The Reality of the False Claim of Consensus:
Now let us learn the reality of Mirza sahib’s false claim of consensus. Before the Engineer, none of the muhaddithin ever claimed consensus about this (killing) incident; rather, they have been narrating disagreement on this matter. Consider a few statements in this regard:
Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: “وقد اختلفت الرواية فيمن قتله” There is a difference in the narrations regarding his killing.
Imam Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: “واختلف في كيفية قتل محمد بن أبي بكر” And there has been a difference of opinion regarding the manner of the killing of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him).
Imam Qadi Iyad (may Allah have mercy on him) also said exactly the same thing.
Imam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) also said: “واختلفوا في صفة قتل محمد هذا” The people of knowledge have differed regarding the manner of the killing of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him).
So many muhaddithin are saying that there is disagreement regarding his killing, yet the Engineer, proving his ignorance, has claimed consensus merely to strengthen his lie. Is Mirza sahib a muhaddith, a thinker or a mujtahid that he goes around making claims of consensus like this? Or is this some game and spectacle, that whenever he wishes and wherever he wishes he makes a false claim of consensus to fulfil his false aims? Have some fear of Allah! The saying of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) fits perfectly upon false claimants of consensus like you:
من ادعى الاجماع فهو كاذب۔
“Whoever claims consensus is a liar.”
It is the Engineer’s habit that when he finds no other recourse, he makes a false claim of mutawatir and consensus.
In any case, there is severe disagreement on how Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was killed and who killed him; they narrate various historical reports in this regard, that one view is this and another view is that. So when the matter is such, to take hold of one view and claim consensus upon it is the work of an ignorant person alone. Here, setting aside the texts of other muhaddithin, we prove this point only through the Engineer’s own references: the incident that you have described is not agreed upon even by these few books, let alone all the other books.
In “Al-Isti’ab by Ibn Abd al-Barr”, it is written regarding the killing of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him):
ثم ولاه مصر، فقتل بها، قتله معاوية بن حديج صبرا، وذلك في سنة ثمان وثلاثين. ومن خبره أن علي بن أبي طالب ولى في هذه السنة مالك بن الحارث الأشتر النخعي مصر، فمات بالقلزم قبل أن يصل إليها، سم في زبد وعسل، قدم بين يديه فأكل منه، فمات، فولى علي محمد بن أبي بكر، فسار إليه عمرو بن العاص فاقتتلوا، فانهزم محمد بن أبي بكر، فدخل في خربة فيها حمار ميت، فدخل في جوفه فأحرق في جوف الحمار. وقيل: بل قتله معاوية بن حديج۔
“Then Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed him governor of Egypt, and he was killed there. Mu’awiya bin Hudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him bound, and this incident took place in 38 AH. There is also a report about him that Sayyiduna Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Malik bin al-Harith al-Ashtar al-Nakha’i as governor of Egypt in that same year, but he died before reaching Qulzum; he was poisoned with poison mixed into butter and honey, he ate of it and died. After that, Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Muhammad bin Abi Bakr as governor of Egypt. Then Sayyiduna Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) went towards him and they fought one another; Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was defeated and hid in a ruin in which there was a dead donkey, so he entered the belly of the donkey, but he was burned in the belly of the donkey. And it has also been said that Mu’awiya bin Hudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him.”
Mirza sahib! It is written Mu’awiya bin Hudayj, not Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan, who is from Banu Umayya. Mu’awiya bin Hudayj is a different Companion, and he has no connection at all with Banu Umayya. But even so, the entire blame is being placed on Sayyiduna Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him) and Banu Umayya. And what became of the consensus you reported about killing Muhammad bin Abi Bakr and burning his corpse? Among the three great books written on the lives of the Companions to which you referred, the oldest is this very “Al-Isti’ab”, the book of Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him), and here different views have been reported regarding the killing, that this is reported and that is also reported. But according to the Engineer, there is no disagreement in it at all; rather, consensus has been established upon it!
In “Usd al-Ghaba”, the killing of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him) is mentioned as follows:
ولما ولي مصر، سار إليه عمرو بن العاص فاقتتلوا، فانهزم مُحَمَّدٌ ودخل خربة، فأخرج منها وقتل، وأحرق في جوف حمار ميت. قيل: قتله معاوية بن حديج السكوني. وقيل: قتله عمرو بن العاص صبرا۔
“And when he was appointed governor of Egypt, Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) came to him and they fought each other; Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was defeated and entered a deserted place. He was brought out from there and killed, and his corpse was burned in the belly of a dead donkey. It has been said: Mu’awiya bin Hudayj al-Sakuni (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him. And there is also a view that Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him bound.”
Here, three different views are mentioned. According to one view, the killer is Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him), and the manner of the killing is that after killing him, he was put into the carcass of a donkey and set on fire, while according to the second view, he (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him bound. And according to the third view, Mu’awiya bin Hudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him. Whereas from “Al-Isti’ab” it passed earlier that Mu’awiya bin Hudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him bound, or according to the other view, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr himself entered the carcass of the dead donkey and was burned and killed in it. Is this not a clear contradiction? In any case, this is the Engineer’s fiqh; here anything can happen.
In “Al-Isaba”, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in the mention of the death of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him):
وشهد محمد مع الجمل وصفّين، ثم أرسله إلى مصر أميرا، فدخلها في شهر رمضان سنة سبع وثلاثين، فولي إمارتها لعليّ، ثم جهّز معاوية عمرو بن العاص في عسكر إلى مصر، فقاتلهم محمد، وانهزم، ثم قتل في صفر سنة ثمان، حكاه ابن يونس، وقال: إنه اختفى لما انهزم في بيت امرأة فأخذ من بيتها فقتل۔
“And Muhammad bin Abi Bakr took part in the Battle of the Camel and Siffin, then he was sent to Egypt as governor; he entered Egypt in the month of Ramadan in 37 AH, at which time the governorship of Egypt was with Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Then Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) prepared an army under the command of Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) and sent it towards Egypt; Muhammad bin Abi Bakr fought them but was defeated and was killed in Safar 38 AH. This was related by Ibn Yunus, who said: when he was defeated he hid in the house of a woman, but he was brought out from there and killed.”
Right at the end, Mirza sahib, citing “Al-Isaba”, said: read in it what happened to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr. Yet in the story you have narrated there is nothing of the sort. So when it is established that there is no consensus at all on this incident, the only other way is for Mirza sahib to prove his claim through narrations with an authentic chain: that Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) had Muhammad bin Abi Bakr killed, and that after killing him he was put into the carcass of a donkey and burned.
First, in these references there is no explicit statement that Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) gave the order to kill him; and second, these authors have not presented any connected chain of narration for this incident, nor have they set the condition that “we will narrate only those reports that are established with an authentic chain.” And then, they have not said anything with certainty, but have only mentioned historical reports in this regard. Therefore, your claim is in no way proven by them.
