On the last day of summer

Ten hours before fall…

….My grandfather took me

Out to the Wall.

For a while he stood silent

Then finally he said,

With a very sad shake

Of his very old head,

“As you know, on this side of the Wall

We are Yooks.

On the other side of the Wall

Live the Zooks”

Thus, The Butter Battle Book, written by the well known author, Dr. Seuss invites the young reader to the world of Yooks and Zooks. The colorful illustrations of the book show from the first two pages that Yooks and Zooks are creatures quite alike in appearance with the only difference that Yooks dress in blue while Zooks are dressed in orange. Hence one cannot grasp at the beginning why a wall stands between them. Yet, the following words of the grandfather introduce to the reader another “important” difference without delay.

Then my grandfather said

“It’s high time that you knew

Of the terrible, horrible thing that Zooks do

In every Zook house and in every Zook town

Every Zook eats his bread

With the butter side down!”

“But we Yooks, as you know,

when we breakfast or sup,

spread our bread,” Grandpa said,

“with the butter side up

That’s the right, honest way!”

Grandpa gritted his teeth.

“So you can’t trust a Zook who spreads bread underneath!

Now, I see you smile at the “horrible” crime Zooks commit but don’t dismiss it as a funny little story. Rather try to remember how your own parents, your teachers, or even books you read shaped the way you looked at others. How much of this acquired knowledge and experience caused prejudice, fear, and hostility? Or if you please, take a greater challenge and ponder on how you interact today with people that are different from you. Do you erect walls or do you build bridges?

As you reflect on yourself and your life consider how the grandfather Yook delivers an important warning to his grandchild.

Every Zook must be watched!

He has kinks in his soul!

That’s why, as a youth, I made watching my goal,

watching Zooks for the Zook-Watching Border Patrol!

In those days, of course

the Wall wasn’t so high

and I could look any Zook

square in the eye

If he dared to come close

I could give him a twitch

With my tough-tufted

Snick Berry Switch

Isn’t it interesting that the difference between Yooks and Zooks instead of becoming a reason for curious attraction toward each other became a pretext for hostility and suspicion? Then again, this is no novelty to us, is it? When fear and hostility join hand, the clash is sure to come.

For the Yooks the clash began when one day a Zook named Van Itch slingshot the Grandfather’s “Tough-Tufted Prickly Snick-Berry Switch.” The Yooks then developed a machine with three slingshots interlinked, called a “Triple-Sling Jigger.” This gun worked once (Van Itch got scared and ran off), but the Zooks counterattacked with their own creation: The “Jigger-Rock Snatchem,” a machine with three nets to fling the rocks fired from the Triple-Sling Jigger back at the Yooks’ side “just as fast as we catch ‘em.”

Page by page the conflict between the two sides escalates and leads to a long arms race for bigger and better weapons to outdo the other, which unsurprisingly brings the Yooks and Zooks on the scary threshold of mutual destruction.

The Butter Battle Book was written during the Cold War era, and many critics think that the book reflects the concerns of the time, especially the perceived possibility that all life on earth could be destroyed in a nuclear war. The book’s apparent position regarding the arms race could be one of the reasons why The Butter Battle Book was once removed from the shelves of public libraries during the Cold War. Another reason could have been educators’ worries about the inappropriateness of introducing the idea of annihilation to young children.

The Butter Battle Book has also been seen as an enjoyable satirical work, with its depiction of a deadly war based on a senseless conflict over something as trivial as a breakfast food. The book’s delightful illustrations and its tongue twisting rhymes make the book fun to read.

Let’s go back to the book because meanwhile, both the Yooks and the Zooks have come to the end of their race. Both sides have developed the same equally powerful destructive bomb: “the bitsy big boy boomeroo.” On the last page of the book grandfather and Van Itch stand still about to drop the bomb and we hear the grandchild’s fearful cry:

“Granpa!” I shouted “Be careful! Oh Gee!

Who’s going to drop it?

Will you…? Will he…?”

“Be patient,” said Granpa. “We’ll see.”

“We will see…”

You may feel unsatisfied with the inconclusive ending, yet some literary critics deem it perfect for provoking discussion on how Zooks and Yooks might develop alternative ways to solve their problems. In fact, this entire book could be an excellent manual for peace studies educators to incorporate conflict resolution on both small and large scales.

On the other hand a National Review article published in July 27, 1984 (shortly after the book came out in print) draws attention to the idea that the inconclusive ending of the book could do damage to the cause Seuss is professing. The article claims that: “By ending inconclusively, with neither side having fired a serious shot and with each side wary of the nuclear weapons of the other, Seuss reminds us that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for nearly forty years now.” According to this article children may as well conclude that the surest way to achieve peace is to remain strong albeit strong at times might translate into inventing and possessing weapons of mass destruction.

Parental or teacher guidance during the reading of this book could be of great help in this case. Thought provoking questions can be addressed such as: Can the non-existence of war be considered real peace? Is a cold war the most peace that can be achieved?

Conclusion

Because history seems to repeat itself The Butter Battle Book and its message are far from obsolete even today, two decades later. As we hear with dread news of wars and ongoing nuclear armaments, as the map of the world is marked with more “hot spots,” we get the gut feeling that maybe we are living in the land of Yooks and Zooks. We feel that it is imperative to promote peace and prevent the infamous prediction of the so called clash of civilizations.

If we, people of this world, should wage a war why not wage one to eradicate poverty, ignorance and hostility? If we should take up arms can’t they be sound education, tolerance, love, and mutual understanding? With the situation as it is, it seems like we don’t possess the luxury to lay back and say: “We’ll see…. We will see…”

It brings hope to see that many people think likewise and have already rolled up their sleeves for the noble cause of peace making. The opportunities to get involved in this noble cause for peace are limitless starting from nonprofit organizations promoting tolerance and peacemaking to small groups that act against prejudice and discrimination. If you feel you are too insignificant to make an impact, then here is something simple to do; read The Butter Battle Book with a child and talk about all the beauties that come with peace.

Mirkena Ozer pursues creative writing at University of Georgia, Atlanta.

References and notes

1. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Butter+Battle+Book.-a03363441.

M&B: Dr. Mitchell, you have been teaching your course on the Bible and Modern Science for the last nine years. Could we start with the contents of this course and why you were interested in teaching it?

Dr. Mitchell: I’ve been teaching this advanced course in the religious studies minor since 2000, and it’s been a longtime interest for me. Since I started teaching at universities in 1974, I have included a study of the relationship between science and the Bible in almost all of my courses because I think that is probably the least understood controversy.

With the attempt to have a little epistemological humility-that is, I am not a scientist, I don’t claim to be a trained scientist-I am not trying to convert anybody, whether they are atheist or Christian to any particular point of view. My primary approach to this topic is to help both Christians and atheists to read the Bible because I think a lot of the confusion and a lot of the controversy about science and the Bible is the result of somebody not sitting down and explaining to people how to read the Bible. This debate is very heated in America. It splits families, it splits schools, and it splits churches.

So the course is unashamedly an attempt to help people incorporate what they are learning about science with their Christian faith, or with their faith, whatever it is. In a sense I lean in the opposite direction to some of the science teachers, in that many of them tend to lean toward mocking or making fun of the faith of people who believe, for instance, some of the more recent writers like Dawkins and Hitchens. I feel my job is to be a person on the campus who offsets that influence. So, first of all I focus on how to read the Bible. But the importance of learning how to read the Bible arises because the history of science in Europe and in the United States has been based on a conception of what science is and what faith is and how to relate the two which is really not based on knowledge; it’s just based on some poorly known incidents between Galileo and the Church.

M&B: Historical experiences?

Dr. Mitchell: Yes, historical experiences. One of the things I read when I was at Rice University was W.T. Stace’s Religion and the Modern Mind. The conclusion he came to is one that I think is very important for people to know-that among the basic things that were discovered in the Scientific Revolution, there was nothing which should have had the slightest tendency to either prove or disprove faith, or even the existence of God. So, the fact that in the West, there was an Age of Faith, followed by an Age of Reason, then an Age of Unbelief is not for any scientific reason. It’s because of a psychological transition that took place, or because people misunderstood what was really discovered in the Scientific Revolution.

The modern conception, or the modern myth, is that Christianity and other religions just went along through the Middle Ages being totally ignorant of science, which of course is a historical nonsense. If they had been totally ignorant of science, there never would have been a Scientific Revolution. People believe that science was actually suppressed so much by the Middle Ages that it took an explosion of unbelief in order for modern science to develop. So, I make sure that people understand that all of the revolutionaries of modern science were religious believers and the idea that somehow some atheist dropped out of the sky and won the battle with the Church is nonsense. There was no battle between science and the Christian faith in history. The only battle was a battle that occurred among Christians about how the Bible should be read in the light of modern discoveries. And that continued for a long time.

M&B: What was the nature of the conflict that occurred between Galileo and the Catholic Church?

Dr. Mitchell: The battle within the Catholic Church was not primarily over the Bible or over faith; it was a political battle based on the fact that the Catholic Church knew that it was then losing its hold over the entire Christian faith and was also losing its control primarily over political power.

That’s what scared them, and so when they talked about being afraid of what Galileo said, it wasn’t primarily because they necessarily disagreed with it. It was because of their fear of the confusion that it would cause among the faithful, the Christians who were not well-educated. But they obviously could not hold that back. It was going to burst. But a part of the Roman Catholic church, a very small part of the Roman Catholic church, namely the Pope and the Office of the Inquisition, treated Galileo very badly. There are some things that people need to know about Galileo, and one is that he was a very ornery person, very difficult to get along with. That’s one of the reasons they had a problem with him. The Pope was a friend of his and didn’t necessarily disagree with him; he just thought that he was being obnoxious. Galileo would never recognize the description of him as this giant anti-Christian, anti-faith person who stood up to the Church and the Church punished him for it. He considered himself to be a good Catholic, he considered himself to be in conformity with all basic Catholic doctrine. The only reason he wrote was to try to show Catholic people that they did not have to reject the new knowledge that was coming about. Not only that, the main battle was not over the Bible; it was over Aristotle. The Pope and the Inquisition did not try to punish Galileo because he was a Christian or a Catholic or because of the Bible. They tried to punish him because he was too hastily critiquing and trying to do away with Aristotle, and Aristotle had become the scientific philosophy of the medieval Church. Now, Aristotle is not a Christian, and I take a little time to point that out. So, they were fighting about Aristotle’s view of the universe, not the biblical view because the Bible doesn’t have a scientific description of what the universe is. That’s the reason why we Christians, just like Muslims, started working on science; they adopted Aristotle because Aristotle was the scientist, and Ptolemy too. One of the main points I’m trying to get across is that there never has, in the history of the world, been a battle between Christianity and science.

Also, I like to remind people that Copernicus was published by the Church, and that Galileo was published by the Church. There was nobody else to publish their works. Indeed, the foreword to Copernicus was written by the Pope-though a different Pope than Galileo’s. There is no doubt that there were ignorant people and hostile people, but they were all Catholics arguing. It wasn’t science versus faith. The same thing happened with Protestantism, as science in the west was transferred primarily through Protestants because the people in England and Holland and places like that who carried on the scientific tradition were the Puritans. The Puritans were the ones who carried science forward. In other words, to put it bluntly, science is a gift of religious people to the modern world. Religious people should know that so that they do not think that they have to be reactionary. In fact, we don’t ordinarily think that way. I would say a good portion of the people who teach science, and even philosophy, at the universities in the area where I live are faithful people.

Now, as for specific areas that Galileo dealt with, he told some folks, for instance, that he had a telescope that could see that there are more than seven planets. According to the story, Archbishop Bellarmine refused to look through it because the Bible says there are only seven planets. In fact, the Bible doesn’t discuss the subject. It was Aristotle who said there were only seven planets. Again, that was a fight between Galileo and Aristotle. But some of the Bible people would throw out things like a passage in the Book of Joshua which is taken from a poem from the Book of the Wars which we don’t have. The only thing we have from this book are quotations like the one in Joshua, and it’s poetry. In this poem in the Book of Joshua, it says that the sun stood still in the valley of Aijalon, and then Joshua was able to complete his battle against the enemies of God. Well, some of the Bible people said, “Well, that’s just absolute scientific proof that the sun moves around the earth.” But there were a lot of medieval theologians who knew that wasn’t the way you should interpret the Bible. So, Galileo did a lot of speaking on that subject when he wrote his letters to defend his case, particularly his letter to the Grand Duchess.

A lot of people today think that one of the things that bothered the Church at the time of Galileo was that they believed that the earth was flat. The Church did not believe the earth was flat at the time of Galileo or at the time of Columbus, but that’s still the street talk. In fact, Thomas Aquinas knew of only one theologian in all of the history of the Church who argued that the earth was flat. Thomas Aquinas said that he was an ignoramus because Aquinas believed, as did Aristotle and Ptolemy, that the world was round. The picture many people have of medieval science is as if it were done by ignorant people and that in order for modern science to win they had to overcome the ignorance of all of these medieval scientists including those in Seville. But of course that’s where Aquinas had gotten his science-from the Muslims in Andalusia. That’s where he’d gotten his Aristotle. So the High Middle Ages was not the Dark Ages. That’s a mistake lots of Americans make, including PhDs in universities, talking about the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages preceded the Middle Ages. And that was a dark age. But the High Middle Ages was not a dark age. It was an age of the most intense intellectual ferment in human history, and certainly in contrast to every place else in the world, except the Muslim world, where the same thing was going on. So, you see, those are ideas that I’m trying to let people know about. For instance, to explain that the idea that the sun stood still in the valley of Aswan is from a poem that’s taken from a non-Biblical book.

M&B: How about the genealogy of Prophets in the Bible?

Dr. Mitchell: There is genealogy in the early part of the Bible, which treats genealogy as if it were chronology, which is all you can do if all you have is genealogy. They treated genealogy as chronology. All traditional cultures have these genealogies, but they cannot really be used as chronology. First of all, their purpose is different from chronology. Their purpose is to keep the genealogy or lineage. So, for instance, there are some genealogists in the Christian Bible that say, “Jesus was the son of David that was the son of Abraham.” It’s a genealogy. Obviously, it is not very complete.

M&B: So, by “son,” it means “grandson”?

Dr. Mitchell: Yes, it means descendant-or an ancestor-but there are other considerations. If we consider the genealogies to be scientific chronologies, then we’re still thinking of the Bible as primarily a scientific book. But, whether it’s true or not, it became fairly accepted by Christian geologists and others in the nineteenth century that geology certainly seemed to say that the world was older than six thousand years. At that time they thought it was maybe 200,000 years old, and every few years since then it has been pushed back. But they did not consider that change a threat to their faith because they understood that the Bible was written for a different purpose. They understood that if we spend all of our time trying to make it concordant with scientific theories, first of all, the two will never be concordant because scientific theories change every generation. Second, it would mean that the people to whom these books were originally revealed could not possibly have understood them because they would be scientific books and science is not something they were interested in; it was not something that they could comprehend. So, that argument about the sun standing still did not last very long, and even most modern-day scientific creationists do not try to argue that that poem has to be taken as a literal scientific view. Otherwise, you’d have to do the same thing to the Psalms and so forth. In fact, there are several creation accounts in the Hebrew Bible that are different from the creation account in Genesis because they’re for different purposes. In fact, all creation accounts are doxological; they are praise that God is the Only One-He is the One God, that the moon and the stars and the planets are not gods, that the animals are not gods, that human beings are not gods and so forth. Even though they are not gods, they are still good. So, that’s what we should have been carrying on, instead of carrying on this debate about science-especially with these ridiculous stories that are added to it.

M&B: So, it’s not right to read the Bible as a book of science to draw strict conclusions.

Dr. Mitchell: The point I want to make is that both Christian fundamentalists and atheistic fundamentalists are too uptight about this question, and that is detrimental to religious faith. Some people come into my office crying because they just learned that the earth is maybe more than six thousand years old, and they say, “Professor Mitchell, I’m losing my faith,” and I say to them, “What do you mean you’re losing your faith?”

“Well, the Bible says the earth is six thousand years old, and my professor says it’s more than six thousand years old.”

“Well, you’ve got a Bible,” I tell them, “and I’ve got a Bible over there, so why don’t you show me where it says that the earth is six thousand years old?”

What is changing is that you may be changing a belief, and that’s not the same thing as losing your faith. You’re changing a belief, and if you’re a forty-year-old person of faith or a hundred-year-old person of faith, you shouldn’t probably have all of exactly the same beliefs that you had when you were eighteen, and that’s very important to people.

To the atheists, I want to say that they should learn a little bit about history and the philosophy of science and logic, and learn what faith is, so that they have a little bit more respect for people of faith, even if they are the extremists, because every time they write about something that is going on in a school district or whatever, they act like they’re in a panic. That is, they seem to think that if we allow people to believe that human beings are the creation of God, science is lost. Well, the problem for that argument is that all of the people who were scientists up until their great grandfathers or their grandfathers were people who believe that human beings are the creation of God, and science didn’t die.

Yuksel A. Aslandogan is the editor of Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: The Contributions of the Gulen Movement.

‘Yes,’ they replied. ‘Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah emerged alleging that he is a Prophet and lbn Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr) has followed him.’

‘I used to know Abu Bakr,’ said Talha. ‘He is an easy-going, amiable, gentle man. He was an honest and upright trader. We were quite fond of him and loved sitting in his company because of his knowledge of Quraysh history and genealogy.’

Later, Talha went to Abu Bakr and asked:

‘Is it true what they say – that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah has appeared as a Prophet and that you follow him?’

‘Yes,’ replied Abu Bakr and went on to tell Talha about Muhammad and what a good thing it would be if he too followed him. Talha in turn told Abu Bakr the story of his strange recent encounter with an ascetic in the marketplace of Busra in Syria. The ascetic is said to have told Talha that someone called ‘Ahmad’ would appear in Mecca about that time and that he would be the last of the Prophets. He also told Talha, so the story goes, that the Prophet would leave the sacred precincts of Mecca and migrate to a land of black soil, water and palm trees…

Abu Bakr was astonished by the story and took Talha to Muhammad. The Prophet, peace be upon him, explained Islam to Talha and recited some portions of the Qur’an to him. Talha was enthusiastic. He related to the Prophet his conversation with the ascetic of Busra. There and then, Talha pronounced the Shahadah – that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. He was the fourth person who had been introduced to Islam by Abu Bakr.

The Quraysh were astounded by the young Talha’s acceptance of Islam. The one who was most dismayed and unhappy was his mother. She had hoped that he would one day be a leader in his community because of his noble character and his outstanding virtues. Some of the Quraysh, anxious and worried, went to Talha as soon as they could to wean him away from his new religion but found him firm and unshakeable as a rock. When they despaired of using gentle persuasion to achieve their aim, they resorted to persecution and violence. The following story is related by Mas’ud ibn Kharash:

‘While I was making sa’y between al-Safa and al Marwa, there appeared a crowd of people pushing a young man whose hands were tied behind his back. As they rushed behind him, they rained down blows on his head. In the crowd was an old woman who lashed him repeatedly and shouted abuses at him.

I asked:

‘What’s the matter with this young man?’

‘This is Talha ibn ‘Ubaydullah. He gave up his religion and now follows the Ban-u Hashim man.’

‘And who is the woman behind him?’ I asked.

‘She is Sa’bah bint al-Hadrami, the young man’s mother,’ they said.

The Quraysh did not stop there. Nawfal ibn Khuwaylid, nicknamed the ‘lion of the Quraysh’ bound Talha with a rope and with the same rope he tied up Abu Bakr and then handed them over to the mindless and violent mob of Mecca to be beaten and tortured. The shared experience no doubt drew Talha and Abu Bakr closer together!

Years passed and events of great significance took place. Talha grew in stature as he bore the pain and suffering of being tested in the path of God and His Prophet. He gained the unique reputation among Muslims of being called the ‘living martyr’. The Prophet, peace be upon him, also called him ‘Talha the Good’ and ‘Talha the Generous’.

The name of the ‘living martyr’ was earned during the Battle of Uhud. Talha had missed the Battle of Badr. He and Sa’id ibn Zayd had been sent outside Medina on a mission by the Prophet and when they returned, the Prophet and his companions were already on the way back from Badr. They were both sad at having missed the opportunity of taking part in the first campaign with the Prophet but were tremendously pleased when he told them they would get the same reward as those who actually fought.

At the Battle of Uhud, when the Muslims fell into disarray at the beginning of hostilities, the Prophet became dangerously exposed. There were about eleven men of the Ansar at his side and one Muhajir – Talha ibn ‘Ubaydullah. The Prophet clambered up the mountain hotly pursued by some mushrikin. The Prophet, peace be upon him, shouted:

‘The one who repulses these people from us will be my companion in Paradise.’

‘I, O Messenger of God,’ shouted Talha.

‘No, stick to your position,’ replied the Prophet. A man from the Ansar volunteered and the Prophet agreed. He fought until he was killed. The Prophet went further up the mountain with the mushrikin still in close pursuit.

‘Isn’t there someone to combat these?’

Talha again volunteered but the Prophet ordered him to maintain his position. Another person immediately came forward, fought and was killed. This happened until all who stood by the Prophet were martyred except Talha.

‘Now, yes, ‘ signalled the Prophet and Talha went into battle. By this time, the Prophet’s teeth had been broken, his forehead had been slashed, his lips had been wounded and blood was streaming down his face. He was drained of energy. Talha plunged into the enemy and pushed them away from the Prophet. He turned back to the Prophet and helped him a little further up the mountain and put him to lie on the ground. He then renewed his attack and successfully repulsed the enemy.

About this occasion Abu Bakr said:

‘At that moment, Abu ‘Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah and I were far from the Prophet. When we came close to him to render assistance to him, the Prophet said:

‘Leave me and go to your companion (meaning Talha).’

There was Talha, bleeding profusely. He had numerous wounds, from sword, spear and arrow. His foot had been cut and he had fallen into a hollow where he lay unconscious.

Thereafter, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said:

‘Whoever is pleased to see a man still walking on earth who had completed his span (of life), let him look at Talha ibn ‘Ubaydullah.’

And, whenever Uhud was recalled, As-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him, would say:

‘That day, that entire day, belonged to Talha.’

That was the story of how Talha became to be called the ‘living martyr’.

There were innumerable incidents which led to him being called ‘Talha the Good’ and ‘Talha the Generous’.

Talha was an astute and successful merchant who travelled widely to the north and south of the Arabian peninsula. It is said that after one of his trips to Hadramawt, he had profits amounting to some seven hundred thousand dirhams. His nights would be anxious and worried on account of this vast wealth. On one such night, his wife, Ummu Kulthum the daughter of Abu Bakr said to him:

What’s wrong with you, O Abu Muhammad? Perhaps I have done something to hurt you?’

‘No,’ replied Talha. ‘You are a wonderful wife for a Muslim man. But I have been thinking since last night:How can a man think of his Lord and Sustainer when he goes to sleep with this wealth in his house?’

Why should it bother you so much?’ remarked Ummu Kulthum. ‘What about all the needy ones in your community and all your friends? When you get up in the morning share it out among them.’

‘God bless you. You are really marvellous, the daughter of a marvellous man,’ said Talha to his wife.

In the morning, Talha gathered up the money in bags and distributed it among the poor Muhajirin and Ansar.

It is related that a man came up to Talha requesting help and also mentioning some common family connection between them.

‘This family connection someone has mentioned to me before,’ said Talha who was in fact known for his generosity to all members of his clan. Talha told the man that he had just sold a piece of land to ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan for several thousand dirhams. The man could have the money or the land which could be re-purchased from ‘Uthman. The man opted for the money and Talha gave it all to him.

Talha was well-known for helping persons who had debt problems, heads of families who experienced hardship, and widows. One of his friends, Sa’id ibn Zayd, said of him:

‘I accompanied Talha ibn ‘Ubaydullah on journeys and I stayed with him at home and I have not found anyone who was more generous with money, with clothes and with food than Talha.’

No wonder he was called ‘Talha the Good’ and ‘Talha the Generous’.

The name Talha is also connected with the first fitnah or civil war among Muslims after the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

The seeds of trouble were sown during the caliphate of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. There were many complaints and accusations against him. Some mischief-makers were not content with accusations only but were determined to finish him off. In the year 35 AH (656 CE) a group of insurgents stormed ‘Uthman’s house and murdered him while he was reading the Qur’an. It was one of the most shocking events in the early history of Islam.

‘Ali was persuaded to accept the responsibility of the Caliphate and all Muslims swore allegiance to him, including Talha and Zubayr ibn al-Awwam. Talha and Zubayr were deeply shocked by the murder of ‘Uthman. They were horrified and felt strongly that the murderers should be punished and that justice should be done. But the punishment of the murderers was not an easy task in as much as the crime was not just the work of a few individuals but involved a large number of persons.

Talha and Zubayr sought ‘Ali’s permission to go to Mecca to perform Umrah. They met ‘A’ishah the wife of the Prophet. She was greatly shocked when she heard of the assassination of ‘Uthman. From Mecca, Talha Zubayr and ‘A’ishah set off for Basra where large numbers were gathering to seek revenge for the death of ‘Uthman.

The forces gathered at Basra seemed to present an open challenge to ‘Ali. As the caliph of the Muslims and the head of the entire Muslim State, he could not tolerate any insurrection or armed revolt against the State. But what a difficult and awesome task he faced! To deal with the revolt, he had to confront his brothers, his companions and his friends – followers of the Prophet and his religion, those who often fought side by side with him against the forces of shirk, those whom he respected and loved.

The forces clamouring for vengeance for ‘Uthman and those supporting ‘Ali met at a place called Kuraybah, near Basra. ‘Ali desired to avoid war and settle matters by peaceful means. He used every means at his disposal to achieve peace. He clung to every hope of avoiding confrontation. But the dark forces at work against Islam – and how numerous were these – were determined that matters should come to a terrible and bloody end.

‘Ali wept. He wept bitterly when he saw ‘A’ishah, the ‘Mother of the Believers’ in her hawdaj or palanquin astride a camel at the head of the army which now emerged to fight him. And when he saw Talha and Zubayr, two close companions of the Prophet, in the midst of the army, he shouted to them to come out to him. They did and ‘Ali said to Talha:

‘O Talha, have you come with the wife of the Messenger of God to fight along with her…?’

And to Zubayr he said:

‘O Zubayr, I implore you, by God, do you remember the day when the Prophet, peace be upon him, passed by you and we were in such and such a place and he asked you:

‘Do you love ‘Ali?’ and you said:

‘Why shouldn’t love my cousin and one who follows my religion…?’

‘Ali continued talking to them reminding them of the bonds of brotherhood and faith. In the end both Talha and Zubayr withdrew from participation in this civil war. They withdrew immediately when they saw the situation in a different light. But they paid for that withdrawal with their lives.

As they withdrew, a man named ‘Amr ibn Jurmouz followed Zubayr and cowardly murdered him while he performed Salat. Talha was killed by an arrow allegedly shot by Marwan – a cousin of ‘Uthman who was too blinded by rage and the desire to seek revenge for his kinsman to respond to the possibility of avoiding war and bloodshed among Muslims.

The murder of ‘Uthman had become Talha’s tryst with destiny. He did not participate in the fighting and killing that followed that came to be known in history as the ‘Battle of the Camel’. Indeed, if he had known that the fitnah would have degenerated into such insane hatred and bitterness and resulted in such a bloody outcome, he would have resisted it. He was not keen to fight ‘Ali. He was simply appalled by the murder of ‘Uthman and wanted to see justice done. Before the beginning of the battle he had said in a voice choked with emotion:

‘O Lord, for the sake of ‘Uthman, take from me this day until You are pleased.’

Then when ‘Ali faced him and Zubayr, they saw the correctness of his position and withdrew from the field of battle .Yet, in these difficult circumstances, martyrdom was reserved for them.

The Battle of the Camel came to an end. ‘A’ishah, the Mother of the Believers, realized that she had precipitated matters and left Basra for the Sacred Mosque and then to Madina distancing herself from the conflict. ‘Ali provided well for her journey giving her all the comfort and honour due to her.

When the numerous deads from the battle were brought together, ‘Ali led the funeral prayer for them all, those who were with him and those who were against him. And when he had finished burying Talha and Zubayr he bade farewell to them with a heavy heart, a heart filled with tenderness and love.

‘I really hope,’ he said in simple and sublime words, ‘that Talha, Zubayr, ‘Uthman and I will be among those of whom God has said:

And We shall remove from their hearts any lurking sense of injury and rancour; they will be brothers joyfully facing each other on thrones of dignity. (al-Hijr, 15:47)

Then he looked tenderly and sorrowfully on the graves of his brothers in faith and said:

‘I have heard with these two ears of mine the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, saying:

‘Talha and Zubayr are my companions in Paradise!’