After reporting this statement Nawawi has regarded it as invalid; because
rulers at that time were persons like Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman and they had
not misappropriated.
This statement of Nawawi is clear falsehood, because the period when Abu
Zar mentioned his intentions aloud, was not the period of Abu Bakr and Umar;
on the contrary it was the time of Uthman, who contradicted the practice of those
two. And opposed the practice of the Prophet and that is why Abu Zar, peace be
on him, remained silent during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar but during the
time of Uthman he said:
“Woe upon you, O Uthman, did you not see Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.),
Abu Bakr and Umar? Do you think this is their conduct? You are punishing me
most severely.”
And he said: “Follow the practice of your two friends [Abu Bakr and Umar],
so that no one may criticize you.”
In addition to that he flayed Muawiyah for enjoying wealth and making live
pleasurable for himself in the manners of Choesroes and Caesars. And it was
when Muawiyah was destitute during the time of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)
and possessed nothing. Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) mentioned him with this
same quality that: “Indeed, Muawiyah was poor, degraded and had very few
means.”1
What should Abu Zar had done during that time when the Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.) had advised him regarding seven things?2 He was commanded to
speak the truth even though it might be bitter and not to fear the condemnation of
any critic.
Also, what benefit did the statement of Uthman had for him when he said:
“What concern do you have with this, O mother-less.”
Abu Zar can say: “By God, I don’t find any excuse for myself, except that I
should enjoin good and forbid evil.”
What Abu Zar was doing was nothing new from what had passed during the
time of Prophet and he did not call, except to what comprised the teachings of
Quran, and between the two lips of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). And Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.) did not take the wealth of any of his companions by force
although there were traders and rich men among them and he did not take from
them more than what was obligated by divine law, and Abu Zar also followed
this practice.
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had informed him the hardships and calamities that
were to befall him and his banishment from Mecca, Medina, Shaam, Basra and Kufa. And during such times he was supposed to remain righteous and pious.
And whatever befalls him is in the path of God.
Abu Zar said: “Welcome to the command of God.” Thus, righteousness of
Abu Zar prevented him to enjoin something, which deranged the system of
society. And that these calamities of his were in path of God. If this act was
against public good and not approved by God and His Messenger, it was
necessary that the Prophet should have condemned and prohibited it, whereas His
Eminence knew that this mission was full of hardships and calamities.
And that which blackened the reputation of Caliph of Muslims and
blackened the face of history. And left everlasting disgrace for him. And easy
Shariat has not brought this difficult command for which Abu Zar is blamed and
he did not intend it, as he was like Isa (a.s.) in the Ummah of Muhammad
(s.a.w.a.) from the aspect of piety, worship, righteousness, conduct, truthfulness,
stability, affection and good morals.
The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) described him as such and only Uthman,
when he was angry at him, said: Tell me regarding this old man whether I should
beat him or cast him into prison or eliminate him and when Abu Zar quoted the
saying of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) regarding sons of Aas, Uthman falsified
him.
Is it not amazing that this is the reward of one, who advised about God and
Prophet and who conveyed them to the right path and who spoke to them the
right word? No, by God, this was a conduct particular only to the Caliph.
More amazing than this is the reply, which Uthman gave to Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) when he defended Abu Zar and said: “I advise you with what
the believer of the nation of Firon said.”3 Uthman issued that harsh statement,
which Waqidi has concealed and he did not like to mention it! Although we
became aware of it through another channel, but would keep this book pure from
that.
The second time, Uthman again spoke in harsh way with Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) and it was when he and his two sons, two grandsons of Prophet,
went to see off Abu Zar and Marwan prevented them as mentioned in detail
before.4 In that incident, Uthman said: “In my view you are not better than
Marwan.”
I don’t know whether the Caliph was away from statement of the Prophet
regarding Marwan? Whether Marwan and his invalid selfish desires were not
equal before his eyes and ears? Or relationship caused him to overlook these
things? And he regarded the son of Hakam to equal to one Almighty Allah had
purified and regarded him as self of Prophet. What a blatant statement he
issued…
أَفَحُكْمَ ٱلْجَـٰهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ ۚ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ حُكْمًۭا لِّقَوْمٍۢ يُوقِنُونَ (٥٠)
“Is it then the judgment of (the times of) ignorance that they
desire? And who is better than Allah to judge for a people who
are sure?”5