“Today those who disbelieve have lost all hope of (damaging) your faith. So, do not fear them, and fear Me. Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Dīn (religion and a way of life) for you. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger, having no inclination towards sin, then Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:3)
﷽
“O.K. Settle down, settle down.” We are going to go about this in a very orderly manner. Which one of you is the Mahdi? Simply raise your hand!”
“EARLIER this year Iran’s authorities arrested a score of men who, in separate incidents, claimed to be the Mahdi, a sacred figure of Shia Islam, who was “hidden” by God just over a millennium ago and will return some time to conquer evil on earth.”
“A website based in Qom, Iran’s holiest city, deemed the men “deviants”, “fortune-tellers” and “petty criminals”, who were exploiting credulous Iranians for alms during the Persian new-year holiday, which fell in mid-March.”
“Many of the fake messiahs were picked up by security men in the courtyard to the mosque in Jamkaran, a village near Qom, whose reputation as the place of the awaited Mahdi’s advent has been popularized nationwide by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When he took office in 2005 he gave the mosque $10m.”
“Iran’s economic doldrums may have helped to cause this surge in people claiming to be mankind’s saviour—and in women saying they were the Mahdi’s wife. “In an open atmosphere where people could criticise the government they would not believe these people,” says an ex-seminarian in Tehran, the capital, noting that most Iranians still get all of their news from state television and state-owned or -sanctioned newspapers.”
“Last year a seminary expert, Mehdi Ghafari, said that more than 3,000 fake Mahdis were in prison. Mahdi-complexes are common, says a Tehran psychiatrist. “Every month we get someone coming in, convinced he is the Mahdi,” she says. “Once a man was saying such outrageous things and talking about himself in the third person that I couldn’t help laughing. He got angry and told me I had ‘bad hijab’ and was disrespecting the ‘Imam of Time’,” as the Mahdi is known.”
“The most famous case was that of Ayatollah Boroujerdi, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2007 for—among other things—claiming he was the Mahdi. Like many influential “false” messiahs, he was forced to recant on state television, confessing that he had been against the Islamic Republic’s core tenets.”
“Mr Ahmadinejad has called his administration “the government of the hidden imam”. Last month he told a batch of new Iranian ambassadors to consider themselves “envoys of the Mahdi”. After his first speech at the UN in 2005, a video circulated showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a leading Iranian cleric that world leaders had been enchanted, during his oration, by a halo around his head that had been put there by the Mahdi himself.”
Prima-Qur’an Comments:
We have no idea where they keep all these 3000 Mahdis, but could you imagine if they were all in the same prison or same facility? Surely that would be volatile.
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20: 114)
﷽
Muslms, Scholars, Soldiers.
Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions.
About Professor Adam R Gaiser:
This is his CV – curriculum vitae.
BA, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Major: Comparative Religion. MA, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Major: History of Religions. Islamic Studies. PhD, University Of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Major: History of Religions. Islamic Studies.
Current Position: Professor of Religion (or Associate Professor of Religion), Florida State University (FSU), Tallahassee, FL. Affiliated Faculty, Program in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, FSU.
His publications and books:
Book: The origin and development of the Ibadi Imamate ideal Book: Shurāt Legends, Ibādī Identities: Martyrdom, Asceticism, and the Making of an Early Islamic Community. Book: Sectarian in Islam: The Umma Divided. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023
First, one thing that you will notice when reading current works by Orientalist or Western Academics concerning the Ibadi school, is they are overly thankful to the Ibadi communities for the access to their libraries and manuscripts. This becomes a re-current theme.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many other scholars helped me during my year of research in Jordan; of special mention are ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dūrī and Muhammed Khraysāt of the University of Jordan History Department, and Farūq ‘Umar Fawzī of the Omani Studies Department at Āl al-Bayt University. My appreciation goes to Ahmad Obeidat, Islam Dayeh, and Nihad Khedair, my research assistants at the time (and now accomplished scholars of their own), for our many hours spent together in translation and discussion. I also thank the Omani Student Union in Amman, Āl al-Bayt University, and the University of Jordan, all of whom granted me unlimited use of their library and access to their manuscript collections. Further research took me to Muscat, Oman; thanks to Michael Bos, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Sālimī, Shaykh Kahlān b. Nahbān al-Kharūsī, Shaykh Mahmūd b. Zāhir al-Hinā`ī, Dr. Khalfān al-Madūrī, Ahmad al-Siyābī, Shaykh Ziyād b. Tālib al-Ma‘āwalī of the Ma‘had al-‘Ulūm al Shar‘iyya, and to the students who shared their research and excitement. “
Source: (Acknowledgements: Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
“Fortunately, recent publications by the Omani Ministry of Heritage and Culture (Wizarat al-Turāth al-Qawmī wa al-Thaqāfa) of much of the Ibādī historical and legal corpus have made hundreds of works accessible to the researcher. In addition, the Libyan scholar ‘Amr Ennami collected and published several rare North African legal and theological works before his death.”
Source: (pg. 5 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
It is a common theme at least when engaging with Ibadism. That we are open and we give access to what people are looking for.
We had a brother mention an indiviudal who did an interview and claimed there was ‘gate keeping’ going on with us; this information came as a dissapointment. The individual knows better. We are doing our level best to get information about the Ibadi school out there. The western academics themselves acknowledgethe tremendous help they have received in getting such access.
So first the unfortunate. Professor Gaiser continues to assert that the Ibadis were from the Kharijis, even though he knows better. He knows it is from heresiographical works. This is certainly dissapointing.
“As the sole remaining Khārijite subsect, the Ibādiyya are the last representatives of the opposition movement that was Khārijism, and the inheritors of its narrative and legal traditions.”
Source: (pg. 3 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
“One problem plaguing the study of the Ibādiyya and Khārijites is the uncritical reliance on either Sunni or Ibādī sources for historical narratives. Such an approach ignores the fact that these accounts were, to varying degrees, tailored to serve the polemical and self-serving interests of the sect.”
Source: (pg. 5 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Then why do Orientalist and western academics continue to use this terminology? The nomenclature of Ibadis being a sub sect of the Khawarij? So do take note to the orientalist and western academics reading this. Going forward why not point this out in the beginning of your works? That you are simply using Sunni polemical nomenclature that you find convenient.
“Caution should therefore be exercised when dealing with heresiographical texts, as the predilections of their authors, the structure of their texts, and reliability of their information are not always clear.”
Source: (pg. 15 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Professor Gaiser makes a very interesting point here:
“Yet another flawed method of viewing the Khārijites is to interpret their activities through the lens of their most extreme or militant subsects. It is not uncommon to find, for example, a focus on the Azāriqa (or Najdāt), whose core activities lasted a mere fourteen years, as representatives of “the original Khārijite position.”This statement grossly overestimates the importance of the Azraqite subsect to the general history of Khārijism, and relegates the Ibādiyya, who have survived for thirteen centuries (and, incidentally, opposed the Azāriqa from the outset) to an undeserved historical footnote that does not reflect their longevity. Such distortions prevent an accurate appreciation of the role of Khārijite thought in shaping the Ibādiyy…”
Source: (pg. 6 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Professor Gaiser makes an interesting point here:
“In reality, it seems that the imām al-kitmān was a theoretical construct established in order to retroactively create Imāms out of the ‘ulamā’ who led the early quietist Khārijite movement in Basra (and who eventually established the Ibādiyya as a distinct Khārijite subsect).”
Source: (pg. 13 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
However, he doesn’t seem to connect his ideas very well when later he states:
With the establishment of the Rustumid dynasty in Tahert and the first Ibādī dynasty in Oman, the practice of shirā’ was recognized to have potentially dangerous implications for the Ibādī state; the inherent danger of shirā’ lay in its latent ability to inspire rebellion in the name of Islamic justice.In an effort to diffuse the potentially destabilizing effect of shirā’, the Ibādī ‘ulamā’ developed the office of al-imām al-shārī as the leader of the shurāt. Likewise, the term shurāt, which had once referred to the early Khārijite heroes, became divorced from its original heroic connotations and came to specify the volunteer Ibādī soldiers who defended the Ibādī state against its enemies. In such a way, the practice of shirā’ was kept under the control of the Ibādī state. As a result, the practice of shirā’ changed from being a spontaneous practice to being a formal institution governed by social and legal regulations.”
Professor Gaiser makes a blank statement without really giving us much more. For exampe: Can practical examples be given in how the Ibadi ulama’ s development of the office of al imam al shari create stabliity? Especially considering his above statement:
“It seems that the imām al-kitmān was a theoretical construct established in order to retroactively create Imāms out of the ‘ulamā’”
What prevents the imam al-kitman from becoming the imam al-shari?
Ultimately there is nothing destablisizing about it. Rule with justice.
Do we consider any institute to be inheriently unstable because there are mechanism in place that prevent abuse of power?
One can attack a particuar lineage (alids) or tribe (quraysh) that could be a relatively easy feat. However, attacking and keeping an entire scholarly class under control is no easy feat.
Professor Gaiser often makes blank statements without telling us how he arrived at such conclusions.
“Likewise, distinctions between the imām al-zuhūr, imām al-shirā’, imām al-difā‘, and imām al-kitmān are not nearly as clear as post-medieval Ibādī imāmate theorists (and the non-Ibādī scholars who rely on them) would have us believe.”
What were the points of clarity that he felt were lacking? What did he think needed more elaboration? Especially given the knowledge that imām al-shirā’, imām al-difā‘ are more interm and temporary positons during a transition period.
So the reader has a few choices when it comes to this information.
1) Accept it blindly. Accept it as factual. Don’t think critically about the information.
2) Think about the information critically. Actually read the source and information that the school has written about it self and come to your own conclusion.
When we go through the foototes it is challenging to determine what sources Professor Gaiser relied upon for his information.
For those of you do not want to depend upon orientalist or western academis for information and would like direct access to Ibadi sources that speak on the subject we can provide the following:
“Masalik al-Dīn wa Atharuhā fī Ḥifẓ al-Wujūd al-Ibāḍī”
Author: ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin Suʿūd bin Sīf Ambusaidi Supervisor: Ismāʿīl bin Ṣāliḥ bin Ḥamdān al-Aghbari Examiner: Ibrāhīm bin Yūsuf bin Sīf al-Aghbari
We found another strange assertion of Professor Gasier here:
“The specific example of the Muhakkima’s attribution of sin to ‘Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—the Khārijite doctrine of sin. Although it is not explicitly stated in the sources, it is safe to assume that the attribution of sin/infidelity to an individual immediately disqualified that person from a position of authority over the Muslims, and thus, the connection between sin and ineligibility in leadership can be generalized to all Khārijite subsects.”
Source: (Pg. 39 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Two major assumptions indeed.
‘Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—
Although it is not explicitly stated in the sources, it is safe to assume that the attribution of sin/infidelity to an individual immediately disqualified that person from a position of authority over the Muslims
What is this based on?
Why would one think that Professor Gaiser be given a free pass to make such statements and yet, “we have to be careful what heriseiographers and even Ibadi sources say?
” Although this view is not explicitly stated in either early Ibādī literature or heresiographical materials, it is strongly implied by the doctrine of sin.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Even in the example Profesor Gasier has given:
“Certain evidence in heresiographical materials corroborates the application of the doctrine of sin to the Khārijite Imāms. It is reported, for example, that a faction of the Najdāt forced their leader, Najda b. ‘Āmir al-Hanafī, to recant and repent for his opinion that a person is excused from sin if he is ignorant of the fact that the action is a sin.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
But did they remove him as the Imam or simply ask him to repent for his sin and retain him?
We are simlpy not told.
This information clashes with what Professor Gasier gives us here:
“A smaller section of the Najdāt then decided that it was not their place to question the ijtihād of their Imām, and forced Najda to repent his original repentance—which Najda did. As a result of this second repentance, the majority of the Najdāt deposed (khala‘ūhu) Najda and forced him to choose the next Imām.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
If they forced him to repent of his original repentance and then deposed him it means that he was still their Imam when he initially repented. Thus the information Professor Gasier presents us clashes with his own conclusions!
Professor Gasier aslo states:
“However, an Imām who sinned or behaved in a way that was improper did not immediately become an illegitimate Imām. The Ibādī community gave him the opportunity to repent and make amends, such as the opportunity given to ‘Uthmān before his killing. If the Imām repented, he regained his proper place as leader of the Muslims. If he persisted in his sinful behavior, dissociation from him and active opposition to him then became a duty.”
Source: (Pg. 46 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
The above information makes it very clear that if an Imam commits a sin this in and of itself does not necessitate his removal from office. This again clashes with previous information presented by Professor Gaiser.
Alas, the informaton in the above paragraph presented by Professor Gaiser is incomplete and does not allow nuance. A very important point is the type and manner of sin the Imam commits. For example if the Imam committed adultery, and the proof is established against him there is no resuming the office of Imam. This should be clear from the perspective of jurisprudence.
Now let us turn our attention to something eslse Professor Gaiser says:
Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—
Source: (Pg. 39 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
He repeats this assertion here:
“Just as the Muhakkima’s rejection of ‘Alī on the basis of the sin of accommodating the arbitration of Siffīn formed the basis for later Khārijite doctrines of sin, so the acceptance of ‘Abdullāh b. Wahb al-Rāsibī further entrenched the precedent whereby piety became the main criterion for legitimate leadership.”
“Source: (Pg. 41 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
” Additionally, the qurrā’ at the Battle of Siffīn reportedly forced ‘Alī to accept arbitration against his better judgment, which is itself an indicator of a certain amount of authority.
Source: (Pg. 57 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
This raises all kinds of questions.
How could the qurrā on the one hand be the people who forced someone to accept something that they would see as the basis that makes a a person an unbeliever (kāfir).
“Similarly, the Muhakkima at Harūrā’ demanded of ‘Alī: “So repent as we have repented and we will pledge allegiance to you, but if not we will continue to oppose you.”
Source: (Pg. 37 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Note 89 Foot note Source: Abū Mikhnaf in al-Tabarī, Tārīkh, 1:3353; see variants in al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, 3:123; Abū al-‘Abbās Muhammed b. Yazīd al-Mubarrad, al-Kāmil: Bāb al-Khawārij (Damascus: Dār al-Hikma, n.d.), 24.
” Additionally, the qurrā’ at the Battle of Siffīn reportedly forced ‘Alī to accept arbitration against his better judgment, which is itself an indicator of a certain amount of authority.
It is appreciated tht Professor Gasier gave the source for the sentiments above:
Abū Mikhnaf was a flamming hot chetto of a Shi’i. We are thankful that Professor Gasier mentions the following about him:
“The pro-‘Alid author Abū Mikhnaf portrays ‘Ammār as an early Companion of the Prophet Muhammed, and uses his story to highlight the illegitimacy of the Umayyad regime.”
Source: (Pg. 97 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
A Modern Historical Perspective: From a modern, academic historical viewpoint, Abū Mikhnaf’s value is immense. His bias is not dismissed but is itself a source of information. He represents the historical memory and narrative of the early Kufan Shi’a. Historians use his works to understand:
How these early communities viewed themselves and their struggle.
The political and social climate of 8th-century Iraq.
The development of early Shi’ite identity. The key is to use his material critically, comparing it with reports from other sources with different biases (e.g., pro-Umayyad historians).
Understanding the sectarian lens that are used when detailling events.
It is also not clear if Professor Gaiser sees the muhakkima and the qurrā as interchangeable names for the same group, or interchangeable groups. Or a singlular group that had divisons among themselves in regard to the arbitration.
The following chart can help Professor Gaiser advance his claims. It can also make sense of what seems to be contradictory information. This is a possible model.
Unless Professor Gaiser contest that the Muslims had the Qur’an with them then on what consistent basis can he condidently say that rather than the event at Siffin that they simply did not draw from the Qur’an?
“And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the ungrateful (l-kāfirūna).” (Qur’an 5:44)
No consideration is given to the idea that, as Qurra these people would be memorizers of the Qur’an and with the Qura’n not being a considerably large corpus, the warnings not to follow the people of the book the admonishment that those who judge by other than what Allah revealed are the disbelievers most likely echoed among them over and over.
This allows for Professor Gasier to present his thesis in a very clear way. That there were those who saw Ali’s decision as going against the clear guidance of the Qur’an. That he judged by other than what Allah had revealed. We know there were people who urged Ali to continue his fight against Mu’awiya.
There are those who were initially pro arbitration and a group from among them regretted that decision. That group joined up with those who were against it from the start. It is that group that says: “So repent as we have repented and we will pledge allegiance to you, but if not we will continue to oppose you.”
The only thing the Professor Gasier needs to do is follow the history and the logical conclusion. Committing a sin or an act of kuffar does not permanently preclude you from the office of Imam.
Additional thoughts. Not related to Professor Gaiser’s book, but one does have to wonder how Ali himself was viewed from the perspective of his followers. Rather, his followers and supporters were against his decision for arbitration or forced his hand. Either way, it seems like they had vastly different understandings of the authority of Ali than what the Shi’i masses are being told.
Professor Gasier states:
” Two points must be borne in mind when investigating how the medieval Ibādī institution of the imām al-shārī assimilated the early Khārijite phenomenon of shirā’, appropriated the Khārijite figures associated with the phenomenon of shirā’, and adapted the concept of shirā’ to a political institution of authority. “
Source: (Pg. 81 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
We were puzzled by this. Rather than appropriation from a stream that it is claimed they belonged to, why not just simply say they drew upon the Qur’an and examples of earlier martyrs?
You have to wonder how you appropriate from a tradition that you are already a part of?
“Unfortunately, North African jurists did not develop the notion of the shārī Imām, and therefore it remains a somewhat vague institution..”
Source: (Pg. 108 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
What is there to be detailed about it? The very title, Shira’ indicates that this office is a temporary office. Victory or Death. In victory you can be appointed as The Manifest Imam or you step down.
This particular office does not require a great deal of elaboration.
Over all the book is a very good read. It is not taxing. There is allot of information that one may find useful.
If you would like to read more about the four stages of the Muslim community you may read our article here:
“Who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 42:38)
﷽
Professor Joseph Lumbard made a very interesting assertion during a teaching/lecture in New Mexico on Islam.
For those not familiar, Professor Lumbard He received a Ph.D and M.Phil in Islamic Studies from Yale University, an M.A. in Religious Studies and a B.A. from the George Washington University.
He is an American Muslim scholar of Islamic studies and associate professor of Qur’anic studies at the College of Islamic Studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar. He is the author, editor, and translator of several scholarly books and many articles on Islamic philosophy, Sufism, and Quranic studies
So let us get the disappointment out of the way. Disappointing because the respected Professor knows better than to label one according to the epitaph of their opponents.
@1:36 he says: “That was against the Kharijites, from which the Ibadis came out.”
Well, so with that disappointing statement out of the way we can get to the interesting point.
@1:55 “What the Ibadis have done which is different very different from the Sunnis and the Shiites is that they claimed that somebody outside of Quraysh could be the leader. They, their basic claim was that they most…shall we say…what is the word I’m looking for? Um, the most qualified person was the person who should be the leader. And that actually the community can force that person to be the leader if that person doesn’t want to be the leader.” -Professor Lumbard.
“And so remember how we went through and this is where it becomes very important, remember we looked through that the that For the Umayyads and for the Abbasids, the Caliph came through the lineage of the Quraysh. Of course for the uh for the Shiites the caliph is going to be from the lineage of the Quraysh; because its a descendant of the Prophet. Right?” -Professor Lumbard.
“So, Here they were the first ones to come out and say, “No!” Actually that doesn’t matter that is not where it needs to be located. It needs to be the most qualified person and they said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an. “On that particular point I agree with them, actually. ” -Professor Lumbard.
Al hamdulillah.
What makes this a particularly powerful admission is that Professor Lumbard has not shown himself invested in sectarianism. He is certainly familiar with Sunni claims, as well as that of the Shiites that the ahl bayt are the crème de la crème.
When the respected Professor stated:
“They said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an.”
Personally I am not quite sure what the respected Professor intended by this. Or what his reading of the Qur’an that makes this clear for him. It is just that these ideas of leadership being from the Quraysh or from the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were not seen as established from their point of view.
Though, we do have our justifications from the Qur’an for the position that we hold. I would have been keen to see the respected Professor flesh that out.
In fact, for us it was Al-Ash’ath bin Qais who had as one of his motivating factors to get Ali to move against the people of Nahrawan because of the election of Imam Ar Rasibi (ra). -aka a Non Qurayshi.
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais motive was clear.
Divert Ali’s attention away from the Syrians. Giving them more time to strengthen and solidify their positions.
Pit Ali against the former die hard loyalist knowing full well that the killing of these companions and tabi’un would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of many -as we will see with Ibn Abbas (ra).
Ensure the nexus of power remains among the Quraysh and that any non-Quraysh would not even have a whiff of authority over the Quraysh.
Any qualified righteous believer, be they Arab, Jewish, Ethiopian, or any ethnic group or tribe you can think of, can be the Amir Al Mumineen. That is to say: The Commander of the Faithful for the entirety of the Muslim Ummah.
Here are some reasons on why we do not believe the leadership of the Muslims needs to be exclusively from the Quraysh(though it can be).
Perhaps the follower articles will be of interest to you.
“And don’t mix the truth with the falsehood, or conceal the truth while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
There was a recent interview with Dr. John Andrew Morrow on the Bridging Minds Channel on YouTube. I would encourage those who visit Prima Qur’an to subscribe to the following channel: https://www.youtube.com/@bridgingminds7512 -the channel is in its infancy and insh’Allah good things will follow.
“And don’t mix the truth with the falsehood, or conceal the truth while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)
I lead with this particular verse because as a Muslim I am dutybound not to conceal the truth when I know what it is.
Also, unfortunately our school, the Ibadi school has a great deal of misunderstandings surrounding it and we take opportunities when and where we can to clarify these misunderstandings.
I believe that this article will also prove that being in academia does not necessarily entail that a person is well informed on a particular matter.
Case in point. Let us look at Brother Dr. John Andrew Morrow’s impressive CV- curriculum vitae.
“Dr. John Andrew Morrow is a professor, research scholar, and author. He has three degrees from the University of Toronto: an Honors BA with double majors in Spanish and French Language and Literature, as well as an MA and a PhD in Spanish American Literature.”
“After completing his PhD, he pursued post-doctoral studies in the Arabic language at the Arabic Language Institute in Fez, the University of Utah’s Middle East Center, and the Qalam wa Lawh Center in Rabat.”
“Dr. Morrow has been an undergraduate and graduate faculty member at numerous universities, holding the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Program Head, and Department Head. He has taught at the University of Toronto, Park University, Northern State University, and Eastern New Mexico University, receiving student impact, performance, and leadership awards for outstanding teaching and service. “
“Dr. Morrow has also been a Visiting Researcher at Harvard University, Purdue University, and the University of Chicago. In the Fall of 2011, he served as professor of Spanish, English, and Religious Studies for the University of Virginia’s Semester at Sea Program. A specialist in Hispanic, Native, and Arabic-Islamic Studies, he has lectured worldwide in his areas of expertise.”
“His research interests include the Amerindian influence on Spanish American poetry, the Arabic and Islamic influence on Spanish and French literature, Aljamiado literature, Arabic sociolinguistics, Islamic Studies, and herbal medicine. A prolific, internationally recognized researcher and writer, Dr. Morrow has hundreds of scholarly, literary and artistic publications to his credit, including: “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World,” “Islamic Images and Ideas: Essays on Sacred Symbolism,” “The Encyclopedia of Islamic Herbal Medicine,” “Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Ernesto Cardenal,” “Islamic Insights: Writings and Reviews,” “Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Rubén Darío,” “Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon,” ” The Book of Divine Unity,” “El islam shiita: ¿ortodoxia o heterodoxia?,” “Shiite Islam: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy?,” and “Humanos casi humanos.”
Brother Kamal Southall and Brother Dr. John Andrew Morrow were having a really great back and forth conversation, sharing information. It is when the conversation became more free that there were some comments made about the Ibadi school that caught my attention.
The conversation begins at around @1:13:19
Brother Kamal was leading in with ISIS having what he believes to be a khariji tendency.
Dr. John Morrow: “and I believe it’s true it’s true and I’ve condemned the Khawarij a lot in the past as well but I’ve reconsidered my assessment of them. I mean there again it’s their enemies who wrote these narratives and demonized them. There are some good things about the Ibadis that you know I came to discover. Um so yeah!”
Brother Kamal: “That’s a good point!”
Dr. John Morrow: “Now, now for example, okay? So again the Khawarij, the Khawarij okay, their, their demonized by the Sunnis and by the Shi’a; and of course I did the same thing. I said you know what I’m going to study Ibadi literature. I’m going to connect with Ibadis and get to the bottom of this.” “They’re very moderate people by and large. They’re quite tolerant. They’re not very strict about hijab or things like that. Any how, so they they repudiate they repudiate the extreme Khawarij of the past. But in any event okay so these people revolted. Nobody questions why they revolted. Okay so, okay why did they revolt? Alright, so you have Ali on one side and then you have Muawiya on the other side, and Aisha, and all of these people. Okay? So, on the side Muawiya they believe that the Caliphate belongs only to the tribe of Quraysh. This is like even in Sunni-you know doctrine and everything. It belongs to Quraysh that’s that. Okay, that’s a type of dynasty.”
Brother Kamal: “Right.”
Dr. John Morrow: “I’m sorry it’s very racist too. It’s supremacist, it’s a type of dynasty and monarchy and so on. On the other side you have Ali and he says nuh-uh my family only my family. But the funny thing about the Shi’a they can never agree as to who was part of this family or which member should be the successor. And each time an Imam died they would break up into even more factions; everyone fighting for this and that. Even within the same family. Okay they say oh Imam Jafir As-Sadiq was the successor. Well, his brother thought he was the successor too. And you had brothers fighting each other. It was just like any kingdom, they were fighting for power. So, okay and what was the point of the view of the Khawarij? Any just knowledgeable Muslim can aspire to leadership? Hello? Egalitarian. Based on Shura, every democratic. It was not a dynasty, it wasn’t a monarchy.So, wait a second are these guys really so, so know I’ve compared Isis to the khawarij. But I was wrong. That’s not what they were fighting for. You know the other thing that revolted them? The marriage of 9-year-old girls. They thought that was the sickest thing they had ever heard of.”
Brother Kamal: “The Ibadis?”
Dr. John Morrow: “The Khawarij, the Ibadis.”
Dr. John Morrow: “This is one of the reasons they revolted. They said what the F? No way in hell! Now wait a second these are Tabi’un. Some of these people are sahabas. They had a radically different understanding of the message of this religion, and it’s practices. They didn’t buy this child marriage thing.”
Brother Kamal: “I don’t either.” Dr. John Morrow: “I don’t either.”
Prima-Qur’an comments:
There is a lot to unpack here.
First and foremost, the good. I want to thank my brother, Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam) for being humble enough to walk back associations of Isis with the Khawarij. (Though he is not entirely mistaken-will come to this).
I think that all of us, as lovers of truth and people who pursue truth, need to amend positions when mistaken. I was dismayed that the terms Ibadi and Khawrij were swapped out and interchangeable. However, we are getting there. What I mean by ‘getting there’ is that there is a willingness to go beyond the Sunni paintbrush of their opponents. This I am grateful for. May Allah (swt) bless him for this.
To admit to making mistakes is a sign of true moral character and real moral strength. Not many people can do that. We must always be right.
Points of concern andoutright shock.
“They’re not very strict about hijab or things like that.”
I am not quite sure what brother, Dr. John Morrow based this on?
If it was a book of jurisprudence, could he cite it?
Did he have interactions with people who identified as ‘Ibadi’ and were flippant in regard to their dress code?
I have to ask these questions because the ‘Ibadi’ school takes the Khimar, what Dr. John calls ‘the hijab’ very seriously. Modest dress for Muslim men and women is a very important matter for us. It is a matter of obeying Allah and his Messenger.
In fact, the Mufti of Oman says it is preferable for women to wear a niqab if possible. Though he does not say it is proved by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
One of our teachers that we have theology classes with, Shaykh Juma Al Mazruii, cleared up wide-eyed rumors and speculation circulating around Reddit.
Negligence with regard to a modest dress code is considered a sin by us. I personally have not known any of our scholars or teachers to be lax in regard to the ‘khimar’ or hijab.
So I am not sure what that statement is based upon.
Why did many of the companions and successors leave the army of Imam Ali?
“But in any event, okay, so these people revolted. Nobody questions why they revolted. Okay so, okay, why did they revolt?”
It is clear that brother, Dr. John Morrow is of the understanding that it was primarily done to who should lead the Muslims. I am here as an Ibadi to tell you that this is not the case at all. The primary reason for leaving the camp of Ali was his decision to arbitrate on matters in which Allah (swt) made his judgement clear.
Now, we do say that one of the motivations for Ali attacking the Muslims at Nahrawan was from Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, an individual who did not want to see the Imamate leave the Quraysh. For Imam Abdul-Allah bin Wahab Ar-Rasbi Al-Azdi (r) appointed Imam was not from the Quraysh. But this was not ‘THE’ reason to leave the camp of Ali.
Let us think about this logically as well. If that was ‘THE’ reason, then why be in the camp of Ali to begin with?
Ibadi’s predecessors revolted against Ali because he was a supporter of 9-year-old child marriages?!!
“You know the other thing that revolted them? The marriage of a 9-year-old girl. They thought that was the sickest thing they had ever heard of.”
“This is one of the reasons they revolted. They said “What the F? No way in hell!” Now wait a second. These are Tabi’un. Some of these people are sahabas. They had a radically different understanding of the message of this religion and its practices. They didn’t buy this child marriage thing.”
Now I have seen some academics make mistakes -we all do. However, I have to be quite honest in saying these are some of the wildest assertions yet!
This is the wildest assertion attributed to our school that I have ever seen! I am going to attribute these statements to the free flow of the discussion and perhaps there were many thoughts swirling around and somewhere things got lost in the conversation.
There are many thoughts here.
First and foremost is, what is the source of this?!
This actually goes against all those people who are arguing against child marriage! All those liberals, Hafs-only Quranists, modernists are now shaking their heads and wondering what on Earth? Because now what our brother, Dr. John Morrow has effectively done is to assert that this (child marriage) was indeed held by early Muslims, many of them companions and successors, and that Muslims had a major war over this!
Considering that the Ibadi predecessors were the muhakima that split from Ali’s camp and they (the Ibadi predecessors are portrayed as saying: “What the F No way in hell” this must mean that Ali and his supporters were gung ho for child marriages? How can one not draw this conclusion based upon the data given?
Considering that it is suggested that Ali and his supporters were gung ho for child marriages, should we then understand that Imami and Zaydi Shi’i are pro-child marriage?
Considering the person in question -Aisha (ra) was not anywhere near Siffin, how would she not play a role in any of that?
I have shared my concerns with Brother Kamal -who is a very good friend, close brother and sincere Muslim. May Allah bless him and bless his channel.
I have to write things like this because our school is terribly misunderstood and maligned. Brother Dr. John Morrow has shown his willingness to backtrack statements. Which is the sign of a sincere believer. May Allah love him.
I hope that maybe in the future he can clarify some of these statements.
For those who are keen and interested in learning more about the Ibadi school from Ibadi sources, I would kindly direct your attention to our resource page here:
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
This was a short interview between the writer Anthony T. Fiscella and a friend from our brothers in the Mzab community of Algeria. (May Allah keep them steadfast and support them). Most notable was the semi-autonomy granted to the community and their self governing principles. Located in the Wilaya of Ghardaïa
Most of the brothers here are of Amazigh or Free-Men origins.
Although most of the brothers in the region read and write Arabic, they speak the Zenata dialect of the Berber language, for which there is no written form.
Despite political changes in Algeria over the years, the community continues to peacefully resist interference in the affairs of their community and strive to preserve their unique religious and cultural identity.
They have a reputation of being honest and astute businessmen. They also continue to be productive farmers in the M’zab Valley, supplying the fresh produce needs for their own communities and for marketing elsewhere.
The beautiful M’zab Valley of Algeria was given UNESCO World Heritage Site status in 1982, as a superb example of a traditional human habitat that has been adapted to the environment. This is confirmation that although values in the rest.
In Ghardaïa, is said that there are no beggars and that no thieves exist. The people of this society is very tightly knit with such activities from business to studies and marriage all done through the community. They cling to the unique clothing, language, architecture, and lifestyle.
Wherever they are, They always have one foot in Ghardaïa. Whatever their social situation, they never sever their roots and actively contribute to the life of the community.
Ghardaïa was founded over 1,000 years ago to provide shelter for their community after the fall of the the Ibadi Rustamid state. The village, 500 kilometres south of Algiers, was founded in the middle of a rocky desert. Other towns from the era existing to this day include El Atteuf, Melika, Bounoura, and Beni Izguène.
It is said that their insular nature has preserved the area, and the Ibāḍī Σezzaba continue to dominate the social life of the area. A federal council, Majlis Ammi Said, unites representatives of the seven settlements as well as Ouargla, an ancient town located 200 km South-East of the Mzab valley. This council forms a federative body for religious, social and, increasingly, cultural matters. This religious federal council represents an “Islamic type of government” unique today.
Numerous details of Ibāḍiyya social life are ruled by this Islamic government, such as the weight of gold given as a dowry to a woman (maximum 60 grams) to the length of wedding celebrations (three days). The council makes decisions on details such as dowries, celebrations, dress. It used to impose punishments including exile, and a form of tabriyya “quarantine”, where the offender may not interact with his fellow citizens. I would imagine this is a time of dissociation or bara’ until the offender has repented and amended his/her ways.
May Allah (swt) continue to bless them. May Allah (swt) preserve them! May Allah (swt) bring stability and peace to Algeria. May they continue to be the light in the region for the good people of Algeria. Amin!
This remains true as the people M’zab valley Algeria, Nafusa Mountains in Libya, Djerba Tunisia, have remained steadfast upon the Haqq. As well as the revival of the Qur’an and Sunnah via the Ibadi school among the Hausa, Tuareg, and Fulani peoples. Al hamdulillah!
It is hard to imagine how this paper granted Jason Van Riel a Master’s thesis. I have said it before and I will say it again. Universities are basically just handing credentials to people.
I can’t imagine writing about another people’s history, culture and religion and writing with the type of smug dismissiveness and pretention that Orientalist and others often write with.
It is simply gross.
1st Jason van Riel rides on the tired coattails of the Ibadis being Khawarij and worse yet, a sect from among the Khawarij; and even bigger blunder rest assured.
We can see this in his thesis where he states:
He asserts: “Ibāḍī Islam has its origins in the Khārijite sect that came into existence during the first fitna (37/657), the civil war…”
“although the Ibāḍīs were not Azraki they were still a Khārijite sub sect.”
“To ensure that Ibāḍī traders were not restricted in and around Sijilmasa, to the commercial and financial advantage of both the Rustamids and Midrārirds, the two ruling houses frequently intermarried with each other, even though they were of rival Khārijite sects.”
Calling groups of Muslims by the pejorative labels used by their opponents is anything but academic.
To support my position on why I believe universities almost feel obligated to confer credentials upon people because they paid their course fees will be readily seen. How on Earth does one read a paper like Jason Van Riel and not wonder what basis are his smug and dismissive comments made?
Here just some samples:
“Although it must be noted that only the Ibāḍī doctrine of “all-Muslim equality regardless of social or ethnic origin” was what the Berbers cared for, they had very little interest in any of the other aspects of Ibāḍīsm and Khārijism.”
For example if I am reading his paper I would press him. Van Riel on what basis did you draw this conclusion?
“The control and maintenance of these trade routes was an important source of income for these Berber tribes, either through the levying of tolls or through the blackmail of merchants travelling the roads under their control.”
Again you have to wonder where Van Riel has basis for this. Why would you need to blackmail travelers via trade routes that are mutually beneficial for all involved?
Does it not occur that if trade routes are the subject of blackmail they become troublesome?
“And even though the Arab chroniclers would want to have the their readers believe that the local rulers of Bilād al-Sūdān were Muslim (and converted in a most spectacular fashion) they were in most cases Muslim in name only.”
This is the type of comment that a non serious person would make. This is where if I were grading Van Riel’s paper I would ask him why does he need to muse on the intentions and sincerity of people’s conversion to Islam? If he said it was perhaps possible that some were not sincere that maybe possible.
However, to assert : “They were in most cases Muslim in name only.” It is really hard to see this as unacademic disdain.
However it is perfectly fine for orientalist and so called historians to “fill in the blanks” so to speak.
We read:
“One of the main concerns that this thesis faces is a lack of available sources, and this will be explained – along with an elaboration of the available sources – in the next section. In my opinion it is important for scholars to be creative when they face a lack of sources, as this does not entail that historical events did not occur. In combination with this I also strongly believe in Karl Popper’s criterion of falsifiability whereby “only if I can say how my theory might be refuted, or falsified, can I claim that my theory has the character of an empirical theory.”
This is very cringe.
Then Van Riel also states:
“Even if these sources can be located, the families owning them are wary of outsiders digging through their, sometimes centuries old, papers for fear of “secrets” being divulged.“
He doesn’t care to elaborate what these “secrets” might be. Just another off the cuff comment that strikes one as truly bizarre. In fact, this would have been a perfect opportunity for Van Riel to make another smug remark about other cultures by saying something along the lines of:
“Given the poverty that many people face in these countries, historians should seize the opportunity as locals would only be too willing to hand over parchments for a paltry sum!”
Surprised he didn’t!
Van Riel states:
The main problem with Lewicki’s work is that his articles tend to focus on a single category and, more importantly, Lewicki is considered to have approached Ibāḍī documents uncritically. Or as E. Savage puts it: “Curiously, Lewicki never takes up the theme of the historiographic context of his Ibāḍī sources but appears to have accepted them a priori as historical.”
Huh?! The treachery of it all! Imagine! Allowing a people to present their own history and narrative!
The orientalist must always approach and other the ‘other’ as being dishonest, having a motive and or an agenda. Did it not occur to Van Riel that even Ibadi opponents acknowledge our honesty and transparency.
Kitman is one thing when needed. Yet, lying is a major sin. We do not play with fire!
So that is my critique. I did find the thesis informative over all.
These are some notable bits of information.
“Even though Ibāḍī merchants were not the first Muslims to reach Bilād al-Sūdān, they did end up staying to ensure that the trans-Saharan trade became a constant source of gold and slaves for the north and salt and other general trade goods for the south.”
“It is generally believed that in pre-Almoravid times the majority of Muslim merchants in Bilād al-Sūdān, those who originated from the Maghreb, were Ibāḍī.”
According to Professor T. Lewicki’s research the Ibāḍī merchant-shayks where very active missionaries who tried to convert the pagan populace in Bilād al-Sūdān to Ibāḍīsm. And Lewicki continues by stating that these Ibāḍī merchant-shayks represented “the only form of Islam in West Africa, until the Almoravids brought their Sunni-Islam.”
“The reason why it is generally accepted that the kings of Ghana were converted to Ibāḍī Islam was because of the combination of Ibāḍī architecture used for the Grand Mosque of Gao, the capital of Ghana, and because of the historically close ties between Gao and Tahert, since the 2nd/8th century, that still existed when the kings of Ghana converted to Islam.”
“After the rulers of Ghana were defeated by the Almoravids and forced to convert to Sunni Islam (Malikite Islam), halfway through the 5th/11th century, Tādmekka became one of the many towns in the western part of Bilād al-Sūdān that was cleansed of all Ibāḍī influences
“Because many prominent Ibāḍī ‘ulamā’ had left Basra for either Oman or the Maghreb, its Ibāḍī community went through a period of intellectual decline which ultimately meant that it lost its position as the most important center of theology and jurisprudence in the Ibāḍī world.”
“It was not long before Ibāḍī merchants could be found all the way from the Maghreb to India, and it is even alleged that Ibāḍī merchants were amongst the first to set up business ventures in China.”
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:14)
﷽
This entry is to share a brief over view about the territory that was once under the Omani Empire and which countries they would be considered part of today.
Also is an interesting bit of information about the the three longest lasting Muslim empires/dynasties.
The Omani Empire extended over part of what is today Iran-Bandar Abbas, U.A.E, Pakistan -Balochistan, Yemen, Comoros , Saudi Arabia-pecifically the region of Al-Hasa (or Al-Ahsa Oasis, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique. Madagascar, Djibouti,
Which are the top 3 longest lasting Muslim empires/dynasties in terms of longevity & stability?
1. 1299-1922 Ottoman/Sunni/Hanafi = 623 years
2. 750-1258 Abbasid/Sunni/Hanafi = 508 years
3. 1154-1624 Nabhani/Ibadi = 470 years
I would like to add here a brief yet very insightful and helpful message. This additional information is accredited to ‘The servant of Allah’ and surely his reward is with his Lord. May Allah (swt) bless him!
A small comment about Omani history(
1- The map of the Omani empire that you see here which is supposedly at the time of the Sultan Saeed Bin Sultan…but how accurate is it? Because we know that The Sultan ruled parts of the East African coast as he even lived there. However, did he rule all the colored land? The answer is definitely no. He had different degrees of influence in different areas, but in east Africa, he mostly ruled Zanzibar and its surroundings, like Mumbasa, Dar Al-Salam and Pempa. As for Iran, Oman actually didn’t rule the south coast, rather there was an agreement that Oman basically rented the port of Bandar Abbas, (which is still impressive) However, not as impressive as the map shows it to be. I also don’t think there was Omani sovereignty in Madagascar, Nor in Somalia just influence in trade. Yet, there was some control of trade routes to the African interior.
I should say that after the Imam Ahmed Bin Saeed, Oman was ruled by a monarchy all the way to this present day. Even though yes the rulers where Ibadi, they didn’t rule in the Ibadi way. This is especially true after the British colonized Oman, as they fought against the idea of an Islamic Ibadi state in the interior. Similarly for the Nabhani state, they were just a monarchy. Oman wasn’t even stable or flourishing, it was in chaos and it wasn’t really Islamic at all. They were in constant rivalry with Imams, like Imam Mohammed Bin Isma’il Al-Haderi, which was able to establish an Imamate that ended the first Nabhani era in the year 1500 AD / 906 AH then after his death the second Nabhani era began(1556 AD/964 AH), which then lasted for less than 100 years until the Portuguese invasion.
So what’s my point here?
1- Omani doesn’t equal Ibadi
2- History is not as simple as it looks
3- Ibadis could have done more in the past
4- If we want to be proud, we should look at the Omani Imams like:(Al-Julanda Bin Mas’ood, Al-Salt Bin Malik, Naser Bin Murshid, Mohammed Bin Abdullah Al-Khalil and All the others Imams that carried the Banner of Islam and Ibadism in the proper way).
“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)
“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 factionsfight 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.
“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).”
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.”
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.”
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’awiyais 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.”
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”
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 Moughaniapgs. 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.
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.”
“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 ofAl-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.
“Do not say that those killed in God’s path are dead; they are alive, though you do not perceive it.” (Qur’an 2:154)
﷽
Dedicated to those who were slain. 10 Safar 38/17 July 658
This article is dedicated to those companions who are known as the first teeth, the companions of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), The Ahl Suffa, Those who participated in the Battle of Badr. Your opponents may have tried to erase your names. And Allah alone knows the reality of the number of you. Your reward is with Allah (swt).
You can kill men. However, you cannot kill the truth!
Among those blessed companions and tabi’un that were slaughtered at Nahrawan
Among them are: 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 And others whom Allah does know that they are the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) from the people of Nahrawan, as well as from the tabi’un (May Allah be pleased with them all)
Source: (Jawhar Al Munteqah -Shaykh Abdul Qasim Al Barradi published by Dar Al Kutub Al Masriyyah, Cairo with the number 21791b)
Before you proceed it would absolutely be necessary for you to read the previous entry here:
To continue to read this entry without the background and knowledge of the previous entry in its entirety is to do yourself and this article an injustice. For often one tragedy has its seeds in a previous tragedy.
The backdrop for the battle of Nahrawan.
After Siffin those companions and tabi’un who knew well the ruse of Al-Ash’ath bin Qais and strongly opposed the arbitration withdrew to various places; among them, Kufa, Basra and Nahrawan.
Many people claim that the people of Al-Nahrawan rebelled against Ali This is an unsound claim. For according to us Ibadis, Al Nahrawan had insisted that Ali should stay as the Caliph/Imam of the Muslims.
However, when he accepted arbitration, they freed themselves from the allegiance because they didn’t see any point in negotiating his right as an elected Caliph/Imam by Muslims. His concession to the arbitration with Mu’awiyah’s group means that his election was questioned; therefore, they were free to elect their own Caliph/Imam. What they warned against happened, for arbitration was hatched by Al-Ash’ath bin Qais who was an asset to Mu’awiyah and a double agent in Ali’s camp.
They left his camp peacefully.
The Caliph/Imam they chose was amongst the most pious companions of the Prophet (saw). This person was none other than Abdul-Allah bin Wahab Ar-Rasbi Al-Azdi (ra). He was the Imam Al Difa. The Imam of Defense. Ali was called to repent and renounce the arbitration. However, when it was seen that Ali was recalcitrant then the post of Imam Abdul-Allah bin Wahab Ar-Rasbi changed form the Imam Al Difa to the Imam Al Dhuhr (The Manifest Imam).
The companions asked their brothers, including Imam Ali, to give allegiance to the newly chosen Imam. However, Ali bin Abi Talib saw that the allegiance was given to Azdi A non Qurashi , so he fought them before they could get any stronger and thus, the Quraish would lose the Imamate. This was the only reason for the Battle of Al-Nahrawan. Ali’s attack upon the people of Nahrawan was politically motivated.
From the Ibadi view the attack on the people of Nahrawan was politically motivated for two reasons.
Tribal concerns. That the Imamate would be given over to Non-Qurashi.
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais continuously whisper’s dark things in the heart of Ali bin Abi Talib and he succumbed to it.
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais motive was clear.
Divert Ali’s attention away from the Syrians. Giving them more time to strengthen and solidify their positions.
Pit Ali against the former die hard loyalist knowing full well that the killing of these companions and tabi’un would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of many -as we will see with Ibn Abbas (ra).
Ensure the nexus of power remains among the Qurash and that any non-Qurashi would not even have a whiff of authority over the Qurash.
How did the sectarian historians managed to fool the masses of the believers?
I would ask you the reader to put on your thinking cap for a moment. We are going to do a little critical thinking. So, the sectarian historians have told us that in Mu’awiyah’s army there were companions and students/children of the companions. In Ali’s army there were companions and students/children of the companions.
So are the X Men?
No, I am not talking about Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean Grey. I am talking about these supposed no names that broke with Ali after it was clear he would not repent nor give allegiance to the new Imam. Who are these X Men (Anonymous) individuals. The only exceptions that you will get to those who Ali fought against at Nahrawan is the piece of literary fiction involving someone known only as ‘ Dhu’th-Thudayyah’ and Imam Abdul-Allah bin Wahab Ar-Rasbi (ra). The latter is simply too famous to ignore or blot out completely.
Just like we were duped into thinking that a bunch of a X Men appeared out of no where and assassinated the Caliph Uthman. The companions just stood around and let that happen.
Every now and than though the truth slips through the layers of protection and obfuscation over these matters. Like the below mentioned Salafi Shaykh who went from ignorant to RadiAllahu Anhu! Why? Because his doctrine demands it. No matter how inconsistent.
To give another example of the graph above. This should be crystal clear.
If one was to drink from the bottle they will drink water. If one drinks from the cup they will drink water. That is because the liquid contained in the cup is from the water.
Thus the intelligent and thinking Muslim starts to come to a realization to who these X-Men truly are. They are none other than companions and students and children of the companions.
Once this cat is out of the bag then comes the copium. Sunni copium in particular. Because remember, in our previous article they are theologically invested in the doctrine of the uprightness of the companions. So we do not need 1000, or 100 or even 10 companions at Nahrawan. Just one companion and the myth of adalat al-sahaba implodes. Because you cannot have such a view and have the companions be called ‘the dogs of hellfire’. More on this latter insh’Allah.
37873- Yahya Bin Adam Told us, Ibn Ayina told us from ‘Asim Bin Kulaib Al-Harmi from his father said: I exited the Masjid as I see Ibn Abbas when he came from Mu’awiyah in the matter of the two arbitrators, so he entered the house of Sulaiman Bin Rabi’ah, so I entered with him, so man started throwing [words] at him then a man after a man, (Oh Ibn Abbas you disbelieved, (other synonyms: became Mushrik and associated with Allah), Allah said in his book so, and said so and said so) until some of it came to me, he said: and who are these?By Allah they are the first teeth, the companions of Muhammed, Ahl Al Barani wa Sawari, which are the Ahl Suffa so Ibn Abbas said: bring me the most knowledgeable and strongest in argument to speak, so they chose a one-eyed person called ‘Utab from Bani Taghlab, he stood and said: Allah said so and so, as if he extracts his argument from one Surah, Ibn Abbas said: I see that you are a reciter of the Qur’an, knowledgeable with what you separated and joined. I call you by Allah who has no god beside him, did you know that the people of the levant asked for this and we hated it and rejected it, so when you got injured, your pain bit you and you got banned from the water of the Euphrates so you asked for it. And Mu’awiyah told me that a far horse was brought from the land to run on it then brought it from you (I have no Idea what this sentence means) and said: I made the people of Iraq come in waves like the people the night of mobilization in Mecca, then Ibn Abbas said: I call you by Allah who has no god beside him, what kind of man was Abu Bakr? they said: good and they praised him, He said: you see if there was a man who went to Umrah or Hajj, then found a deer or some animal, so he ruled on it by himself, would it be for him, And Allah says: (as judged by just two men among you)[5:95], the matter you are differing about is greater, He says: do not deny to arbitrators regarding the Blood of the Ummah, Allah made in killing a bird to arbitrators, And made two arbitrators when a man differs with his spouse to establish justice and to be fair between them in what they differ in.
Source: (Al-Kitab Al-Musannaf Fi Al-Ahadith Wal A’thar (The classified book in Hadiths and Narrations) By Imam Al-Hafiz: Abu Bakr Abdullah Bin Muhammed Bin Abi Shaibah Al-Kufi Al-Absi Volume 7)
Prima Qur’an comments: Though the above narration is obviously told through the perspective of a sectarian historical lens one cannot help but notice the glaring admission here:
he said: and who are these?By Allah they are the first age, the companions of Muhammed, the people of Baranis (a type of cloth) and Sawari (walkers/flagpoles IDK what it means in this context)
In fact, it is the literary accretions of the editor that Ibn Abbas (ra) was dismissive of such people as he knew full well who they were. If they were not people of standing Ibn Abbas (ra) would not be sent to them.
Other points for the keen eyed reader.
so they chose a one-eyed person called ‘Utab from Bani Taghlab. Notice straight away the narrator comments on the physical nature of the individual rather than the strength of his argument. one-eyed person as if to cast aspersions on the individual as a type of dajjal (liar)
“He stood and said: Allah said so and so, as if he extracts his argument from one Surah.” Wouldn’t it have been nice to know exactly what the man said? That is if the narrative is even true. However, the narrator does acknowledge that this interlocutor is acute. He presents his (unnamed arguments) from one chapter of the Qur’an. Which is another way of saying: “This man knows his stuff!”
The Narrator has Ibn Abbas (ra) acknowledge the strength of the interlocutor: “Ibn Abbas said: I see that you are a reciter of the Qur’an, knowledgeable with what you separated and joined.”
Try as the narrator could by being dismissive of Ibn Abbas opponents in the debate, even the narrator knew who they were.
It worked once why not try it again? The creation of literary fiction.
The hadith of prophecy concerning Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) is clear. It is crystal clear that Ali was in the right during his war with Mu’awiya’ the rebel. That Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the baghy (rebels), which happen to be Mu’awiya and his cadre of rebels.
So clear is this hadith and the implications of it are crystal clear.
Thus, the success of this Prophecy was in turn to be replicated by inventing hadith and putting them in the mouth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that none but the blind would not be able to see it for what it is.
Both hadiths the hadith of Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) and the hadith of the companion-aka-saying to the Blessed Prophet (saw) ‘Be Just’ both serve the same purpose.
It is to give the one who hears them certainty about where one stands.
The hadith about “Muhammed Be Just” is literary fiction.
If you look at the reports you will see that there are very huge changes in the text.
The matn of the particular hadith all clash with one another.
The matn of the hadith hide the individual who supposedly came to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The matn of the hadith becomes mixed and added with an authentic report from the Blessed Prophet (saw)
The authentic report it becomes mixed /co-joined with are the following:
In fact you can see that the chapter heading is called: Chapter: Mention of the Khawarij
“It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that:
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “There will emerge peoplewho will recite the Qur’an but it will not go any deeper than their collarbones. Whenever a group of them appears, they should be cut off (i.e. killed).” Ibn ‘Umar said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘Whenever a group of them appears, they should be killed‘ – (he said it) more than twenty times- ‘until Dajjal emerges among them.'”
Prima Qur’an comments: There will emerge people -in other words they are not currently among you. Whenever a group of them appears. When taken with other hadith it means that such people will be a re-current theme for the Muslim Ummah at the end of times.
Also under the Chapter: Mention of the Khawarij
It was narrated that Anas bin Malik said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘At the end of time or among this nation (Ummah) there will appear people who will recite the Qur’an but it will not go any deeper than their collarbones or their throats. Their distinguishing feature will be their shaved heads. If you see them, or meet them, then kill them.'”
Prima Qur’an comments: This narrative above cannot be a reference to any people at the battles of Jamal, Siffin or Nahrawan as they are not at the end of time.
It was narrated that ‘Ali said:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: ‘At the end of time there will appearyoung people with foolish minds. Their faith will not pass through their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes through the target. If you meet them, then kill them, for killing them will bring reward to the one who killed them on the Day of Resurrection.'”
Prima Qur’an comments: This narrative above cannot be a reference to any people at the battles of Jamal, Siffin or Nahrawan as they are not at the end of time.
Abu Musa narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Before the Hour comes there will be Harj.” I said: “O Messenger of Allah, what is Harj?” He said: “Killing.” Some of the Muslims said: “O Messenger of Allah, now we kill such and such a number of idolaters in one year.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “That will not be like killing the idolaters, rather you will kill one another, until a man will kill his neighbor and son of the cousin and a relative.” Some of the people said: “O Messenger of Allah, will we be in our right minds that day?” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “No, reason will be taken away from most of the people at that time, and there will be left the insignificant people who have no reason.”
It is beyond doubt that the above hadith about the unnamed individual who latter is identified by Ibn Kathir to be Hurqus b Zuhair al-Sa’di (ra). The verdict on the hadith in the article: The Noble companion Hurqus ibn Zuhair and the deception of Ahl Sunnah ” Be Just!” is that these are fabrications. They are Da’if and Mawdu’.
The only semblance of truth that can be gleaned as having high probability as coming from the Blessed Messenger (saw) are the following:
“There will be people who will recite the Qur’an but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out through the game, and they will kill the Muslims and leave the idolaters. Should I live till they appear, I would kill them as the Killing of the nation of ‘Ad.”
“Then he said: “A people will come at the end of time; as if he is one of them, reciting the Qur’an without it passing beyond their throats. They will go through Islam just as the arrow goes through the target. Their distinction will be shaving. They will not cease to appear until the last of them comes with Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. So when you meet them, then kill them, they are the worst of created beings.”
The keen eye will note that for the above two quotations I gave no source from sunnah.com We know this is possible to trace to the Blessed Messenger (saw) because of the independent reports in Ibn Majah and Nasai that have been mentioned above. Those reports are independent of literary fiction surrounding the distribution of spoils and the anonymous individual who spouts ‘Be Afraid of Allah/Be Just’.
These hadiths remind combined that mention certain groups that come towards the end of time fit hand in glove with a certain sect among the Muslims that have hardly lifted their hands in du’a let alone their tongues in defense of our Muslim brothers and sisters in Palestine and yet we see Hindu temples flourish in Bahrain, Yemen, U.A.E & Oman.
We see this sect attack other schools with such vigour and it is not possible that Imams and teachers from other Muslim schools do good except that they can find fault with them!
What is the end game of these cooked up narratives? What is the objective?
Recall that the hadith of Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) being killed by the unjust group is clear and unequivocal. This is a far cry from the muddled and disorderly concoctions concerning the companion who says to the Prophet (saw) ‘Be Afraid of Allah/Be Just’
So let us see how they employ this supposed prophecy. What is the efficacy of it?
Hadith #1 to be analyzed.
Zaid b. Wahb Juhani reported and he was among the squadron which was under the command of Ali and which set out (to curb the activities) of the Khawarij. ‘Ali said:
“O people, I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: There would arise from my Ummah a people who would recite the Qur’an, and your recital would seem insignificant as compared with their recital, your prayer as compared with their prayer, and your fast, as compared with their fast. They would recite the Qur’an thinking that it supports them, whereas it is an evidence against them. Their prayer does not get beyond their collar bone; they would swerve through Islam just as the arrow passes through the prey. If the squadron which is to encounter them were to know (what great boon) has been assured to them by their Messenger (saw) they would completely rely upon this deed (alone and cease to do other good deeds), and their distinctive mark is that there would be (among them) a person whose wrist would be without the arm, and the end of his wrist would be fleshy like the nipple of the breast on which there would be white hair.” You would be marching towards Mu’awiya and the people of Syria and you would leave them behind among your children and your property (to do harm). By Allah, I believe that these are the people (against whom you have been commanded to fight and get reward) for they have shed forbidden blood, and raided the animals of the people. So go forth in the name of Allah (to fight against them). Salama b. Kuhail mentioned that Zaid b. Wahb made me alight at every stage, till we crossed a bridge. ‘Abdullah b. Wahb al-Rasibi was at the head of the Khawarij when we encountered them. He (‘Abdullah) said to his army: Throw the spears and draw out your swords from their sheaths, for I fear that they would attack you as they attacked you on the day of Harura. They went back and threw their spears and drew out their swords, and people fought against them with spears and they were killed one after another. Only two persons were killed among the people (among the army led by ‘Ali) on that day. ‘Ali said: Find out from among them (the dead bodies of the Khawarij) (the maimed). They searched but did not find him. ‘Ali then himself stood up and (walked) till he came to the people who had been killed one after another. He (‘Ali) said: Search them to the last, and then (‘Ali’s companions) found him (the dead body of the maimed) near the earth. He (‘Ali) then pronounced Allahu Akbar (Allah is the Greatest) and then said, Allah told the Truth and His Messenger (saw) conveyed it. Then there stood before him ‘Abida Salmani who said: Commander of the Believers, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He, (tell me) whether you heard this hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Yes, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He. He asked him to take an oath thrice and he took the oath.”
Why is there a man making him (Ali) swear oaths about what he says , up to three times? As if they do not believe in his credibility.
Also notice the interpolation in the mouth of the Blessed Prophet (saw):
“They would recite the Qur’an thinking that it supports them, whereas it is an evidence against them.” You do not find this in any other hadith. However it is a very convenient plot device that goes against those who opposed the Arbitration.
Lastly, why can’t we have the name of this individual? This is unlike the Prophecy concerning Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) which is very crystal clear.
Hadith #2 to be analyzed.
‘Ubaidullah b. Abu Rafi’, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), said:
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.
Prima Qur’an comments: Why can’t we have the name of this individual? This is unlike the Prophecy concerning Ammar Bin Yasir (ra) which is very crystal clear.
Notice the strange parallel between this hadith and the one above: Ali supposedly states:
“By Allah, neither I have spoken a lie nor has the lie been spoken to me. ‘Ali said this twice and thrice. ”
The one above has:
Then there stood before him ‘Abida Salmani who said: Commander of the Believers, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He, (tell me) whether you heard this hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Yes, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He. He asked him to take an oath thrice and he took the oath
Hadith #3 to be analyzed.
Abu Katheer, the freed slave of the Ansar, narrated:
I was with my master `Ali bin Abi Talib when the people of an-Nahrawan were killed, and it was as if the people were upset about their being killed. `Ali said: O people, the Messenger of Allah (saw) told us about people who would pass out of the faith like the arrow passes through the prey, then they will never come back to it until the arrow comes back to the string of the bow. And the sign of that is that there would be a black man among them who had a deformed arm: one of his arms would be like the breast of a woman, with a nipple like the nipple on a woman`s breast, around which are seven coarse hairs. Look for him, for I think he must be among them. So they looked for him and they found him on the bank of the river, lying beneath the slain. They brought him out and ’Ali said: Allahu Akbar! Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth. He was holding an Arabian bow of his; he took it in his hand and started poking the man`s deformity with it and said: Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth. The people said Allahu Akbar when they saw that and they rejoiced and no longer felt upset.
Prima Qur’an comments: Notice the hadith mentions that the people were upset with the Ahl Nahrawan being killed. It was only after Ali supposedly mentions an alleged hadith of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that the people ‘no longer felt upset.’
Hadith #4 to be analyzed.
Ali said:
When I narrate to you from the Messenger of Allah (saw), it would be dearer to me to be thrown down from the sky than to tell a lie about him But if I narrate from someone else, then I am a warrior and war is deceit, I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: `There will emerge at the end of time people who are young in age and immature, but their speech will be like the best of people. But their faith will not go any further than their throats. Wherever you encounter them, then kill them, for killing them brings to the one who kills them reward on the Day of Resurrection.
Prima Qur’an comments: Why is this hadith make Ali look like someone who is accused of reporting false information from the Blessed Prophet (saw) ? Why does Ali allegedly distinguish that he will be truthful when narrating from the Prophet (saw) but alas, he is a warrior and war is deceit?
Why is this narration clearly speaking about such a group appearing in the end of time and not applied to Ahl Nahrawan?
Hadith #5 to be analyzed.
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.
Prima Qur’an comments:
Why is this hadith make Ali look like someone who is accused of reporting false information from the Blessed Prophet (saw) ? Why does Ali allegedly distinguish that he will be truthful when narrating from the Prophet (saw) but alas, 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?
Why is this narration clearly speaking about such a group appearing in the end of time and not applied to Ahl Nahrawan?
Hadith #6 to be analyzed.
Ubaidullah b. Abu Rafi’, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), said:
When Haruria (the Khawarij) set out and as he was with ‘Ali b. Abu Talib 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.
Prima Qur’an comments: Notice once more the theme of (Ali) swearing oaths about what he says , up to three times?
“The statement is true but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause).”
“That is the word of truth behind which wrong is intended.” In response to that, Al-Imamu Abu ‘Ubaida, the second Ibadhi leader, said: “Those people have uttered those words with their mouths, what did make ‘Ali know what was confined in their hearts?”
Exactly! Remember where another companion of the Blessed Prophet (saw) slaughtered a man without justice and the Blessed Prophet (saw) was enraged.
We give you the account here:
It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said:
There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Messenger (saw). The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: Did he profess” There is no god but Allah,” and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day. Sa’d said: By Allah, I would never kill any Muslim so long as a person with a heavy belly, i. e., Usama, would not kill. Upon this a person remarked: Did Allah not say this: And fight them until there is no more mischief and religion is wholly for Allah? Sa’d said: We fought so that there should be no mischief, but you and your companions wish to fight so that there should be mischief.
If the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself depended entirely on the Divine Revelation in judging what is not physically seen, then we must logically conclude that by criticizing the people for something that was beyond human knowledge, ‘Ali was incorrect since he did not receive divine revelation. This may not be convincing to Imami Shi’a but certainly to Sunni Muslims this should give them pause.
ALI SAID DO NOT KILL THE KHAWARIJ???
None of the above hadiths can be a reference to Ahl Nahrawan! Recall the following information from the above hadith:
Hadith #1 ” they would swerve through Islam just as the arrow passes through the prey.”
Hadith #3 “who would pass out of the faith like the arrow passes through the prey.”
Hadith #4 “Wherever you encounter them, then kill them, for killing them brings to the one who kills them reward on the Day of Resurrection.”
Hadith #5 “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.”
“Do not fight the kharijites after me, because one who seeks a right but does not find it, is not like the one who seeks a wrong and finds it.” -Ali Ibn Abu Talib
Source: (Nahju Al-Balagha Vol. 1, p. 67, speech no. 56.)
The words “He who seeks a right but does not find it” – as ‘Ali himself says – is an allusion to the Nahrawanees who are otherwise known as the Khawarij. The words “Unlike he who seeks misguidance intentionally” refer to Mu’awiya and his Syrian forces.
1st point.
The word khawarij is an interpolation by a later redactor. That is because when you look at the above hadith how could he Ali make impermissible what the Blessed Prophet (saw) instructed to do? Namely Hadith #4 & Hadith #5 above: So when you meet them, kill them
2nd point.
“Are the Khawarij mushrikun?” Ali said: “They flee from shirk.” Are they munafiqun? Ali said: “The hypocrites remember Allah only a little.” Then what are they? Ali said: “They are our brothers who transgressed against us (ikhwanuna baghaw ‘alayna), so we fought them for their transgression.” Source: (Al-Bidāya wa l-Nihāya 10:591)
So according to the above statement the so called Khawarij cannot be a reference to those in Hadith #1 and Hadith #3 namely: “Who would pass out of the faith like the arrow passes through the prey.” The narrative above has Ali stating that his complaint was against transgression not that these people were mushrik,or munafiq, rather that they were brothers.
Furthermore
Ali identifies Mu’awiya as the Khawarij!
‘Ali told one of his followers named Al-Ashtar: “I told you that I assigned to Muhammed bin Abi Bakr the governorship (of Egypt); (but) these Khawarij have revolted against him.” Thus, according to ‘Ali, Mu’awiya and his followers were the Khawarij.
Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri’s hadith about Khawarij point to Mu’awiya and his Syrian forces.
Al-Hakim in his Al-Mustadrak narrates on the authority of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri that when asked about the Khawarij, Abu Said’s answer pointed to Mu’awiya and his Syrian followers as being the Khawarij. That was why, in his answer, he quoted the Blessed Prophet (saw) as saying: “Ammaar (bin Yasir) would be killed by a rebellious group” and he was, as a matter of fact, killed by the Syrian forces who were under the leadership of Mu’awiya. This can be taken to show that the Khawarij, in the view of Abu Sa’id, were Mu’awiya and his followers otherwise he would need not to have mentioned them as his answer to the question of “Who were the Khawarij
Sources: (Refer to Al-Hakim Al-Mustadrak Vol. 2, p. 162-163. tradition no. 2653. Ibn Abdi Rabih Al-Iqdu Al-Farid Vol)
*Note* some publications have began to remove the reference in Al-Hakim!
Summary
We have already shown that using the ‘Be Afraid of Allah/Be Just’ hadith as some prophecy that supposedly vindicates Ali at the battle of Nahrawan. We have already shown those hadith to be spurious.
It was an ill intentioned attempt to replicate the success of the real and actual prophecy concerning Ammar Bin Yasir (ra).
Lastly, several hadith that are purported to come form Ali have him mention that such people would come at the end of time.
A narrative is spun. The so called-Kharijites are ultra violent fanatics.
We can see where this narrative is spun that apparently those opposed to Imam Ali’s decision for arbitration threatened to kill Hassan & Hussein. We already took apart this spacious claim.
Now there is an evolution in their blood thirsty behavior. Allegedly these people interrogate the common people concerning their views on Uthman and Ali. They execute on the spot anyone who doe snot share their views. They are alleged to have beheaded a companion , disemboweling a pregnant woman and killing her unborn infant. Certainly these people were savages. They are beyond all reproach.
Thus, we get a buffet of hadith demanding no quarter and no mercy towards them.
Kharijites are the dogs of hellfire. Fabricated hadith attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw)
Ali’s exhortation to kill the Kharijites. -Which he mentions no such thing as the hadith is talking about those who come at the end of time.
The anonymous individual hadith. (‘Be Afraid of Allah/Be Just’) Fabricated hadith attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw)
The alleged killing of ‘Abdallah, the son of Khabbab (ra) and company.
“A man from the Banu Abd al-Ways who was one of the Khawarij but then separated from them: (The Khawarij) entered a village and ‘Abdallah, the son of Khabbab the Companion of the Prophet, came out in terror dragging his rida. They asked him, “Why are you frightened?” and he answered, “By Allah you have made me terrified.” They asked, “Are you ‘Abdullah the son of Khabbab the Companion of the Prophet?” and he answered, “Yes” They asked, “Did you hear from your father a report (hadith) that he narrated from the Prophet, according to which the Prophet said, ‘(There will be) a fitnah in which the sitting man is better than the standing, the standing better than the walking, and the walking than the running. And if you are alive then, the servant of Allah, be the one who is slain?” (Ayyub said: I do not know any other version but that in which the Prophet said, “Do not be, servant of Allah, the one who is the slayer.” Ibn Khabbab answered them, “Yes.” So they brought him to the canal bank, where they cut off his head and his blood flowed like the lace of a sandal, and they pierced the womb of his concubine (umm walad) and emptied it of its contents).”
“The Khawarij who came from al-Basrah proceeded until they drew near their brethren on the canal. A band of them went out and came upon a man who was driving a donkey carrying a woman. They crossed to him, called to him, threatened and terrorized him, and said, “Who are you?” He replied, “I am ‘Abdallah, the son of Khabbab the Companion of the Prophet.” Then he grasped at his robe {thawb}, lifting it from the ground where it had fallen when they were terrorizing him. They said, “Have we frightened you?” and he answered, “Yes.” They said, “There is no need to be alarmed. Tell us a hadith that your father heard from the Prophet. Perhaps Allah will give us some benefit by it.” He said, “My father told me from the Prophet, ‘There will be a fitnah in which the heart of a man will die as does his body. In the evening he will be a Believer and by the next morning an unbeliever, and in the morning he will be an unbeliever and by the next evening a Believer.” They said, “This is the hadith we have asked of you. And what do you say about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar” He heaped praise on them both. They asked, “What do you say about ‘Uthman in the first part of his caliphate and in the last part?” He said, “He was in the right in the first part and in the last part.” They said, “And what do you say about ‘Ali before the appointment of the arbitrators (tahkim) and afterward?” He answered, “He knows more of Allah than you do. He is more Allah-fearing in his religion (din), and more perceptive in his views.” They said. “You follow your own inclinations and support men according to their names rather than their deeds. By Allah, we will inflict on you a death such as we have never inflicted on anybody.” They took him and bound him and then led him and his wife who was in the last stages of pregnancy beneath heavily laden palm trees. A date fell from them and one of them took it and put it in his own mouth. Another said, “(You do that) without permission and without paying!” and he spat it out. Then he took his sword and began swinging it around. A pig belonging to one of the “protected peoples” (ahl al-dhimmah) passed by, and the Khariji struck it with his sword. They said, “This is evil in the land,” and the one who struck it went to the owner of the pig and gave him satisfaction for it. When Ibn Khabbab saw them doing that, he said, “If you are sincere in what I have seen, I need fear no evil from you. I am a Muslim who has not caused any wrong in Islam, and you have given me security when yo said, “There is no need to be alarmed.” But they took him and made him lie down, and they slaughtered him so that his blood flowed into the water. Then they came to his wife, who said, “I am only a woman! Do you not fear Allah?” But they slit open her belly. And they killed three women of Tayyi, as well as Umm Sinan al-Saydawiyyah.
When Ali and those of the Muslims heard about the way in which the Khawarij had killed ‘Abdallah b. Khabbab and about the slaughter 9i’tirad) they were imposing, he sent al-Harith b. Murrah al-Abdi to them, to go to them and enquire about what he had heard concerning them and to write back about it fully and without concealment. He left and when he had got as far as the canal, intending to question them, they came out against him and killed him. News of this reached the Commander of the Faithful (Ali) and his followers, who came to him saying, “Commander of the Faithful, why you are letting them remain at our backs, to take our properties and our families from us? Lead us against them and then, when we have settled the matter with them, we will go against our Syrian enemy.”
Prima Qur’an comments: One has to be extremely dimwitted to believe such cooked up nonsense. If one is able to reconcile this contradictory reports than it is possible to reconcile all contradictions in the Bible. First of all why would anyone pick this particular companion (Abdallah b Khabbab) to cook up a story? His father Khabbab ibn al-Aratt (ra) was a very pious companion loved by all. It makes sense to use his son as a plot device to further polarize an already divided community. Also, it gives Ali ibn Abu Talib a pretext for attacking Ahl Nahrawan. For according to what YOU have been told. This and THIS ALONE is THE reason for him attacking them.
Did they find Abdallah as they entered a village or did they find him when they went out of the village? The Khawarij) entered a village and ‘Abdallah, the son of Khabbab the Companion of the Prophet, came out in terror dragging his ridavs.A band of them went out and came upon a man who was driving a donkey carrying a woman
Did they ask Abdallah to confirm a hadith or narrate a hadith? Did you hear from your father a report (hadith) that he narrated from the Prophetvs.Tell us a hadith that your father heard from the Prophet
Did they kill his wife or his concubine? and they pierced the womb of his concubine (umm walad)vs. Then they came to his wife, who said, “I am only a woman! Do you not fear Allah?” But they slit open her belly. Btw ….umm walad is quite an anonymous name as it simply means mother of the child.
Did they only kill him (Abdullah) and his concubine or they kill him (Abdullah) his wife and four additional women. So they brought him to the canal bank, where they cut off his head and his blood flowed like the lace of a sandal, and they pierced the womb of his concubine (umm walad)vs.they slaughtered him so that his blood flowed into the water. Then they came to his wife, who said, “I am only a woman! Do you not fear Allah?” But they slit open her belly. And they killed three women of Tayyi, as well as Umm Sinan al-Saydawiyyah
That’s just the major contradictions. Now let us look into the superfluous and excessively fantastical account of one these stories.
“A date fell from them and one of them took it and put it in his own mouth. Another said, “(You do that) without permission and without paying!” and he spat it out. Then he took his sword and began swinging it around. A pig belonging to one of the “protected peoples” (ahl al-dhimmah) passed by, and the Khariji struck it with his sword. They said, “This is evil in the land,” and the one who struck it went to the owner of the pig and gave him satisfaction for it.”
We are really to believe that these people acted as such? They gave greater care for taking a date without permission or paying the dhimmi for the life of his pig taken without right. Whereas no reason or rhyme for killing these other people they just do it?!
Particularly amusing is the following:
“Then he took his sword and began swinging it around. A pig belonging to one of the “protected peoples” (ahl al-dhimmah) passed by, and the Khariji struck it with his sword.”
So some Khawarij dude is just out there swinging and hacking and slashing like a torrent of of death a violent tornado and in all that hacking and slashing this poor lil pig just got in the way of it all didn’t he?
Also note the following from the Tabari account that people were goading Ali to go and fight the people of Nahrawan.
Ali heard that the men were saying among themselves, “If only he would go with us against these Haruriyyah (Ahl Nahrawan) , and we dealt with them first and then, having finished with them, we turned our attention to the profaners of Allah’s law (al-mu1 illin-Syrians)!” So Ali addressed them, and after praising Allah and extolling Him, said, “I have heard what you have been saying : ‘If only the Commander of the Faithful would go with us against this group of Kharijites that has rebelled against him, and we dealt with them first and then, having finished with them, we turned to the profaners of Allah law.’ But others are more important for us than these Kharijites. Stop talking about them and march instead against a people who are fighting you so that they may be tyrants and kings and take the servants of Allah as chattel .” And the men shouted from every side, “Commander of the Faithful, lead us wherever you wish!”
Yet, let us really see who were those who committed out and out atrocities against the believers.
Muhammed bin Abi Bakr Al-Siddiq was killed on the orders of Mu’awiya. He was inserted into the stomach of a donkey and then burned! Shall we say “May Allah be pleased with such a man” and expect people to enter into Islam?
Sources: (Top right: Al-Isabah fi Tamyeez As Sahabah الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة Correctness, in recognizing the companions By Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani Narration number 173)
Sources: (Top Left: Muawiyah Bin Abi Sufian A great companion and a Mujahid King By Munir Mohammed Al Ghadban pg.298)
Sources: (Bottom: Al’alam, Qamoos Tarajim, Li Ashhar Ar-Rijal Wan Nisa’ Minal Arab Wal Musta’ribin Wal Mustashrikin الأعلام، قاموس تراجم، لأشهر الرجال والنساء من العرب والمستعربين والمستشرقين The marks, Dictionary of Biographies, For the most famous men and women from Arabs Arabists and orientalists By Khair Ad-Deen Az-Zarkalia V.2 pg.169)
Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr’s neck was cut off by order of Mu’awiya, the rebel. He was the first head to be cut off in Islam!
Sources: (Kitab At-Tazkirah, Bi Ahwal AlMauta Wa Ujuril Akhirah كتاب التذكرة، بأحوال الموتى وأجور الآخرة The book of reminder, on the states of the dead and the reward of the hereafter By Imam Abu Abdullah Mohammed Bin Ahmed Al-Ansari pg.1105)
The companion of the Prophet (saw) and brutal relentless general of the rebel Mu’awiya , none other than Busr Ibn Abi Artah
Various spellings for his name are given in English: Busr Ibn Abi Artat /Busr ibn Arta’ah/Busr ibn Abi Artah.
This companion of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and general of Mu’awiya was a real piece of work. The man is recounted in Sunni sources for his vicious barbary. He took a large number of their women and children into captivity. This was the first time in the history of Islam up to that time that Muslim women and children had been taken into captivity. Busr martyred two of ‘Ubayd Allah’s children who had remained behind in Medina.
Sources: ( Al-‘Aqd al-Farid, vol. 5, p. 11. By Ibn Abd Rabbih -the Maliki and close friend of the Umayyad court in Cordova Spain. /Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 3, p. 22. by al-Masudi the descendant of the companion Ibn Masud (ra)/ Ibn Athir, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 425)
It was in the face of the increasing brutality of the Umayyad Imperium that the ideological descendants of the Ahl Nahrawan began to differ over the application of such passages such as:
“And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.” (Qur’an 2:179)
Those who later history know as the Ibadi were the Jamaat al Qaida -those that sit down. Quietist that did their level best to withdraw their hand from the blood of other Muslims.
The discordant and contradictory account from the so called historical narratives.
1st Contradiction.
Al Tabari in his Al-Taarikh, followed by Ibn Al-Athir in his Al-Kamil for example states that: “All (Ahl Nahrawan) returned to join Ali”)
Sources: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6. p 13 & Ibn Al-Athir, Al Kamil Vol 2. p.679)
This is flatly contradicted by Ibn A’atham in his Al-Futuh. He states that those who rejoined Ali as a result of the discussion numbered 8,000 while few others stuck to their stance. He says:
“He exempted eight thousand of them, and four thousand persisted in fighting a war against him.”
Source: (Ibn A’atham , Al-Futuh Vol 2 pg. 125)
Second Contradiction.
If the Ahl Narhawan all returned to join Imam Ali’s army then who did he fight? There would have been no battle of Nahrawan at all!
Third Contradiction.
The idea that “All (Ahl Nahrawan) returned to join Ali”) But this claim goes against one of the alleged aims of Ali to meet with Ahl Nahrawan that is to submit to him those who killed a man named Abdullahi ibn Khabab. Surprisingly according to the same accounts, Ali did not even mention the issue of Abdullahi ibn Khabab at all! Instead he simply asked them to rejoin him!
Suffice it to say that the question arises here is: Why did Ali blame Ahl Nahrawan that it was they who forced him to accept arbitration, and that he hated the whole idea of arbitration. While at the end of the same narration, he defended the idea of arbitration as being good and constructive. If it was a good thing which had been ordered by the Qur’an and it was the so called: “Khawarij” who suggested the urgent necessary to accept it then why did he blame them for it? It means they wanted the good thing and Ali did not!
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.)
And as already mentioned and I think any thinking Muslim can realize the futility of sending Ibn Abbas (ra) to convince people of arbitration who already believed in it!
Tabari accounts are unreliable due to the transmitter Abu Mikhnaf , Lut Bin Yahya.
Here is what the people of Al-Jahr wa l-Ta’dil had to say about him.
Ibn Hajar in his Lisanu Al-Mizan, Al-Dhahabi in his Mizan al-I’itidaaal, Ibn Abi Hatim in his Al Jarhu Wa al-Ta’adil and others, have vigorously renounced his narratives. Read, for example, what both Ibn Hajar and AL-Dhahabi write about Abu MIkhanf. They say: “He is an evil and unreliable reporter.” He has been abandoned by Abu Hatim and his counterparts. Al-Daraqutni says: ‘He is weak.” Yahya ibn Ma’in says: ‘He is not reliable.’ Al-‘Uqaili has mentioned him in his Al-Dhu’afaa (a book on weak narrators of traditions). Al Dhahabi added: “he is a professional Shi’a narrator who narrates their accounts (on their creeds).
Sources: (Refer to Ibn Hajar Lisanu Al Mizan Vol 4. p. 492, biography no. 1568. More details about him can be found in MIzan Al-I’itidaal vy Al-Dhahabi, Vol 4. p 340. biography no. 6992. Also refer to Al-Jahr Wa alTa’adil by Ibn Abi Hatim Vol 7 p.182 biography no. 1030)
Those women loving Kharijites!
‘Imran ibn Hittaan & Ibn Muljam -men who traded it all for the love of women! Ah to be young and naïve again!
Of course this type of polemic goes well to cement such people as Ahl al-ahwa’ (The people who follow base desires)
Is it not interesting that the polemic derived against those who are known to be the ideologically aligned with the idea that the arbitration was a mess that they are known to fall for the beauty and graces of women?
Imran Ibn Hittan
So for example they say about Imran Ibn Hittan the following:
‘Imraan ibn Hittaan was one of ahl al-Sunnah, and he married a Khaariji woman in order to set her straight, but then he ended up becoming one of the leaders of the Khawaarij.
Source: (Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ by al-Dhahabi (2/214).
This looks more like a plot device as if to say that Bukhari narrated from him (Imraan ibn Hittan) when he was from “Ahl Sunnah” but did not when he left “Ahl Sunnah”
Allah knows best the truth of the matter. Yet, where have we heard this story before? The story of someone supposedly putting it all on the line for a woman! Enter Ibn Muljam.
Abdur-Rahman Ibn Muljam
Our teacher Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi when asked about Abdur-Rahman Ibn Muljam gave a fair and balanced perspective concerning him (Abdur-Rahman Ibn Muljam).
So there are three things in relation to Abdur-Rahman ibn Muljam.
That he took the right of the people of Al Nahrawan. Ali killed them with injustice and Abdur-Rahman was applying Qisas. *
That Abdur-Rahman Ibn Muljam fell in love with a woman named Qatam bint Shajna and that he chanced upon her while she was broken with grief over the loss of loved ones at Al Nahrawan. Abdur-Rahman Ibn Muljam proposed to marry her at which she wanted as dowry the head of Ali Ibn Abu Talib.
That Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, the double agent was not done sabotaging Ali. That Mu’awiya received word of what happened at Nahrawan and how people were deeply displeased with Ali’s actions (we saw the cooling in relation between Ali and Ibn Abbas-ra) and we also noted that Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali at the battles of Jamal and Siffin but absent at Nahrawan. Mu’awiya received word of the people’s displeasure sent Al-Ash’ath bin Qais who chanced upon Abdur-Rahman Ibn Muljam and hatched the plot to kill Ali.
*Note* There are historical reports that Abdur Rahman Ibn Muljam was with Ali in the killing of the people of Al Nahrawan, felt guilt and remorse and wanted to make amends by extracting vengeance upon Ali. The other is that he was with the people of Al Nahrawan all the while.
Other information is that he migrated during the Caliphate of ‘Umar (ra) And that he had received knowledge of Islam at the hands of Mu’aath ibn Jabal (ra) he was among the people of piety, and jurisprudence and among the and he was among the qurrā and the people of Fiqh and worship.
If anyone has an issue with Shaykh Hilal’s comments then this person would take issue with the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself who said:
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.”
No one from among the Muslims is exempt from the justice of Islam, regardless of their status, clan, heritage etc.
So it can simply be that Abdul Rahman Ibn Muljam wanted revenge for the death of his loved ones, friends, family etc. that fell to Ali’s army. There are some people who among Muslims that believe that the blood of Ali is expensive and the blood of other Muslims is cheap. No, this is not the case at all. Nonetheless Allah (swt) is the final judge. In regard to Abdul Rahman Ibn Muljam acting as some type of loan wolf. The last he knew is that the people of Nahrawan were unjustly attacked by Ali’s forces. To his (Ibn Muljams) knowledge there was no peace treaty or terms reached with Ali or his forces. Thus, being in a state of war he continued to act as a person in a state of war whose last legitimate authority was attacked and killed.
“Two years later Seyyidina Ali was murdered by one Ibn Muljam in 40H (661 CE) to avenge the massacre of the relatives of his wife at the battle of Nahrawan. The conspiracy to kill him was hatched, according to Jalaluddin Assyuti, In Mecca, not in Basra where there was a large concentration of the people of Nahrawan. The identity of Ibn Muljam s not known but some historical sources allege that he was a Khariji, and so they accuse the Khawarij including the Ibadhis, of having murdered Seyyidna Ali. Today some Muslim leaders bitterly complain that the Western media unjustifiably accuse Muslims in general of terrorism because of the tragedy which happened in the World Trade Center in New York on 11th of September, 2001 and perpetrated by a group of young men belonging allegedly to the Islamic faith. But the same Muslim leaders had been in the forefront in accusing Ibadhis today for a crime which was committed by one man almost 1400 years ago. Allah will punish the individual who murdered Seyyidna Ali but not all future generations belonging to a particular sect or madh-hab.”
Source: (pg.152 Ibadhism The Cinderella of Islam by Shaykh Soud H. Al-Ma’awaly)
Prima Qur’an comments: So you can see by the title of Seyyidina in front of the name Ali that Shaykh Soud H. Al-Ma’awaly is among those who believe that Ali repented for his actions. Though, I do not know on what basis he says that Allah (swt) will punish Ibn Muljam for his actions if the news of Ali’s repentance did not reach Ibn Muljam or as stated above no news of a cessation in hostilities reached him (Ibn Muljam). Allah knows best.
Lastly, Nahrawan & Karbala. Can you imagine if those of our school commemorated the atrocity of Nahrawan in the way that many Shi’a do with Karbala. I mean imagine if every year people from the Ibadi school commemorated the massacre of the Muslims of al Nahrawan with poems, and wailing, and public displays of anger and sadness. How is that helpful to the unity of Muslims to commemorate such historical tragedies?
And a Large majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan were companions and thousands of Muslims and the majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan that day were from the best of people on the earth that day and the most ascetic. Amongst them were those who fought the battle of Badr; those who gave allegiance under that tree and reciters and the best of the tabi’un.
Evidence used by the Ibadi school to show that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had repented for his sins.
That is repentance for the sin of arbitration and for the slaughter of the people of Nahrawan. That he felt remorse in his heart and realized that killing the people of Nahrawan was a greave mistake. Thus, by extension is reasoned that he would not feel that way if he did not see them as being in the right. ipso facto-the arbitration was a colossal mistake.
In other words there came a point in which he felt the walls closing in around him and saw the great loss the chain of events that befell him. These Ibadis are those who hold Ali Ibn Abu Talib in wilayat. They do not hold him in bara’ah. Nor do they practice wuquoof. They will often say Karram Allahu Wajhahū (Allah honoured his face). Though it is unlikely they will say Radeyallāhu ′Anhu (May Allah pleased with him). As this is exclusively reserved for those companions who were not known to do any open sins against Allah (swt). However, the act of repentance is certainly the most pleasing forms of worship.
And Narrated From Ikrimah – Client Of Ibn Abbas: Abdullah B. Abbas “That Narrated to Him From Qunbur – Client of Ali that when Ali had killed the people of Al-Nahr, Me And Him Turned our faces towards the river to wash off, whilst we were doing such he(Ali) then began to cry; And he cried for a long time before I then asked him: “Why these tears oh Amir al-Mu’minin.?” He said: “Woe to you oh Qunbur, do you know who we have just fought and killed here? We fought with and killed the best amongst of this Ummah and our reciters!” I then said: “Indeed! By Allah it is as you say Oh Amir al-Mu’minin..” I then too began to cry, Ali Then said again:” Woe to you Oh Qunbur” scrunching his nose and frowning he then cried for a long time again and his regret for his action of killing them(people of nahr) became apparent and we could this from the situation he had entered.” And It Was told to me that Ali’s companions after killing the people of al nahr they walked around surveying the dead. So they could bury them then one of them passed by his brother(his corpse) and said: “This is my brother so-and-so.” He then brought dust over His head and fled the army(out of anger) And that those who fled the army just that day alone amounted to 12,000 in numbers, That they would search the dead then see they’re own and then bury them and flee from Ali’s army and dissent from him.”
Source: (Al-Jawahir Al-Muntaqah الجواهر المنتقاه The selected gems By Abul-Qasem Bin Ibrahim Al-Barradi -May Allah have mercy on him pgs. 155-156)
Narrated From ‘Attab B. Mukhallad Narrated to Him(From) Al-Sha’abi That: “After Ali Finished Killing the people of Al-Nahr, wished to straighten things and so he said to his son; do not dislike pledging allegiance to Mu’awiya. For by Allah if you lose this allegiance you will see heads falling from they’re shoulders as if they were horse-heads!” He Then Said: “When Ali Arrived At Kufa, After killing the people of Al-Nahr, his son Al Hassan said to him: ‘Oh My Father Have you killed a people?’ He said: ‘Yes’ I(Hassan) Then said: “Will those who killed them see heaven?” He(Ali) Then Said: “Oh How I(We) Wish we could even if it was loved to us(Jannah)” And That Whilst Ali Was In Kufa he no longer heard those sounds he would hear at night as if it were the buzzing of bees(research this bees, they’re buzzing is apparently are soothing SubhanAllah!) We Told Him: ’We Have Killed them on that day of Al-Nahr!’ He Said: ‘Those We’re Our Brothers and Jurists!!’“
Source: ( Al-Jawahir Al-Muntaqah الجواهر المنتقاه The selected gems By Abul-Qasem Bin Ibrahim Al-Barradi -May Allah have mercy on him pg. 158)
And our companions(The Ibadis) have differed As regard to when did Ali exactly kill the people of nahrawan: in some sources it is mentioned that it was before the sending of the two arbitrators and after they’re gathering at dumat al jandal(city in Saudi now); whilst others mention that it was after the sending of the two arbitrators and after they’re decision to depose those they represented. And The people killed from Al Nahrawan numbered up too 4,000. Amongst them: 70 witnessed The battle of Badr and 400 of them were of those known as Al-Sawari: They were known for rarely leaving the masjids. And Ali regretted killing them And he would bring each killer and ask for forgiveness for them and say: ‘What have we done! We have killed the best amongst us and our Jurists!!” And the people differed(Opinions I Assume) in these 4 Tribulations: Fitna Al Dar, Al Jamal, Al Siffin And Al Nahrawan.
Source: (Al-Jawahir Al-Muntaqah الجواهر المنتقاه The selected gems By Abul-Qasem Bin Ibrahim Al-Barradi -May Allah have mercy on him pg. 160)
لقد قُتل جميع هؤلاء وغيرهم من الصحابة وآلاف من المسلمين في هذه الواقعة ، وعلى الإجمال فإن أهل النهروان كانوا من خيار أهل الأرض يومئذ وزهادهم ، فيهم من أهل بدر وممن بايع تحت الشجرة والقراء ، ومن خيار التابعين.
(. لتتبع أسماء الصحابة من أهل النهروان يراجَع كتاب الجواهر المنتقاة لأبي القاسم بن إبراهيم البرادي ، ت 750هـ ، والكتاب مخطوط في دار الكتب المصرية بالقاهرة . تحت رقم 21791ب)
الصحابي عبدالله بن عباس انتدبه علي ابن ابي طالب لمناظرة أهل النهروان ، وتختلف المصادر هاهنا فمنها ما يقول حجَّهم ومنه ما يقول حجُّوه ، وقد ذكرنا ما رواه الطبري من مقولة ابن عباس في التحكيم ، فرأيه رأي أهل النهروان ، والمصادر الإباضية تورد رسالة شديدة اللهجة من علي إلى ابن عباس ومما يقوله فيها ( وقد بلغني عنك أنَّك تقول : ((بعثني علي إلى قوم لأخاصمهم فخصموني بما كنت أخصم به الناس)) ، فلعمري لئن كنت تعلم أني قتلت الخوارج ظلماً وماليتني على قتلهم ، ورضيت به ، فأنت شريكي في قتلهم ، وإن كنت تضمر لي أمراً وتظهرُ خلافه ، فلقد شقيت في الدنيا والآخرة…) ثمَّ تذكر المصادر الإباضية جواب ابن عباس لعلي ، وبه تفصيل للمناظرة ، وما تمَّ فيها وحجج الفريقين واضحة ولا يهم أين وردت وإنما المهم قوة الحجة ونصاعة البرهان ، في أي مصدرٍ كانت ، وأنت تعلم الآن أنَّ من أهل النهروان من هو لا يقل فضلاً عن ابن عباس بل هنالك من هو أطول منه صحبة وقد شهد بدرا .
الطبري 3/114
Source: (Al Tabari 3/114 and Al-Jawahir Al-Muntaqah الجواهر المنتقاه The selected gems By Abul-Qasem Bin Ibrahim Al-Barradi -May Allah have mercy on him)
And a Large majority of those killed from them were companions and thousands of Muslims and the majority of those killed from Al nahr that day were from the best of people on the earth that day and the most ascetic. Amongst them were those who fought the battle of Badr; those who gave allegiance under that tree and reciters and the best of the tabieen.
(To see the names of all the companions of Al nahr, please refer to the book ‘jawhar al Munteqah’ by Abul Qasim Al Barradi(died: 750h), the book has been publish by dar Al Kutub Al Masriyyah, Cairo, with number 21791b).
The Companion Abdullah B. Abbas had been appointed by Ali B. Abi Talib to debate the people of Al Nahrawan. And the reports differed here; with some reports saying that he won them over with his proofs whilst other reports saying they established proofs against him and won. And We Had Mention Here(Or will mention I think..? First is more correct.) what Al Tabari (I believe it’s his Taarikh): 3:114.) Said About Ibn Abbas on his view on the arbitration And his view is same as that of the people of nahrawan. And The Ibadi sources contain a strongly worded letter from Ali to Ibn Abbas, from it he says: ‘And it has reached me that you say – Ali Has sent me to a people to debate yet they debated me with that which I used to debate others with – By my life if you knew that I had killed them, the khawarij(dissenters) and you Aided Me(Financially) in Killing and satisfied with such then you are also a partner in killing them and if you hold something against me and show otherwise then indeed I will be miserable in this world and miserable in the hereafter…’ The Ibadi Sources mention Ibn Abbas’s reply to this and in it is an explanation of the debate that occurred between them(him and Ahlul Nahrawan) and all the evidences brought forth by both parties; Regardless of whatever sources mention this, it does not matter what matters is the strength of the arguments and evidence brought forth no matter what book it’s found. And you (oh reader!) now know that those from Ahl Nahrawan were people who were not less in virtue than Ibn Abbas rather from there are those who were companions for longer than Ibn Abbas and witnessed the battle of Al Badr.
Source: (Al-Jawahir AlMuntaqah الجواهر المنتقاه The selected gems By Abul-Qasem Bin Ibrahim Al-Barradi -May Allah have mercy on him.)
Of course the Shi’a and Sunni narratives are contrary to this. Thus, they offer the following account:
When Ali had finished with the people of Nahrawan, he praised Allah and extolled Him and then said (to his own men), “Allah has favored you and reinforced your victory, so direct yourselves immediately against your enemy.” ‘They answered, “Commander of the Faithful, our arrows are exhausted , our swords have become blunt, the tips of our spears have fallen off, and most of them have been broken in pieces. Go back to our garrison town and let us make the best possible preparation. Perhaps the Commander of the Faithful will add to our equipment that of those of us who have died, fitted to confront the enemy.” Their spokesman in putting that forward was al-Ash’ath b. Qays. Ali went and stopped at al-Nukhaylah, where he told the men to remain in their camp and prepare themselves for jihad, and to cut down on visiting their wives and children until they set out against their enemy. They remained there for some days, but then they slipped away from their camp and entered (the town), apart from a few of their leaders, and the camp was left empty. When ‘Ali saw that, he entered al-Kufah and his idea of departing to fight Mu’awiyah was shattered.
After Ali had slain the people at al-Nahrawan, many came out in opposition to him . His outlying provinces rebelled against him and the Banu Najiyah opposed him . lbn al Hadrami came to al-Basrah, the people of al-Ahwaz rebelled, and those subject to the kharaj were eager to avoid it, Then Sahl b. Hunayf was expelled from Fars, where he had been Ali’s governor.
Prima Qur’an comments: So who was in Ali’s army when he attacked Ahl Nahrawan? Al-Ash’ath b. Qays! Why of course. Then what happens when Ali goes back to Kufa these half hearted supporters abandon him. Ali was faced with open rebellion. Who was the spokesperson for those who did not want to push on to fight the Syrians? Al-Ash’ath b. Qays!
What did we say the motivations truly were?
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais motive was clear.
Divert Ali’s attention away from the Syrians. Giving them more time to strengthen and solidify their positions.
Pit Ali against the former die hard loyalist knowing full well that the killing of these companions and tabi’un would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of many -as we will see with Ibn Abbas (ra).
Ensure the nexus of power remains among the Qurash and that any non-Qurashi would not even have a whiff of authority over the Qurash.
Ibn Muljam may have killed Ali Ibn Abu Talib but with a poisonous double agent like Al-Ash’ath b. Qays among his ranks Ali Ibn Abu Talib was already finished.
And now my dear brothers and sisters in Islam, my dear truth seekers, now you know the truth.
May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah!
May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!
May Allah (swt) unify the Ummah!
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.
Al-Jawahir AlMuntaqah الجواهر المنتقاه The selected gems By Abul-Qasem Bin Ibrahim Al-Barradi -May Allah have mercy on him -available for download here:
“O you who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance and afterwards regret what you have done.” (Qur’an 49:6)
﷽
A recently started YouTube Channel called: Make Hijrah (which otherwise seemingly had good objectives) looks to promote sectarian strife in Muslim countries.
Now, in fairness and because Allah (swt) calls us to be just and to do justice there was an excellent interview here:
Also, to all Omani brothers reading this please note that the brother above, (brother Mustafa) has absolutely nothing to do with the sectarianism that the Make Hijrah channel promotes.
Also, I do want to bring attention to a Sunni Muslim brother that has an excellent website about moving to Muscat.
He is absolutely worth it to follow on X (Elon’s echo-chamber)
His X account is: https://x.com/movetomuscat and he has a website here: https://movetomuscat.com/ His name is Anwar. He has shown nothing but respect and love to Oman and the Omani people and I have only ever seen him speak respectfully about Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
Please follow the brother below. Anwar@Move to Muscat. He is a respectful person and respects Oman’s diversity.
Dear readers by Allah (swt) in whose power is my life, there was an Omani brother that was going to do an interview with Make Hijrah YouTube channel about coming to Oman and living in Oman. However, this Make Hijrah channel flat out asked the brother, ‘Are you Ibadi’ to which he replied ‘yes’ and that was an issue for them!
What does being an Ibadi have to do with an interview about people coming to live in Oman?
So, instead the Make Hijra channel decided to make this blunder of a video:
So the title has: “Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.” And most likely Jr. (the one on the left) chose the thumbnail of someone in prayer standing with their arms at the side. Once again the Salafis showcase their deficiency in fiqh and over all ignorance of the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
These are not the 90s. These must be the only Salafis I have encountered that didn’t the memo that they were so thoroughly refuted on the issue of hand placement in prayer that one must have been living in an isolated village in Papua New Guinea that didn’t get the memo.
Listen to Shaykh Assim Al Hakeem explain here:
@ 1:51 “These are fiqhi differences, whether you put your hand here (on the chest) you put your hand here (below the navel)you don’t put your hands at all in salat.“
You would expect with a title like: “Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.” that these individuals might speak about hidden cost of living, or maybe there is bribery in the country, or perhaps there is a red light district that people do not know about. Maybe there is human trafficking going on.
Or maybe they had something controversial like Avicii’s death in Oman was not truly a suicide. They could have brought anything, but noooo, they had to focus on sectarianism.
Here it is:
“Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.”
Jr speaks @3:15 “It then spread in Oman following the remnants of the Khawarijduring the Umayyad period.”
Senior speaks @3:20 “If you really want to know if the Ibadi are from the Khawarijor not it would require examining their statements from their original sources approved books and the words of their contemporary scholars. This is not for the average person. For common people and beginner students it’d be better to consult a person of knowledge you trust on this issue.”
Senior @4:24 “If you decided you want to move to Oman you can completely avoid that issueby just going to the south of the country and living among the Sunnis and in the Sunni cities.”
Jr speaks up @14:02 “Not one dude on the corner of the road praying like with his (out/down?)” This solicits laughter from Senior.
Jr. chimes in again @14:11 “It just wasn’t there like regular joint.”
So really the question for Jr. and Senior is as follows:
What is the issue in praying with the Ibadi or even behind an Ibadi Imam?
Let us say for the sake of argument that Ibadi are Khawarij or their descendants. Are Jr. and Senior more knowledgeable then the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
They can feel free to consult the sources:
However, from the video it does not seem that Jr. and Senior are fluent in reading and writing Arabic. This means they make Taqlid to the Salafi school and make Taqlid to it’s scholars as they have neither the tools or the means to go to the sources directly.
The translation of the above Arabic text states:
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Source: (The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah-In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine By Ibn Taymiyya Abu Al Abbas Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim.-Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim Volume 5)
2. They (Jr & Senior mentioned that after eating camel meat the topic switched to jurisprudence (fiqh). So that is fiqh what about aqidah which to Salafis is the number one issue.
So my question for Jr & Senior is on what consistent basis can one pray behind an Ash’ari Shafi’i (whom they believe are deviant in aqidah but not pray behind an Ibadi) ???
Unless of course when they (Jr & Senior) say Sunni what they really mean is: “Their Salafi sect.”
So this should certainly alarm the Sunni Muslims in Oman (and indeed it has from the comments) because that means that ultimately these people would not just separate from the Ibadi but from the dominant Sunni Muslims as well!
Unfortunately all the Make Hijrah did was get the attention of the Omani government and immigration to look closer at their channel and scrutinized their intentions.
I would encourage the readers to listen to the interview between two Omanis, Sunni & Ibadi who speak about the video. Oman FM is listened all across Oman.
Listen to Religious Tolerance & Islamic Values – Shaykh Hatim Al Abdissalaam by Oman FM (English) on #SoundCloud
The only part where I would personally disagree with brother Shaykh Hatim on is where he said that in Oman they do not speak of these things or discuss them. Everyone’s upbringing is different in Oman. What Shaykh Hatim experiences is not the experience of another Omani.
What Shaykh Hatim may be speaking to is his own experience growing up and/or his own household and their particular priorities, and outlook.
There are Omani youth, 14 years of age that are very well acquainted with the conflicts that arose among the companions, and the history of the Ibadi school. This is widely discussed -because it is a right of a people to not be ignorant nor blur about their history.
That being said, they are also taught by the Mufti, May Allah (swt) continue to bless us by him, that we as Muslims need to live together in tolerance and respect for each other. This is certainly instilled in them as well.
In Oman all Muslims live together and they do not want the ghettoization of their country! So for those who want to come and live in Oman, you have something to contribute and you can live there in peace and coexistence Oman will welcome you with open arms.
However, anyone who wants to go to Oman and spread fitna or sectarianism and has that mindset, Oman does not want you, Oman certainly does not need you and the people of Oman are free from you nor are you welcomed!
من زعم أنى رجعت عن الحكومة فقد كذب، ومن رآها ضلالا فقد ضل
، فخرجت حينئذ الخوارج من المسجد فحكمت”.
Prima Quran 