[hallowed_ground]

1. They should not start the hostilities themselves.
1.They should not attack any injured person.

2.They should not chase any man running away from the arena.

3.They should not touch anything other than those permitted as booty of war.

His men followed his commands implicitly. Until his men were getting hurt, even dying, with the barrage of arrows from the enemy, they did not start fighting. When blood started flowing in the battlefield, they did not touch the injured men of the enemy. When the enemy troops started escaping in defeat, they were not chased. They did not have a second look at the things left by the vanquished army.

Al-Daynawari has written:

“They saw gold, silver and other costly materials in the battlefield but none even looked at those things. They only took the arms and the transport animals of the enemy men who were killed during the battle.”[1]

It is the custom in the world that the victorious armies hold the officers of the vanquished army as captives on false charges of treason and rebellion. They either keep them incarcerated for long or execute them. But the Imam (a.s) rose above the spirit of revenge and did not question anyone from al-Basrah who were openly against him. He pardoned such enemies of peace as `Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, al- Walid ibn `Uqbah, `Abdullah ibn `Amir with one stroke of his pen. Umm al-Mu’minin who left no stone unturned in his opposition, was treated with due respect and was sent safely to al-Madinah. He explained the subtle difference between the jihad with the Muslims and that with the infidels. His men wanted to take the women and children as slaves, according to the prevailing custom after victorious conduct of wars. He convinced them that they were not permitted to take such women and children as slaves. Instead of transferring the bayt al-mall at al-Basrah to the center, he distributed the funds equitably to all his men. Thus, he retained the spirit of the fighting men to willingly participate in the future campaigns, if required.

Umm al-Mu’minin, who for the common Muslim has the status of a scholar and adept at remembering the traditions of the Prophet (a.s), was not ignorant of the fact that she had no right to claim retaliation for the blood of `Uthman. That was the right and the duty of the establishment of the time or the successors of the victim. Neither `A’ishah was the representative of the Muslim interests nor was she one of the successors of `Uthman. Despite this, she entered into a fight with the caliph of the day and instigated a huge army of people to fight. This, despite the fact that the spouses of the Prophet (a.s) were mandated to remain within the four walls of their homes. The Holy Qur’an says:

وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَى.

“And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore. (33/33)”


[1] Al-Akhbār al-Tiwāl, Page 151

In obedience to this injunction of the Holy Qur’an, Umm al-Mu’minin Zaynab bint Jahsh and Umm al-Mu’minin Sawdah never went out of al-Madinah and their entire lives they followed the dictum. Some persons asked Sawdah why she was not going on Hajj. She replied that she had already performed the Hajj and that she was bound to live in the house where the Prophet (a.s) had left her behind. Therefore, after the demise of the Prophet (a.s), she never left her room. Besides this, even the ordinary Muslim women are not required by the Faith to actively participate in the warlike activities. Therefore, `A’ishah says:

“I sought the Prophet’s permission to participate in the jihad. He said, ‘the jihad for you women is performing the rites of the Hajj.”[1]

And Umm al-Mu’minin’s own saying is:

“A spindle in the hands of a woman is better than the spear in the hand of a fighter who struggles in the Cause of Allah.”[2]

Despite knowing all this, she traveled with a crowd of thousands of men from Makkah to al-Basrah and leading the troops she entered the battlefield. Although she was witnessing that thousands of children would be orphaned because of her action. Thousands of young women would be unnecessarily widowed. And the blood of Muslims will be shed at the hands of Muslims! But she never bothered about the grave consequences. The responsibility for the huge loss of lives rests mostly with her. Even in her own lifetime, the people thought so. Therefore, once Ummu-Awfa al-`Abdiyyah, hundreds of men of whose tribe died fighting on the side of `Ali (a.s), asked `A’ishah, “O Umm al-Mu’minin! What do you say of the woman who had killed her young son?” She replied, “The woman would go to the Hell!” Then she asked, “What is the order for the woman who had killed 20,000 young sons only at one place!” Umm al-Mu’minin understood the intended sarcasm! She got angry and said:

“That enemy of Allah should not be allowed to go free!”[3]

Abū-`Uthman al-Jahiz has expressed the entire matter very subtly in these words:


[1] Sahīh al-Bukhārī, Vol 2, Page 101
[2] Al-`Iqd al-Farīd, Vol 2, Page 6.
[3] Al-`Iqd al-Farīd, Vol 3, Page 108

In her act, she was like the meek and wicked cat that eats her kitten by cutting them.

Anyway, her act was nothing to boast home about. The people of her own family considered an insult for themselves. Therefore, Umm al-Mu’minin once asked her nephew, Ibn Abi-`Atiq, to provide her a mule for some work. When he got her message he told the messenger, “Go and tell Umm al-Mu’minin:

“By Allah! Until now, we have not been able to wash away the spot of the Day of the Camel! Does she want to do the Day of the Mule now?”[1]

Ibn Abi-`Atiq had said this sarcastically, “…but after the Day of the Camel, the people did see the Day of the Mule!” Therefore, when the mortal remains of Imam al-Hasan (a.s) were brought to be interred in the Prophet’s room, Marwan ibn al-Hakam and his men stood in the way fully armed and obstructed the burial. At that time, `A’ishah too was with the men of Marwan! Therefore, Ibn Abil-Hadid writes:

Abul-Faraj says that Yahya ibn Hassan the author of the book, al-Nasab, narrates that on that day `A’ishah was riding on a mule and Marwan ibn al-Hakam, Banū-Umayyah and their cohorts were tempted by her. About this someone has said, “Sometime riding a camel, and some other time a mule!”[2]

In this regard the role of Talhah and al-Zubayr is no different from that of Umm al-Mu’minin. They reached al-Basrah and in the name of qisas for `Uthman they started general massacre. And without investigating who was the criminal, and who was not, everyone was dealt with naked swords. They had no right to kill anyone because the right for qisas rests with the state and the successors of the victim only. They were neither the caliphs of the time nor next of kin to `Uthman. Then the most surprising thing is that they considered breaking their bay`ah with `Ali (a.s) legitimate and their aggressive act justifiable. For this, they were putting the blame of the assassination of `Uthman on `Ali (a.s). This despite the fact that with regard to the killing of `Uthman, what was their own attitude and what was the attitude of `Ali (a.s). Therefore, `Ali (a.s) has said:


[1] Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol 1, Page 421
[2] Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah by Ibn Abil-Hadīd, Vol 4, Page 17

“By Allah! Talhah, al-Zubayr an `A’ishah know it well that I am on the right and they are wrong.”[1]

If they really considered that `Ali (a.s) was involved in the killing of `Uthman, they would have raised their protests before owing their allegiance to `Ali. But neither at the time of the assassination nor during the period of the bay`ah for `Ali (a.s), they made any accusations. Muhammad ibn Asirin says:

“I do not know that someone has accused `Ali (a.s) of the killing of `Uthman. Even his bay`ah was conducted, it was finalized and after all that people started accusing him.”[2]

The chiefs of the persons who started the blame game were Talhah and al-Zubayr. They too opened their mouths when they felt that their interests were not served. This happened when the Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) refused to give them the governorates of al-Kūfah and al-Basrah. If their claim for the qisas of `Uthman was driven by the spirit of true sympathy for him, they would have raised it before the bay`ah for `Ali (a.s) commenced. They waited until much after the bay`ah and they failed in their attempts to wangle the governorships for themselves. In the light of the events, it can be told with certainty that the purpose behind all the mischief raised by the two and their cohorts was to usurp power somehow. Therefore, they recanted the bay`ah and incited others to follow suit. They told Hakim ibn Jibillah that until `Uthman ibn Hunayf did not break his bay`ah with `Ali (a.s) they would not release him from incarceration. They also said in the presence of the Imam (a.s) that they did not consider him capable of holding the position of the caliph. O an inquiry from Sa`id ibn al-`As they told in clear terms that they would not make `Uthman’s son the caliph, but one of them, Talhah or al-Zubayr, should get the caliphate. The search for power egged them on to get `Uthman assassinated, and thereafter when Amir al-Mu’minin became the caliph, they hatched a conspiracy against him. They took shelter behind Umm al-Mu’minin to create mischief demanding qisas for `Uthman’s blood. Thus, whether it was Umm al-Mu’minin or Talhah and al-Zubayr, they had no moral substance for their act nor that of Shari`ah. However important their personalities, but crime is, after all, a crime. Whoever is responsible for a crime, howsoever important the personage, there has to be punishment for the crime committed. They had taken such a nasty step that thousands of lives of


[1] Al-Istī`āb, Vol 2, Page 214
[2] Al-`Iqd al-Farīd, Vol 3, Page 93

Muslims were lost. But there is one group that tries to shelter them under the banner of companionship. They seek many excuses and, when they fail in all their attempts, they take shelter behind the excuse of khata’ ijtihadi. This excuse of khata’ ijtihadi is not only for this event, but they bring it forth to cover the aberrations of their favorites time and again. If this killing of thousands of innocents was because of error in interpretation, then analyzing the errors of interpretation of these great personalities is certainly everyone’s right! First of all, it has to be established under what rules and norms the ijtihad was made and under what norms thousands of persons were killed to avenge the blood of one man? Was there a mandate of the Holy Qur’an for such a rash act? Or there was any tradition of the Prophet (a.s) directing them towards such precipitate actions? Did they have in their support the consent of consensus before they went ahead with their hush-hush campaign? If none of these can be proved, then where is the question of ijtihad for this act?