HAJJAJ – THE INCULCATOR OF JEWISH BELIEFS
It is written in the book ‘Tareekh e Tehleeli e Islaam’:
‘As the years of the Hajjaj’s rule were proceeding , he persistently added on to his misguiding behaviour and humiliation of Islamic tradition, to such an extent that he said in one of his sermons regarding the visitors of the grave of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.): “Down with these people! Why do they rotate a stack of sand and wood? Why don’t they visit the Palace of Abdul Malik and rotate around it? Don’t they know that the caliph of a person is better than the Prophet himself”! [1]
Due to the amount of respect he possessed in the eyes of the Caliph, the other rulers used to attain his proximity and nearness!
With the help of his rule, Hajjaj tried to dominate the entire Iraq and the eastern areas of the empire with fear and terror. He killed a large number of pious and innocent people of Kufa. He was the one who settled down the revolt of the Khawarij (the outlaws). He inculcated such fear in the hearts of the people that not just the Iraqis, but the entire Khuzestan and the east was suppressed.
Although Hajjaj used to behave strictly with his subordinates, he was extremely obedient and respectful to his superiors. He wrote in a letter addressed to Abdul Malik: “I came to know that Amir al-Momineen sneezed in one of the public meetings and the people present in the audience said ‘Yarhamukallah’ (May Allah Bless You) for him; “''فَیٰا لَیْتَنِاْ کُنْتُ مَعَھُمْ فَأَفُوْزَ فَوْزاًعَظِیْماً''! [2]
In his speeches, he regarded the status of Abdul Malik higher than that of the Messenger (p.b.u.h.) and used to say: ‘O people! Is your Messenger of a greater value in your eyes or your Caliph? Prophet (p.b.u.h.) was the messenger of Allah whereas Abdul Malik is His Caliph![3]))[4]
Abdul Malik also tried to restrict people from the circumambulation of the House of God and instead of Mecca and Medina, he tried to display Syria in line with the shrine of God for the people.
Yaqoobi writes in his history: When he was threatened by the Romans and the Zubair family, he initiated to resolve the Roman issue by signing a treaty with the Roman Empire and began to pay heavy taxes in return. As he relieved himself from the foreign enemy, he steadied himself to suppress the son of Zubair. In order to fight against Hejaz, he took use of both militarism and the political strategies.
Initially, in order to prevent the pilgrims of Syria from being affected by the preaching of the family of Zubair, those who would help spread his message in Syria, he forbid the Pilgrimage of the Holy Kabah.
Yaqoobi writes: People objected on why they were being prohibited from their obligatory pilgrimage?
Abdul Malik replied: Ibn Shahab e Zuhri narrates from the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) that the pilgrimage towards three mosques is obligatory; Masjid ul Haraam, My Mosque and Bait ul Muqaddas. Today, the pilgrimage towards Bait ul Muqaddas possesses the same value for you as the Masjid ul Haraam.
Ibn Shahab himself states: This rock – the rock on which the Jews present their sacrifices- is the same rock on which the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) placed his foot on the night of Elevation (Me’raj)!
As per the command of Abdul Malik, a dome was built on that rock and silk curtains were hanged over it and servants were appointed to look after it. People were forced to rotate around it and this tradition was followed during the entire reign of the Umayyad Dynasty. [5]
Abdul Malik wanted to diminish the importance of Mecca and Medina and display Syria in line with the shrine of God (it was an act which was followed by many of his successors). [6]
Pay attention to this incident also:
Sulaimaan, the son of Abdul Malik, was praised by Abdul Malik for destroying a souvenir of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.):
In is mentioned in the book ‘Maqalaat e Tareekhi’ that:
“When Sulaimaan Ibn Abdul Malik was the crown prince, he came to Medina and heard that Aban bin Othman bin Affan has come up with a new tradition. [7]
When that tradition was read out to him, he observed that the men from the ‘Ansaar’ who were alive at the time of the first and the second Qibla, and who participated in the battle of Badr, were praised in it.
Sulaimaan said:
''ما کنت أری لھولاء القوم ھذا الفضل''
“ I had never assumed that this tribe had any such significance”.
Then he ordered for that manuscript to be burnt. When he returned to Damascus, his father praised him for his act and said: ''ما حاجتک أن تقدم بکتاب لیس لنا فیہ فضل' “It was not necessary for you to welcome a book in which we were not acclaimed’’!
As per the belief of Abdul Malik, a book in which the Umayyad Dynasty was not praised, held no importance; even if it contained the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.).
It is mentioned in the book ‘Umawiyan’, ‘They adopted a strategy in their reign which in its best form paid the least attention towards the demands of Islam and in its worst form, stood outrageously against the principles of Islam. Indeed, the most severe act performed by them was to ascertain the Caliphate as a hereditary asset for their family.
They oppressed a large number of the followers of Islam and even assassinated a few, including the members of the progeny of Prophet, specially his honourable grandson, Imam Husain (a.s.); attacked the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina and performed military invasions in the holy city of Mecca twice.
This picture clearly scrutinizes the reports and narrations regarding the Umayyad Dynasty. They also restricted the non-believers from converting into Islam so that the rights which are meant for the newly converted Muslims could be consumed by themselves and ruled the people with by means of suppression and brutality.
In that era, such works of literature were compiled which portrayed the Umayyad injustice and oppressions, their enemies were praised in the form of poetry, and God was held witness as to why the Islamic society was left entangled and disintegrated under the rule of these oppressors and non-believers. Some of the most renowned works in this regard are the writings of Jahiz in the tenth century A.D. and Maqrizi in the fifth century A.D. [8]
[1] Sharh e Nehjul Balagha Ibn e Abil Hadeed: 15/242, Aqd ul Fareed: 5/284, Murawwij uz-Zahab: 2/44
[2] Ibn e Abd Rabbah: 5/286
[3] Same: 285
[4] Tareekh e Tehleeli e Islam: 205
[5] Tareekh e Yaqoobi: 3/8
[6] Tareekh e Tehleeli e Islam: 202
[7] Pay attention to the following point that states whether the writer of the tradition was Aban bin Othman bin Affan or someone else:
“One of the men who wrote down the traditions in the second century of Hijrah, was Aban bin Othman bin Affan. In majority of the sources, his name is mentioned as ‘Aban bin Othman al-Ahmar al-Bajali”. Only Yaqoot e Hamawi introduced him as ‘Aban bin Othman bin Yahya bin Zakariya al-Lu’lui’, and the reason behind it was the mixture of two biographies by Yaqoot, from the source used by Yaqoot, i.e. ‘Al Fehrist’ of Sheikh e Toosi. (See: Al Fehrist: 179)
It has come in the Shia narrations that he was amongst the slave of the Bajeela tribe. We know that being a slave does not necessarily make a person non-Arab, because even between the Arabs, before Islam and probably even after it, the Aqd e Wilaa existed.
Its example is the Aqd e Wilaa that took place between Zayd bin Haritha and the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) or the one that was held between Ammar bin Yasir and Bani Makhzoom. Even then, the possibility of ‘Aban’ being non-Arab is stronger.
The tribe ‘Bajeela’ is known as a Qahtani tribe. This tribe, like many other Hejazi or Yemeni tribes, migrated to Iraq after the Islamic invasions and settled in Qadisiyah. In these invasions, a number of Iranians associated themselves with Arabs and agreed to serve them.
Many of them were enslaved and progressively, after they were freed, they became famous as the slaves of the Arab tribes. The tribe ‘Bajeela’ was with Amir al-Momineen (a.s.) in the Battle of Siffeen and also defended Mukhtar against his enemies. (Mo’jam e Qabael e Arab: 1/63-65)
Hence, signs of Shi’ism can be found in this tribe. Apart from Ahmar, other titles were also given to him, like the one mentioned by Mohammad bin Salam – his student, which is ‘Al Aa’raj’. He remembers him as ‘Aban al-Aa’raj’ at several instances. (See: Tabaqat e Fuhool us-Shu’ara: 2/482)
With respect to his narrations from Aban, which are repetitively mentioned in Tabaqaat us-Shu’ara), he definitely intends the same Aban we are discussing about. It is possible that ‘Aa’raj’ was changed from ‘Ahmar’.
This point is worth analysing that apart from Aban bin Othman al-Ahmar, there exists another person by the name ‘Aban bin Othman bin Affan’ who is the son of Othman, and apart from the several years of his rule over Medina, it is also claimed that he had a hand in the narrations of Seeratun Nabawi.
The similarity in their name was the reason why some placed the son of Othman bin Affan in the position of Aban, who belonged to the Imami sect. Including ‘Fu’aad Sazgeen’, who mentioned Aban bin Othman bin Affan while writing about the biography writers of the first era, and wrote that his narrations are in ‘Tareekh e Yaqoobi’. (Tareekh at-Turaath al-Arabi, at-Tadween at-Tareekhi: 70)
While the person whose narrations are in ‘Tareekh e Yaqoobi’ is Aban bin Othman al-Ahmar. Its proof is that Yaqoobi himself clears that he is the narrator of the narrations of Imam Jafar as- Sadiq (a.s.).
It is obvious that the age of Othman’s son, who was with Ayesha in the Battle of Jamal, was not such that he could narrate from Imam Sadiq (a.s.). Apart from this, if we look at the Shia sources of Hadith and acquire some knowledge about Aban, it will depict that this mistake is due to a big confusion and mix up.
It is doubtless that he belonged to Kufa because the tribe Bajeela was in Kufa.
Najashi indicates that ‘Asla e Kufi’ writes: ‘’He lived for some time in Kufa and some time in Basra”. This the reason why many people from Basra, namely Abu Obaida Mo’ammar bin Muthanna, and Mohammad bin Salam Jamhi, were his students. (Rijaal al-Najaashi: 13 no. 8)
It is notable that in the text mentioned in ‘Kashi’, it is written: ‘And Aban was from Basra’. (Rijal al-Kashi: 352 no. 660)
We should know that Aban was one of the companions of consensus (Ijmaa’). One of those people for whom it is said: “What is authentically associated to them, should not be doubted”. This is the best evidence for his greatness and authenticity.
He is the narrator of numerous narrations in the field of Jurisprudence, which have been mentioned in the ‘Four Books’ and other books of Fiqh. A list of these narrations is made by Allama Tas’tari in ‘Qamoos ur Rijaal’. The instances where narrations are quoted from Aban bin Othman are mentioned in ‘Al Furoo e Kafi’ by another researcher. (Al Sheikh Kulayni wa Kitabuhu al-Kafi: 263-299), (Manabe’ Tareekh e Islam: 63)
[8] Omawiyan, Nukhusteen Doodman e Hukumat’gar dar Islam: 27.
|
بازديد امروز : 72414
بازديد ديروز : 72005
بازديد کل : 89809410
|