Abu Bakr Kills The Muslims Who Refused To Pay Him The Zakat

Abu Bakr kills the Muslims who refused to pay him the Zakat

Both al-Bukhari, in "The Book of Calling the Apostates to Repent" in "The Chapter on Killing those who Refuse to Accept the Obligatory Laws and those Associated with Apostacy"; and Muslim, in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on the Order to Fight People", report, on the authority of Abu Hurayra, who said: "After the Prophet had died, and Abu Bakr was made his successor, there were [some] Arabs who turned to disbelief. 'Umar said: 'O Abu Bakr! How can you fight the people when the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) has said: 'I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: 'There is no God but Allah' and whoever says this, makes himself and his property inviolable except by legal right, and his reckoning is with Allah?' Abu Bakr replied: 'By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between salat and zakat , for zakat is a lawful right upon the property! By Allah! Were they to withhold even a single animal that they used to give the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), I will fight them over their withholding it'. Then 'Umar said: 'By Allah! I saw then that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr to [the cause of] fighting, and I realized then that it was correct".

This is nothing strange with Abu Bakr and 'Umar, who had threatened to burn the house of Fatima, the leader of the women, along with those companions inside it who withheld the pledge of allegiance [to Abu Bakr]. If the burning to death of 'Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and a party of the best of companions who had refused the pledge was a trivial thing for them, then the killing of those who refused the zakat is just a simple matter. For what is the value of these distant desert tribes, compared to the Prophet's family and the virtuous companions? I would add to it that those who refused to give their pledge perceived that the Caliphate was their right according to the designation of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.). Even if we assume that there was no appointment on them, then it was still their right to refuse, to criticize and to voice their views if there was consultation, as they claim. The threat of them being burnt to death is established by overwhelmingly numerous reports. Had 'Ali not capitulated and ordered the companions to go out and give their pledge, to prevent the shedding of Muslim blood and to preserve the unity of Islam, there would have been no delay in carrying out the threat of burning them.

Yet the [controversy] subsided and their power grew strong; and there was no more opposition mentioned after the death of al-Zahra and after 'Ali's reconciliation with them. How could they then desist from [acting against] some tribes that refused to pay the zakat to them? A refusal based on the argument of waiting until the matters of the Caliphate and what happened after the Prophet's death were clarified, the Caliphate being, as 'Umar himself admitted, a sudden decision.

It is not strange therefore that Abu Bakr and his government should have undertaken the killing of innocent Muslims and the destruction of their sanctity and the enslavement of their women and progeny. Historians have documented that Abu Bakr sent Khalid b. al-Walid, who burnt to death the tribe of Banu Sulaym. He then sent him then to al-Yamama and to Banu Tamim, whom he treacherously killed, having bound them and beheaded them while in captivity. He killed Malik b. Nuwayra, an eminent companion whom the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had entrusted with charity money of his people, having confidence in him. He [Khalid] then slept with Malik's wife on the same night of her husband's murder. There is no strength and no power except with Allah, the Highest most Powerful.

Malik and his people were guilty of nothing [by way of opposition] except that they had heard of what had transpired after the death of the Prophet (S.A.W.); the alienation of 'Ali and the oppression of al-Zahra, to the extent that she died still angry at them. Similarly, [they heard] the opposition of the chief of the Ansar, Sa'd b. 'Ubada, and his breaking of the oath, as well as the reports, which the desert tribes had circulated, casting doubt on the validity of the pledge to Abu Bakr. Due to all this, Malik and his people hesitated giving the zakat . The [resulting] decree from the Caliph and his supporters was that they be killed; their women and children taken as prisoners of war; their sanctity be defiled and they be subdued, so that the views of the dissidents and the arguments on the Caliphate may not spread to the rest of the Arabs.

Most unfortunately, you will find those who defend Abu Bakr and his government justifying his errors, despite the fact that Abu Bakr himself admitted them. They say what 'Umar did: "By Allah, I perceived that Allah had opened Abu Bakr's heart to fighting and I realized then that it was right".

Can we ask 'Umar the secret of his conviction concerning fighting the Muslims, about whom he himself had said that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had forbidden fighting as they had professed [the declaration] "there is no God but Allah?" Indeed, 'Umar himself had opposed Abu Bakr with this hadith . How then did he suddenly change his stance and convince [himself] about fighting them and know that it was the right thing simply because he felt Allah had expanded Abu Bakr's heart? How did this operation of expanding his heart occur? And how did 'Umar alone perceive it, to the exclusion of everyone else?

If this "opening of the heart was figurative rather than literal, how would Allah open the hearts of a people to what would make them oppose His rules, which He had dictated through the tongue of His Prophet (S.A.W.)? How could Allah have said to His servants, through His Prophet: "Whosoever says: 'There is no God but God' you are forbidden to kill him, for his accounting lies with me", then He opens the heart of Abu Bakr and 'Umar to fighting them? Did revelation descend upon the two of them after Muhammad (P)? Or was it personal judgment, (ijtihad ) dictated by political reasons, which discarded the laws of Allah?

As for those apologists who claim that they had reverted from Islam and that it was therefore obligatory to kill them, this allegation is not correct; whoever has read the historical books knows most certainly that those who withheld the zakat had not reverted from Islam. How could they have [done so] when they prayed with Khalid and his forces when he came to destroy them? Furthermore, Abu Bakr himself nullified this spurious claim by paying blood money for Malik from the state treasury and apologized for his death. No apology is needed for the killing of an apostate, nor is any blood money paid from the state treasury. None of the righteous predecessors ever said that those who withheld the zakat had reverted from Islam, except in the later periods when there sprang up [different] schools of thought (madhahib) and sects. The ahl al-sunna then tried their utmost, though unsuccessfully, to justify the actions of Abu Bakr, and found it necessary to formulate the charge of apostasy against them; for they knew that abusing Muslims was wicked and that killing them was [tantamount to] disbelief. This is what has been reported in the Sahih literature of the ahl al-Sunna , and even when al-Bukhari reported the account of Abu Bakr and his speech: "By Allah, I will fight whoever differentiates between salat and zakat ..." he gave the chapter the title, "Whosoever refuses to accept the obligatory commandments, and what is attributed to them with [charges of] apostasy"; this is clear proof that he did not himself believe in the charge of their apostasy (as is obvious).

Yet, others have attempted explanations of the hadith, as did Abu Bakr, that zakat is a right upon property. It is an interpretation taken out of its rightful context.

Firstly : Because the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) forbade the killing of whoever said "la ilaha illa Allah "; there are several narrations on this, verified by the Sihah, as we will show presently.

Secondly: If zakat were a right on property, then the hadith allows, in this instance, for the judge to take the zakat by force from those who refuse it, without killing them or the spilling their blood.

Thirdly : If this explanation were correct, the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) would have fought Tha'laba, who refused to give the zakat to him. (The story is well known, and there is no need to repeat it).

Fourthly: We quote what has been authenticated by the Sihah regarding the prohibition of killing whoever says "la ilaha illa Allah. " I shall restrict myself to al-Bukhari and Muslim and to some traditions, for the sake of brevity.

Muslim, in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter of Prohibition on the Killing of a Kafir after he says "la ilaha illa Allah ", and al-Bukhari, in "The Book of Military Expeditions" relates: "Khalifa informed me, on the authority of Miqdad b. al-Aswad, that he said to the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.): 'What do you think, if I were to meet a man from the disbelievers, and we were to fight, and if he struck one of my hands with his sword and severed it, then fled from me to the shelter of a tree, beseeching: 'I have submitted myself to Allah', should I, O Prophet of Allah, kill him after he has said this?' The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'Do not kill him'. So he said: 'But, O Prophet of Allah, he cut off one of my hands, then he said it after severing it'. The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'Do not kill him. Were you to kill him, he would be in your position before you killed him, and you would be in his position before he had uttered those words".

This hadith shows us that it is forbidden to kill the kafir who professes "There is no God but Allah", even after his attack upon a Muslim and his cutting of his hand. There is no [question here of the] acceptance of Muhammad as a Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), nor of the [obligatory] prayer, zakat , fast of Ramadan, or pilgrimage. Where, then, do you go and how can you interpret [this]?

Al-Bukhari relates in his Sahih in "The Book of Military Campaigns" in the chapter [entitled]: "The Prophet (S.A.W.) sent Usama b. Zayd to al-Haraqat from Juhayna", and Muslim in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on the Prohibition of the killing of a kafir after he has said 'There is no God but Allah", on the authority of Usama b. Zayd, who said: "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) sent us to al-Haraqat and we arrived there at dawn and attacked them; I and an Ansari were in combat with one of their men. After we defeated him, he said: 'There is no God but Allah'; the Ansari turned away from him, but I struck him with my spear until I killed him. When we returned, he informed the Prophet (S.A.W.) who said: 'O Usama, did you slay him after he said: 'There is no God but Allah?' I said: 'He was seeking to spare himself'. He (the Prophet) kept on repeating this until I wished I had not accepted Islam prior to that day".

This hadith proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is forbidden to kill whoever says "There is no God but Allah". Because of this, we observe the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) severely rebuking Usama until the latter wished he had not accepted Islam prior to that day, acting in accordance with the hadith "Islam cleans whatever was done before it"; and he yearned for Allah's forgiveness for that grave sin.

Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih in "The Book of Clothing" in "The Chapter On White Clothes"; and Muslim narrated in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on Whoever Dies not associating anything with Allah will enter heaven" that Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (R) said: "I came to the Prophet (S.A.W.) and he was clothed in a white outfit and was asleep. I came again and [this time] he was awake. He said: 'Any servant who says 'There is no God but Allah' and then dies in this state, enters paradise'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes, even if he fornicates and steals'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes, even if he fornicates and steals'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes even if he fornicates and steals, despite what Abu Dharr feels".

Whenever he used to relate the hadith, Abu Dharr used to say: "Despite what Abu Dharr feels". This is another hadith which confirms admission to paradise for anyone who says: "There is no God but Allah" and then dies in that state, killing him is forbidden. This is in spite of what Abu Bakr or 'Umar and all their helpers, who interpreted away the realities and turned them upside down, so as to protect the honor of their predecessors and their seniors who changed the rulings of Allah, might have felt.

Most certainly Abu Bakr and 'Umar knew these rulings for they were closer than we are to grasping the rulings, and closer than others to the bearer of the message. However, for the sake of the Caliphate, they reinterpreted the bulk of the rulings of Allah and His Prophet (P), even though they had knowledge and proofs.

Perhaps, when Abu Bakr resolved to fight those who withheld the zakat , and 'Umar opposed him with the Prophetic hadith forbidding that, he (Abu Bakr) convinced his companion that it was he ('Umar) who had carried the firewood to burn the house of Fatima by himself, and that the least that could be said for Fatima was that she used to testify, "there is no God but Allah". He perhaps also persuaded him that 'Ali and Fatima were still of high standing in the capital city of the Caliphate whereas the tribes withholding the zakat , if they were left alone to consult their matters within the Islamic state, they would have a major influence on the centre of the Caliphate. With that, 'Umar perceived that Allah "had opened Abu Bakr's heart" to fighting [such tribes] and admitted that he was right.

Abu Bakr prevents the writing of the Prophet's sunna as
did 'Umar b. al-Khattab and 'Uthman b. 'Affan after him

Whenever the researcher dwells into the history books and acquaints himself with the inner workings of the governments of the three Caliphs, he realizes with absolute certitude that they were the ones who forbade the writing and recording of the noble Prophetic hadiths. Indeed, they even prevented [people from] talking about the hadith and transmitting it to the people, for they undoubtedly knew that it would not serve their interests or, at the very least, that [the hadith ]would oppose and contradict a lot of their verdicts; and what they had interpreted was based on their reasoning and according to what their interests dictated. The hadith of the Prophet (S.A.W.) is the second source for law in Islam. In fact it explains and makes clear the primary source, the noble Qur'an, and [this] was left forsaken and forbidden during their reign. For this reason, the hadith scholars and historians agree that the collection and recording of the hadith started during the time of 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz (R) or even a little later on. Al-Bukhari reported in "The Book of Knowledge" in "The Chapter on How Knowledge is Acquired" that 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr b. Hazm [and said]: "See what there is of the hadith of Allah's Apostle (S.A.W.) and commit it to writing. I fear the studies of the sciences while the scholars pass away. Nothing should be accepted but the hadith of the Prophet (S.A.W.); so let them [i.e. the learned] spread the knowledge and let them sit together so that the one who is ignorant will learn. Knowledge is not destroyed until it becomes a secret".

Yet, after the death of the Prophet (S.A.W.), here was Abu Bakr delivering a speech saying: "You relate from the Prophet (S.A.W.) hadiths about which you disagree, and those after you will differ [over them] even more. So don't relate anything from the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) and to whosoever asks you [regarding them], say: "The book of Allah is between us and you; therefore, enjoin whatever is halal in it and forbid whatever is haram in it".

By Allah, how surprising is this command of Abu Bakr. Here he is, a few days only after that sad day (called "The Calamitous Thursday"), agreeing exactly with what his companion 'Umar b. al-Khattab had said: "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) is hallucinating, but the book of Allah is enough for us".

Here is Abu Bakr saying: "Don't transmit anything from the Prophet. And, to whosoever asks, you say: "The book of Allah is between us; therefore enjoin whatever is halal in it and forbid whatever is haram in it".

All praise be to Allah for his clear admission that they hurled the sunna of their Prophet (S.A.W.) behind them, and it became a forgotten thing for them.

The question that must now be posed to the ahl al-sunna wa'l-Jama'a, i.e., the people who defend Abu Bakr and 'Umar and reckon them to be the best of creation after the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), is this:

If your Sihah [books] report, as you claim them to do, that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: "I am leaving for you two things after me. If you adhere to them you will never go astray; the book of Allah and my sunna ", and, assuming we accept the authenticity of this tradition, then how is it that the best of your men reject the sunna and did not accord it any weight, rather, they prevented the people from writing or speaking about it? Did anyone dare ask Abu Bakr from which verse did he deduce the legality of fighting Muslims who withheld the zakat , and the taking of their women and children as prisoners of war?

For the book of Allah, which is between us and Abu Bakr, states: "And among them are those who made a covenant with Allah thus: 'If you bestow your bounty upon us, we will most certainly spend in charity and we will be righteous'. Yet, when Allah showered them with His bounty, they became miserly and turned back from their covenant, and were averse to it. So Allah put hypocrisy into their hearts as a result, until the day they will meet Him because they turned back from what they had promised Allah, and because of their lies....." (9:75-77). This verse, by the consensus of all commentators, was revealed concerning Tha'laba, when he refused to pay the zakat during the lifetime of the Prophet (S.A.W.). I would add that Tha'laba rejected the zakat and refused to give it to the Prophet (P), as he said it was jizya . Allah, in this verse, showed Tha'laba's hypocrisy, but yet, in spite of this, the Prophet (P) did not fight him nor take his property by force, even though he was capable of doing so. In the case of Malik b. Nuwayra and his people, they did not deny that the zakat was an obligatory duty among the injunctions of the religion, but rather, they rejected the one who had usurped the Caliphate after the Prophet, having done so by force, oppression and manipulation of opportunity.

The position that Abu Bakr took [became] even stranger and more astonishing when he discarded the book of Allah behind his back, [even though] Fatima al-Zahra, the leader of the women of the world, argued against him by it, citing to his audience unambiguous clear verses from the book of Allah which confirmed the inheritance of the Prophets. He did not accept it; he nullified it completely with a hadith which he brought forth to serve his personal need. If he [truly] said: "You relate from the Prophet of Allah hadith about which you differ, and those who come after you will differ even more over them. So do not relate anything from the Prophet's hadith . And to anyone who asks you [about it], say: 'The Book of Allah is between us, so enjoin what is halal therein, and forbid what is haram therein....", then why did Abu Bakr not do as he preached, when he argued with the truthful, purified one, who was a part of the chosen Messenger (S.A.W.), regarding the hh-->adith of the Prophet: "We Prophets do not bequeath..."? Why did he not judge with her according to the book of Allah, enjoining its halal therein and forbidding its haram ?" The answer is obvious: in this instance, he would have found the book of Allah against him, and Fatima would have triumphed in all her claims over him. If she were to have triumphed against him on that day, she would have later argued on the appointment to the Caliphate for her cousin, 'Ali. It was necessary therefore that Abu Bakr oppose and deny her. Allah says regarding these matters: "O You who believe! Why do you preach that which you do not practice? Grievous indeed is it with Allah that you preach what you do not do".

Due to all this, Abu Bakr could not be comfortable if the hadiths of the Prophet (S.A.W.) were circulating among the people and committed to writing, to memory, to transmission from town to town, village to other [villages]; when those hadith were manifest texts that opposed the politics upon which his state was built. There remained no solution for him therefore but to wipe away and conceal the hadiths , indeed, to obliterate and burn them. His own daughter, 'A'isha, testified against him. She reported: "My father collected the hadith of the Prophet, and they were five hundred in number. He spent the night being undecided [about them]. I said that he was undecided because of a complaint or something that had reached him. In the morning he said: 'O My daughter! Bring me all the hadiths that are with you'. I gave them to him, and he burnt them ...".

'Umar b. al-Khattab was more severe than his companion
on the traditions of the Prophet of Allah and forbade
the people from transmitting them

We saw the politics of Abu Bakr in preventing [the preservation of] hadith to the extent that he burnt all the hadiths that had been collected in his time, all five hundred of them so that they would not spread to the companions and other Muslims who were thirsty to know the sunna of their Prophet (P). When 'Umar ascended to the Caliphate, according to Abu Bakr's will, he pursued the same type of politics, though in his own well known severe and harsh manner. He did not limit himself to the forbidding and prevention of the transmission and recording of the hadith ; but rather, he intimidated and threatened and beat and even imposed [house] arrest.

In volume one of his Sunan in "The Chapter on being Honest to the Hadith " Ibn Maja narrated on the authority of Qarza b. Ka'b: "'Umar b. al-Khattab sent us to Kufa and accompanied us, walking with us to the mountain passes. He said: 'Do you know why I have walked with you?' Qarza said: 'We said: 'For the right of companionship of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), and for the right of the Ansar'. 'Umar said: "Rather, I did so for something I wish to tell you, and I hope you will remember it as I have walked with you. You will come upon people in whose hearts the Qur'an is vibrating like the vibration of a kettle. When they see you, they will stretch their necks in awe and say: '[These are] the companions of Muhammad'. So reduce the traditions from the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), and I will support you". And when Qarza b. Ka'b [later] came to them they said: "Relate [hadith ] to us". He said: "'Umar forbade us".

Similarly, Muslim related in his Sahih in "The Book of Manners" in "The Chapter on Seeking Permission" that 'Umar threatened to beat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari because of a hadith he reported from the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.). Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: "We were sitting with Ubay b. Ka'b when Abu Musa al-Ash'ari came to us, upset. He stopped and said: 'I beseech you by Allah! Has any of you heard the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) say: 'Permission is to be sought three times. If it is granted, proceed, if not, return'. Ubay said: 'What about it?' Abu Musa said: 'Yesterday I sought permission three times from 'Umar. He did not grant it, so I went away. I came to him today, and when I entered, I informed him that I had come yesterday, greeted him three times and then left. Then 'Umar said: 'We heard you but at the time we were busy; you should have kept on seeking permission until it was granted to you". Abu Musa said: "I sought permission according to what I heard the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) say. He said [to me]: 'By Allah! I'll beat your back and your stomach unless you bring someone to testify to this'. Ubay b. Ka'b said: 'By Allah, none will go with you except he who is the youngest amongst us'. Go forth, O Abu Sa'id'. So I went until I came to 'Umar and I said: 'I have heard the Prophet of Allah say this".

Al-Bukhari also reported this incident, but, as is his norm, he abridged and edited from it 'Umar's threat to beat Abu Musa, in order to protect 'Umar's honour although Muslim added Ubay's address to 'Umar: 'O Ibn al-Khattab! Do not inflict suffering upon the companions of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.)".

Al-Dhahabi transmitted in his Tadhkira al-Huffaz in volume 1, page 4 from Abu Salama who said to Abu Hurayra: "During the time of 'Umar, did you transmit this?" He replied: "Had I narrated in his time as I narrate to you now, he would have whipped me with his whip".

'Umar, after forbidding the [collection of] hadith and threatening the people to beat them, burnt the traditions the companions had collected. He addressed the people one day thus: "O People! It has come to my knowledge that certain books have appeared in your hands. I wish, by Allah, that I could change and correct them. Let there not remain anyone amongst you with a book except that he gives it to me so that I may check it". The people assumed that he wished to examine them to correct them on an issue so that there would be no differences in it, and so they brought their books to him whereupon he burnt them in the fire.

In his Jami' Bayan al-'ilm wa Fadlihi , Ibn 'Abd al-Barr related that 'Umar b. al- Khattab wanted to write down the sunna , then it seemed better to him not to do so. So he wrote to the cities ordering that anyone in possession of it must destroy it.

In spite of his plan, however, and despite his threats, his proscription, prohibition and his burning of books, some of the companions still persevered in relating what they had heard from the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) whenever they met people on their journeys outside of Medina who asked them about the hadith s of the Prophet (S.A.W.). 'Umar deemed it proper to confine them within Medina, even forcing house arrest on them and undertaking forceful measures. Ibn Ishaq narrated from 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf who said: "'Umar did not die until after he had summoned all the companions of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) from the farthest places; 'Abd Allah b. Hudhayfa, Abu Darda', Abu Dharr al-Ghifari and 'Uqba b. 'Amir. He said to them: 'What are these hadiths that you have related in the outlying areas from the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.)?' They said: 'Are you forbidding us [to do so]?' He responded: 'No! But stay with me. By Allah! You will not leave me as long as I am alive".

And after him came the third Caliph, 'Uthman, who followed the same course as his two predecessors. He ascended the minbar and declared openly: "It is not permissible for anyone to narrate from the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) any hadith that was not heard during the times of Abu Bakr and 'Umar".

In this manner, the restriction continued throughout the rule of the three Caliphs, a period of twenty-five years. If only it had been limited to that period, rather, it continued. When Mu'awiya grabbed the reins of power, he ascended the pulpit and declared: "I forbid you the hadith, except those [accepted] during the time of 'Umar, for he used to make the people fear Allah". This has been reported by Muslim in volume 3 in "The Book of Zakat " in "The Chapter on the Prohibition of Questioning".

Thereafter, the Umayyad Caliphs adopted this path, forbidding authentic hadiths of the Prophet while specializing in the fabrication of forged and false hadiths against him. It reached to an extent that Muslims of every age have been afflicted by contradictions, myths and legends that do not have any connection whatsoever to Islam. Here is what al-Mada'ini reports in his book, al-Ahdath : "Mu'awiya wrote the same letter to all of his governors after the year of the unity: 'Anyone who reports anything regarding the merits of Abu Turab ('Ali b. Abu Talib) and his family is exempt from [my] protection'. The preachers in every place, every minbar then took to cursing 'Ali and dissociating from him, defaming him and his family".

Mu'awiya then wrote to his governors in all the regions: "Do not accept the testimony of any of those who follow 'Ali and his Family". He further went on: "Seek out from among you those who follow 'Uthman and those who love him, as well as his friends and protectors and those who relate his merits and praises. Associate with them, frequent their gatherings, make them close to you and honour them. Write to me anything that each one of them narrates, and give me his name, his father's name and his progeny".

They did that until the merits and praises of 'Uthman were numerous, all because of the rewards, cloaks, gifts and land grants he sent to them, flowing out to the Arabs and the non-Arab clients. It multiplied in every city and they competed for status and worldly gains. Every man who came to the officials of Mu'awiya was welcomed when he related praises or merits of 'Uthman; his name was recorded and he was befriended and rewarded. This continued for a while. Then Mu'awiya wrote to his officials: "The hadith in favor of various dimensions of 'Uthman has multiplied and spread to every city. When this letter reaches you ask the people for the hadiths regarding the merits of the companions and the first Caliphs. Do not leave any information that any Muslim narrates in favor of Abu Turab, except that you come up with another one that contradicts it from one of the sahaba . This is dearer to me and more of a delight to my eye and more of a refutation to the argument of Abu Turab and his party (Shi'a), and more damaging to them than recounting the good deeds and merits of 'Uthman".

His letters were read to the people and many narrations on the merits of the companions were reported, most of them spurious, [there was] no truth in them. And the people really exerted themselves in this until they started doing so from the pulpits. The teachers in the learning circles started doing this and taught the children and youths until they began to narrate and learn them as they learnt the Qur'an. They even taught their daughters and wives and their servants and entourage, they kept on doing this as long as Allah willed.

Then Mu'awiya sent a common letter to his officials in every region: "Seek out one against whom there is proof that he loves 'Ali and his family, and then erase his name from the national register and cut off whatever [stipend] he is given from the state". He reinforced this with another letter: "Whosoever you accuse of aiding these people, place him in fetters and demolish his home". The affliction was most severe and rampant in Iraq especially in Kufa to the extent that, if a Shii was visited by someone whom he trusted, he would bring him to his house and tell him his secrets and thereafter, he would live in fear of his servants and slaves and would not speak until he had taken a severe oath of silence from them. Several spurious and calumnious hadiths surfaced; and the jurists and judges and those in authority promoted them. The worst perpetrators of this calamity were those who recited the Qur'an to show off to others and those of weak faith who displayed outward piety and performed rituals while forging hadith; so that they could please those in authority and be in their gatherings, thus gaining money, property and positions. This continued until the hadith and the reports fell into the hands of the religionists, who could not allow lies and accusations. Rather, they accepted these hadiths and transmitted them assuming they were authentic, for, had they known they were spurious, they would not have narrated nor acted upon them.

I say the responsibility of this falls on Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman who prevented the recording of the true hadiths of the Prophet (S.A.W.) on the pretext that they were afraid the hadiths would be mixed with the Qur'an. This is what their helpers and defenders maintain. This claim amuses even the lunatics. Are the Qur'an and sunna sugar and salt so that, if they are mixed, they could not be separated from each other? Even sugar and salt do not mix for each is in a specific container. Did it not dawn upon the Caliphs that they could have written the Qur'an on one special scroll and the sunna of the Prophet in a separate book, as is the situation with us today, and has been since the recording of the traditions from the time of 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz (R)? Why has the sunna not been mixed with the Qur'an, even though the hadith books exceed hundreds? Moreover, the Sahih of al-Bukhari is not mixed with that of Muslim, which in turn is not mixed with Ahmad b. Hanbal's Musnad nor the Muwatta ' of Malik b. Anas, let alone being mixed with the noble Qur'an.

This argument is weak like the house of a spider, it cannot stand up to the scrutiny of proof. In fact, the proof against it is even more clear. Al-Zuhri reported on the authority of 'Urwa that 'Umar b. al-Khattab wanted to commit the sunna to writing and sought the counsel of the companions of the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.). They advised him to do so; but 'Umar prayed for guidance about this for a month then one morning arose saying: "I had wanted to write the sunna down then I remembered the people before you that wrote books and chose to follow them, leaving the book of Allah! And By Allah, I will not mix the book of Allah with anything, ever".

Look, O reader, at this narration. The companions of the Prophet (S.A.W.) advised 'Umar to write down the sunna and he went against all of them and chose to impose his own view; claiming that the people before them had written books and had chosen to follow these books to the exclusion of Allah's Book. Where was the claim of mutual consultation (shura ), which the ahl al-Sunna wa'l-Jama'a invoke? Where are these people who chose to adhere to their books instead of the book of Allah?

We have not heard of them except in 'Umar b. al-Khattab's imagination. Assuming these people did exist, there is no ground for comparison as they manufactured books from themselves to distort the book of Allah. The Qur'an states: "Woe unto those who write the book with their own hands then they say 'This is from Allah' to gain thereby a small prize. Woe unto them for what they wrote and for what they gained by their deed" (2:79). As for books of the sunna, these are not like that, for they originate from the infallible Prophet who did not utter anything from his own desire but, rather, from the revelation that descended upon him. [The sunna ] clarified and explained the book of Allah. The most High stated: "We have sent unto you the reminder, to explain to the people what has been revealed to them" (16:44). And the Prophet (S.A.W.) said: "I was given the Qur'an and with it something similar to it". This is a simple matter for anyone who knows the Qur'an, for there is no mention in it of five prayers, no specified amount for zakat or rules of fasting or hajj and various other rulings which the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) has explained. Due to this, Allah said: "What the Prophet has given you accept it; and from what he has forbidden you, eschew it".

And He says: "Say! 'If you love Allah, then follow me so that Allah may love you".

If only 'Umar knew the book of Allah and paid more attention to it in order to learn from it obedience to the injunctions of the Messenger, and not to argue or refute him. If only he had known the book of Allah and given more attention to it so that he could learn the judgment of al-Kalala which he did not know up to the time he died. During his Caliphate, he issued rulings on it based on various contradictory verdicts. If only he knew the book of Allah and paid more attention to it to learn the rulings of tayammum which he did not know even during the days of his Caliphate. He used to rule that he who doesn't find water should not pray. If only he knew the book of Allah and paid due attention to know the laws of divorce of two utterances, after which one should live [with the wife] in accordance with proper forms of behaviour or should separate from her with kindness. Instead, he made all three divorces count as one; and, by following his own view and personal judgment, he opposed Allah's decrees, discarding them.

The truth that cannot be denied is that the Caliphs prevented the spread of hadiths . They threatened and exiled whosoever spoke of them. This is because it would have frustrated their plans and exposed their plots and would not have given them any room for interpreting things as they interpreted the Qur'an. This is because Allah's book is silent and multifaceted, whereas the sunna of the Prophet is comprised of the words and deeds of the Prophet (S.A.W.), no one can oppose it. Due to this, the Commander of the Faithful, 'Ali (A.S.), said to Ibn 'Abbas when he sent him to debate with the Khawarij: "Do not oppose them with the Qur'an, for the Qur'an has different interpretations. You will say things and they will say [other] things; but debate them by using the sunna , for they will not find any escape from it".