The Fabricated Narration of Tarikh al-Tabari and a Sample of the Engineer’s “Truthfulness”:
Yes! As for the reference to Tarikh al-Tabari that Mirza sahib gave — in fact he named this very book first — the chain of this incident is present there, and that golden chain is as follows:
قال أبو مخنف: فحدثني محمد بن يوسف بن ثابت الأنصاري، عن شيخ من أهل المدينة، قال……
So “Abu Mikhnaf” is a severely weak (da’if), matruk al-hadith (narrates abandoned hadiths) and lying narrator, as some references were also presented earlier, under the investigation of the thirteen narrations, narration no. 7, from the Mustadrak of al-Hakim presented by Mirza sahib. And Abu Mikhnaf narrates it from a narrator named “Muhammad bin Yusuf bin Thabit al-Ansari”; his name also appears as Muhammad bin Yusuf. Regarding him, Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “لا يعرف حاله” — his condition is not known, meaning he is majhul (unknown).
. Allamah al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) and Shaykh Zubair Ali Za’i (may Allah have mercy on him) have declared him majhul and declared his narration da’if (weak).
And from whom is he narrating it? عن شيخ من أهل المدينة — a man who is himself majhul is saying: “One of my teachers from Madinah narrated this story to me” — no name, no whereabouts known! Subhan Allah. So this is the state of the Engineer’s consensus, references and sahih-chained narrations.
Furthermore, Mirza sahib, being supposedly a truthful and fair man, does not mention at all an important part of this narration, in which it is stated absolutely clearly for what crime Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was killed. And had he mentioned it, the edifice of lies that you erected to give a negative impression of Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and to pave the way for criticizing him would have been completely destroyed. Anyway, in this very narration of Tarikh al-Tabari it says:
……فَقَالَ لَهُمْ مُحَمَّد: اسقوني من الماء، قَالَ لَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ بن حديج: لا سقاه الله إن سقاك قطرة أبدا! إنكم منعتم عُثمان أن يشرب الماء حَتَّى قتلتموه صائما محرما، فتلقاه الله بالرحيق المختوم…… قَالَ لَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ: إني إنما أقتلك بعثمان، قَالَ لَهُ مُحَمَّد: وما أنت وعثمان! إن عُثمان عمل بالجور، ونبذ حكم القرآن، وَقَدْ قَالَ الله تعالى: وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ، فنقمنا ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ فقتلناه……
“Muhammad bin Abi Bakr said to them: Give me water to drink. So Mu’awiyah bin Hudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) replied to him: May Allah never give a single drop of water to whoever gives you water to drink! You people kept Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) from drinking water until you killed him while fasting, though his blood was sacred. So Allah gave him to drink of the sealed nectar. Mu’awiyah bin Hudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I am killing you in retaliation (qisas) for Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Muhammad bin Abi Bakr said: What do you have to do with Uthman? Uthman acted unjustly and cast aside the ruling of the Qur’an, whereas Allah the Exalted says: ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — those are the transgressors.’ So we punished him for this crime and killed him.”
This incident is present in the same way in Tarikh Ibn Kathir as well.
This is Mirza sahib’s truthfulness and fairness. The accusation is made against the scholars that they have concealed the truth, or that they narrate half-narrations. It is only the kindness of the Engineer’s blind, deaf and dumb followers toward him that they never open and look up the references Mirza sahib cites; otherwise, who would dare to utter even two words against the noble Companions, that too in the name of books? Anyway, it is clear in this narration that Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was killed in retaliation (qisas) for Uthman, and the defendant is himself confessing his crime.
Note: Some people, raising the objection that the corpse of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was put into a dead donkey and burned, present the narration of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (30709), whereas that too is da’if (weak) because it is munqati’ (broken chain).
An Allusion to This False Story in Sahih Muslim?
Mr. Engineer says in this same video that this incident is also present “by allusion” in Sahih Muslim, so let us look at that allusion as well:
عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ شُمَاسَةَ، قَالَ: أَتَيْتُ عَائِشَةَ أَسْأَلُهَا عَنْ شَيْءٍ، فَقَالَتْ: مِمَّنْ أَنْتَ؟ فَقُلْتُ: رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ مِصْرَ. فَقَالَتْ: كَيْفَ كَانَ صَاحِبُكُمْ لَكُمْ فِي غَزَاتِكُمْ هَذِهِ؟ فَقَالَ: مَا نَقَمْنَا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا، إِنْ كَانَ لَيَمُوتُ لِلرَّجُلِ مِنَّا الْبَعِيرُ فَيُعْطِيهِ الْبَعِيرَ، وَالْعَبْدُ فَيُعْطِيهِ الْعَبْدَ، وَيَحْتَاجُ إِلَى النَّفَقَةِ فَيُعْطِيهِ النَّفَقَةَ. فَقَالَتْ: أَمَا إِنَّهُ لَا يَمْنَعُنِي الَّذِي فَعَلَ فِي مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ أَخِي أَنْ أُخْبِرَكَ مَا سَمِعْتُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ فِي بَيْتِي هَذَا: “اللَّهُمَّ مَنْ وَلِيَ مِنْ أَمْرِ أُمَّتِي شَيْئًا فَشَقَّ عَلَيْهِمْ فَاشْقُقْ عَلَيْهِ، وَمَنْ وَلِيَ مِنْ أَمْرِ أُمَّتِي شَيْئًا فَرَفَقَ بِهِمْ فَارْفُقْ بِهِ”۔
“Abd al-Rahman ibn Shamasa narrates: I went to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) to ask her about something, and she asked: Where are you from? I said: I am from the people of Egypt. Then she asked: How did your commander treat you in this expedition of yours? I said: We found nothing objectionable in him. If the camel of any one of us died, he would give him a camel, and if a slave died, he would give him a slave, and if anyone needed spending money, he would give him spending money. Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: What he did to my brother Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr does not prevent me from telling you the hadith that I heard from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying in this house of mine. (He ﷺ said:) “O Allah! Whoever takes charge of any matter of my Ummah and is harsh upon them (his subordinates), then be harsh upon him; and whoever takes charge of any matter of my Ummah and deals gently with them, then be gentle with him!””
In Mustakhraj Abi Awana it is stated explicitly that the commander about whom Aisha al-Siddiqa (may Allah be pleased with her) was asking was Mu’awiya ibn Hudayj (may Allah be pleased with him):
. So of the things Mirza Sahib said in objecting to Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him), which one is alluded to in this narration? Is there an allusion to the claim that Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him or ordered him to be killed? Or any allusion to Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him) being burned in the skin of a donkey? Such allusions may be understood by the ignorant followers of Mirza Sahib, but we are unable to understand allusions so far-fetched.
In any case, if you want to recite historical narrations, then also tell the people that these same narrations state that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was killed in retaliation for Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). And Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him) has merely been accused, whereas in the references you cited, nothing at all is proven to show that he (may Allah be pleased with him) had any role whatsoever in this killing. Remember that, on the basis of this false incident, Mr. Engineer had declared the authentic statement of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), narrated about the virtue of Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him), to be a historical and fabricated statement. And also keep in mind that, according to Mr. Engineer, he is not accusing any Companion of anything, nor is there any matter of disrespect; rather he merely mentions a mistake, just as the Quran also mentions the mistakes of the prophets.
