A valuable glance at Tarikh Tabari
Tabari has blackened his Tarikh by writings of Sirrin, who was excessive
liar and fabricator, Shuaib, who is unknown and Saif, who was great fabricator
and accused of heresy.
Through this bad chains of narrators 701 traditional reports are narrated in
pages of his book, which they fabricated to cast veil on facts in incidents during
the period from 11 A.H. to 37 A.H.; that is the period of three caliphs. Nothing is
found any part of the book, except for one traditions, which he has mentioned in
year 10 A.H. and has began narration of these fabricated reports from the year of
passing away of Prophet. And it is spread throughout part three, four and five.
And at the end of part five these fabricated reports also come to an end.
The point worth noting is that: Tabari in part three has from page 210 to
page 241 quoted from Sirri that:1 Narrated to me [as he had himself narrated this
from Sirri] and from page 241 till the last report, which he has quoted from him,
he writes:2 Sirri wrote to me, except for one tradition in Part Four, Pg. 82 that he
writes:3 He narrated for us. Anyone, who examines this report will find that it is
fabricated by one person and I don’t think such a fact was concealed from a
person like Tabari.
But love makes a man blind and deaf. And these fabrications have filled the
pages of Tarikh Ibne Asakir, Kamil Ibne Athir, Bidaya Ibne Kathir, Tarikh Ibne
Khaldun, Tarikh Abul Fida and books of other authors, who have blindly
followed Tabari and they thought that what Tabari has mentioned in his history is
authentic and they must follow him and no defect is present in that; and that
scholars of narrators of traditions have no dispute that if one of the narrators of a
report is weak that report is considered false; what to say when all the narrators of
this report are unreliable?
Later writings, which are written till this day and which are full of false
statements and which have come into being through vested interests, all of them
are weak statements, whose essence you recognized and we will make you aware
of their examples.
Ibne Athir Jazari
In Ibne Athir’s Kamil (perfect) – which is in fact defective, you will see that
in the mention of this incident, he has emulated Tabari and same is the case about
other incidents. But he has exceeded Tabari in some aspects. He writes:4
“In this year, occurred the incident regarding Abu Zar; that he was driven
out from Shaam to Medina at the behest of Muawiyah. And regarding that many
statements are issued, which I don’t like to mention. Like Muawiyah abusing him, and threatening him with death, and sending him from Shaam to Medina on
a camel without saddle, his expulsion from Medina in a very bad manner, to
quote which is not right. And if its narration is done it would have to be
accompanied with justification of Uthman, because the ruler can discipline his
subjects and not that this act of his should be used to ridicule him.
What this man has regarded as not worth mention, others before and after
have regarded as right and this poor man cannot achieve what he intended. And
he thought that if he conceals the facts, they would remain concealed.
Suppose he conceals history through summarizing statements, but what
would he do with statements of historians who recorded the incident of expulsion
of Abu Zar from Mecca and Shaam, in chapter of mischiefs and in chapters of
signs of prophethood?5
The point after this is: Discipline of subjects through Caliph is regarding
one, who does not observe rules of religion and who is debased to such a point.
As for a personality like Abu Zar, whom Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) praised so
much that he had not extolled the merits of anyone else; and made him
proximate, dispensed teachings to him and whenever he was gone, he sent for
him and testified that he was like Isa Ibne Maryam from the aspect of conduct,
apparent appearance, morals, righteousness, truthfulness, worship and piety
Now with what can such a person be disciplined? And for what? What
disciplining is that which Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) regards as trial on the
path of God and ordered Abu Zar to be patient and he said: “Welcome to the
command of Allah?” Why Abu Zar required disciplining whereas his act was
righteous and approved by Allah, Mighty and High and Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)
regarded as anger on the path of God and said to Abu Zar: “Repose hope in one,
for whom you were angry.”?
Yes, Abu Zar was angry for the sake of knowledge of prophethood, divine
laws, and religious wisdom and noble manners he possessed. Who was in the
Ummah of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) likeness of Isa Ibne Maryam. What happened to
the Caliph that he was in pursuit of disciplining a person like Abu Zar, whereas
disciplining Walid bin Uqbah, who was always intoxicated and wanton and
regarding even obligatory prayer as a toy, was difficult for the Caliph?
And also disciplining Ubaidullah bin Umar for slaying an innocent man is
hard for him.
And also disciplining Marwan, who wrote a letter, under his seal, which he
attributed to him falsely.
And also disciplining one, who insulted sanctities like Mughira bin Akhnas
who said: I will suffice you against Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) [remove his
mischief]. And Imam replied: “O son of unreliable accursed one, and a tree,
which has neither roots nor branches. You will suffice me? I swear by God, Almighty Allah will not grant respect to one, who helps you,”6 was hard upon him.
And what happened to the Caliph that he entrusted important issues of
society to Marwan and keys of important matter to him and did not heed the
statements of the righteous one of this Ummah, Maula Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)
who said:
“Know that! You will not be pleased with Marwan and he will not be
satisfied, except by deviating you from your religion and intellect, like a camel on
which a saddle is placed and it goes wherever it is pulled? By God, Marwan
regarding your religion and regarding himself is not a good advisor and by God, I
see him that he would make you enter this, but not satisfy you. And after this
gathering, I will not face your fury. You have taken your nobility and became
weak on your matter…”7
It was in the well being of the Caliph that he should have made Abu Zar
proximate and gained from his morals, worship, knowledge, trust, reliability and
piety; but he did not.
All this was lost on Ibne Athir and he did not recognize it and from this
aspect, he made justification for this man, that the Caliph disciplined his subject.