The report of Ibne Qutaibah is as follows:
Abu Bakr was in pursuit of some people to take their allegiance
as they were not present there to give allegiance to him. And that is why they
had gathered with Ali (a). Abu Bakr in order to take allegiance sent Umar after
them. Umar went after them and called out to them, but they did not pay any
heed and did not come out of the house. Umar called for firewood and said: By
Allah, in whose hand is my life if you don’t come out I would burn down the
house with its occupants. They said to him: O Aba Hafs, Fatima is present in
this house. Umar replied: Even if that is the case…In another report it is mentioned:
Umar came to the door of the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) with a large number
of helpers (Ansar) and a few emigrants (Muhajireen). When Fatima heard them she cried: O father, O Messenger of
Allah (s)! What all we did not face at the hand of Ibne Khattab [Umar] and Ibne
Abi Qahafa [Abu Bakr]…[1]
The personality of Ibne Qutaibah is so trustworthy in the view of
Ahle Sunnat that Ibne Taymiyyah, the founder of Wahabism, has also paid tribute
him in very positive terms and he says:
All the people of Marakkesh considered him respectable and
honored him and anyone who had a view opposed to him was considered as heretic
and apostate and they said: A house, which does not have a book of Ibne
Qutaibah, has no goodness.[2]
With attention to the time of the death of Ibne Qutaibah
Dainawari in the third century (276 A.H.), his proximity to the early period of
Islam and the importance of his personality shows that he was a famous
intellectual and an elder and leader of Ahle Sunnat in literature, history,
jurisprudence, traditions, sciences of Quran and etc…so it is not possible to
doubt his veracity and person, that is why they strive to cast aspersions on
the reliability of Al-Imamah was Siyasah.
Since Wahabis do not have satisfactory proof to prove their weak
claim that is why they have presented the statements of orientalists[3]
and some weak statements of modern scholars.[4]
[1] Al-Imamah
was Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 30, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah
Dainawari (d. 276 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Taha Zaini, Mausisatal Halabi wa
Shoraka Lil Nashr wat Tauzih and Vol. 1, Pg. 16, Edited: Khalil Mansur, Darul
Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, 1418 A.H. and 1997 A.D.; Edited: Shiri, Vol. 1, Pg. 30;
and Edited: Zaini, Vol. 1, Pg. 19.
[2] Kutub
wa Rasail wa Fatawa Ibne Taymiyyah, Vol. 17, Pg. 391, Ahmad Abdul Halim bin
Taymiyyah Harrani, Abul Abbas (d. 728), Maktaba Ibne Taymiyyah, Second edition,
Edited: Abdur Rahman bin Muhammad bin Qasim Asmi Najdi.
[3]
Dozy is one of the orientalists and following him some Wahabis of today claim
that the book of Imamah was Siyasah is neither ancient nor authentic,
because it contains historical doubts and imaginative and inappropriate
reports, so the attribution of this work to Ibne Qutaibah is not acceptable.
[www.valiasr-aj.com]
[4]
For example some Wahabi websites have mentioned the following objections in
brief:
Some points, which prove
that the attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah is wrong: 1. Biographies of
authors: They don’t mention this book among the writings of Ibne Qutaibah. 2.
Those who consider this book to be a work of Ibne Qutaibah, have said: The
writer of this book was in Damascus
and he never left Baghdad ,
and except for Dinawar, he did not travel anywhere. 3. This book is narrated
from a person named Abi Laila as it was not possible to narrate from him. 4.
The writer has mentioned some improbable incidents in the topic of conquest of Spain . 5. These
same points are true in case of the conquest of Marakkesh. 6. Matters mentioned
in this book are filled with foolishness, simplicity, evil, falsehood and
deceit; such things are least expected from ordinary writers, what can be said
about Ibne Qutaibah? 7. The writer has taken a large number of reports from
scholars of Egypt ,
while the fact is that Ibne Qutaibah definitely did not go to Egypt and had
not met those scholars.
Reply to the objections is
very simple:
1- In spite of the
statements and sayings of ancient scholars and elders of Ahle Sunnat regarding
the attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah, there is no scope for the
statements of unaware people and that too after a gap of centuries. Some of
those who have clarified about the attribution of the book of Al-Imamah was
Siyasah to Ibne Qutaibah Dinawari are as follows: Ibne Hajar Haithami in
the book of Tathirul Jinaan wal Lisan [Tathirul Jinaan wal Lisan,
Pg. 72, Ibne Hajar Haithami, Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ali (d. 973 A.H.)]
– Ibne Arabi Maliki in the book of Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim, under the
points quoted from this book he has clarified about the attribution of this
book to Ibne Qutaibah. (Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim, Vol. 1, Pg. 261, Ibne
Arabi, d. 543 A.H.) – Najmuddin Umar bin Muhammad Makki, famous as Ibne Fahad
in the book of Al-Ittihaful Wara ba Akhabare Ummul Qura, in the events
of year 93 A.H. (Al-Ittihaful Wara ba Akhabare Ummul Qura, Ibne Fahad,
events of 93 A.H.) – Qadi Abu Abdullah Tanuzi, alias Ibne Shabat in the book, Al-Sila
as-Simtiya (Al-Sila as-Simtiya, Al-Tanuzi, Part II, Chapter 34) –
Taqiuddin Fasi Makki in the book of Al-Iqdul Thameen (Fasi Makki, Al-Iqdul
Thameen, Vol. 6, Pg. 72) and other clear statements of scholars and elders
of Ahle Sunnat are also there, but we have refrained from quoting them all.
Some Ahle Sunnat senior
scholars, in spite of accepting the reliability of attribution of this book to
Ibne Qutaibah and admitting to the bitter and unbearable facts quoted in it
from the early period of Islam, have blamed him why he has not distorted and
censored the historical facts! On the contrary, why he has not, like others,
refrained from quoting such facts?
Ibne Arabi has expressed
following views in Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim:
The most unbearable of social
matters is the existence of ignorant intellectuals and heretical fraudsters.
Ignorant intellectuals are like Ibne Qutaibah, who in the book of Al-Imamah
was Siyasah, has not observed the practice of concealing the defects of
companions if the attribution of all matters of this book is correct.
Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim,
Vol. 1, Pg. 261, Ibne Arabi (d. 543 A.H.)
2- As for the absence of
the name of this book among his writings as seen in some books, the reply is
that usually the biographers mention some books of the concerned person and
then say: et al. They don’t mention all the books of any writer.
3- As for the point that
Ibne Qutaibah did not leave Baghdad ,
except for Dainawar. In order to disprove this claim, it would be better to
refer to the book of Aalaam Zarkali, who says: He resided in Kufa! In the same
way, it is mentioned in Al-Muntazam: He lived for sometime in Kufa also
and it is here that he expired. (Al-Muntazam fee Tarikh Muluk wal Umam,
Vol. 12, Pg. 276, Abul Faraj Ibne Jauzi, d. 597 A.H.)
4- Narrating of the report
by Abi Laila is in the form of message, an act, which many historians have
performed. His quotation was through the channel of Laith.
5- With regard to Marakkseh
and narrating the report about the conquest of Andulas, the reply is very
simple: (a) He has narrated the event from very aged persons who were present
in this battle. There are many aged people in history who have narrated
historical facts; so much so that it is narrated that during the period of
Harun there was a persons who had met the Holy Prophet (s). (b) It is possible
that it is directly quoted, because it is present in excess in books of
traditional reports. (c) With regard to certain points it is narrated from a
lady who witnessed the conquest of Andulas on 92 A.H. It can also be said that
in some versions the word of ‘they mentioned’ is mentioned, which completely
removes the doubt. In the same way, it can be said that it has been dispatched
here as well.
6- The reason for some
doubts against his books is that he was a memorizer of 60000 traditional
reports and he has narrated the matter for memory and his students have noted
down from him. The instance of doubts is natural in such a case.
(Al-Muntazam fee Tarikh
Muluk wal Umam, Vol. 12, Pg. 276, Abul Faraj Jauzi, d. 597 A.H.) Therefore
arising of some doubts is possible and reasonable.
7- His quoting from the
scholars of Egypt
does not necessitate him to be present in Egypt , because numerous Egypt scholars
used to frequently travel to Kufa and Shaam.
8- In the end it should be
reminded that all deniers of attribution of this book to Ibne Qutaibah are from
the later period and they are ignorant and weak persons. It is better that
instead of referring to the statements of such persons one relies on the
statements of ancient scholars, some of which we have quoted above.