[Holy Qur'an 17:81] And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

Monday, November 23, 2009

Dispute between Imam Ali(as) and Muawiya

This is a refutation to an article contained in the Ahlul- bait homepage - aimed at degrading the 'true' followers of the Ahl'ul bayt (as).


Defining the word Shi'a


The writer states:

..> ..>
Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Shie'ah", "Shi'ah": a singular Arabic noun means group, party, sect, supporter".


After citing the verses where Shi'a is mentioned the unnamed author writes:

..> ..>
Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"During the conflict between Hazrat Ali bin Abu T?leb (Karramallah wajhah) and Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan (Radhi Allahu Anh), both groups were referred to as Shi'atu Ali and Shi'atu Muawiyah. Hence, its early usage in the conflict between the two great companions Ali & Muawiyah [ra-both] was to denote who "sided" with who in its political context".


It should be stressed that this was far more than just a political difference over the breakfast table. This WAS a difference that lead to civil war.

Rather than watering the matter down to who "sided" with who, perhaps the writer should explain which 'side' was right and which 'side' was wrong. Were the Sahaba who 'sided' with Mu'awiya against Ali correct to do so?

It is indeed wrong to just water it down to a difference of opinion - this political context clearly had religious ramifications, because Allah (swt) says clearly in the Holy Qur'an "Obey Allah, his Prophet and those in authority among you".

Rasulullah (s) also said:

"After me people shall experience fitna, you will split in to groups, he then pointed at 'Ali and said Ali and his companions shall be on the right path" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33016].

This is an absolutely clear hadith pointing to where the truth lay, again there is no room for the excuse that those who fought 'Ali would also receive a reward as they thought they were on the right path!

The problem here is the writer is REFUSING to distinguish truth from falsehood, he is happy to portray an image that everything was rosy in the garden and there was a political dispute, but fails to pass comment on which party was right and which party was in the wrong.

The dispute between Mu'awiya and Maula 'Ali (as)



..> ..>
Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Was the dispute between Ali and Mu'awiyah religious in nature?

Absolutely not. The conflict started after the murder of the 3rd Khalif, Hazrat Uthman ibn 'Affan (Radhi Allahu Anh), and the existence of the murderers in the camp of Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh). However, to answer this question, we'll explore Nahjul Balaghah to see what Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) himself had to say about it, contrary to what the Shi'ah wish to present:

"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it."

Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 58, p. 474


If anything Imam Ali (as) is expressing, is his concern at the mentality of the people of the time, both believed in the principles of Deen and yet they sought fit to rebel against the Ul'il Umr whilst such an act contradicts the Qur'an. Whilst the spilt was over Uthman's killers, there is no edict in Islam for an individual to rebel against the rightful Khalifa in order to get his own way.

Just a political dispute?


For the writer to assert that the matter was 'political' and not 'religious' in nature demonstrates his complete ignorance of even basic understanding of what Deen is. Islam is a complete ideology, political, judicial, economic etc, you CANNOT separate politics from Islam; it IS a part of Deen.

Had the writer actually sought to use logic rather than blindness, he would have been manifestly obvious that to deem the difference as political NOT religious carries serious ramifications for both sides. If it was not religious and political then he is in fact suggesting that both sides instigated fitnah based on personal enmity, leading to a 110-day battle in which thousands of people needlessly lost their lives. If these acts were based on political differences and NOT based on upholding religious rites then the end for both parties is the fire (astaghfirullah).

This is absolutely clear from the verses of Qur'an and hadith.

"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93)

Further, Abdullah Ibne Umar narrates he heard Rasulullah (s) say:

"Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another". Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 198

The Holy Prophet said "Your blood, property, honour and skin (i.e. body) are sacred to one another" Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 199

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud that

The Prophet, said, "Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief)." [Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 197]

So these ahadith and verse make it clear:
  • To kill a Muslim is an act of kufr
  • The intentional killing of a momin places the perpetrator in hell

Now with these facts in mind we should ask 'how many momins were intentionally killed at Sifeen?'

The ONLY way that these actions can be defended is if there is a clear provision in Islam that entitles an individual to fight and kill his Muslim brother. If no such provision exists and we accept Maulana's preposterous notion that the differences were NOT religious then in light of the Qur'an and hadith ALL the participants committed kufr, they are murderers and are therefore in hell. (astaghfirullah)

It was incumbent to obey Imam 'Ali (as)



To prove the religious dimension, we have the hadith of Rasulullah (s):

"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]

This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to Hadhrath 'Ali (as) is unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt). Hence any disobedience to him, IS RELIGIOUS because it is deemed disobedience to Allah (swt).

Rasulullah (s) said:

"'Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with 'Ali, the two shall not separate until they meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32912].

"'Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with 'Ali" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33018].


These two ahadith make it clear that every decision that Imam Ali (as) takes is Haqq and is supported by the Holy Qur'an and hence will ALWAYS be a religious decision. In other words if he declares war on Mu'awiya, it is the truth supported by the Qur'an, not influenced by political decision making.

If these hadith are not sufficient then we also have this clear hadith of Rasulullah (s) who said to his companions:

"Verily among you will be one who will fight for the meaning of the Qur'an in the same way that I fought for its revelation. People asked will that be Abu Bakr or Umar? Rasulullah (s) replied 'No, but he who is mending my shoes, that person was 'Ali" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32967].

This hadith is absolutely explicit every Jihad of Hardhat 'Ali (as)'s is in defence of the Qur'an, to protect it from misinterpretation.

Mu'awiya's opposition to the Imam made him a baghi



Mu'awiya's opposition was clearly religious because it was a direct challenge the Head of the State. This can be proven from the hadith of Rasulullah (s):

"O Ali! Soon a rebellious group will fight against you, you will be on the truth. Whoever does not support you on that day will not be from us" [Kanz al Ummal, by Ali Muttaqi al Hind quoting Ibn Asakir, hadith number 32970]

The very fact that Mu'awiya rebelled against the Ul IL Umr Ali (as) (you deem to be the 4th Rightly Guided Khalifa) clearly proves that it therefore was a religious dimension, hence Rasulullah (s)'s referral to this group as "Baghi".

Mu'awiya's open rebellion to the Khalifa in violation to the Qur'an clearly proves this was a religious matter, and Imam Ali (as) was entitled as Ul il Umar to quash his insurgency. Imam Ali (as)'s actions were religious and in accordance with the dictates of the Holy Qur'an (Yusuf Ali's translation):

"[al-Hujurat 49:9] If two parties among the believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; But if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: For Allah loves those who are fair (and just)".

This verse is absolutely clear that it is a religious duty to fight baghis (rebels), of which Mu'awiya was the Head. So Imam Ali (as)'s decision to fight Mu'awiya was RELIGIOUS and was supported by the Qur'an.

..> ..>
Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Therefore, if Hazrat Ali bin Abu T?leb (Radhi Allahu Anh) himself does not see the conflict religious nor his political opponents as Kafirs, then the love which Shi'ah claim to have for him and the claim that they follow him, is an unproven Chapter from their own sources. For if they do indeed love Hazrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) they will hold his views in this matter too, but they are people of no understanding".


Fighting Imam 'Ali (as) is on par with fighting Rasulullah (s)



The unnamed writer is absolutely right. Imam Ali (as) did not call them kaffirs, but fighting Imam Ali (as) is on par with fighting Rasulullah (s). This is proven by the testimony of Rasulullah (s):

Zaid bin Arqam narrates:

"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war" (Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81; Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149)

Perhaps we should ask the author:
  1. What is your opinion about this hadith?
  2. What is his position of one who is at war with the Prophet, Muslim or Kaafir?

Rasulullah (s) said:

"Ali is the door of forgiveness, whoever enters it is a momin, whoever leaves it is a kaafir" [Kanz ul Ummal, Ali Muttaqi al Hind hadith number 32910]

This being the case what opinion should I hold on one who rather than enter the Gate turns his back on it and attacks it?

Abusing Imam 'Ali (as)'s opponents



..> ..>
Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
Furthermore, Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) instructed his men as follows:

"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a more convincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say, "O' Allah! save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation between us and them, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is ignorant of the truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and revolt may turn away from it."

Nahjul-Balaghah, Sermon 205

Are the Shi'ah in anyway, form or manner following the instructions of the one whom they hold dearest to them, Sayyidina Ali bin Abu T?leb (Radhi Allahu Anh)? Most certainly not. All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to the best men honored and chosen by Allah Ta'ala to be the Companions of His Holy Last Messenger, Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam".


Imam 'Ali (as) is telling his followers not to ABUSE his opponents, in that there is no doubt. The Shi'a don't use swear words, we distance ourselves (Tabarra) from the enemies of the Ahl'ul bayt (as). As for abuse, it is haraam to use swear words. The followers of Imam Ali (as) don't stoop to that depth because we follow those who never used abuse. Interestingly, abuse is the methodology of their beloved Imam Mu'awiya.

The late Deobandi scholar Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his "Khilafath aur Muluiqeyath". On page 79 he writes:

"Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu'awiya was that he and his governors would curse Hadhrath 'Ali during the Friday sermon from the Imam's position. This took such an extreme that this practice even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Hadhrath 'Ali's family who would hear this abuse with their own ears (Tabari Volume 4 page 188, Ibn Athir Volume 3" page 234, al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80).

An Invitation to Ahl'ul Sunnah to ponder and think



Now the question we would like to ask the author is:

"Are the Sunnis in anyway, form or manner following the instructions of the one whom they hold dearest to them. Are you following the words of Rasulullah (s)?"

You see these are the words of Rasulullah (s):

"Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of hypocrisy"
  1. Sahih Muslim, v1, p48;
  2. Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643;
  3. Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142;
  4. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128
  5. Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202
  6. Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p185
  7. Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever hurts Ali, has hurt me"

Sunni references:
  1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, p483
  2. Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p580, Tradition #981
  3. Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p129
  4. al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p263
  5. Ibn Habban, Ibn Abd al-Barr, etc.

"Whoever reviles/curses Ali, has reviled/cursed me"
  1. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p121, who mentioned this tradition is Authentic -
  2. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p323
  3. Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p594, Tradition #1011
  4. Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p130
  5. Mishkat al-Masabih, English version, Tradition #6092
  6. Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173
  7. and many others such as Tabarani, Abu Ya'la, etc.

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into he Hell-fire."
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33

Rasulullah (s) said:

"Whoever leaves Ali, leaves me, whoever leaves me, leaves Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32974 - 32976, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar {through two chains} and Abu Dharr Ghaffari (ra).

As we have already cited earlier, Rasulullah (s) also said:

"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]

So these hadith tell us:
  1. The sign of a Munafiq is hatred of Ali (as)
  2. Whoever leaves, disobeys and curses 'Ali - in fact leaves, disobeys and curses Allah (swt)

Now we would like to ask this writer:
  1. Did Mu'awiya curse 'Ali?
  2. Is an individual who leaves, disobeys and curses Allah (swt) a Muslim?

This being the case, could the author of this 'masterpiece' kindly explain why it is that he (and his Ahl'ul Sunnah brethren) insist on giving Mu'awiya the title (ra)? Is Allah (swt) pleased with someone that curses him?

0 comments:

Post a Comment