“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
﷽
Setting the Historical Record Straight.
All praise be to Allah. Those who are not thankful to people are not thankful to Allah. I want to thank our teacher, Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi, a brilliant man who has been patient with us in answering our questions. I want to thank Tanweer Oqul -the servant of Allah.
The aim and objective of this article is to seek and to prove that those companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who differed with Imam Ali’s decision for arbitration were on the right path.
This is a subject in which many Ibadi is well acquainted. In summer camps throughout Oman by the time many youths are in the 10th grade they can give you a recounting of the narrative, major figures in the battle of Siffin, as well as the Ibadi view.
That Imam Ali Ibnu Abu Talib was mistaken in seeking arbitration with Mu’awiya.
The first point to establish is that in hindsight all the sects among the Muslims agree that when Imam Ali was the commander of the faithful that his selection was legitimate.
1) The Sunni Muslims agree to this.
2) The Shi’a agree to this. Although, Shi’a believe it should have been earlier; however, they do not deny that his Imamate was legitimate.
3) The Ibadi Muslims agree to this.
In fact, the Ibadi are the first to accept without question the legitimacy of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali.
The Shi’a believe that Ali was overlooked or outright usurped.
Imam Ali did not get rehabilitated into the Sunni paradigm until much later.
However, “Al Rashidun” or ‘rightly guided’ is a loaded Sunni theological terminology which seeks to indicate that the Caliphs or Imams of the early Muslims were beyond reproach.
“That the collective impunity of the Companions was a later construct of the Sunni worldview is evident when one finds occasional minor Companions listed in early books of weak hadith transmitters.”
Source: (Hadith: Muhammed’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World’ by Dr Jonathan Brown page 88)
We can clearly see the emotionalism attached to the defense of the character of the companions by statements from Ibn Main.
“The shaykh of Imam Bukhari, Ibn Ma’in where he said about someone who critiqued a companion, calling the man ‘a sucker of his mother’s clitoris’.”
Source: (Hadith: Muhammed’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World’ by Dr Jonathan Brown page 87)
“There are even reports from the early historian al-Mada’ini that Mu’awiya encouraged systematic forging and circulation of hadiths affirming the virtues of the caliphs and companions at Ali’s expense.” (cited from Al-Mada’ini’s Kitab al-ahdath; Ahmad b Sa’d al-Din al-Miswari, Al Risala al-munqidha min al-ghiwaya fi turuq al riwaya, pp. 51-55)”
This citation is found in Dr Jonathan Browns book:
“Hadith Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World page 70.”
This is also noted in one of the earlier books of Sunni creed: Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah or the Creed of Imam al-Tahawiyyah. Under the section: الثَّنَاءُ عَلَى الصَّحَابَةِ (Praise for the Companions)
وَنُحِبُّ أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَلَا نُفَرِّطُ فِي حُبِّ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ وَلَا نَتَبَرَّأُ مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ وَنُبْغِضُ مَنْ يُبْغِضُهُمْ وَبِغَيْرِ الْخَيْرِ يَذْكُرُهُمْ وَلَا نَذْكُرُهُمْ إِلَّا بِخَيْرٍ وَحُبُّهُمْ دِينٌ وَإِيمَانٌ وَإِحْسَانٌ وَبُغْضُهُمْ كُفْرٌ وَنِفَاقٌ وَطُغْيَانٌ
“We love the companions of the Messenger of Allah, (saw). We do not exaggerate in our love for any of them, nor do we disown any of them.”
Here there should be a subtext: “Except the Muhakkima in general and Ahl al-Nahrawan in particular.” Did Imam Al Tahawi distinguish between major /minor companions? He did not.
So, the position that the companions could do no wrong is a deeply rooted theological position among Sunni Muslims.
Thus, any conversation on this subject must be done while bearing this in mind.
Suffice it to say that the verse we will come to examine further, pushes back against this idea.
Analyzing the text of Qur’an 49:9
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
The English translations do not convey very important yet subtle points.
First point to take note of. Before identifying which party is the aggressor, Allah says “from the believers” and not “two believing groups“, commanding reconciliation because mistakes may occur.
As stated: ‘It is not for a believer to kill another believer except by mistake.’ (Qur’an 4:92)
Through reconciliation, the aggressor party becomes known and must repent to remain within the circle of faith. If they persist in their aggression, then fighting them becomes obligatory – this being one of Allah’s prescribed limits (hudud), like the punishments for theft, slander, adultery, brigandage, and alcohol consumption.
Note that Allah (swt) said that if two factions fight that we fight the one that oppresses the other. So, can it be said that the oppressor is just?
Whoever violates these divine limits must face the prescribed punishment, even if they possess true spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah). This is why Ammar (Ra) fought against the Mother of the Believers (Aisha -May Allah be pleased with her) in the Battle of the Camel while still affirming her status.
“The Prophet (saw) said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from among (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘what is wrong with them’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.’ I asked, “Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, what is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left. So, I did not see anyone of them.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6587)
I said to ‘Ammar: What is your opinion about that which you have done in case? Is it your personal opinion or something you got from Allah’s Messenger (saw)? ‘Ammar said: We have got nothing from Allah’s Messenger (saw) which people at large did not get, but Hudhaifa told me that Allah’s Apostle (saw) had especially told him amongst his Companion, that there would be twelve hypocrites out of whom eight would not get into Paradise, until a camel would be able to pass through the needle hole. The ulcer would be itself sufficient (to kill) eight. So far as four are concerned, I do not remember what Shu’ba said about them.
Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2779a)
Narrated Abu Maryam Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:
“When Talha, Az-Buair and Aisha moved to Basra, Ali sent Ammar bin yasir and Hasan bin Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended to the pulpit. Al Hasan bin Ali was at the top of the pulpit and Ammar was below Al Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard Ammar saying, “Aisha has moved to Al Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (Aisha).”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7100)
So even though Aisha (ra) is acknowledged by Ammar bin Yasir (ra) to be the ‘wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter‘, he was not about to leave the dhahir (the apparent) evidence.
Notice he says: “Allah has put you to test whether you obey him (Allah) or her (‘Aisha)“.
Just as Ammar bin Yasir (ra) was not about to leave the Amr (Authority and command of Allah) regardless of the station of Aisha (ra) likewise at Siffin those insightful companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) were not about to leave the Amr (Authority and command of Allah) regardless of the station of Imam Ali.
Both the Sunni and Imami Shi’a are theologically invested in the battle of Siffin.
Do note dear reader that this is not just a matter of competing narratives. The consistency or lack of consistency is what is being measured.
Those who call themselves ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ -will grant that all this fighting and killing that took place among the companions was simply a matter of ijtihad.
Nevertheless, we will find some people who are confused about the matters during that time, mistaking the people of Nahrawan and not describing them as being guided in their view and mujtahids!
However, they describe Mu’awiya and Imam Ali as diligent and mujtahid !!!
Yet, the inconsistency is laid bare when we see that they do not afford this to those companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that differed with the decision of Imam Ali at Siffin. Instead, some of these blessed companions such as, Owais Al-Qurni, Hurqus ibn Zuhair Al-Sa’di, Abdullah ibn Wahb Al-Rasibi Al-Azdi, Zaid bin Husayn Al-Taie, Shajrah bin Aufa Al Salmi, Shuraih bin Uufa al-Abasi, Thermala bin Bani Handala, Nafi Mawla Thermala, Umair bi Al-Harith, Abu Amr bin Al-Nafi’, Hakam bin Amr Al-Ansari, Al-Khairat bin Rashid Al-Sami (May Allah be pleased with them all) are reviled as the dogs of the hellfire! (see note A)
Ahadith are inserted in the mouth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) without shame, or fear of Allah (swt).
For Imami Shi’a even more is at stake. If you have a doctrine that the Imams are infallible in their guidance and ‘ijtihad and even one error in judgement can be attributed to them it is game over. That whole doctrine becomes absolutely crushed.
Fighting & Killing each other: Simply a matter of Ijtihad?
Think about this:
Talha and Zubair fought against Ali.
Mu’awiya and Amr Ibn Al-As fought against Ali.
All sides killed many Muslims at the battle of Jamal and Siffin.
All of them are just.
Killing each other is simply a matter of ‘ijtihad’?
Ijtihad-to the point that if they were in error they would still get rewarded?!?
The illogical and inconsistent methodology that results from such a view.
We, the Muslims, The People of the Truth and Steadfastness do not agree that every ‘ijtihad’ is correct or rewarded. A Judge, for example, when hearing a dispute between two parties will not rule that both parties are right and should be compensated for their role in the dispute. An even more absurd conclusion would be if the Judge, after ruling that one party was right in its claim and awarding it; then turned to the other side, pardoned them and then awarded them for their wrongdoing. Is this a rational concept? If a Judge would never behave in such an unjust way, do you honestly believe that the greatest Judge of all, Allah (swt) would order us to act in this way? If we take this to its logical conclusion, then no one is entitled to criticize or resolve any disputes!
Imagine if one were to say to those people who claim that Muslims cannot rebel against their leaders, “In my ijtihad the ruler is unjust, so I wish to rebel against him!”
They would argue that this goes against firmly established evidence. Thus, the ijtihad of any Muslims cannot go against what is firmly established.
“Al-Harith ibn ‘Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw), sent Mu’adh to Yemen and he said, how will you judge?” Mu’adh said, “I will judge according to the Book of Allah.” The Prophet said, “What if it is not in the Book of Allah?” Mu’adh said, “Then, with the Sunnah of the messenger of Allah.” The Prophet said, “What if it is not in the Sunnah of the messenger of Allah?” Mu’adh said, “Then, I will strive to form an opinion.” The Prophet said, “All praise is due to Allah, who has made suitable the messenger of the messenger of Allah.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1327)
Who or what really are the Khawarij?
Let us first say that this idea that the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) that differed with Imam Ali over the arbitration, that they are the so-called ‘Khawarij’ it is simply a flat lie. (see note B)
It is a derogatory term perpetuated by both the Shi’a and the Umayyad rulers, as well as their intellectual descendants until this very day.
Even among the people today who perceive themselves as intellectuals and well-read they persist with these statements without a shred of evidence to support them.
It is used to “other” one’s opponents and to demonize them.
Inconsistency in the application of the term Khawarij
We need to make sure we have fair and consistent methodology before applying labels to people.
A) Ask your people (those whom you the reader trust) to define the term Khawarij.
What is the Arabic etymological root of the word and what does it mean in the Arabic language. Once this is done, please proceed to point B.
The meaning of khuruj is to go out, or to exit from.
تأشيرة خروج
tashirat khuruj -visa, exist visa
تسجيل خروج
tasjil khuruj- log out.
خروج عن النص
khuruj ‘ayn alnas -exit text.
B) Now with that definition in mind, ask on what consistent basis is this not applied to Talha and Zubair? Why are Talha and Zubair not called Khawarij for opposing Imam Ali?
Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib was the rightful Amir of Muslims at that time, was he not?
C) Now with that definition in mind ask on what consistent basis is this not applied to Mu’awiya or Amr ibn Al-As?
Why are Mu’awiya and Amr ibn al As not called a Khawarij for opposing Imam Ali?
Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib was the rightful Amir of the Muslims at that time, was he not?
So, Mu’awiya and Amr ibn al As are the Khawarij.
They are the one’s who went out from the Ummah. The rest of the Ummah recognize the Imamate of Ali Ibn Abu Talib and gave bay’ah
This in and of itself shows the supreme bias and inconsistency when the narrative is being told through the historical lenses of sectarianism.
The Creation of false Narratives.
Praise be to Allah (swt) who has put the truth in the mouth of the people of the opposition. (Ahl Khilaf)
As we saw above:
“There are even reports from the early historian al-Mada’ini that Mu’awiya encouraged systematic forging and circulation of hadiths affirming the virtues of the caliphs and Companions at Ali’s expense.” (cited from Al-Mada’ini’s Kitab al-ahdath; Ahmad b Sa’d al-Din al-Miswari, Al Risala al-munqidha min al-ghiwaya fi turuq al riwaya, pp. 51-55)”
This citation is found in Dr Jonathan Browns book: Hadith Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World page 70“
Dr Musa Al-Musawi (The grandson of Ayatollah Abul Hassan Al Isfahani) says the following:
“Although we believe that most of the forged narratives from the Imams, were forged after al-ghiba al-kubra (the disappearance of Al-Mahdi Al Muntadhar) …..but any impartial researcher will necessarily conclude that even during the time of the Shiite Imams, many narratives were fabricated and ascribed to the Imams, in the like manner as they were fabricated and attributed to the Prophet.”
Source: (al-Shi’a wa-l-tashih: al-Sira’ bayn al-shi’a wa-l-tashayyu'(the struggle between Shia and Shiism p. 135)
“Certainly, the researcher into accounts that the Shiites collected in their books which they authored between the fourth and fifth centuries A.H., will reach the extremely saddening results. For the efforts that were made by some of the Shiite narrators to undermine Islam were equal to the heavens and the Earth in gravity. And I suppose that those Shiite narrators did not merely intend to implant the Shiite beliefs in the hearts (of their followers), but they did also intend to destroy Islam, and everything connected to it.”
Source: (al-Shi’a wa-l-tashih: al-Sira’ bayn al-shi’a wa-l-tashayyu'(the struggle between Shia and Shiism p. 15)
The honesty and integrity of the so-called Khawarij.
‘Among all people who follow their desire, there have been no men whose traditions are authentic as the Khawarij”
Source: (Al-Dhahabi Mizanu Al-Itidal Vol. 4 p. 156 in the biography of Imran bin Hittan)
Ibn Hajar agrees with this.
Source: (Ibn Hajar Hadyu Al-Sari: Muqaddimatu Alaa Fat-hi Albari p.611.)
Imam Al Sayuti also has a similar stance.
Source: (Al-Suyuti: Tadribu Al-Rawi p.285)
Now, when we consider what these giants among Sunni Muslims have said is it not bizarre that the so-called “Khawarij” are people on the one hand who follow their desire and yet strictly only narrate authentic traditions disregarding fabricated hadith, unlike the Shi’i and Sunni?
Ponder that for a moment….
Again, we have:
Dr Mustafa Al-Siba’i founder of the Syrian branch of the Muslim brotherhood states:
“I have never discovered any narrative that has been fabricated by the Khawarij; I have made extensive research in books specially authored on fabricated traditions and narratives, I have never found any man among the Khawarij who has been regarded to be among the liars and fabricators of false traditions.…………. And I have searched for evidence which could have supported the allegation of ascribing to the Khawarij the act of forging traditions, but I have found that the evidence is contrary to that.”
Source: (Dr Al-Siba’i Al-Sunna Wa Makanatuha Fii Al-Tashrii Al-Islami p.99.)
Dr Muhammad Ajjaj Al Khatib, says:
” We have not detected, from the references that are close to us, anything indicating that the Khawarij have ever forged traditions, or even that they have depended upon them (upon forged traditions) in supporting their position and proving their claim.”
Source: (Dr Muhammad Ajaj Al-Khatib Al-Sunna Qabla Al-Tadwin p.204 – 205)
Ikrimah (ra) was an Ibadi
Omar bin Qais al-Makki said, on the authority of Ata: Ikrimah was an Ibadhi. And Ibrahim bin Yaqoub al-Jawzjani said: I asked Ahmed bin Hanbal about Ikrimah, he said: “He was of the opinion of the Ibadis.”
Source: (Refinement of Perfection for Mazi – Imam Jamal Al-Din Abi Al-Hajjaj Yusuf Al-Mazi)
Keep in mind that the historical accounts of what happened are told through historians who are in no way, shape, or form impartial to the events that have happened. Sometimes when telling the narrative of the opposition you make their position and counterarguments seem ludicrous or not well-thought-out.
It is what we call a clear misrepresentation.
We have for example people ascribing to Imam Ali some of the most incredulous statements.
Here is an excerpt from Khaled Abou El Fadl who co-authored a book with Joshua Cohen. By Allah I have possibly never read a more insulting portrayal of Imam Ali’s intelligence than I have from this excerpt.
It is not even so much about what is said about the so called “Khawarij” it is the injustice done to Imam Ali here! To think that he would use such infantile “arguments” is just beyond incredulous!
We see a Shi’a reformist and polemicist use the same type of convoluted thinking here:
” And and obviously the judgement of why do you have a qadi in courts then? You know tell tell the government of Oman to fire all the qadis. Who are they? Why are they bringing human agents? You know they should just put a Qur’an on the seat of the qadi; and let the Qur’an give the judgement.” -Syed Ali Hur (See note C)
The Ahl Khilaf (People of the Opposition) have been notorious for the mischaracterization of their opponents. (See note D)
Here is another point. Imam Ali and Mu’awiya are human beings. They can make ijtihad, and their ijtihad can be wrong. Only the Imami Shi’a will find this proposition difficult to agree with.
For the Sunni reading this you need to ask on what consistent basis can those companions (Talha, Zubair, Mu’awiya, Amr Ibn Al-As) fight Imam Ali and be known as just and acting upon personal ijtihad. Yet the same gratuity is not extended to those companions (Owais Al-Qurni, Hurqus ibn Zuhair Al-Sa’di, Abdullah ibn Wahb Al-Rasibi Al-Azdi) who differed with Imam Ali over the arbitration?
Instead, those companions are reviled and castigated as the ‘dogs of hellfire’?! (See note E)
How can one be commander of the faithful if they are commanded by the disobedient?
For the Imami Shi’i reading this. Think about this for a moment. Imam Ali -whom according to you is divinely appointed Imam was duped and manipulated by his own followers. Think about that for a moment. Take all the time you need.
The narrative ranges from the idea that this was a decision that Imam Ali willfully took. Thus, a more empowering image of him.
Or a narrative that he was forced by his followers. Such an image of Imam Ali shows that he is not the commander of the faithful; for how is that an individual be the ‘commander of the faithful’ when you are commanded by the disobedient?!
“Say, “Nothing will ever befall us except what Allah has destined for us. He is our Protector.” So, in Allah let the believers put their trust.” (Qur’an 9:51)
Imam Ali’s letters to Mu’awiya and their implication in all of this.
(feel free to consult whatever sources you trust).
(In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious Most Merciful). From the servant of Allah, Ali, leader of the Muslims, to Mu’awiya bin Sakhr! Oh Mu’awiya! You know very well that the Shura (to hold a consultative council on who should be a leader) is the privilege of the Muhajirin and the Ansar alone. If they agree on a person and appoint him to be an Imam (leader), Allah is content with that. If anyone goes outside their agreement by criticizing or by heretical innovations, they will have to take him back to the (Right Path from which) he has gone out. If he refuses, they will have to kill him because of his act to follow the way different from that of the Muslims.
Source: (Ibn A’atham Al-Futuh Vol. 2, p. 374.)
Source: (Ibn Abdi Rabih AL-Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p, 309.)
Source: (Al-Musawi in his Al-Tashihu p. 20, has also quoted it from Nahju Al Balagha Vol. 3, p.7)
In some of the Shi’a books, there is an account narrated from Imam Ali that he said to his followers:
“If anyone wants to disunite you and one wants to take this matter (of Islamic leadership) without Shura (holding a consultative council on who should be a leader), kill him. Truly, Allah the Most Exalted has ordered so”.
Source: (Ahmad Al Katib, Tatawuru Al Fikri Al Siyasi Al Shi’i p. 444, quoting it from Al Sadduuq’s Uyunu Al Akhbari, Vol. 2, p. 62)
So, when Imam Ali says “Kill him. Truly, Allah the Most Exalted has ordered so.”
Where did Imam Ali get this order from?
Well, he got it from the following:
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
This verse is what gave Imam Ali the right to wage a war against Mu’awiya and his Syrian troops. Allah (swt) delegated no one to rule and decide on this issue.
So, remember Imam Ali is now the commander of the faithful and according to a certain faction of Muslims (infallible in his decision-making).
He was swift to bring the sword against Talha and Zubair just as he was against Mu’awiya.
No one is disputing Ali’s actions up until this point.
A major point of consideration. Please reflect upon this dear truth seekers.
The legitimate ‘Amr of the Muslims is without question Imam Ali. Again, remember the opening to this article. The Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadi all agree on this point.
Imam Ali is writing many letters to Mu’awiya. He is telling Mu’awiya that to investigate the murder of Uthman that he (Mu’awiya) would need to recognize the legitimate ‘Amr of the Muslims.
Thus, it is without question that Mu’awiya is in rebellion against the ‘Amr of the Muslims. If Mu’awiya was avenging Uthman did he create an alliance with Amr ibn al-As, and start this rival political sphere, against Imam Ali? Notably, once Mu’awiya was the Caliph of the Ummayad imperium; so why not bring the killers to justice then? Furthermore, why go against the established practice of the companions (who used shura) to select a ruler and transfer the power of the state to your own son?
Alas, how do you recognize the outcome of an investigation of a government that you do not recognize the legitimacy of? If you want to bring the killers of Uthman to justice, we can identify the killers and we can talk about qisas, but we cannot begin this process until you give bay’ah. You cannot demand the rights of a judicial process to a government that you do not recognize. If you do not recognize the rights of the government how can you accept the outcome of it’s judiciary process?
This process is not something new to the companions or even Imam Ali himself.
At the Battle of Jamal, the opponents of Imam Ali admitted they were wrong and gave bay’ah and they submitted to the authority. Imam Ali was demanding the same from Mu’awiya (except, no one is claiming Mu’awiya is wrong for seeking justice for Uthman). However, the point mentioned above still stands.
The only thing that needed to be decided at the battle of Siffin is rather or not Mu’awiya gives bay’ah and you do not need an arbitration for that!
There is nothing to arbitrate. Do you or do you recognize the legitimate Imam of the Muslims?! Until you give bay’ah we continue fighting and if you do give bay’ah the fight is over.
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
The true believers and supporters of Imam Ali were quite shocked by this. He is reneging on the whole point of fighting Mu’awiya to begin with.
Finally, it has to be asked. Why did Imam Ali make it a condition for Mu’awiya to recognize him before they could talk terms but suddenly it is not a condition for the arbitration?
What did all those people loyal to Imam Ali die for? They were killed, many of them maimed, losing their loved ones and suddenly it’s like “Yeah all that about submitting to my authority, never mind!”
What?!
This makes the whole reason for Imam Ali to fight Mu’awiya to seem incompressible. The reason he is fought is because he (Mu’awiya) is a rebel (baghi), and he has no rights to ask for anything until he gives bay’ah.
Not only this but it gets worse. If we are to believe that Imam Ali thought it was a ruse to begin with then it means he was not sincere in accepting the arbitration. Also, if he went into the arbitration with even the slightest feeling that if the outcome were not favourable to him, he would not accept it -it also means he would not be sincere. Arbitrators come to decisions we do not necessarily agree with. You cannot latter say the decision of the arbitrator is null and avoid because than you look fickle.
The charges against Mu’awiya are crystal clear.
- He never gave bay’ah to the Amir al-Mu’minin.
- He took up arms against a legitimate Muslim government.
- He caused the unnecessary death of hundreds if not thousands of believers.
- He never avenged the so called murder of Uthman; even when usurping power.
- Feigned a pretext of unity only when Byzaintines threatened his territory.
- Went against the ‘ijma of the companions of shura by electing his son to office.
Mu’awiya and many of his people did not accept Islam until the conquest of Mecca and it was clear that Islam would be the clear victor. And likewise among the camp of Mu’awiya is the one expelled by the Messenger of Allah (saw) himself! That one is Hakam ibn al-‘As!
The one whom the blessed Messenger (saw) made the following du’a about him.
“I was playing with children that Allah’s Messenger (saw) happened to pass by (us). I hid myself behind the door. He (the Prophet) came and patted my shoulders and said: Go and call Mu’awiya. I returned and said: He is busy in taking food. He again asked me to go and call Mu’awiya to him. I went (and came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he said: May Allah not fill his belly! Ibn Muthanna, said: I asked Umm Umayya what he meant by the word Hatani. He said: It means “he patted my shoulders.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2604a)
Busy with the food when called by the Messenger of Allah (saw)!
The historical sources have Mu’awiya himself saying: “Ali had two right hands (two strong assistants and supporters), one of which I cut on the day of Siffin, (meaning ‘Ammar bin Yasir); and the other I cut today, (meaning Al-Ashtar).”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705.)
“Let us raise the copies of the Holy Qur’an” on the spearheads as a sign of wishing to cease the war “So that we may stop ‘Ali’s forces and weaken their strength.”
Source: (l-Ya’aqubi Tarikh al-Yaqubi Vol. 2, p. 188.)
All of these evidences were strongly present among the loyal believers of the people of Nahrawan. And all the events that followed this confirmed the sincerity and strength of the view of the people of Nahrawan
There is no doubt that sincere believers see the light of Allah!!
The allegations against the companions (Ahl Narhawan) of the Prophet (saw) that differed with Imam Ali’s decision for arbitration.
1) They are condemned for suggesting the idea of arbitration -They were Pro Arbitration
2) They are condemned for not agreeing to the idea of arbitration) -They were Anti Arbitration
3) They seceded from the authority of Imam Ali
Note even some have been so vile as to say that those companions (Ahl Narhawan) who forced Imam Ali into arbitration even made threats to kill Hassan and Hussein!
We are going to put that to bed right here and now!
The first point.
I want you the reader to think about your love for Imam Ali. How much do you love him? Think about that intensity and that passion.
What does it say about the so-called Shi’a of Imam Ali or the supporters of Imam Ali that if someone was to suggest such a thing about Hassan and Hussein -that they (the supporters of Imam Ali) would not remove the heads of such vile creatures at once! How is that you the reader would have more animosity towards those who would propose such a vile action while those who were present were unmoved?
This and of itself is cause for reflection.
The second point.
We have the following from Imam Ali that says one of the reasons he did not want to press the attack was the fear of losing Hassan and Hussein to the forces of Mu’awiya
“Then he (Imam Ali) went to a close area, he met Abdullah Bin Wadimah Al Ansari, He got closer to him and asked him: What did you hear people saying about our matter (the arbitration)? He replied: Some like it, some hate it. The people as Allah said: (They are still in difference), He said: what does the people of opinion say? He said: They said that Ali had a great united front and he scattered them, and a strong fort so he destroyed it. So when will he build again what he destroyed, and when would he unite what he scattered? Only if he moved on with those who obeyed him when some disobeyed, and fought until he wins or dies, that is determination! Ali said: I destroyed it or they did? Did I divide it or did they divide it? And for when they said if only he moved on with those who obeyed him when some disobeyed, and fought until he wins or dies! (Imam Ali replies) “By Allah this opinion wasn’t hidden from me, even though I am generous with myself from this life and deal well with death I strived to attack the people, but I saw these two – referring to Hassan and Hussein – Then I saw these two have gone in front of me -Abdullah Bin Jafar and Muhammed Bin Ali- So I knew that if those two die the offspring of Muhammed would be cut off, so I disliked this, and I feared that those two would die. I knew if it wasn’t for my position they wouldn’t have gone to the front. By Allah if I met them after this day I would meet them and they are not with me in an army nor in a house.
Source: (Waqat Siffin -Nasr bin Muzahim Al Munqari pgs 529-530)
Prima Qur’an comments:
You read for yourself. That is not an Ibadi or Sunni source. That one is from Shi’a sources.
Notice that the true loyalist of Imam Ali wanted to press the attack. Even with the traitors in their midst. Imam Ali acknowledges this when he states: “By Allah this opinion wasn’t hidden from me.” However, it was Imam Ali himself who did not like the idea of pressing the attack because he feared that Hassan and Hussein would be killed in the battle , thus the descendants of the Blessed Prophet (saw) would come to an end.
This is contrary to those who claim that those in his own army threatened the lives of Hassan and Hussein unless he (Imam Ali) sued for arbitration.
The irony of this is that it was not pressing the attack that ended up being the cause of death and ruin for the descends of the Blessed Prophet (saw). Imam Ali knew in his heart that this arbitration is wrong. However; his decision for arbitration brought about that which he feared any how. That is the treachery that befell Hassan and Hussein. Hassan via poisoning and the tragedy of Karbala is well known.
Say, “Nothing will ever befall us except what Allah has destined for us. He is our Protector.” So in Allah let the believers put their trust.” (Qur’an 9:51)
Now which is it?
1) Imam Ali did not want to press the attack with Mu’awiya for fear that Mu’awiya and his forces will kill them.
2) Imam Ali was forced into arbitration by his own people under threat that they would kill Hassan and Hussein?
The third point.
For Instance, the account that quotes the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) that went to Nahrawan as saying to Imam Ali about his acceptance of the true and later the arbitration: “That was a sin of which you have to repent.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Tarikh Vol. 6. P.18.)
Ali according to this account replied: “That was not a sin at all!”
Source: (Al Tabari Al-Tarikh Vol. 6. P.18.)
Accordingly, Imam Ali is reminding the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) of Al Nahrawan that it was they who insisted upon the idea of accepting the reconciliation. Surprisingly, in this narrative, when Imam Ali was asked to repent of his act of yielding to the Syrians’ demand for stopping the war and making peace he replied: “That was not a sin at all.”?
Now the obvious question that arises here is: If that was not a sin worthy of repentance, then why blame them for insisting on the arbitration if indeed it was the correct thing to do. If it was indeed they who responded favourably to it?
Also, if the act of arbitration was something good then it means that the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) in Nahrawan wanted the good thing and Imam Ali did not!
More contradictions than you can shake a stick at.
Another major contradiction in the Tabarian account is that
After the discussion between Imam Ali and the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) at Nahrawan that: “All returned to join Ali”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 6 p.13 Ibn Al-Athir, Al-Kamil Vol.2 -.679)
Prima Qur’an comments: Yet surprisingly in these accounts the purpose of Imam Ali to go to the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) in Nahrawan was to do with the alleged murder of Abdullahi bin Khabab. Yet, in the same accounts Imam Ali does not even mention him he simply asks those people to rejoin in!
It also needs to be pointed out that in our school (The Ibadi School) we recognize four stages of the Imam. Different categories of the Imams. (See note F)
Manifestation (zuhur)
Defense (difa)
Sacrifice of one’s life (shira)
The Stage of Secrecy (kitman)
It needs to be pointed out that even after Imam Ali faltered at Siffin, the Muhakima (Companions of the Prophet in Nahrawan) kept asking Imam Ali to repent and they would rejoin him!
That is not hatred for a person. That is saying you faltered, acknowledged it and we will rejoin your campaign. As long as you (Imam Ali) accept it (arbitration) as false and it is the wrong decision and repent and we will rejoin you.
Imam Ali refused to do so.
Imam of defense (difa) is a temp Imam (interim Imam) which is what Imam Wahb Ar Rasibi (ra) was when appointed as the Imam for the battle of Al Nahrawan. Had they succeeded in the battle than a council (shura) would be formed to decide on the commander of the faithful (The Manifest Imam) -which Imam Ali previously was.
The fourth point.
من كتاب شرح نهج البلاغة :
“فأتى الأشعث عليا (ع)، فقال: يا أمير المؤمنين، أن الناس قد تحدثوا أنك رأيت الحكومة ضلالا والإقامة عليها كفرا، فقام على (ع) يخطب، فقال:
من زعم أنى رجعت عن الحكومة فقد كذب، ومن رآها ضلالا فقد ضل
، فخرجت حينئذ الخوارج من المسجد فحكمت”.
Al-Ash’ath ibn Qays said: O Amir al-Mu’minin, The people said that you saw the arbitration as misguidance, and establishing upon it is disbelief. So Ali stood up and addressed this: “Whoever claims that I reconsider arbitration has lied, and whoever sees it (arbitration) as a misguidance then he is misguided.” So the Khawarij exited the Masjid and they accepted arbitration.”
Source: (Nahjul Balagha pg. 401)
A variation of the above narrative is found In the book: Ali: The Elixir of Love -Jalal Moughania
The abridged version (No doubt for the purpose of story telling) has as follows:
“The band of the Khawarij lowered their arms and followed Ali. Six thousand men entered into his fold and returned with him to Kufa. When they settled in Kufa, they began spreading a rumor that Ali has retracted his position on the arbitration and saw it as a deviant thing.
“The Commander of the Faithful is waiting for the treasury to be filled and for the resources to be reinforced, and then he will launch his campaign against Syria,” they said.
When Ali got wind of this, he spoke to the people in the mosque of Kufa and set the record straight. “Whoever claimed that I have retracted from the arbitration has lied, and whoever saw it as a deviance, then he is more deviant.” The Khawarij left the mosque, shouting “The verdict is for Allah alone.”
Source: (Ali: The Elixir of Love -Jalal Moughania pgs. 161-162)
Prima Qur’an comments: Not sure the source material that Jalal Moughania has relied upon for his narrative. However, the source for the above information is clear. How can it be said that companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) at Nahrawan forced Imam Ali into arbitration when it is clear as daylight that they were against it and saw it as deviance. Contrary to that, Imam Ali is reported to have said that ‘those who saw it as misguidance/deviance are the ones upon misguidance/deviance.’
The fifth point.
“The liar is he who alleges that I have withdrawn myself from the arbitration. Let me tell you; whoever regards the arbitration to be straying from the right path, it is who has gone astray.”
Source: (Al Mubarrid, Al Kamil Vol 2. pg 605)
The sixth point
The Qurraa repeatedly went to ‘Ali to beseech him not to agree with what Mu’awiya demanded, but ‘Ali gave a deaf ear to their advice. Finally, seeing that ‘Ali was reluctant to agree with them, the four thousand Qurraa (the learned ones) decided to abandon him and set out for a village of Al-Harauraa near Al-Kufa in Iraq where they appointed their new Imam with the object of – in the common Islamic phrase – enjoining what is just and forbidding what is evil. Their decision to disconnect themselves from the central leadership came as a result of ‘Ali’s position towards this crisis; for they found that what he did was contrary to the clear verse of the Qur’an.
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 12.)
The seventh point.
Al-Khawarij came and we, at that time, referred to them as Al-Qurraa .When they came they were placing their swords on their shoulders. They said (to ‘Ali): ‘Oh Amir al-Mu’minin, what are we waiting for about these people who are on the hill; why not go to them with our swords until Allah passes His judgment between us and them?
Sources: (Ibn Abi Shaiba Al-Musannaf Vol. 8, p. 736, narrative no. 34. Ahmad Al-Musnad Vol. 5, p. 484, hadith no. 16071. Abu Ya’ala Al-Musnad Vol. p. 365. Al-Sabi’i has also quoted it from Al-Minqari’s book entitled Siffin p. 497.)
The eighth point.
The Shi’a and the Sunni both have in their historical records that Ibn Abbas (ra) was sent to debate with those companions that were at Narhawan. The reason he was sent to debate was to convince them that arbitration was the correct thing to do. If they were already pro arbitration why try to convince the convinced? Why preach to the converted?
Arguments used by Ibn Abbas (ra) and their refutation by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that resided in Nahrawan.
Now dear readers if you go to websites that mention the exchange between Ibn Abbas (ra) and the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) at Nahrawan you are not given their rebuttal. Imagine if a debate happened between Christians and Muslims and the Christians edited the debate and/or only showed their side of the debate without showing the Muslim response to the Christians arguments. Would we deem this just?
So let us look at the evidence that was brought forward by Ibn Abbas (ra) to convince the companions of Nahrawan about arbitration.
The following are proof text put forward by Ibn Abbas (ra) to justify Ali’s arbitration with Mu’awiya
Argument #1
“O you who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you does so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka’ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, AS ADJUDGED BY TWO JUST MEN AMONG YOU; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition, Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution.” (Qur’an 5:95)
‘As adjudged by two just men among you’. Keep this in mind as well. This is a key part of the text.
The companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) replied:
“Are you comparing the law relating to the killing of game animal on the sacred land or the law that is intended to resolve the misunderstandings that occur between a man and his wife, with the law that is intended to govern the matters of greater magnitude such as the act of shedding of Muslims’ blood?”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 13.)
So, through qiyas (analogy), it is logical to reason that in the above verse during the pilgrimage that someone kills a game animal they are ordered to compensate the following judgement by two just men than it stands to reason the shedding of Muslims blood has a better claim to be dealt with diplomatically.
In response to what Ibn Abbas (ra) had presented, the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) argued that there is a significant difference between the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) refereed to and the verse which is used to justify Ali’s war against Mu’awiya.
In the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) referred to, Allah did not mention any ruling, nor did He make any decision between contending parties, instead, He assigned the task of arbitrating to men. On that point, there is no issue with Ibn Abbas (ra) and his thought process here.
However, in the verse which gave Ali the right to fight the war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) Himself has mentioned step by step the measures that should be taken and decided on. What should be done at each step?
Thus, Allah (swt) lays down the ruling in this case. The verse states:
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
Also, another point concerning the text that Ibn Abbas brought forth.
Naturally, people would ask “Are you saying Amru bin Al-As is a man of justice when it was, he who spilled our blood yesterday? If you believe that he is just then we (including you -Ibn Abbas and Ali) are not just because we all fought the war against Mu’awiya and Amru bin Al-As who are just!”
So, the unfilled questions from Ibn Abbas (ra) were.
A) Were there two arbitrators or one?
B) Were they just or unjust?
To the Shi’i reading this (Zaydi and Imami) I implore you to tell us. Who are the just ones in the camp of Mu’awiya? Can one who takes up arms against Ali be considered just? If you say yes then let that stand on the record.
How could a person think they are just and sincere in what they are doing?
That is why it is important to differentiate between ilmu al-dhahir (the knowledge of the seen) and ilmu al-ghaib (the knowledge of the unseen).
The former is where we, the human beings, are required to base our judgment on, whereas the latter is exclusively attributed to Allah. On this basis, if a man committed any wrong but his intention was good, then we – the people, having merely the knowledge which never goes beyond the limits of the visible world, are ordered to judge based upon the apparent.
In fact, in a sublime oral tradition attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) we read:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “I have not been ordered by Allah to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4351)
Those Sahabah, those Companions who differed with Imam Ali whom they saw clearly going against the book of Allah (swt) they were upon what Umar (ra) was upon.
They were upon what Umar (ra) was upon in the following sense:
They were following what Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
I heard ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab reported saying: “In the lifetime of Messenger of Allah (saw) some people were called to account through Revelation. Now Revelation has discontinued, and we shall judge you by your apparent acts. Whoever displays to us good, we shall grant him peace and security, and treat him as a near one. We have nothing to do with his insight. Allah will call him to account for that. But whoever shows evil to us, we shall not grant him security, nor shall we believe him, even if he professed that his intention is good.”
Source: (Riyad as-Salihin 395 Bukhari, Hadith 395)
So, what Umar ibn Al-Khattab was saying was that in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) people were called to account via revelation, the Qur’an and/or guidance directly from the Blessed Messenger (saw). Now with the revelation discontinued, and having the Qur’an and the Sunnah, we shall judge you by your apparent acts!
Ibn Abbas (ra) was quoted by Ahmad Ibn A’tham as saying:
“O, men! Amru bin Al’As was not an arbiter, why then oppose us because of him? He was but an arbiter representing Mu’awiya.”
Source: (Ibn A’tham, Al Futuh Vol. 4, p. 94.)
Is it imaginable that Ibn Abbas (ra) wanted to substantiate his position with a verse which strongly opposed him?
Naturally, our brothers from among the ‘Ahl Sunnah’ or the ‘Shi’i’ are either not informed about this side of the story or simply the learned among them withhold information. Allah (swt) sees and knows all.
Argument #2
Let us look at the other verse that is said that Ibn Abbas (ra) brought as proof.
“If you fear a breach between couples, send an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If the couple desire to put things right, Allah will bring about a reconciliation between them. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 4:35)
This verse orders us to reconcile between a man and his wife in case of misunderstanding or breach. But the steps that ought to be taken when resolving such domestic disputes have not been mentioned. The arbiters are generally required to do their best, in being fair and just, to reach a peaceful, acceptable resolution for the concerned parties.
When you compare the two mentioned verses you will notice that they are intended for different purposes.
In the verse which gave Ali the right to wage war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) delegated no one to rule and decide on the issue. But He rather ordered the believers to abide by what He had ruled.
On the other hand, what Ibn Abbas (ra) armed himself with, was the verse that Allah (swt) granted deciding on a role to two fair and just arbiters. That is a clear and a huge difference between the two verses. So, we can say with confidence that Ibn Abbas’s analogy of linking this verse with the conflict of war between Ali and Mu’awiya is debatable.
It does not seem suitable for a person of his stature and understanding. Now as mentioned above Ibn Abbas (ra) after hearing all of this knew very well that the arguments produced by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that were in Nahrawan were airtight!
One thing that neither those who call themselves ‘Ahl Sunnah’ or ‘Shi’a’ can do is to cover up the cooling of relations between Ibn Abbas (ra) and Imam Ali.
Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Imam Ali in his campaigns with those companions who opposed Ali at Battle of the Camel and those companions who opposed Ali at Siffin. However, he was nowhere to be found in Imam Ali’s campaign against the companions at Nahrawan.
This same Ibn Abbas (ra) who said after his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrawan the following:
“(The People of Nahrawan) have been on the Right Path “
Source: (Al-Shammakhi, Al-Siyar Vol. 1 p, 72,)
Another account says concerning Ibn Abbas (ra) and his debate with the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that were in Nahrwan that he (Ibn Abbas) “Could not crush their proofs.”
Source: (Abu Qahtaan, Al-Siyar p. 107)
Another narration says he (Ibn Abbas) went back from this exchange with them: “Without being able to do anything.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p 18, Al-Barrad Al-Jawaahir p. 122)
“He could not prove anything to them! “
Source: (Ibn Abi Shaibah, Al-Musannaf Vol. 15, p. 312)
“The Nahrawanees established their proofs to him (Ibn Abbas).”
Source: (Al-Ya’qubi, Al-Taarikh Vol. 2 p. 191)
Look at what Ibn Abbas (ra) says here:
“I swear by Allah, it is better for me that I meet Allah with all that are beneath the Earth, starting with its gold and silver, and all that its surface is full of than meeting Him with my hands having split the blood of this umma (Islamic Nation) so that I may attain a kingship or leadership.” -Ibn Abbas
OUCH!
Source: (Al-Baladhuri, Al Ansab Vol 2, p 398. Ibn Abd Rabbi, Al- ‘Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 326. Al Futuh by Ibn A’atham Vol. 4, p.75)
“If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer.” -Ibn Abbas.
OUCH AGAIN!
Source: (Al-Qalhati, Al-Kashf Vol 2, p 251. Ibn Abdi Rabih, Al-Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 331.)
It is very clear from the that Ibn Abbas (ra) had developed a disapproving attitude towards the war fought against the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) in Al Nahrawan. A complete change of heart from the previous conflicts.
It is clear, in this war with the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) at Al Nahrawan, Ibn Abbas (ra) found fault with Imam Ali and condemned him for his unjustifiably wrong act of fighting those fellow companions. Those companions who fought and bled for him. Those true companions that would have fought shoulder to shoulder with Imam Ali against that rebel, Mu’awiya until the bitter end.
After he was sent debate with them Ibn Abbas (ra) realized where the truth laid. He accepted that he (Ibn Abbas) was wrong and the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) in Al Nahrawan were right.
Certainly, there is a lesson to be learnt in this experience that the accurate criteria with which to draw a distinction between right and wrong is not a coin-flip, but rather the Qur’an and authentic Prophetic traditions. After all, Imam Ali made his hasty decision in the heat of the moment and possibly did not consider the full ramifications of his decision.
When those companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) who left Imam Ali’s camp answered Ibn Abbas (ra) and is objections clearly and decisively there was nowhere to go but the truth.
Having been fully convinced by the position of the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) at Al Nahrawan and the evidence that they had for their succession from Imam Ali’s leadership, Ibn Abbas also detached himself from Imam Ali and set out for Mecca.
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p. 20)
Even though one of the reasons why Ibn Abbas (ra) left Ali and set out to Mecca was from their differences in the bait al-mal (House of Treasury/House of Properties), from which Ibn Abbas (ra) took what he regarded to be his lawful portion of the money, their differences were compounded by the fact that they were on opposing sides of the issue concerning the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) at Al Nahrawan.
Recall the statement:
“If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer.”-Ibn Abbas.
In this statement Ibn Abbas (ra) is basically saying: If I disagreed with you on the issue of bait al-mal, then I am strongly opposing you on the issue of the People of Nahrawan. This was about the point in time where Ibn Abbas (ra) detached himself from Imam Ali’s leadership.
May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the truth seekers!
That in and of itself should be sufficient.
The removal of the title of Amir al-Mu’minin from the arbitration document.
This in and of itself for us shows the insincerity of Mu’awiya, the rebel.
Now, you will read in the sources of the Ahl Khilaf (people of opposition)-those opposed to us that Ibn Abbas (ra) said the following:
“As for ‘Ali removing the title of ‘Leader of Believers’, then I will give you something that will please you; verily, the Messenger of Allah (saw) contracted an agreement with the disbelievers of Quraysh on the Day of Hudaybiyyah, and the Prophet said to ‘Ali:
اكتب هذا ما قضى عليه محمد رسول الله
Write (O ‘Ali). “This is what Muhammed, the Messenger of Allah, agrees with.”
They, the polytheists, said, ‘If we knew you to be the Messenger of Allah, we would not have fought you and stopped you from going to the Ka’bah. Write Muhammed ibn ‘Abdullah.’
The Messenger of Allah said:
والله اني لرسول الله حقا وان كذبتموني اكتب يا علي محمد بن عبد الله
By Allah, indeed I am the messenger of Allah(swt) even if you belie me. Erase it ‘Ali, and write, “This is what Muhammed ibn ‘Abdullah agrees upon.”
I swear by Allah that the Messenger of Allah is better than ‘Ali and even he erased his own name and erasing his name does not erase his prophet-hood. Have we finished with this point, and have you retracted?”
Response from the companions of the Prophet (saw) to Ibn Abbas (ra) on removing the title of Amir al-Mu’minin
What is the response of the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that differed with Ali over the arbitration? What is their response to Ibn Abbas (ra)?
Let us assume that someone of such great statue and wisdom as Ibn Abbas (ra) would use such an obviously fallacious line of reasoning. Let us show why this line of thinking (if it did come from him) is faulty.
1) The Prophet (saw) is fighting the Mushrik and they do not believe that the Prophet (saw) is the Messenger of Allah.
If one wants to make this analogous to the situation with Imam Ali, it means for certain that Mu’awiya certainly did not recognize that Imam Ali is the Amr of Allah. It is an obligation upon Mu’awiya to recognizes the legitimate Imam of the Muslims.
It is unnecessary to remove the name to seek justice for the so-called murderers of Uthman. In fact, removing the name undermines the very government authority that would administer such justice.
2) “By Allah, indeed I am the messenger of Allah(swt) even if you belie me.” The Prophet (saw)has divine authority. He is the Messenger of Allah (swt) rather one recognizes this or not. The same is not the case with Imam Ali, removing that title put him on an equal footing with Mu’awiya.
Whereas removing the title ‘Messenger of Allah’ did not put Suhail on the status of a Prophet.
3) Imam Ali did not get any revelation from Allah (swt) that by removing the title “Amir al-Mu’minin” that it would guarantee him a victory, as was the case for the Blessed Prophet (saw).
4) What is the result of this arbitration? Because the Blessed Prophet (saw) received revelation the result is victory for the believers. Whereas the arbitration the result was a victor for the rebellious group. Imam Ali had his Imamate stripped from him. Hassan and Hussein were killed.
It is an absolute disaster on all accounts.
So, either:
Ibn Abbas (ra) did not make such a preposterous case.
Or
2) He did make such a case but realized the counter arguments were airtight!
Examining the conflicting claims that the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that differed with Imam Ali were in favour of it and forced Imam Ali into it.
Al hamdulillah! We are thankful that the Muslim ummah today is a thinking ummah. They are not people who you can spoon feed information, and they just swallow it.
Does it make sense that both the Sunni and Shi’a sources tell us that Imam Ali sent Ibn Abbas (ra) to the people (Ahl Narhawan) to use persuasive arguments to give them evidence from the Qur’an that arbitration was the correct thing to do?! (See note G)
1) Now, the story of Ibn Abbas (ra) debating the companions that went to Narhawan is a concocted fiction.
Or,
2) The idea that the Ahl Narhawan are pro arbitration is a flat lie!
You can’t have it both ways.
Why would you need to send someone to convince people of the correctness of an action if they were for it to begin with?
Things that make you go hmm.
Thank Allah (swt) that the you the reader are not a gullible individual. Allah (swt) has given you the ability to think and process information.
So either the story of Ibn Abbas (ra) debating the companions that went to Narhawan is true, (which proves beyond doubt that they were against arbitration)
Or, Someone concocted this whole story which brings us to the question of motive.
Why would someone contrive this story?
Which faction does it benefit?
Proof that people at the time did not consider Ali to be the divinely appointed Imam.
Mu’awiya replied: “And I, on my part, invite your fellow (‘Ali) to surrender to me those who killed ‘Uthman so that I may kill them, then he steps down so that the Shura may be held anew.”
Source: (Al-Baladhariy Al-Ansab Vol. 3, p. 84.)
In fact, the words of Mu’awiya are enough to prove that Caliph/Imam is appointed through a Shura and that there is no text neither in the Qur’-an’an nor in the Prophetic traditions that ‘Ali or any other person would succeed the Blessed Prophet (saw). Otherwise Imam Ali himself and his followers would respond to Mu’awiya that Caliph/Imam is not appointed through a Shura, for Allah and His Messenger have already appointed him.
Does it make sense that neither Ibn Abbas (ra) nor Imam Ali appealed to supposed verses from the Qur’an or traditions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that mandated that Imam Ali was some how divinely appointed or even explicitly appointed after the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
Before his death Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) castigates Imam Ali & The Prophecy that Ammar Bin Yasir will be killed by the rebels.
Before his death Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) castigates Imam Ali
When Ali showed that he did that, Ammar Bin Yasir stood and said: O Amir al-Mu’minin! ibn Sufyan brought it out white to you(the arbitration papers). Whoever condones it dies, and whoever denies it reigns. So, what is with you O Abu Hassan! You made us doubt our religion! Regressed us back after the killing of 100s and thousands from them and from us? Shouldn’t this have happened before the sword? Before Talhah, Zubair and Aisha they invited you to this very thing and you rejected it! You claimed you have more right, and that those opposed us are misguided and their blood is halal as well as informing us that Allah has ruled in this situation. So if those people are Mushriks disbelievers, then we shouldn’t take the sword away from them their necks until they return to the command of Allah. And if they were people of Fitnah then we shouldn’t take the sword away from their necks until there is no Fitnah and the religion is for Allah. “Fight them until there is no more fitnah (subversion) and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. ” (Qur’an 2:193) By Allah they didn’t submit, nor given the Jiziyah nor have they returned to the command of Allah, nor did the fitna get extinguished. Ali said: By Allah I am averse to this matter.
The murder of Ammar bin Yasir (ra)
He said: So when Ali replied to Ammar that he is opposed to the issue, and that it’s not from his opinion. Ammar called, “Oh people is there anyone going to the paradise!?” “Oh people is there anyone going to the paradise!?” Five hundred people answered the call of Ammar and they went with and rushed into the flanks of Mu’awiya’s forces. Among them were Abu Al Haitham and Khuzaimah Bin Thabit(the one with two testimonies). So Ammar called for water. A servant came to him with (leban) milk. When he saw it he said “Allahu Akbar!” I heard The Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “The last provision for you is milk!” Then Ammar said: “Today I meet the loved ones, Muhammed and his party, then Ammar and his companions went forth into battle. During the fray two people met him and killed him. They went forth to Mu’awiya with his head each saying”” I killed him” -(Ammar bin Yasir).
Amr Bin Al As said to them: “By Allah you are just arguing for hell fire I heard The Messenger of Allah say: Ammar will be killed by the transgressing group!” Mu’awiya replied to Amr: “May Allah make you ugly as an old man!” “You are still sticking with what you said, that we killed him?” “Rather the ones that killed him are the ones who brought him here!”. Then Mu’awiya looked at the people of Sham and said: “Are we the transgressing group?” “The one that seeks revenge for Uthman?” When Ammar got killed the people were uneasy. Some of the people of banners abandon their positions. The people of Sham ran, and that was late in the evening. Some of the people dispersed away from Ali as well. Uday Bin Hatim said: “By Allah O Amir al-Mu’minin, this incident didn’t leave a deen for us or them, So fight until Allah opens for us now victory. Fight while we still have the numbers!” Ali inquired: “Ammar Bin Yasir was killed?” Uday Bin Hatim replied: “Yes.” Ali began to cry and said: “May Allah have mercy on you O Ammar!” “Bliss is obligated for him.” “How much do you want Ammar to live when he approached 90 years of age.”
Source: (Al-Imamah Wal Siyasah pg. 145 by ibn Qutayba al-Dīnawarī )
Prima Qur’an comments: When I read this I get chills. You can see the blood of Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) crying out for justice. In other words, Ammar is pleading with Imam Ali, “Do not let this all be in vein!” The spilling of the blood of the believers is not a light matter at all. “Why are you causing these doubts among us and why is your policy now different than it was when you faced Talha, Zubair and Aisha(ra)?”
The defiant plunge into battle by an aging Ammar bin Yasir (ra) and his companions. The way that Mu’awiya, the rebel tried to twist the prophecy of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Also notice that the above text mentions: Khuzaimah Bin Thabit (ra) the one with the two testimonies. The one whom when Abu Bakr (ra) compiling the mushaf had the following verses with him.
“There certainly has come to you a messenger from among yourselves. He is concerned by your suffering, anxious for your well-being, and gracious and merciful to the believers. But if they turn away, then say, “Allah is sufficient for me. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. In Him I put my trust. And He is the Lord of the Mighty Throne.” (Qur’an 9:128-129)
Indeed, how very sad when we think about what befell those early companions.
The Prophecy that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) will be killed by the rebellious group.
Abu Sa`id Khudri reported:
One who is better than I informed me, that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said to `Ammar as he was digging the ditch (on the occasion of the Battle of the Ditch) wiping over his head: O son of Summayya, you will be involved in trouble and a group of the rebels would kill you.
Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2915a)
Narrated `Ikrima:
that Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2812)
“Fight the transgressing group (tabghi) until they are willing to submit to the rule of Allah.” (Qur’an 49:9)
“Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah.”
“Whoever condones it dies, and whoever denies it reigns. So, what is with you O Abu Hassan! (Imam Ali) You made us doubt our religion!
The Treachery of Al-Ash’ath bin Qais & His Betrayal of Imam Ali
The Call for Arbitration.
After the night of clamour, the two armies found themselves in such a state that they could not withstand any more fighting. Al Ash’ath bin Qais, the leader of Kindah, addressed his companions after the night of clamour and said:
“O Muslims, you have seen what happened yesterday and how many of the Arabs were killed. By Allah, I have reached old age as Allah willed, and I have never seen anything like this. Let those who are present tell those who were absent. If we resume fighting tomorrow, that will be the end of the Arabs, and there will be no one left to protect what is sacred. By Allah, I am not saying this for fear of fighting, but I am an old man, and I fear that there will be no one to protect the women and children if we all die tomorrow. O Allah, You know that my intention is to do what is best for my people and my co-religionists, and I have not fallen short.”
Source: (Waq’at Siffin Nasr bin Muzahim Munqari p. 479)
The loyalist of Imam Ali wanted to press the attack but Al-Ash’ath Bin Qais hatched his plans.
Uday Bin Hatem came and said: “O Amir al-Mu’minin If the people of falsehood do not stand by the people of truth, then no group from us would be harmed without a group of them getting harmed equally, and all are hurt, but we are better lasting compared to them.” The people became impatient and nothing comes after impatience except what you like, so hasten to the people. Al-Ashtar An-Nakhmi said: “O Amir al-Mu’minin, Mu’awiya doesn’t have a successor from his men, while you by the grace of Allah have a successor, If he had men like you he wouldn’t have your patience nor vision, so hit the iron with iron, and seek help from Allah the praised!”
Then Amr Bin Al-Hamq stood and said: “O Amir al-Mu’minin, By Allah we wouldn’t answer you, nor would we support your extravagance in falsehood, we won’t answer anyone but Allah, and we seek nothing but truth, and if someone other than you invited us to what you are inviting us to, the sea would become tough from it, and talking about it would have been elongated, and truth has reached its dead end, and we do not share the same opinion.”
Al-Ash’ath Bin Qais stood in anger saying: “O Amir al-Mu’minin, we are today to you as we were yesterday, the end of our matter is not like its beginning, and there is no one from the people that has more sympathy to the people of Iraq from us, nor more acute to the people of the Levant from us, so answer the people by the book of Allah, for you are more deserving of it from them, and the people liked staying and hated fighting.”
Ali said: “This is something to be considered.”
Source: (Waqat Siffin -Nasr bin Muzahim Al Munqari pg. 482)
Prima Qur’an comments: It is clear that many people wanted Imam Ali to press the attack. Those are the people of the right side. However, who is the one who is demanding that Imam Ali answer the army of Mu’awiya call for arbitration. He even twist with his tongue ‘for you are more deserving of it from them.’ He is none other than Al-Ash’ath Bin Qais!
And what is the response of the commander of the faithful? “This is something to be considered!”
In other words the advise of Al-Ash’ath Bin Qais is the one who’s advice will be considered! Not the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who later left the army and went to Nahrawan! They are not being consulted!
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais advocates for a Yemeni.
Nasr, from Amr Bin Shamr, from Jaber, that Abu Jafer Muhammed Bin Ali related to us that when the people wanted Ali to put two arbitrators, Ali said: “Mu’awiya wouldn’t put in this someone that he trusts more than Amr Bin Al-As, and nobody can defeat a Qurashi except for someone like him. So I recommend Abdullah Bin Abbas to cast him on them. For Amr doesn’t tie a knot except that Abdullah can untie it, and Amr doesn’t untie a knot except that Abdullah ties it, and Amr doesn’t decide something except that Abdullah nullifies it, and Amr doesn’t cancel something except that Abdullah affirms it.”
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais said: No! By Allah no two Mudaries arbitrate until the hour is established, rather make him a man from Yemen as they chose a man from Mudar, Ali said: I fear that your Yemeni gets tricked; as Amr has nothing to do with Allah if he had desire in something, Al-Ash’ath bin Qais said: “By Allah, them arbitrating with what we dislike while one of them is Yemeni is better for us than us liking some of their arbitration while they are Mudaries.” ( Al-Shabi mentioned something similar.)
Source: (Waqat Siffin -Nasr bin Muzahim Al Munqari pg. 500)
Prima Qur’an comments:
“We want one from Yemen!” So who is the one to put Abu Musa al-Ash’ari forward?
This Abu Musa al-Ash’ari is not strong in supporting Imam Ali like those companions who
warned and warned against this treachery of arbitration altogether. He, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari is not loving Imam Ali like Amr ibn Al-As is loving Mu’awiya ibn Sufyan. So this is one big failures of Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib.
When he listened to Al-Ash’ath bin Qais. Anyone can see at this point the leadership of Imam Ali is broken. As was said before how can you be the commander of the faithful when you are
commanded by the disobedient?
Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari is chosen to represent Imam Ali.
He said: Al-Ahnaf Bin Qais At-Tamimi came and said: “O Amir al-Mu’minin, you threw in a shrewd man, the one who fought Allah and his Messenger at the start of Islam, and I tested this man -meaning Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari, And I knew his good and bad, so I found him weak with the blade, close in depth. But no one is good for those people except someone who gets close to them until he reaches their hands, and no one gets far from them until he becomes like a star to them. So if you want to make me an arbitrator then make me, and if you refuse to do so then make me a second or third one, as there is no knot except that I loosen it, And he wont untie a knot except that I re-knot it and knot one that is more intense than it.” So he (Al-Ahnaf Bin Qais At-Tamimi) presented this to the people and they refused, they said: “He can’t be anyone but Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari.”
Source: (Waqat Siffin -Nasr bin Muzahim Al Munqari pg. 501)
Prima Qur’an comments: The loyalist and people who are strong with Imam Ali like Al Ahnaf Bin Qais At-Timimi (ra) would advice very strongly against Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari. It was known among the loyalist that Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari is very weak.
Shi’a are aware of the treachery of Al-Ash’ath bin Qais.
In fact, something that the Shi’a often quote but seem not to reflect upon the implications of
is the following:
In fact, they quote a Sunni historical source as a provocative claim about Abu Bakr (ra) in regards to the house of Fatima (ra). Yet these same Shi’a do not ponder the implications of someone so hated by Abu Bakr (ra) being among one the confidents of Imam Ali!
“Yes, I am not upset for anything in this world, except three things I have done and I wish I had not done them and three things I have not done and I wish I had done them and three things I wish I had asked the Prophet (saw). But what I wish I had not done, first is that I wish I had not invaded the house of Fatima even if they closed it to me for war, second is that I wish I had not burned Fuja’a Sullami and instead I either had killed or released him. The third is that I wish on the Day of Saqifa, I had left the caliphate on either of these two men ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubayda that one of them would become the caliph and I would become his minister.
But the three things I did not do and wish I had: the first is that when Al-Ash’ath bin Qais was brought to me in captivity, I wish I had struck his neck, because I suspect he will enforce evil wherever he finds it; and the other one is that I wish when I sent Khalid Bin Waleed to the battle of the apostates I had remained at Zil Qissah so that I could help the army if they were defeated; and the third one, I wish that when I delegated Khalid to Sham I had sent Omar to Iraq so that I had opened my two hands in the cause of Allah.
Then he opened his hands and added:
I wish I had asked the Messenger of Allah (saw)that to whom the caliphate belonged, so that nobody would go to war on it; and I wish I had asked him did Ansar have any right in this matter; and I wish I had asked him if the the brother’s daughter and the father’s sister would inherit anything [from the deceased], because I’m not sure about it.
Source: (Târîkh Tabarî, v 3 p 429 ; Târîkh Ya’qûbî, v 2 p 137)
Many became renegades during the rule of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (ra) then they returned to Islam, however Abu Bakr(ra) regretted -after a while- not killing Al-Ash’ath bin Qais and said: (If only when I brought Al-Ash’ath bin Qais that I strike his neck, as I imagine that he doesn’t find an evil or fitna except that he jumps to support it and helped it.).
Possibly what provoked Al-Ash’ath bin Qais against Imam Ali is that Imam Ali isolated Al-Ash’ath bin Qais from Azarbijan, after Uthman gave him governance in it.
And from what Imam Ali said to him in the message to isolate him: (However what decieved you is Allah dictating to you, so you are still eating from his sustainance, enjoying his blessings and your goodness goes during your lifetime, so come and carry what is before you from treasures and do not make for yourself a path)
And this is what pushed Al-Ash’ath bin Qais to message Mu’awiya as narrated, (And by that Al-Ash’ath bin Qais starts his life with Imam Ali on an unfriendly footing to start with. Certainly not a loyal one. So, Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, h!e was looking for his calamities, and looking for opportunities to take revenge and he did)
And after Siffin, we see for Al-Ash’ath bin Qais an effective role and a noticeable presence, in that:
1- His persistence to stop the battle.
2- His persistence to choosing Abu Musa
3- Presenting the arbitration paper on the tribes to Imam Ali’s army
4- Persisting on Imam Ali to withdraw from his promise to the people of Harawra’ to not proceed with Abu Musa to Azruh.
Source: (Al-Khawarij Wal Haqiqatul Gha’ibah -(The Khawarij and the lost truth) by Shaykh Naser As-Sabe’i Chapter one: (The manifestation of Khawarij and outlining their most important opinions and groups page 175)
Prima Qur’an comments:
I feel there is a blindness in the hearts of those who have an emotional attachment to Imam Ali.
There are two points of consideration here. If you were looking at this from the perspective of being hypervigilant and alert there are two problems with Al-Ash’ath bin Qais that Imam Ali erred in choosing this man as a flag bearer for his army.
- Imam Ali stripped Al-Ash’ath bin Qais from his post in Azerbaijan. People are human and most humans do not like being stripped from any position of power. You don’t think in your heart Al-Ash’ath bin Qais feels any kind of way about this? It is like Imam Ali stripped him of his post in Azerbaijan so he turn he strips Imam Ali from the Imamate!
- Al-Ash’ath bin Qais was one of those people who became apostate from Islam in the time of Abu Bakr (ra) and than came back to Islam. I know that we should be willing to forgive people for past indiscretions. Yet, entrusting someone who has shown past instability as a flag bearer of Islam may have been misplaced.
Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib and Mu’awiya ibn Sufyan have hundreds and thousands of Muslims killed over a mystery?
The Million dollar question for the sincere truth seekers.
So on the one hand we have Shi’a & Sunni who claim that Imam Ali & Mu’awiya wanted to settle the matter by the Qur’an & Sunnah. However, they are not prepared to flesh out for us exactly what that entails.
On the other hand you have the sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them all) the Muhakkima with penetrating insights who already saws the signals (as the teacher mentioned in his reply) . They know the verdict of Allah (swt) in Qur’an (Qur’an 49:9) and were not interested in playing anymore games of cat and mouse.
Dear Ummah, May Allah (swt) open your eyes wide to what has happened.
You mean to tell us that Mu’awiya and Imam Ali went to war over a matter that is unclear? Imam Ali rallied people to fight fellow Muslims over matters that are unclear, and still needed to be discussed and deliberated upon? Mu’awiya did the same? Human life is so cheap?
The idea that the arbitration was to make matters clear that were not clear before is an absolute joke! The blood of the believers is something trivial? It is an insult to the intelligence of thinking people.
The point of this article is to set the historical narrative straight. Our school is one of cooperation with the believers. Our school is one of unification against the adversaries of Islam. The author (Prima-Qur’an), myself wrote this to you while keeping in mind the command of Allah (swt).
“And do not mix truth with an error or knowingly hide the truth.” (Qur’an 2:42)
May Allah guide the Ummah. May Allah forgive the Ummah.
For further reading:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
G)
May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.
May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.
Prima Quran 
I have a simple question. How do you explain the fact that the Ibadi sect, which you have correctly traced back to its roots in the early Khawarij who split off the the mainstream Jama’ah of the Muslims that was under allegiance to Mawla Ali كرم الله وجهه has never been widely accepted in the Ummah. Surely, if the Ibadi sect is the rightly guided one then Allah Most High would have favored it over the others and caused it to have the most widespread acceptance in the Ummah? Instead, till this day, it is an obscure sect which most people have barely even heard of. One would have to go out of their way, as I have, to even learn basic information about them or interact with its adherents. But from studying the Holy Quran and Sunnah we learn that this Din is destined to become widespread.
If we look at the Shi’ites, the Kharijites, the Mu’tazilites or other sects that broke off from the mainstream Jama’ah of the Muslims we see a common denominator which is that these factions have always directed their polemics internally within the Ummah, whereas the mainstream Muslims are the ones who are engaging the rest of the world calling them to Islam and being associated with Islam by the rest of the world.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said يَدُ اللَّهِ مَعَ الْجَمَاعَةِ “Allah’s Hand is with the Jama’ah” and إِنَّ أُمَّتِي لَنْ تَجْتَمِعَ عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ “My Ummah will not be gathered upon misguidance”
This is why for us Sunni Muslims the institution of Ijma has authority in this Religion, while it is rejected by all the other sects like Shi’ites, Kharijites, Mu’tazilites etc. The narrative of those sects is that only a tiny fraction of the Ummah is rightly guided but the vast majority has somehow gone astray. Then why does Allah says this is the best Ummah in the Quran?
I have a simple question. How do you explain the fact that the Ibadi sect, which you have correctly traced back to its roots in the early Khawarij who split off the the mainstream Jama’ah of the Muslims that was under allegiance to Mawla Ali كرم الله وجهه has never been widely accepted in the Ummah. Surely, if the Ibadi sect is the rightly guided one then Allah Most High would have favored it over the others and caused it to have the most widespread acceptance in the Ummah? Instead, till this day, it is an obscure sect which most people have barely even heard of. One would have to go out of their way, as I have, to even learn basic information about them or interact with its adherents. But from studying the Holy Quran and Sunnah we learn that this Din is destined to become widespread.
So my advise to you Abdul Khadir is to spend some time to immerse yourself in your new found understanding of Islam. Take it all in and sit with teachers of your school. The reason being is that and I do mean this respectfully you make allot of very careless mistakes. Now you are going to either take this to heart and take this on board or your ego will getin the way. I pray that Allah guides you towards self reflection. You also just make assertions that are based upon poor understanding like you did with our school on kufr, or just make these sweeping statements that one wonders where you are getting this from?
For example:
“ How do you explain the fact that the Ibadi sect, which you have correctly traced back to its roots in the early Khawarij who split off the the mainstream Jama’ah of the Muslims.”
You will not find in ANY of the post on this blog any such thing. You would have to use some basic common sense that if I thought this school was some how an offshoot of something that was original and true I wouldn’t follow it. Maybe, think about what you are saying before you post it yes?
“Surely, if the Ibadi sect is the rightly guided one then Allah Most High would have favored it over the others and caused it to have the most widespread acceptance in the Ummah? Instead, till this day, it is an obscure sect which most people have barely even heard of. One would have to go out of their way, as I have, to even learn basic information about them or interact with its adherents. But from studying the Holy Quran and Sunnah we learn that this Din is destined to become widespread.”
The truth is not a democracy. You are here so maybe Allah (swt) wills for you guidance. Did you know there are vast swathes of this planet until today in this modern age that haven’t heard about Islam or have not the slightest clue. Ignorance is not one the three things excused by the pen.
Next, the Qur’an does not even remotely suggest that the majority of people will be upon the truth. It is quite the opposite.
Lastly, human history is not done. Things change with the ebb and flow of time. Once upon a time it was “America who?” And now it’s like “Ah America!”
If we look at the Shi’ites, the Kharijites, the Mu’tazilites or other sects that broke off from the mainstream Jama’ah of the Muslims we see a common denominator which is that these factions have always directed their polemics internally within the Ummah, whereas the mainstream Muslims are the ones who are engaging the rest of the world calling them to Islam and being associated with Islam by the rest of the world.
What do I have to say to this other than you must be new in town? I mean I had a bit of a chuckle reading this. If you don’t think that (I am assuming based on the little information you provided that you choose what is known as the Salafi strand) but than you will not name me a single scholar from among them that says Jesus died on ‘the Cross’. They will definitely say you are upon misguidance. You are not going to go to Shaykh Fawzan with “But the Ismaili say..” oh no Mohamed Khadir, not at all.
My site has what your site has. There are refutations of Christians and deviants. Our school engages with Christians in East Africa, one of the brothers who runs a home or Orphans , ex-salafi, he was captured by the Holy Spirit Army and tortured. Depending on what sub-strata of Salafi you might be (IF that is what you are claiming) you will see nothing but raads (refutations of other Muslim groups) all the time….all…….the……time. You also do not see from Madhkalis support for Palestine.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said يَدُ اللَّهِ مَعَ الْجَمَاعَةِ “Allah’s Hand is with the Jama’ah” and إِنَّ أُمَّتِي لَنْ تَجْتَمِعَ عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ “My Ummah will not be gathered upon misguidance”
“Yes My ummah will not gather upon misguidance.” so since the Ummah is not in agreement on any particular issue, really, than it remains to be seen. Allah (swt) will sort us out on the day of judgement.
This is why for us Sunni Muslims the institution of Ijma has authority in this Religion, while it is rejected by all the other sects like Shi’ites, Kharijites, Mu’tazilites etc. The narrative of those sects is that only a tiny fraction of the Ummah is rightly guided but the vast majority has somehow gone astray. Then why does Allah says this is the best Ummah in the Quran?
“Then why does Allah says this is the best Ummah in the Quran?” Allah (swt) does not say that THIS (2024) is the best ummah. He mentioned in a specific context to THOSE who were present in the life of the Blessed Messenger (saw). He also put conditionals on why they were the best ummah. We will also be IF we meet those criteria.
Again, you are knew in town you just left the Qadiani you think you are upon the correct understanding you got all this vigor, I get it. But this ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ is one big happy family erm not so.
You have the tabligih jamaat (deoband) that takfir the brevli, and the brelvi that takfir them in return. You have different tariqah among the brelvi and some do tafkir the others. You have the Muslim brotherhood who gets takfired by Salafis, you get different Salafi groups that takfir each other. Are Ashari and Maturidi part of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah-depends on who you ask. Are the Athari part of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah depends upon who you ask.
You see you never find the mention in the Qur’an the terminology ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ just as you will never find a hadith of the Blessed Prophet (saw) saying that the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah are the one of the 73 destined to heaven.
Just as you will not find the terms, Ibadi, Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqamah, Imami Shi’a, Mu’tazila etc. These just like Ahl Sunnah, are all terminologies that deal with the political and religious divisions that happened among the Muslim Ummah.
Take some time to take it all in. It can be overwhelming. Most importantly focus on your relationship with Allah (you, me , all of us)
Have a good day Mohamed Khader
a) Ibadi is the earliest fiqh/aqeeda madhab existent in Islam timeline-wise. Which would logically make it the nearest to original Islam (if you go by the idea it’s not original true form Islam in the first place) in comparison to Sunnism or Shi’ism. Fact. Who has broken off whom then?
Don’t even think about it from the Ibadi perspective or the Sunni perspective. Think about it from a neutral, non-sectarian perspective without a clear bias.
b) What’s ijma? Is it when 100% of scholars agree? 90%? 80%? 50% + 1 scholar? What’s the threshold? And why is the particular figure? What hadith does it come from? Or it’s arbitrary and dependent on your whims?
In reality, your ijma doesn’t worth much. You still can’t agree as to whether slavery is abolished or not (For one, Saleh al-Fawzan takfirs anyone who says it’s abolished, lol). Or as to whether suicide bombings for the sake of Islam are OK.
You argue on everything and about everything ecept the inter-Sahaba disputes which is a big no-go (everyone was right, no one was wrong, just sweep it under the rug to “escape fitna” or something). Everything else from the attributes of Allah عز وجل to the most trivial details of daily fiqh.
Your ijma is as illusionary as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s tinpot Caliphate or imam Mahdi’s sacred basement.
And yes. Ibadis DO have ijma as a concept too.
c) You cited a hadith with some vague meaning as a daleel? أوهن من بيت العنكبوت.
But it’s possible to cite from a clearer hadith without ambiguity, right from Bukhari, where Allah سبحانه وتعالى Himself says 999 people out of 1000 are destined to Hell:
يَقُولُ اللَّهُ يَا آدَمُ. فَيَقُولُ لَبَّيْكَ وَسَعْدَيْكَ وَالْخَيْرُ فِي يَدَيْكَ. قَالَ يَقُولُ أَخْرِجْ بَعْثَ النَّارِ. قَالَ وَمَا بَعْثُ النَّارِ قَالَ مِنْ كُلِّ أَلْفٍ تِسْعَمِائَةٍ وَتِسْعَةً وَتِسْعِينَ
Very weird, don’t you find? The ummah won’t be gathered on misguidance, yet the disproportionate amount goes to Hell (with the current Earth population of ~8 billion, expect some 8 million enter jannah. What about your 1.6 billion average Sunni brothers, then?). How so? Maybe الفرقة الناجية and الطائفة المنصورة might be someone else? Someone other than أهل السنة? Have you even remotely considered such a possibility, that might not be upon haqq?
Once again, just try to think about it with your head (rather than reading all those random ردود على شبهات).
Jazak’Allahu khayran brother Ilyas. Always great to read your comments. May Allah (swt) continue to bless you and have a great week ahead.
Brother Ilyas with his insightful comments as usual mashaAllah.
Hi there… Hope Allah help us find truth.
1)Why do you guys automaticly assume Ali is the legitimate caliph when his election was forced by uthman killers(this is a Sunni problem too and i bet nobody in times of the ummayyads would tell you this).Do you guys really believe Ali election was legit?(İt is stupid for sunnis to recognise Ali as caliph too while fully hating on killers of Uthman as it feels two faced and legitimising killers)
2)Muawiya not recognising hım is in his view justified i believe(rebels kill your kin they elect a New guy the New guy fights sahabas(Talha aisha zubayr) and this New guy who had killers in his army tells you to bend your knee while not punishing killers. What do you guys expect muawiya to do?(İ am not talkin about muawiya actions of his entire life. But his position feels understandable)
3)Also primary sahaba like Aisha/Talha/zubayr fought for same “execute the killers ” reason at Camel. Correct me if i am wrong i remember you adding R.A to their names. Aisha repented okay. What is difference you guys give Talha zubayr paşa while muawiya gets hated for fighting for same reasons….
“Hi there… Hope Allah help us find truth.”
Howdy partner! Indeed May Allah (swt) guide those who are looking for the truth to the truth!
“1)Why do you guys automaticly assume Ali is the legitimate caliph when his election was forced by uthman killers(this is a Sunni problem too and i bet nobody in times of the ummayyads would tell you this).Do you guys really believe Ali election was legit?(İt is stupid for sunnis to recognise Ali as caliph too while fully hating on killers of Uthman as it feels two faced and legitimising killers)”
Response: We don’t assume anything. The Ansar and the Muhajirin gave bayyah to Imam Ali. So this question should be directed at them. Again, we don’t believe that Uthman was murdered. He certainly was not murdered by some secret clan of ninjas or delta force. He was removed forcefully by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw). Uthman was an unjust ruler that is why he was killed (not murdered).
Perhaps you have not read out position on this here:
“2)Muawiya not recognising hım is in his view justified i believe(rebels kill your kin they elect a New guy the New guy fights sahabas(Talha aisha zubayr) and this New guy who had killers in his army tells you to bend your knee while not punishing killers. What do you guys expect muawiya to do?(İ am not talkin about muawiya actions of his entire life. But his position feels understandable)”
Response: Uthman was an unjust ruler and that is why the companions of the Prophet (saw) removed him by force. When Muawiya was in charge did he end up spending time and resources to find these so called “murderers?” No, he didn’t. He introduced the “Biting Kingdoms” that the Blessed Prophet (saw) foretold about. He did not act upon shura and selected Yazid his son. What ever evil or bid’a you or anyone else imagine the Ansar and the Muhajirin did, Muawiya certainly excelled this in selecting his own son and introducing hereditary kingdoms.
3)Also primary sahaba like Aisha/Talha/zubayr fought for same “execute the killers ” reason at Camel. Correct me if i am wrong i remember you adding R.A to their names. Aisha repented okay. What is difference you guys give Talha zubayr paşa while muawiya gets hated for fighting for same reasons….
Response: I don’t believe you will find me adding “RA” after the names of Talha and Zubayr. They rebelled against a legitimate ruler and we disown them for committing this major sin. Aisha (ra) yes she repented, Al hamdulillah.
You want to know what is interesting Fatih Cetin?
What’s highly interesting is if you take these different conflicts (Jamal, Siffin, Nahrawan) and write three columns with three different categories and you list each side and put the names of those who said to be major companions and minor companions and successors, how many names will be listed? Will we get 10 names? 100 names?
Yet, we are told hundreds and thousands fought. Yet we keep seeing ONLY certain names pop up again and again. What happened? Did the ink become dry? Did the memory fade and become weak?
Then of course when it comes to Nahrawan, the narrative gives us one name Imam Ar Rasibi(ra), but they can’t give us anymore names? Suddenly the ink became dry and the memory became faded.
Why is this?
People may not like what we say, but we aren’t here to play politics or favourites. We simply tell it as it is. No sugar on top. Uthman was not murdered he was justly killed by the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw). People may not like it or have some fantasy about everyone being angels and saints and that is simply not the case.
What you raise are the points of the Umayyad Sunnis. Which insh’Allah I plan to write about in the near future. There is a civil-war coming among Sunni Muslims, the seeds are planted in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and from the looks of it even in Turkey.
The Sunni will have a fight about legacy they want to champion. The Umayyad Sunni worldview in which there is very little room for Imam Ali,
or the Abbasid Sunni worldview which tried to rehabilitate the image of Imam Ali.