“As for those who struggle in Our cause, We will surely guide them along Our Ways. And Allah is certainly with the good-doers.” (Qur’an 29:69)
﷽
One of the searchers for truth among the Shi’i has had some questions to the Ibadi in regard to the matters of Siffin and Nahrawan.
Question: Why did the people of Nahrawan not continue fighting if Ali had stopped fighting?
Answer: It is not permissible to continue the fighting while they are without an imam, for fear that they will die a death of ignorance. They must be under the banner of an Imam. So, a new imam should have been appointed. It is not reasonable to appoint an imam while they are at war. They must rest a little and agree on a specific person away from the battle front.
The people of Nahrawan were angry with him because the consensus of the nation is that he (Ali) is the legitimate caliph and those who rebelled against him are rebels according to the text of the Qur’an and must be fought. But his pledge of allegiance was broken, so how could Imam Ali be a caliph when he submitted to the rule and accepted the two arbitrations, and how could they pledge allegiance to him as caliph when he was not of their opinion and did not join them?
Question: Why didn’t the people of Nahrawan after electing Abdullah ibn Wahb Al-Rasibi press the attack against Mu’awiya and his forces?
Answer: How do we know if the people of Nahrawan wanted to fight Mu’awiya?
Did Ali give them a chance to do as such? He surprised them with his army and caused their deaths through the treachery of al-Ash’ath himself, whom had forced (Ali) into arbitration. Likewise, the people of Nahrawan are innocent because they were never followers of Mu’awiya, otherwise they would not have refused to pledge allegiance to Mu’awiya and they were fought against the Umayyad state. This is well known from history.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it. And whatever he forbids you from, leave it. And fear Allah. Surely Allah is severe in punishment.” (Qur’an 59:7)
“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His messengers. “We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” And they say, “We hear and obey. Your forgiveness, our Lord! And to You is the final return.” (Qur’an 2:285)
﷽
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah:
Ibn `Abbas said, “When the ailment of the Prophet (saw) became worse, he said, ‘Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.’ But `Umar said, ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah’s Book with us and that is sufficient for us.’ But the companions of the Prophet (saw) differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet (saw) said to them, ‘Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” Ibn `Abbas came out saying, “It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Messenger (saw) was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Note: It is apparent from this Hadith that Ibn `Abbas had witnessed the event and came out saying this statement. The truth is not so, for Ibn `Abbas used to say this statement on narrating the Hadith and he had not witnessed the event personally. See Fath Al-Bari Vol. 1, p.220 footnote.) (See Hadith No. 228, Vol. 4).
The first problem is that the hadith portrays the Prophet (saw) as someone literate enough to write something lengthy. This goes against the ‘ijma that it is well known that the Blessed Prophet (saw) was unlettered.
The second problem is that if it was something short, why couldn’t he have simply said it?
The third problem is as follows. Everyone would agree that by writing down he meant for others to transcribe his words. The Blessed Prophet (saw) had many more days ahead of him. Why not simply ask the people to reconvene and write down what he willed?
For example:
A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) in his (last) illness asked me to call Abu Bakr, her father, and her brother too, so that he might write a document, for he feared that someone else might be desirous (of succeeding him) and that some claimant may say: “I have better claim to it, whereas Allah and the Faithful do not substantiate the claim of anyone but that of Abu Bakr.”
The fourth problem is that the Prophet (saw) said to them, :Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” So, if he had the strength to make this statement surely he could have said what he needed to say, presuming it was short and to the point.
The fifth problem is that the hadith speaks ill of Allah (swt).
Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger—not intending to sin—then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:3)
Allah speaks the truth and in this case the hadith is batil (falsehood). The hadith is batil (falsehood) as indicates the faith has not been perfected.
The sixth problem is the statement attributed to the Prophet (saw) ‘Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.’ and the statement attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra): “It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Messenger (saw) was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise” have problems.
Why is it a problem? It does not preclude the possibility that everyone present there and not present there would all go astray. That would include Umar, Ali, Ibn Abbas, and whoever else was present. Without that alleged document, they were all (without exception) liable to go astray.
The seventh problem. What good is a written letter to an unlettered people?!
“It is He who sent among the unlettered [Arabs] a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom – although they were before in clear error.” (Qur’an 62:2)
We know that the Qur’an was transmitted orally. So what good does some document on a piece of paper with few witnesses do for a population that is mostly illiterate?
The eighth problem is that this is a strong argument for Christian missionaries or anyone else under the sun that Muslims do not have complete guidance.
The ninth problem is that it makes the Prophet (saw) as someone who did not submit to Allah (swt).
“O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, for if you fail to do that, you have not fulfilled the task of His messengership. Allah will certainly protect you from the evil of men. Surely Allah will not guide the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 5:67)
So this is an admission that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not submit to Allah (swt) fully.
Aisha (ra), a member of the household of the Blessed Prophet (saw) should know if there was anything pressing. She crushes such satanic innuendo with the following:
“She said: He who presumes that the Messenger of Allah saw) concealed anything from the Book of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says: “O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” (Al-Qur’an, Surat al-Ma’idah, 5:67).
The tenth problem is makes the Blessed Prophet (saw) as someone who wasn’t responsible or thinking carefully about his duties and role as a Messenger to mankind. If you have something so important to say, you do not wait until you are feeble and meek.
The eleventh problem is that if what is given was to be a matter of creed, we cannot take our creed upon the ahad. The lone narrator reports.
There are more that a well-trained eye can spot.
The issue with the sanad.
Narrated Yahya ibn Sulaiman: Ibn Wahb told me: Yunus informed me, from Ibn Shihab, from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abdullah, from Ibn ‘Abbas, who said:
The wording used by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhrī is: “عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ” — meaning “‘an” (from/on the authority of) , not “haddathanā” (he narrated to us) or “sami’tu” (I heard).
Why This Matters
Form
Meaning
Implication for Authenticity
haddathanā / akhbaranā
Explicit confirmation that the narrator heard directly from his teacher.
The transmission is muttaṣil (connected) and can be accepted if the narrators are trustworthy.
‘an (عن)
Ambiguous; could mean direct hearing, but could also mean through an intermediary or even from a written source without direct audition.
If the narrator is known to be a mudallis (one who conceals), ‘an is problematic unless it is proven he heard it directly.
However, there are additional problems for Shi’i when it comes to this.
It presents the Prophet (saw) as someone who was unaware that people would prevent him from writing these things down and, it is not acceptable for a Prophet to be unaware of it.
It is a tacit admission that it was not made clear that Ali should be the leader of anyone at Ghadir Khum.
It makes our faith one of esoteric secrecy in which the truth cannot be openly proclaimed but rather revealed via secret channels to a select few. More akin to a gnostic cult than an abrahamic faith.This ultimately explains the various disputes among the shi’i in their lines of succession which we discussed here: https://primaquran.com/2026/02/28/how-the-muslim-ummah-approach-the-shia-in-the-wrong-way/
It shows that if Ali was present he was disobedient as well. Since he obviously did not obey the Prophet (saw) at that moment either.
No one in that room felt that the order of the Prophet (saw) was worth fighting and dying for.
Ultimately, for the Shi’i to rely upon such things it does not make their case look strong.
“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]” (Qur’an 3:7)
Our faith has to be built upon that which is certain and foundational. It cannot be built upon ambiguity, uncertainty or matters that are not clear.
From Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) the Mufti of Oman.
” Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (Qur’an 15:9)
﷽
First let us post what the original video clip has to say about Sayyid Ali’s presentation:
“In this video, the Sayyid responds to a questioner who asks whether the Qurʾān that is present between us today has been subject to distortion or not. Instead of going through the traditions related to whether this has indeed been the case, the Sayyid outlines some epistemological points to bear in mind when trying to evaluate this claim. He delineates general historical principles and facts that cause us to deem such an occurrence, as historians, to be extremely far-fetched. He then outlines the possible goals of a distorter and contrasts these objectives to what is found within the Qurʾānic text, whence we find that had these been the objectives of the distorters, then we would not possess certain verses and contents of the Qurʾān that we do today.” –Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7y9bstcnXM&t=1453s
We would also like to say that this explanation by Sayyid Ali is one of the best, if not the best we have seen. It answers a lot of questions that are put forward in regard to this.
There are those who claim that the Shi’i themselves make this claim. The claim of tahrif of the Qur’an. Sayyid Ali beautifully responds to these claims.
This is a short and succinct lecture, equal to about 29 minutes of your time. It is absolutely worth it.
Those Orientalists and advocates of the historical critical method are most welcome to put this in their pipes and smoke it. The Imam laid out a very cohesive and cogent argument.
We would highly recommend you listen to the whole of the presentation.
@20:04 “Pay attention with me, in the Glorious Qur’an, now if someone wants to distort, what would they want to distort? What are his objectives hind distortion? I mean, what are the possible objectives of distortion? We will mention objectives, and let’s see if they have any basis.”
@20:18 “It may be said, for example, that among the objectives of distortion: Is the removal of certain criticisms directed towards some of the Companions who ruled. I mean, those who had authority. They are all present in the Qur’an. They are found in Surat al-Tahrim, Surat al-Hujurat, which contains: {Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet} [Qur’an 49:2]“
@20:40 “And it’s mentioned about whom it was revealed. The issue of fleeing on the day of Uhud, and Hunayn, all these details are mentioned. The details of the events are mentioned. If someone wanted to distort, why would they distort? I mean, if one of the objectives of authorities was distortion, it would have been something related to them.”
@:20:58 “Those who ruled, the criticisms directed at them in the Book of Allah are present. This is a possible objective [for distortion]. Of coruse, I mention these as supporting points, not as evidence. The [main] evidence has concluded. The evidence has concluded, now we’re mentioning supporting [points].
@21:10 “The second objective is, for example, that these individuals want to remove some matters regarding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) [being portrayed in a negative light].
@21:19 “They love the Prophet, so they try. The Glorious Qur’an, the criticisms made by the polytheist against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) are present in the harshest articulation. In fact, some addresses in the Qur’anic chapters to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) that contain-where principally one may perceive some sort of harshness and severity within, for example, {And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little} [Qur’an 17:74], it’s all there.”
@21:49 “Alright? Of course, we say it’s in the sense of “I mean you, and listen O neighbor.” But the address is there.”
@22:17 “Very well. Among the objectives that are mentioned, is removing the names of Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace), from the Qur’an. I say—I say, firstly, what’s the meaning of this verse? We’re talking now as Shi’a. {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not not, then you have not conveyed His message}[Qur’an 5:67]
@22:38 “How do we interpret this? Isn’t it about Wilaya? Isn’t it about Wilaya in the last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). And Surat al-Ma’ida is amongst the last [chapters] to be revealed, if not the very last.”
@22:53 “If Wilaya was detailed in previous chapters, then what would be the meaning of: {announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord} [Qur’an 5:67]? We fundamentally believe that it’s natural for the mention of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) to not be frequent in the Qur’an.“
“This is natural. And this is what we believe. I mean, his mentioned as an Imam. I speak of his mention as an Imam. Clear? Not as a man of virtues. Otherwise if we’re speaking of virtues, then a “a quarter [of the Qur’an] is about us”. Clear?”
@23:23 “We are not speaking for that perspective. We’re speaking from the perspective of those in power. Alright? Concerning those in power, {Announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67] Now, this verse, what’s the reason for its revelation? It’s natural that the mention of Imam ‘Ali (upon him be peace) will not be frequent in the Qur’an. As for mentioning the rest of the Imams (upon them be peace), in the Qur’an.”
@23:50 “Fundamentally, we Shi’a do not believe in the necessity of believing in [all] the Imams (upon them be peace) except after the death of the previous Imam.
However the Imam later admits:
@27:25 “The thing that may be brought up is the issue of Wilaya. So it would be problematic only on the Shi’a side. But we explained that the Shi’a, when it comes to revealing all of the Imams’ [names], that is something they have deemed far-fetched. Fundamentally. It’s not something to be expected, that there would be something in the Qur’an about Imamate. And on the other hand, concerning the Commander of the Faithful (upon him be peace), we believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) proclaimed this towards the end of his life. {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67]. So in reality, naturally, if the name of the Commander of the Faithful (upon him be peace) was in the Qur’an, it would have been rare and minimal. For example, had it been the case. Up to this extent, I mean, this degree of speculation.”
@28:14 “This does not outright negate the existence of the name of Imam ‘Ali (upon him be peace). This is a speculative argument. However, I just want to say, that upon reflection on the matter, the degree of distortion will not, some people, I mean, naturally, the name of Imam Ali, had it been in the Qur’an, it would be rare, Had it been there, it would be rare. Had it been there. Clear? According to the Shi’i view. Nothing else. I’m saying this according to the Shi’i Twelver view. Alright?”
Prima Qur’an comments: First and foremost again, the overall explanation by the respected Imam was/is brilliant! It is unfortunate that some people will allow themselves to be clouded by sectarianism and not benefit by what he said.
The only part where he dropped the ball was giving his minor points (because, as he mentioned, the main case has already been established), but in regard to the minor points is concerning the mention of the ahl bayt and/or the mention of the name of Imam Ali (at the very least).
By quoting a vague reference:”Announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67] This does little to dissuade anyone from the idea that a redactor or editor wanted to remove explicit mention of the Ahl Bayt or Imam Ali as the leader of Imam of the Muslims.
The Imam was also honest and transparent enough to say:
“@22:38 “How do we interpret this? Isn’t it about Wilaya? Isn’t it about Wilaya in the last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family)
“How do we interpret this.”
“I mean, naturally, the name of Imam Ali, had it been in the Qur’an, it would be rare, Had it been there, it would be rare. Had it been there.”
He was also very objective and fair-minded when he stated:
“The thing that may be brought up is the issue of Wilaya. So it would be problematic only on the Shi’a side. But we explained that the Shi’a, when it comes to revealing all of the Imams’ [names], that is something they have deemed far-fetched
That is correct. It would only be a problem for the Shi’a side, as they are the ones who have as a theological foundation the concept of being ruled by the family of the Prophet (saw), a concept we absolutely do not find in the Qur’an at all.
So, for the Sunni or the Ibadi, this is not something we would expect to find in the Qur’an.
“If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them. But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it reverts to Allah’s command. And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable.” (Qur’an 49:9)
﷽
We felt thatthis post would be beneficial concerning an exchange that an Ex 12 Shi’a sister had with a teacher from the Ibadi school.
These are her questions and may Allah (swt) guide her to the truth.
Salaam Shaykh, I understand your point of view that the arbitration had dire and terrible consequences. I completely agree it was a terrible decision.
But I still don’t see how it violated the 49:9 ayah.
Because returning to the command of Allah (swt) could be accepting arbitration. As 4:59 says, when two parties differ, we must return it to Allah (swt) and the Messenger, i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah.
And Mua’wiya signed an agreement saying he would accept the judgement according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Whereas before Siffin, he was saying he would not accept any kind of arbitration. Even if he was lying when he signed the agreement, we must accept if someone verbally makes an oath. And Imam Ali included a clause in the agreement that said if the result of the arbitration is not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, then we return to fighting.
Which is exactly what he did. After the announcement of the result, which was not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, he went back to fighting Mua’wiya.
He asked the Muhakimma to rejoin his army, but they refused, saying he must repent first. But Imam Ali refused because he said the arbitration was not a sin, it was a bad political decision that he was forced to take because of the shura of his own army. He had warned against it, and now the result was bad. He was doing the best to fix it by returning to fighting.
And I don’t understand why the Muhakimma didn’t rejoin him because they also wanted to fight Mua’wiya.
This is the response of one of one of our teachers to the questions put forward by the sister:
Because the people of Nahrawan knew from the beginning that arbitration is wrong and is not helped by legal evidence.
This is because the followers cannot challenge the ruler in authority but can only advise him.
And they know that the people of Sham did not ask for arbitration in order to follow the Qur’an and submit to the truth, but rather to gain time. That is why they did not raise the Qur’an in arrows except when the circle of war was about to turn on them.
Rather, Imam Ali himself said that at the beginning.
Where he said, by Allah, they raised it only by deception, cunning and intrigue.
Then, if we go back to the principle of shura in Islam and the principle of appointing a caliph, how could Mu’awiyareject the authority of the caliph?
If the people rejected the authority of the caliph, what would be the situation in this nation?
And the companions who were among the people of the Levant knew the intentions of Mu’awiya and the Umayyads.
How is that?
Because they know that Mu’awiya is a tramp according to the text of the hadith of the Prophet, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him, and he and his group did not accept Islam until the conquest of Mecca.
And they converted to Islam, and they composed of their hearts.
Likewise, among them is the expulsion of the Messenger of Allah, Al-Hakam bin Al-Aas, as well as the saying of the Prophet, (saw), Allah does not satisfy his stomach.
Where he did not respond to the call of the Prophet (saw) and other events that they know about this sect, including the hadith of the group of unjust, which is that:
Ammar will be killed by the transgressor faction.
As we know, he was killed before arbitration.
All of this evidence was strongly present among the loyal believers of the people of Nahrawan.
There is no doubt that sincere believers see the light of Allah.
And all the events that followed this confirmed the sincerity and strength of the view of the people of Nahrawan.
Therefore, we will see that their position was different from Imam Ali from the beginning.
And they didn’t want to follow up on his mistake.
Nevertheless, we will find some people who are confused about the papers in this time, mistaking the people of Nahrawan and not describing them as being guided in their view and mujtahid.
However, they describe Mu’awiya and Imam Ali as diligent and mujtahid !!!
This is only due to the mixing of standards and the lack of steadfastness and equality in principles.
Prima Qur’an comments: We are quite seasoned at answering such questions. There are always some presumptions in such questions as well as gaps in the data, as you, the reader, will soon see.
Now her first line of questions are very typical of Shi’a and Sunnis, so nothing new here. But here is what you, the astute reader, will soon glean from this exchange.
The sister states:
“But I still don’t see how it violated the 49:9 ayah.”
“Because returning to the command of Allah (swt) could be accepting arbitration. As 4:59 says when two parties differ we must return it to Allah (swt) and the Messenger i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah.”
So let us take a look at the two verses that are quoted:
“If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them. But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it reverts to Allah’s command. And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable.” (Qur’an 49:9)
“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.” (Qur’an 4:59)
So far the sister’s logic seems sound right?
But here is where the objection crumbles.
So now we have the Qur’an in front of us. What is/are the verse(s) that give the solution to the conundrum?
This is where we get radio silence, not only from our respected sister (who has a 12er Shi’i background), but our Sunni friends also get their tires stuck in the mud over this question.
To add to the problem of this. If Ali and/or Mu’awiya did not think that the solution was in the Qur’an or Sunnah, it would mean that either or both of them were being pretentious. Not a good trademark for a leader.
Secondly, all Muslims believe that the Qur’an and Sunnah are the solution to all our problems. So why the wait? Like why not just solve the problem right then and there. Quote the relevant verses and be done with it?
Those sahaba, the Muhakkima they would agree. After all:
“So the judgement is with Allah.” (Qur’an 40:12)
So what do the Shi’i and Sunnis give us when we ask: What is that judgement from the Qur’an and Sunnah?
It usually looks and sounds something like this:
That is correct dear readers. Static noise.
So what became of arbitration? Intrigue, betrayal, the sword. Hussein and Karbala.
The Sunni/Shi’i narrative has something in common in that they both make Ali & Mu’awiya like people who do not have a clue.
So what about those sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them all) the Muhakkima. Do we get static from them? No!
“If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them. But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it reverts to Allah’s command. And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable.” (Qur’an 49:9)
The verse is clear. You fight UNTIL it reverts to Allah’s command. Not fight until you both decide to take a hiatus trying to figure out what the command of Allah is!
“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.” (Qur’an 4:59)
Mu’awiya should have recognized Ali as the commander of the faithful, gave the oath of allegiance. He should have waited for Ali’s verdict. If he felt the verdict was unjust, then he would bring up his grievances.
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.
So, on the one hand, we have Shi’i & Sunnis who claim that Ali & Mu’awiya wanted to settle the matter through 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 have already seen the signals (as the teacher mentioned in his reply). They knew the verdict of Allah (swt) in Qur’an (Qur’an 49:9) and were not interested in playing any more 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 Ali went to war over a matter that is unclear? 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! It is an insult to the intelligence of thinking people.
Here is another point. Ali and Mu’awiya are human beings. They can make ijtihad and their ijtihad can be wrong. Only the body of the Ummah that think that Ali cannot make errors in judgement will find this difficult to agree with.
Then we have people ascribing to Imam Ali some of the most incredulous statements.
For example: Here is an excerpt from Khaled Abou El Fadl who co-authored a book with Joshua Cohen. By Allah, we have possibly never read a more insulting portrayal of Imam Ali’s intelligence than we 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!
Then we get hadith that are either put in the mouth of Ali, and worse still put in the mouth of the Prophet (saw). In this hadith we get Ali disparaging a black man, who happens to be companion of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
‘Ali said:
Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.
Very odd way to preface a statement. As if something that follows might be incredulous.
“Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said.”
Very interesting admission:
“When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting.”
Those sahaba who opposed Ali’s decision for arbitration neither came at ‘the end of the age’ nor where they youth.
“There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought.”
But wait, there is more! We have another version of this hadith:
When Haruria (the Khawarij) set out and as he was with ‘Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) they said, “There is no command but that of Allah.” Upon this ‘Ali said: The statement is true but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). The Messenger of Allah (saw) described their characteristics and I found these characteristics in them. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat). The most hateful among the creation of Allah is one black man among them (Khawarij). One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast. When ‘Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) killed them, he said: Search (for his dead body). They searched for him, but they did not find it (his dead body). Upon this he said: Go (and search for him). By Allah, neither I have spoken a lie nor has the lie been spoken to me. ‘Ali said this twice and thrice. They then found him (the dead body) in a rain. They brought (his dead) body till they placed it before him (Hadrat ‘Ali). ‘Ubaidullah said: And, I was present at (that place) when this happened and when ‘Ali said about them. A person narrated to me from Ibn Hanain that he said: I saw that black man.
Dear reader, as we are not sure which hadith you will be directed to, we would advise you to type into Google: “Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1066.” Thus, you will have your choice of hadith to analyze.
The statement is true, but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). Another version in English reads: “A word of truth by which is intended falsehood.“
Is Ali saying that his cause is wrong? Because, that is exactly what those sahaba meant. As mentioned above. It is not an ambiguous matter like the Sunni/Shi’i have made it out to be. The verse in the Qur’an is clear.
2. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat)
So why is it they say the truth and it does not go past the throat? Or is that they recite the Qur’an, and it does not go past their throat?
3. That Ali ibn Abu Talib gets to be on record for all posterity for saying: “The most hateful among the creation of Allah is one black man among them (Khawarij). ”
Surely the following is description enough: “One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast.” ?
Which, by the way, the above hadith we can and have absolutely ripped the chains apart. However, what has gone on concerning the matn (the text) itself should be sufficient. Insh’Allah.
So let us continue with what this ex 12er Shi’i sister states:
“And Mua’wiya signed an agreement saying he would accept the judgement according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Whereas before Siffin, he was saying he would not accept any kind of arbitration. Even if he was lying when he signed the agreement, we must accept if someone verbally makes an oath. And Imam Ali included a clause in the agreement that said if the result of the arbitration is not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah then we return to fighting.”
“Which is exactly what he did. After the announcement of the result, which was not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, he went back to fighting Mua’wiya.”
So here are some things that this sister could ponder. As stated above, what is this big mystery? What is this big secret evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah that has been hidden from us for the last 1300 plus years?
“And Mua’wiya signed an agreement saying he would accept the judgement according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.”
“”Which is exactly what he did. After the announcement of the result, which was not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, he went back to fighting Mua’wiya.”
This is what we have asked Shi’i time and time again. Over and over and over again ad nauseam. What is from the Qur’an and Sunnah that Mu’awiya went against? What is the evidence the process that Ali was quoting from there that supported him? What is this 1300 year big secret?
The sister continues:
“He asked the Muhakimma to rejoin his army but they refused, saying he must repent first. But Imam Ali refused because he said the arbitration was not a sin, it was a bad political decision that he was forced to take because of the shura of his own army. He had warned against it, and now the result was bad, he was doing the best to fix by returning to fighting.”
“And I don’t understand why the Muhakimma didn’t rejoin him because they also wanted to fight Mua’wiya.”
Let us pick this a part bit by bit.
“He asked the Muhakimma to rejoin his army, but they refused, saying he must repent first.”
Response: Let us say, for the sake of argument, that Ali didn’t think he needed to repent. If he was a judicious leader and wanted these sahaba to rejoin him, why not simply repent for the sake of repentance?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah’s Messenger (saw) saying,” By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day.”
Another point on this. Whatever one may think about the hadith of Thaqalayn, Ghadir Khum, etc. it is abundantly clear that those sahaba had no idea, clue or concept of Ali being beyond approach. In fact, the matter is very similar to the following:
Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:
“When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended 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).”
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. Which is that Ali was/is/and forever will be the rightful 4th Imam of the Muslims.
So why are we expected to go hard on a woman, the mother of the believers, (ra)? But when it comes to a man, do we take the cautious approach? Doesn’t seem very consistent or chivalrous at all.
So, just like those sahaba abandoned Aisha (ra) in favour of the apparent. In a similar sense, sahaba abandoned the ijtihad of Ali in favour of the Qur’an. It is abundantly clear, as is the admission by this sister of those people asking Ali to repent, that this idea that Ali was infallible, beyond reproach, should never be questioned.
Nope! Get that out of here!
In fact, Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al Miqbal -May Allah bless and protect him. He explains about the position of Ali very clearly.
@50 seconds he says:
“Rather, they looked upon the events and clashes with what occurred in Siffin, and they built upon it a judgement. And it’s a godly judgement. And they see that Ali is alike to the people, alike to the human kind; For him it is that to others, and to him is that to others. And he is obligated by what they’re obligated.”
“So, if he falls on that which obliges deviance, he is considered a deviant. So, if he does tafseeq, he is considered a fasiq/ Kufs he is takfeered.”
“And this is the madhab of the sahaba which you narrate. The companions who had insulted him killed and cursed him. Was it out of a whim?”
“Or by a religious obligation? Without a doubt, the madhab of the sahaba (and you claim you follow the salaf, you say that you’re Salafiyah) this is the madhab of the salaf.”
“That whoever falls on kufr is takfeered, whoever falls on that which obligates cursing is cursed, whoever falls on that which obligates criticism is criticized.”
“This is the madhab of the Salaf, rather the madhab of the Qur’an and the Honest Prophet (saw). This is the madhab that we adopt.”
Narrated `Aisha:
Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict the legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
So let us imagine a scenario where Fatima (ra) did steal, and she did get caught. Would one necessarily have to have hatred in his/her heart towards Fatima (ra) when executing the punishment? That means that every judge or Qadi would need to hate the person they pass a sentence on?
Of course not!
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the Verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Messenger (saw) got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani `Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammed! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.”
“And I don’t understand why the Muhakimma didn’t rejoin him because they also wanted to fight Mua’wiya.”
There is a saying. Once bitten twice shy. These sahaba fought and died for Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib. They bled and watched as companions and colleagues and friends died, some of them possibly maimed for life. Ali had his chance at victory and squandered it. How can it be imagined that these same people would rejoin Ali only for him to find himself in another situation with Mua’wiya and have a bitter repeat of that affair? Thanks but no, thanks!
Besides this they have already elected an Imam.
Why is it that Mu’awiyais culpable for his mistakes as a leader and Ali is not?
Remember, that the Shaykh, in his response to the sister, quoted that signals that let those sahaba, the Muhakimma, to see that Mu’awiya is definitely upon injustice.
Recall that the Shaykh said:
“Where he did not respond to the call of the Prophet (saw) and other events that they know about this sect, including the hadith of the group of unjust, which is that:
“Ammar will be killed by the transgressive faction.”
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.”
Yet, surprisingly, he has misinterpreted it by saying: “His killers were those who held weapons and killed him.” Which he means to say not Mu’awiya!!! He says again: “The word “killer”, if loosely or absolutely used, means the one that has killed: not the one that has issued the order (of killing).”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705)
This bizarre philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that if he were to live in the present age, he would – of course – agree with the claim that presidents are not responsible for the crime of the illegal, haphazard bloodshed committed by their armies in different Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but rather their troops are the ones responsible for that!
This is bizarre reasoning. Of course, Mu’awiya is responsible for the actions of his soldiers just as Ali is responsible for the decisions that he makes. You can’t keep looking to shift the blame on others. It further makes Ali look weak and indecisive.
Also, now that history has passed, accordingly it was said that Mu’awiya and Amr ibn al-Aas used a ruse to deceive Ali and his army. Is that something to be proud of, brothers? The founders of the Ummayad dynasty used deception against fellow Muslims like this? Your history portrays them as scheming and conniving! Are you proud of this?
(After rebuking his people) Moses turned to Aaron and said: “Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following my way? Have you disobeyed my command? Aaron answered: “Son of my mother! Do not seize me with my beard, nor by (the hair of) my head. I feared that on returning you might say: ‘You sowed discord among the Children of Israel, and did not pay heed to my words.” (Qur’an 20:91-93)
﷽
This is in response to other hadith that the Shi’i often use. They try to justify their claims of Ali being the correct or rightful Imam of the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
It is another example (of many) of them making a mountain out of a molehill.
The following hadith comes to mind:
Narrated Sa`d:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) set out for Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (saw) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
The hadith about Umar (ra) neutralizes any attempt to single out Ali for a uniquely elevated status.
This hadith (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4416) shows clear as daylight that Ali was not pleased being left to take charge of the affairs of the people of Medina. So how much more the whole Ummah?!
Rather than seeing this as an honor bestowed upon him as one being the most trustworthy to take care of the most vulnerable, Ali saw it as a slight.
So not being content with trusting his station to his Imam, which is none other than the Blessed Messenger (see), Ali quipped, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?”
Was Ali not aware of this verse of the Qur’an?
“Whoever obeys the Messenger has truly obeyed Allah. But whoever turns away, then ˹know that˺ We have not sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a keeper over them.” (Qur’an 4:80)
Because the Shi’i cannot prove their case for the concept of the Imamate of Ahl Bayt from the Qur’an, they must quickly pivot the conversation to Hadith, which they feel justifies their position.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is said to have replied to the recalcitrant Ali,
“Will you not be pleased that you will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
Somehow, the Shi’i seemed to close their eyes over the fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was trying to console his otherwise temperamental cousin.
Perhaps Ali sought glory or standing on the battlefield? Allah (swt) knows best. Yet, the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave Ali a more noble task than what Ali could have longed for.
The Shi’i run wild.
So, the Shi’i became laser focused on the part: “You will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
They start to surmise that this must be a strong indication that Ali, without a doubt, is the one who will lead the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw) is gone.
So they start to imagine that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said things that he did not say. For example, the Hadith says, ‘no prophet after me’ but it does not say ‘no messenger after me’.
So perhaps Ali could be a Messenger after the Prophet Muhammed (saw) ?
The Shi’i who are known to be lovers of Qiyas (analogy) so well …maybe just this once.. 😉 🤫
So, with the above hadith in tow, we can quickly turn to the Qur’an and find:
“We made an appointment of thirty nights with Moses (On Mount Sinai), to which We added ten more; so the term set by the Lord was completed in forty nights. Moses said to Aaron, his brother: “Deputize for me ((ukh’luf’nī) among my people. Dispose rightly, and do not follow the way of the authors of evil.” (Qur’an 7:142)-Ahmed Ali
“And We treated with Musa thirty nights, and We completed them with ten; so the appointment of his Lord was completed by forty nights. And Musa said unto his brother Harun: act thou (ukh’luf’nī) in my place among my people, and rectify, and follow not the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)=Abdul Majid Daryabadi
As archaic and jumbled as Abdul Majid Daryabadi’s translation sounds to us, it best represents both the Arabic and the context. Although Ahmed Ali’s translation is good as well.
As always, because we are not here to tell you how to think or what to think, but for you to research and come to your own conclusions, please proceed to:
Even some of the more modern translations do a very horrible job of translating the verse:
For example, Sahih International has:
“And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights and perfected them by [the addition of] ten; so the term of his Lord was completed as forty nights. And Moses said to his brother Aaron, “Take my place among my people, do right [by them], and do not follow the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)
“Take my place.” No. Moses was not going anywhere permanently. Moses went somewhere briefly.
The following translators translate (ukh’luf’nī) in a Shi’i friendly manner.
Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar-Iranian Christian translator Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali -Al Ahzar Ali Quli Qara’i -Shi’i translator Ali Bakhtiari Nejad -Shi’ia translator The Monotheist Group [2013 Edition]-Quranist
The following translates the verse that we feel best expresses the meaning of ukh’luf’nī given the context.
Abdul Majid Daryabadi Ahmed Ali Hamid S Aziz A.L Bilal Muhammed et al Mushraff Hussain Mohammed Shafi
So we know that it cannot mean to “take my place” permanently because Moses came back. We also know that it cannot mean taking my place in succession. How do we know this?
The historical data does not support this.
“Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” (Deuteronomy 34:9)
The following, which is quite literally, is titled: Joshua to Succeed Moses.
Then Moses went out and spoke these words to all of Israel: “I am now a hundred and twenty years old, and I am no longer able to lead you. The Lord has said to me, ‘You shall not cross the Jordan.’ The Lord your God himself will cross over ahead of you. He will destroy these nations before you, and you will take possession of their land. Joshua also will cross over ahead of you, as the Lord said. And the Lord will do to them what he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, whom he destroyed along with their land. The Lord will deliver them to you, and you must do to them all that I have commanded you. Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”
Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the presence of all Israel, “Be strong and courageous, for you must go with this people into the land that the Lord swore to their ancestors to give them, and you must divide it among them as their inheritance. The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
Next time your overly excited Shi’a friend starts to tell you about the above Hadith and quotes the above verse of the (Qur’an 7:142), inform them what it says just 8 verses later.
“And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)
“And recall when We summoned Moses for a term of forty nights, and then you set up the calf as your god in his absence. You indeed committed a grave wrong.” (Qur’an 2:51)
Moses scolded, “O Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Aaron pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)
So, if the Shi’i want to make Ali analogous to Harun (as) in a very literal way, we have some real problems.
Let us replace the words Moses (as) with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and wewill replace Aaron (as) with Ali and let us see how this works.
“And when Muhammed returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized Ali by his head, pulling him toward him. [Ali] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)
Muhammed scolded, “O Ali! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Ali pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)
Are we to believe that it only takes the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to be gone for 40 days as Ali, fearing for his life, allows the people to fall into blatant shirk?
Are we to believe there could be a scenario where the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is so furious with Ali that he snatches him up by his beard?!
Are we to believe there is a scenario where the Blessed Prophet (saw) scolded Ali for disobeying his orders? Even to the point where Ali feared that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would say that he (Ali) caused division among the Muslims?
Keep in mind that Moses (as), like the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) would have been given knowledge by Allah (swt) that Aaron (as) was not, in any way shape or form, in dereliction of his duties. Yet Musa (as) snatched Aaron (as) up!
We do not believe these are things the Shi’i are willing to entertain regarding Ali.
The Moses Aaron comparison is also devastating to Shi’i claims.
Why? Because they do not have equal authority.
“When there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Messenger, or to those charged with (ulī l-amri) authority among them, the proper investigators would have tested it for them (direct). Were it not for the Grace and Mercy of Allah unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan.” (Qur’an 4:83)
Aaron did not have the knowledge of the divine will that Moses had.
“I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’
“And [recall] when Moses said to his people, “O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf [for worship]. So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves [i.e., the guilty among you]. That is best for [all of] you in the sight of your Creator.” Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of Repentance, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:54)
This line: “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not refer to Ali ibn Abi Talib at all! This was a man who, instead of pursuing the killers of Uthman, wasted no time in collecting his army to go fight the people of Sham!
Translation of the above:
“This year of his caliphate, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib, assumed leadership and appointed governors over the regions. He appointed Abdullah ibn Abbas over Yemen, Samurah ibn Jundab over Basra, Imarah ibn Shihab over Kufa, Qays ibn Sa’d ibn Ubadah over Egypt, and over Syria, Sahl ibn Hunayf in place of Muawiyah. Sahl marched until he reached Tabuk, when the close associates of Muawiyah met him and said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They then said, “If Uthman sent you in his capacity [as the rightful caliph, then proceed], but if it was someone else, then go back.” They said, “Have you not heard what happened?” They replied, “Yes.” So he returned to Ali.”
“As for Qays ibn Sa’d, the people of Egypt differed concerning him. The majority pledged allegiance to him, but a group said, “We will not pledge allegiance until the killers of Uthman are brought to us.” The situation was similar in Basra. As for Imarah ibn Shihab, who was sent as governor to Kufa, Talhah ibn Khuwaylid prevented him from entering out of anger for Uthman. He returned to Ali and informed him. The strife intensified, the matter became grave, and opinions differed. Abu Musa wrote to Ali informing him of the obedience and pledge of allegiance of the people of Kufa, except for a few. Ali sent many letters to Muawiyah, but he did not receive any reply. This continued repeatedly until the third month after the murder of Uthman, in Safar.”
“Then Muawiyah sent a scroll with a man who came to Ali. Ali asked, “What news do you bring?” The man replied, “I come to you from people who desire nothing but revenge, deeply aggrieved. I left seventy thousand elderly men gathered under the shirt of Uthman, which is displayed on the pulpit of Damascus.” Ali said, “O Allah, I declare myself innocent before You of the blood of Uthman.” Then the messenger of Muawiyah left Ali’s presence, and those Kharijites who had killed Uthman intended to kill him, but he barely escaped after much effort.”
“Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, resolved to fight the people of Syria. He wrote to Qays ibn Sa’d in Egypt, urging the people to mobilize for fighting them, and to Abu Musa in Kufa. He also sent word to Uthman ibn Hunayf about this. He addressed the people, inciting them for that purpose. He was determined to prepare and depart from Medina, appointing Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over it. He was resolved to fight, with those who obeyed him, against those who disobeyed him, rebelled against his command, and did not pledge allegiance to him along with the people.”
“His son, Al-Hasan ibn Ali, came to him and said, “O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he did not accept that from him; rather, he insisted on fighting and organized the army. He gave the standard to Muhammed ibn al-Hanafiyyah, appointed Ibn Abbas to be in charge of important matters, and Umar ibn Abi Salama over the vanguard. It is also said he appointed Umar ibn Sufyan ibn Abd al-Assad over the vanguard. He appointed as the commander of his advance guard Abu Layla ibn Amr ibn al-Jarrah, the nephew of Abu Ubaydah. He appointed Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over Medina. Nothing remained except for him to depart from Medina heading towards Syria, until there came to him what diverted him from all of that, which we will mention.”
Source: Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (البداية والنهاية) by Ibn Kathir Volume: around Vol. 7 or 8 (depending on the edition)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Ali claimed that he is in Bara’ah with those who killed Uthman.
He did not spend his time looking for these killers. Ali did not seem concerned at all about finding the killers of Uthman.
Trying to find the killers of Uthman could have easily disuaded the tension or at the very least exposed Muawiyah as a hypocrite.
Rather, Ali wasted no time in raising an army for the continued fighting, and killing and slaughter among the Muslims.
Al Hasan ibn Ali was much wiser than his father (Ali), who was spoiling for a fight.
Look at the words of Al Hasan ibn Ali.
“O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he (Ali) did not accept that from him.”
So try to apply the following statement of Aaron (as) to Ali : “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not apply to Ali.
In addition to that, we have the following:
Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin Abbas
“Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah’s Apostle during his fatal illness. The people asked, “O Abu Hasan (i.e. Ali)! How is the health of Allah’s Apostle this morning?” ‘Ali replied, “He has recovered with the Grace of Allah.” ‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, “In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else), And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of ‘Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Apostle and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” ‘Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Apostle for it.”
It is quite clear that Ibn Abbas was not aware of any Shi’i interpretations that Ali should be the one to lead the Muslims after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Ali himself was not of the understanding that it was something that was his to take simply by being related to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
This is another reason why it is best to make the Qur’an the pillar of our theology and faith, as the hadith themselves have narrations that the Shi’i themselves wince at.
Then there is this straight from Nahjul balagha itself. Straight from a Shi’i website:
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions; and I followed it, and also acted on whatever the Prophet – may Allah bless him and his descendants – had laid down as his sunnah. In this matter I did not need your advice or the advice of anyone else, nor has there been any order of which I was ignorant so that I ought to have consulted you or my Muslim brethren. If it were so I would not have turned away from you or from others.”
This sermon is said to have happened long after the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) died. This sermon itself proves that Ali never considered that he was already the appointed Khilafa of the Muslims.
He said, “When the Caliphate came to me.” This means he was not the Caliph at the time, he recognized it as such and nor did he want it. Someone who is divinely appointed by Allah (swt) to the Khilafa of the Muslims takes pride in it, claims it and upholds that as a great trust.
It shows Ali himself viewed the caliphate as something that came to him by people’s invitation after Uthman’s death, not as a pre-appointed right he was claiming.
Someone who recognizes they are not divinely appointed but that people have chosen who will lead them and then gets pushed into a position of leadership makes the kind of statements that Ali made above.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
Prima Quran 