“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.
Wallahu Almustaan
=================================================================================
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.
Source: https://sunnah.com/muslim:1853
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.
Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1066a)
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.
Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1066g)
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.” ?
These hadiths we have dealt with here:
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.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6307)
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).”
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. 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.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6787)
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.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2753)
As for the sister’s last comment:
“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’awiya is 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.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2812)
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?
May Allah (swt) guide this sister to the truth.
May the eyes of the Ummah be wide open!
May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!
May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah!
Prima Quran 