was well deserved to no one but those from Tālib’s lineage. It was the manifestation of Hudjr’s purifiedly Shi‘ites belief. “Purified Shi‘ite Muslims” denotes those being religious Shi‘ite Muslims. The belief of such Shi‘ite Muslims is that Imamate does solely belong to prophet’s household (Ahl al-Bayt).

In a poem quoted from Hudjr we read, فإنه كان له وليًّا ثم ارتضاه بعده وصيّاً “‘Alī was a friend of the prophet’s (s) and he was gratified with his executorship.”[86]

Hudjr described ‘Alī as Prophet’s friend and executor. At that time many were of this belief in Iraq. When Abu l-Aswad Du‘alī was sneered due to his in-depth enthusiasm for ‘Alī, he stated in a poem,

وعباس وحمزة والوصيا[87]

أحب محمداً حبّاً شديداً

“I adore Muhammad (s), ‘Abbās, Hamza and the executor (‘Alī)”

He did introduce ‘Alī as the Holy Prophet’s executor manifestubg his successorship. Corresponding to it is Mālik’s statement regarding ‘Alī,
[هذا وصي الأوصياء ووارث علم الأنبياء[88 “The executor of the executors and the inheritor of all prophets’ body of knowledge is he.”

This description was also what Imām Bāqir’s Shi‘ite Muslims like Djābir Ibn Yazīd Dju‘fī uttered about ‘Alī (a).[89] Further instances have been presented earlier in discussion of Shi‘ism at Imām ‘Alī’s time.

Ultimately, Hudjr along with his fourteen companions, known as the heads of Hudjr’s followers[90], was sent to Damascus. A few of them were interceded and forgiven by Mu‘āwiya in Damascus. Although Hudjr also was interceded, Mu‘āwiya did in no way accept. Reportedly, Mu‘āwiya was at first ambivalent and on this account he had already written to Ziyād that he believed that Hudjr should never be murdered but Ziyād had replied that liberating him would result in corruption of Iraq[91], and he could allow Hudjr to return Iraq on the condition that he did not require Kūfa.[92]

Mu‘āwiya eventually made a decision to assassinate Hudjr; notwithstanding, since he was terrified to meet him face to face, he commanded to detain them in Mardj ‘Adhrā’ a few Farsangs far away from Damascus.[93] Later he read out the affidavit of dwellers of Kūfa to those of Damascus and appealed to them to voice their opinions! It was utterly evident that what they could ever say when the disciples’ descendants were of that opinion! Mu‘āwiya deployed a number to Mardj ‘Adhrā’ to carry out what they were supposed to. They were at first duty-bound to propose them that if they expressed their loathing for ‘Alī (a), the verdict would be declared null and void. Under no circumstances did Hudjr and his companions agree. And it might have been owing to this fact that Imām ‘Alī (a) had asserted that after him if they were impelled to insult him, they should abide by but neverever express loathing for him.[94] Subsequently, digging their own graves, Hudjr and his companions spent dusk to dawn in worshiping. Eight out of them were set free but six of them announced their readiness for martyrdom.

Next morning they were again requested to express their idea about ‘Uthmān, أول من جار في الحكم “The ever-first one who did injustice was ‘Uthmān”, they retorted. They were asked whether they would pronounce disgust for ‘Alī. They responded, لا، بل نتولاه ونتبرأ ممن تبرأ منه “No, never, we do all love him and hate those who hate him.”

Then they prepared themselves for being martyred. Hudjr who was prominent among the devout of Iraq said a very-long-two-Rak‘at prayer (Rak‘at, unit of prayer consisting of three postures) and stated, والله ماصليت قطّ أقصر منها ولولا أن تروا أن ما بي جزع من الموت أحببت أن استكثر منها “As yet, I have never performed a prayer shorter than this and I yearned to prolong it if you did not accuse me of being scared of decease.”

Six of them were martyred. Karīm Ibn ‘Afīf Khath‘amī and ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Hassān al-‘Anzī were both taken to meet Mu‘āwiya. Karīm was interceded but when it was ‘Abd al-Rahmān’s turn, Mu‘āwiya questioned him about ‘Alī (a).

“You had better not enquire any question”, he responded.

When Mu‘āwiya insisted, he declared, أشهد أنه من الذاكرين الله كثيراَ ومن الآمرين بالحق والقائمين بالقسط والعافين عن الناس “I do attest that he was among the ones bearing Allāh invariably in mind, enjoining good, establishing justice and being magnanimous.” And when he was asked about ‘Uthmān, he replied, هو اوّل من فتح باب الظلم وارتجع ابواب الحق “He was the first one who opened the door of injustice and closed the doors of justice.”

Mu‘āwiya sent him to Iraq and instructed Ziyād to kill him brutally. Then, he was buried alive at Ziyād’s behest.[95]

Repercussions of Hudjr’s Martyrdom

Hudjr’s martyrdom did mar the reputation of Mu‘āwiya as well as other Umayyads incredibly. As far as his fame for devoutness and worship among the Prophet’s disciples was concerned, rarely could anyone be found unacquainted with his piety. Being among the chiefs of the tribe of Kinda had magnified his eminence too. Therefore, eruption of objections against the Umayya in general and Mu‘āwiya in particular seemed quite natural. Although the heavy pressure exerted could impede the occurance of probable riots in Iraq, it could on the contrary intensify the nation’s devotion to Shi‘ism on the one hand and their rancor to Mu‘āwiya on the other hand. Later, a multitude including Hudjr’s sons such as ‘Abd Allāh and ‘Abd al-Rahmān took part in Mukhtār’s uprising.[96] On hearing the news of Hudjr’s martyrdom, even a number of Ziyād’s agents like the governor of Khurāsān, Rabi‘ Ibn Ziyād Hārithī, deplored greatly. It is said that Rabi‘ prayed for being died soon and by accident, he did fall down and pass away on the same day.[97] ‘Āyisha was also among the protesters. She had dispatched ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Hārith to Mu‘āwiya to recommend him not to murdering Hudjr but prior to his arrival Hudjr had been martyred.[98]

Later, ‘Āyisha reproached Mu‘āwiya for Hudjr’s murder[99] as saying, “I would object to you for Hudjr’s murder if it were not the case that anything we dissented occurred in a worser form”.[100]

Hudjr’s devoutness had prompted ‘Āyisha to object to Mu‘āwiya in this regard though his standing in Djamal War was for Imām ‘Alī (a) and against ‘Āyisha.

As usuall, Mu‘āwiya resorted to deception and deniedthat he had murdered him.

“Those who testified against him were his murderer”, he added.[101]

The consequences of such a claim in sight of some like Hasan Basrī[102] were their disbelief in the Umayya and then their discredit among people.

It was quoted from Mu‘āwiya as declaring, “Anyone whom I slayed I knew why I did it except about Hudjr.”[103]

Abī Zur‘a has narrated, “Whenever I met Mu‘āwiya, he recalled Hudjr.”[104]

While in the agony of death, he had stated,
[أي يوم من حجر وأصحاب حجر[105 “Where are those days with Hudjr and his followers.”

In his very last breath, Hudjr had requested to be buried with the same shirt owing to the fact that he desired to stand before Mu‘āwiya with that state on the Day of Judgment. [106]

Historians have said,
[أول ذل دخل الكوفة قتل الحجر وقتل الحسين ودعوة زياد[107 “The first abjectness for Kūfa was the martyrdom of both Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī and Imām Husayn plus Ziyād’s claim to be Abū Sufyān’s son.”

Gragually the relation between Imām Husayn and his Shi‘ite Muslims improved rapidly. Having paniced, in a letter, Mu‘āwiya warned Imām not to creat separation, sedition and corruption among the nation. As a riposte, Imām protested against martyring ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims, the foremost of whom Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī, and deplored for he never took up arms against Mu‘āwiya. We will show the letter later concerning Imām Husayn’s stance against Mu‘āwiya.

One of the other followers of Hudjr martyred at the same juncture was ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq Khuzā‘ī who was among Prophet and ‘Alī’s disciples and later deemed as the pivot of the Shi‘ite Muslims in Kūfa.[108] When Ziyād had ordered his guards to trace Hudjr and his companions, ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq along with Rufā‘a Ibn Shaddād escaped to Ctesiphon and then to Mūsil. The governor of the district sent a mission to arrest them who were aliens. Rufā‘a fled but ‘Amr was taken to Mūsil governor, ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Uthmān Thaqafī. Recognizing ‘Amr, he wrote to Mu‘āwiya what the proper course was to pursue.

Mu‘āwiya wrote, “‘Amr himself had confessed he had given nine lashes to ‘Uthmān, thus whip him nine times.” And since ‘Amr was sick, with the very first lash he achieved martyrdom. Then he was beheaded and sent to Damascus. It was the first head carried from one town to the other.[109] Later it was repeated about the head of Imām Husayn and his disciples. That it has been written that he was found dead in a cave and they beheaded him[110] seems to be for acquitting Mu‘āwiya of the charge of Companions-cide Muhammad Ibn Habīb has narrated that his head was showed around in Bāzār.[111]

Conquests in Mu‘āwiya’s time

With the five-year civil wars in ‘Alī’s term, conquests in east and west of the Islamic land ceased. Inasmuch as ‘Alī’s policy was improving the internal status quo and deposing seditious figures, the process of conquests was ceased. Mu‘āwiya who required great might to combat ‘Alī(a), had to compromise the Romans.[112] Accordingly, war was ceased there as well. After victory of the Umayya, conquests leading to economic benefits for the government were resumed.

The areas ruled by the East Roman Empire were frequently under attack that lasted for almost all years of Mu‘āwiya’s dominion. In 49 or 50 A.H., Mu‘āwiya deployed a massive army consisted of ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abbās and Abū Ayyūb Ansārī together with another group of disciples and their descendants to that area. They could advance as near as the enclosures of Constantinople; Nevertheless, they could not conquer it. Abū Ayyūb Ansārī passed away there.[113]

Another war site was Africa thereon Muslims advanced ceaselessly in the course of conquering Egypt from the time of caliphII on. Sūdān in Africa was conquered in this period. Observing the constant apostasy of the dwellers, the governor, ‘Uqba Ibn Nāfi‘, established a town called Qīrawān in order to guarantee the stability of the region through Muslim residents there.[114] This town did play a crucial role in maintaining Muslims’ conquests in that land.

Islamic East was also subject to conquering. For a while Said, ‘Uthmān’s son, was involved in conquering Bukhārā and the suburbs. He clashed with the Soghdids in Samarqand but later he compromised with them.

He had taken a number of hostages from the queen of Bukhārā to set them free after return from conquering Samarqand. In spite of his pledge he took them to Medina and exploited them. Afterwards Sa‘īd was assassinated by them.[115] The war had been continuing during the following years.

India and Indus River were exposed to consecutive wars as well. These areas, between Kābul and Multān, were hit in 43 A.H. and onwards which preceded a great deal of loot.[116]

In farther areas like Ghawr, conquering had been also kept on. In 47, when the dwellers of the region violated their compromise, the attacks on them were recommenced.[117]

From this time on, no considerable contest can be found for Muslims and it is in view of the fact that the Romans had prepared themselves to battle more valiantly on the one hand and the remoteness of war sites particularly Islamic East inhibited the Muslims to adopt serious measures for conquering the land, on the other hand. The problems originated from such conquests as well as Arabs’ tribal disputes in conquered lands such as Khurāsān, gradually impeded more troops to be equipped for pursuing conquests.

The constant apostasy in conquered areas undermined the Muslim Arabs. Civil riots in the Islamic land such as Khāridjites movements, Shi‘ites oppositions and so forth can be considered as another facter in debilitating the central authority.

[1] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.63
[2] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.I, p.184
[3] Fadjr al-islām, p.213
[4] al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.303
[5] al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-R ān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.61
[7] Tārīkh Khulafā’, p.247
[8] Madjma‘ al-amthāl, vol.I, p.651
[9] al-Ghārāt, vol.I, p.251
[10] al-Bad’ wa l-tārīkh, vol.VI, pp.27-28
[11] Tārīkh Khulafā’, p.243
[12] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.57; al-Nasā’ih al-kāfiya, p.72
[13] al-Īdāh, pp.210-211; Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.63 It is probable that this Hadith is attributed to Abū Hurayra and he Himself has not narrated it.
[14] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd,vol.I, p.361 (the four-volume edition)
[15] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd,vol.I, p.63
[16] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XI, p.44
[17] Ibid, vol.XI, p.49
[18] Ibid, vol.IV, pp. 56-57
[19] al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.II, p.298; Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, pp.66,101-102; Ma‘rifat sahāba, vol.II, p. 236
[20] Turāthunā, No.10, pp.143-144
[21] Shadhārāt al-dhahab, vol.I, p.148
[22] Concerning Mu‘āwīya Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Dja‘far; Ansāb al-ashrāf, section 4
[23] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XI, p.44; Bihār, vol.IV, p.125
[24] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.I, p.184
[25] al-Madjrūhīn, vol.I, p.268
[26] Tadhkirat al-khawās, Ibn Sa‘d, p.212
[27] Usd al-ghāba, vol.II, p.20
[28] Ibid.
[29] Bahdjat al-madjālis, vol.I, p.99; al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.105
[30] Ibid, vol.I, p.550
[31] al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.V, p.115
[32] Tardjamat al-imām al-Hasan, p.184
[33] Tardjamat al-imām al-Hasan, vol.V, p.11
[34] Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.22
“Busr also was determined to slay anyone who might have had a hand ‘Uthmān’s assassination” Tārīkh al-tabarī has written. Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.134
[35] al-Aghānī, vol.XVI, pp.266, 267
[36] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p. 132
[37] Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.II, p.379
[38] Tārīkh al-dhahab, vol.II, p.379
[39] Tārīkh al-dhahab, vol.IV, p.144
[40] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.188; Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn, vol.III, pp.10,11
[41] Rabī‘ al-abrār, vol.III. p.559
[42] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.III, p.462
[43] Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn, vol.III, p.8; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.III, p.450
[44] al-Futūh, vol.IV, p.174; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.167; Ibn Khaldūn, vol.III, p.18; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.III, p.450
[45] al-Muhabbar, p.479, Muhammad Ibn Habīb has written, “Ziyād Ibn Abīh executed MuslimM Ibn Zaymur and ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Nudjā, both Shi‘ite Muslims, at the doors of their houses at Mu‘āwīya’s behest.
[46] al-Futūh, vol.IV, p.203; see also Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XI, p.44
[47] al-Muhabbar, p.479
[48] MukhtasarTārīkh Dimashq, vol.IX, p.88
[49] Ibid, p.88
[50] MukhtasarTārīkh Dimashq, vol.IX, p.86
[51] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.176, Ibn Khaldūn, vol.III, p.10; see also Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.217; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.III, p.462
[52] al-Aghānī, vol.XII, p.312
[53] Ibid, pp.317,336
[54] al-Aghānī, vol.XVI, pp.29,30
[55] Bahdj al-sabāgha, vol.III, pp.179,180; Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.57; this sentence has authentically come in Husayn Ibn ‘Alī’s letter which will be discussed later.
[56] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.II, p.150; Bahdj al-sabāgha, vol.III, p.180
[57] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XI, p.45; al-Ghadīr, vol.XI, p.29
[58] Ibid, vol.XI, pp.44,46
[59] al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, pp.156,158; Bihār, vol.XXXXIV, p.108
[60] Bihār al-anwār, vol.XXXXIV, p.104
[61] Manāqib Ibn Shahr Āshūb, vol.IV, p.22; Bihār, vol.XXXXIV, p.104
[62] Risālat Djāhiz fī Umayya published with al-Nizā‘ wa l-takhāsum, Miqrīzī.
[63] Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.106
[64] Mu‘djam Qabā’il al-‘arab, vol.IV, p.999; Waq‘at Siffīn, p.104
[65] Ibid
[66] al-Ghārāt, vol.II, p.481
[67] A‘yān al-shī‘a, vol.XX, pp.60,67
[68] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.II, p.45
[69] Ibid, p.47
[70] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.175
[71] Tahdhīb Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.IV, p.84
[72] al-Kāmil
[73] Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, pp.69,101,102
[74] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.189
[75] Tabaqāt al-Kubrā, vol., p.218; al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, p.134, 135
[76] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.190
[77] Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.VI, p.218
[78] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.189; Ibn Khaldūn, vol.IV, p.11
[79] al-Aghānī, vol.17, p.135
[80] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.191; al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, p.36
[81] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV
[82] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.190; Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn, vol.IV, p.14
[83] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, pp.199,200; al-Ghārāt, vol.II, p.565; al-Kunā wa l-Alqāb, vol.I, p.15; al-Aghānī, vol.17, p.146; Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn, vol.IV, pp.12,13. “Sal‘ā’” might refer to ‘Alī (a) who was well-Known as Asla‘ or might mean “intensely”
[84] Concerning Abū Barda has come in Tadhkirat al-huffā¨, vol.I, p.95 as follows انه النقيه احد الأعه الاثبات “He has been one of the eminent Islamic jurisprudent”
[85] al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, p.146; Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn, vol.IV, pp.12,13
[86] Waq‘at Siffīn, p.381
[87] al-Aghānī, vol.XII, p.321
[88] Tārīkh Ya‘qūbī, vol.II, p.151
[89] al-Irshād, p.280
[90] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.199
[91] Tārīkh al-tabarī, p.204
[92] Ibid, p.203; al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, p.149
[93] It is quoted that in conquering Damascus, Hudjr Himself had conquered this area; al-Muhabbar, p. 292 ان حجراً اول من وحد الله عزوجل بمرج عذراء حين افتتحت on conquering Mardj ‘Adhra’, the first one who glorified Allāh by saying “Allāh Akbar” was Hudjr.
[94] al-Irshād, p.169; Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, p.101
[95] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, pp.205,206; al-Aghānī, vol.XVII. pp.151, 152, 153
[96] al-Isāba, vol.I, p.315, A‘yān al-shī‘a, vol.20, p.61 (From Mustadrak and Tabaqāt al-kubrā)
[97] Futūh al-buldān, pp.400,401
[98] Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.VI, p.219; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.208; al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, p.154
[99] al-Isāba, vol.I, p.315
[100] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.208; al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, p.154
[101] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.208
[102] Ibid..
[103] Tahdhīb Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.IV, p.84
[104] al-Mustadrak, vol.III, p.469
[105] A‘yān al-shī‘a, vol.XX, p.58
[106] Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.VI, p.220
[107] al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, p.13
[108] Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn, vol.III, p.10
[109] al-Aghānī, vol.XVII, pp.143-144; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.197; al-Daradjāt al-rafī‘a, p.343; al-Muhabbar, p.292
[110] al-Daradjāt al-rafī‘a, p.432
[111] al-Munammaq, p.490
[112] al-Fā’iq fī Gharīb al-hadīth, vol.I, p.46; al-Muwaffaqiyyāt, p.301
[113] Fi l-tārīkh al-kāmil, vol.IV, p.461
[114] Fi l-tārīkh al-Kāmil, vol.III, p.465
[115] Fi l-tārīkh al-Kāmil, vol.IV, pp.193-197; Futūh al-buldān, pp.401,402
[116] Ibid, vol.III, p.446
[117] Ibid, vol.III, p.456

 

Source: maaref-foundation.com


more post like this