This fact is confirmed by the leading Ahlul Sunnah Ulema. We have cited a number of sources for those wishing to delve into the matter.
Imam Abi Bakr ibn Abi A'asim in al Sunnah records with a Hasan chain
Muhammad b. Hanafiyya narrates I was with Ali (ra) when an individual came and notified him that the Commander of the Faithful Uthman had just been martyred. Upon hearing this, Ali stood up, I stood up with him and grabbed him saying that the rebels might kill you too, Ali got angry and said "leave me". He then headed towards the house of Uthman, upon reaching there he learned that Uthman had been martyred. Ali returned home, the people went to his home and said "Uthman has been martyred, it is incumbent on us to have a Khalifa, we can't think of anyone more deserving than you". Ali replied "if you don't want to be be Khalifa, then my pledge shall not be taken in a hidden way. I shall attend the mosque whoever intends on pledging their allegiance to me should got it there". Ali then went to the mosque where all the people of Madina pledged their allegiance to him
al Sunnah Volume 3 page 416
We read in Sharh Maqasid, Vol.3, pg. 534:
والذي اتفق عليه أهل الحق أن المصيب في جميع ذلك علي رضي الله تعالى عنه لما ثبت من إمامته ببيعة أهل الحل والعقد وظهر من تفاوت ما بينه وبين المخالفين سيما معاوية وأحزابه وتكاثر من الأخبار في كون الحق معه وما وقع عليه الاتفاق حتى من الأعداء إلى أنه أفضل زمانه وأنه لا أحق بالإمامة منه والمخالفون بغاة لخروجهم على الإمام الحق
The righteous people agreed that Ali (ra) was right in all those events as his Imamate was correct which was proved through baya and also it’s obvious the difference (in ethics) between him and his opponents particularly Mu'awiya and his party, also there are many traditions which indicate that the truth is with Ali, and also the agreement including the enemies that he was the best person of his time and no body was worthier to be the Imam other than him, his opponents were Baghi for opposing the true Imam.
We read in Al-Bidaya Wal Nihaya Vol 10, pg. 420:
وخرج علي إلى المسجد فصعد المنبر وعليه إزار وعمامة خز ونعلاه في يده، توكأ على قوسه، فبايعه عامة الناس،
“At the time of Bayya, Ali approached the mosque, got on the Minbar and the general public gave him bayya”
This refutes Nasibi claims that he didn’t get ijma hence Mu’awiya opposition to Imam e Haqq made him a baghi who could not place conditions
Abu Hanifa Dinawari records in Al-Akhbar al Tiwal pg. 140:
“After Uthman’s death people were without an Imam for three days. They gave Ali bayya after careful thought and he said whoever opposes me has opposed Islam as this decision was not taken in haste”.
Sharh Aqaid al-Nasfi:
“The grand Muhajireen and Ansar happily had an ijma in the khilafah of Ali. They accepted his khilafat and gave him bayya”
The books of Ahlul Sunnah are replete with references which prove that Mu’awiya's opposition was an act of rebellion.
We read in Al-Istiab pg. 668 and Tareekh Khamis:
فحارب معاوية علياً خمس سنين.
“Mu’awiya fought Ali for five years”
We read in Usud al Ghaba pg. 1446:
ولم يبايع عليا وأظهر الطلب بدم عثمان فكان وقعة صفين بينه وبين علي
“He didn’t give bayya to Ali, then he advanced the demand of avenging Uthman ['s murder], thus the battle of Siffin took a place between him and Ali”
We read in Tarikh Al Khulafa, by Suyuti, pg. 125:
خرج معاوية على علي كما تقدم و تسمى بالخلافة ثم خرج على الحسن
“Mu'awiya rebelled against Ali and appointed himself as Caliph, then he rebelled against al-Hassan”
We read in Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, Vol. 8, pg. 23:
فلما امتنع معاوية من البيعة لعلي حتى يسلمه القتلة، كان من صفين ما قدمنا ذكره
“When Mu'awiya refused to give bayah to Ali until he (Ali) submitted to him the killer, Siffin battle took place due to it.”
Ansar.org states:
“authentic traditions from the prophet peace be upon him says that to leave the fight was better for both parties. The fight was neither mandatory nor preferable”.
This proves how low Abu Sulaiman will go in his efforts to cover up the truth. As he has done consistently throughout his defence he fails to cite even one hadith in which Rasulullah (s) said to leave the fight was better. He undoubtedly knows that this is baseless the reality is that it was indeed mandatory, for it is recorded in Kanz al Ummal, by Al Muttaqi al Hindi quoting Ibn Asakir, Vol. 11, pg. 613 hadith number 32970 Rasulullah (s) said:
“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”
Abu Sulaiman praises those Sahaba who stayed away from either side at Siffin:
“Sa’ad bin Abu Waqqas, Muhammad bin Muslimah, Abdullah bin Umar, Osamah bin Zayd, and many other of the first believers from the muhajireen and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight”.
Their decisions not to participate do NOT in any way mean that they were right. Or is Abu Sulaiman now suggesting that they were right and Imam Ali (as) was wrong? If so, this demonstrates the contradictory nature of Abu Sulaiman’s statements. Sometimes he describes Ali as closer to the truth, Mu’awiya as searching for the truth and now he is stating that the correct position was to keep aloof in times of fitnah! The decision to isolate themselves from both sides and hence refuse to side with the right (as Abu Sulaiman is likewise doing) was in no way supported by Rasulullah (s). The duty in Islam is to side with truth, no matter how much Abu Sulaiman seeks to water down facts, Imam Ali (as) was on the path of truth, Rasulullah (s) said that haqq would always accompany him and this was in ALL circumstances. The duty was to attach themselves to Ali (as) NOT to separate from him, in this regard we have the explicit words of Rasulullah (s) as recorded in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11, pg. 621 hadith number 33016:
“After me people shall experience fitna, you will split into groups, '' he then pointed at Ali and said Ali and his companions shall be on the right path”
Of interest is the fact whilst citing Ibn Umar’s non-participation stance he fails to cite the same Ibn Umar’s remorse on his deathbed. He made an admission that he was wrong and should have fought with Ali (as) against Mu’awiya.
Ibn Abd al-Barr in Al Isti’ab, pg. 420 - 421 and Badruddin Al-Aini in Umdatul Qari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 11 pg. 349 narrated that Umm Habeeb Ibn Abi Sabith (ra) heard Abdullah ibn Umar say:
“I regret that I did not join Ali and fight the rebellious group”. Abi Baakar bin Abi Jaham (ra) narrates that he heard Abdullah ibn Umar say “I never regretted anything in my life other than the fact that I did not fight the rebels”
We will inshallah expand on the slaughter of Hujr bin Adi later but in his conclusion of the tragic episode the comments of Mufti Ghulam Rasul al-Hanafi in his ‘Subeh al Sadiq’ pg. 94 are indeed of interest since he states that the killing of Hujr of his followers left a lesson to the people, namely that….
“Hujr bin Adi and his companions proved that Ali’s love is Iman. If someone wishes to maintain his Iman and remain on the Deen, he must believe and love Ali and in all situations he must stand with Ali. That is why those who did not stand with Ali regretted that they failed to do so, for example Abdullah Ibn Umar bin al-Khattab in the final stages of his life said: ‘I don’t regret anything as much as the fact that I did not support Ali’. (citing Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 4 pg. 141)
The famous Hanafi jurist Mullah Ali Qari wrote in Mirqat al-Mafatih Sharah Mishqat Volume 11 page 18:
"when it was obligatory on Mu'awiyah to abandon his rebellion and obey the rightful imam and abandon his opposition and demand for caliphate it reveals that he was internally a rebel and externally presenting himself as one seeking vengeance for Uthman. Ultimately, this Prophetic saying is not an affirmation of his (Muawiya's) deed rather it (the martyrdom of Hadhrath 'Ammar at the hands of Mu'awiyah) was written in the book of destiny hence, both Quran and Sunnah were put aside by Mu'awiya and this secret was revealed by the aforementioned saying of the Prophet (s)
In his attempt to play down the actions of Imam Ali (as), Abu Sulaiman had made this baseless claim:
Moreover, authentic traditions from the prophet peace be upon him says that to leave the fight was better for both parties. The fight was neither mandatory nor preferable. Although Ali was more deserving and closer to right than Mu’awiyah was, if Ali left the fight, a great goodness would happen and the shedding of the blood would be spared. Hence, Omran bin Haseen, may Allah be pleased at him, banned the selling of weapons at the time of afflictions. He says: “Weapons are not supposed to be sold in the affliction.” The same saying was shared by Sa’ad bin Abu Waqqas, Muhammad bin Muslimah, Abdullah bin Omar, Osamah bin Zayd, and many other of the first believers from the muhajireen and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight.
With regards to Abu Sulaiman’s claim that “many other of the first believers from the muhajireen and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight” – he has no evidence to support this claims and fails to cite even a single source. The fact is that the early converts of the Muhajireen and Ansar WERE those that fought with Imam Ali (as) at Siffin. This has even been admitted by the Sunni scholar Al Muhaddith Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz Dehlavi who in his book written against the Shi’a states:
“The title Shi’a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay’ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali’s) caliphate. They remained close to him, they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali’s commands and prohibitions. The true Shi’a are these who came in 37 Hijri”
Tauhfa Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, (Gift to the Twelvers) (Farsi edition p 18, publishers Sohail Academy, Lahore, Pakistan).
(NB 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu’awiya at Siffin).
The Muhajireen and Ansar (Sahaba) were the Shia of Ali (as). One wonders how Abu Sulaiman claims that MANY Muhajireen and Ansar did not participate. Amongst those killed fighting alongside Imam Ali (as) were prominent companions including Khuzayma bin Thabit (al Isti’ab pg. 203; Usd al Ghaba, pg. 346 – Chapter Dhikr Khuzayma), devotee of Rasulullah (s) Uwais bin Amir Al Qarni (Usud al Ghaba pg. 91 - 92; Al Mustadrak Ala Al Sahihain Vol 3, pg. 455 - 456). One prominent Sahabi killed fighting under Maula Ali’s banner was Hashim ibn Utbah. We learn in Usud al Ghaba, pg. 1213 that when Hashim Ibn Utbah was killed, Abu Tufail Amar Ibn Wathila said:
“You are a martyr because you fought an enemy of the Sunnah”.
We read in Al Isti’ab, by Ibn `Abd al-Barr pg. 482:
“Abdur Rahman Ibn Abdi narrates that eight hundred Sahaba who pledged allegiance at Ridwan fought alongside Ali at Siffin”.
This is a significant figure, particularly when one takes into account that the number of Sahaba who pledged allegiance at Ridhwan totalled 1400. With the passage of thirty years there is no doubt that many would have died whether via natural deaths or in the battlefield. Despite this fact, we learn that a significant number stood shoulder to shoulder with Imam Ali (as) at Siffin.
It is indeed sad to see that the early Muslims knew where the truth lay and fought with Ali (as) whilst we have a defender of Mu’awiya writing some 1400 years later raising question marks on Imam Ali (as)’s position and defending and showering praise on his enemies.
We then witness Abu Sulaiman’s deviant interpretation of the Qur’an so as to protect Mu’awiya and apportion transgression to Imam Ali (as):3
“Even if we supposed that the people who fought Ali were insurgents and not depending on personal interpretation of texts, then it would not be considered as a slander in their belief and their deservance in entering heaven. Almighty Allah says: “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, 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), The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.” [Surat Al-Hujarat, verses 9 and 10] Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other. Then what about if one of them transgressed on the other thinking he is right? Does it prevent him from being an interpreter, wrong or right? “
One can see how desperate Nasibis get to protect their beloved Imam. He claims that:
“Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other”
The Qur’an says no such thing, it refers to one party transgressing:
“but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds”
This is being done intentionally he is seeking to describe Imam Ali (as) as a baghi too, i.e. the battle was between two groups of baghis! Abu Sulaiman’s refusal to acknowledge which party had transgressed is quite intentional, the moment his rebellion is proven then his actions can be condemned, which would be too much for him. The fact is Mu’awiya and his party had refused to give bay`a to Imam Ali (as) and we're defiantly opposing him. Is this not evidence of transgression, opposing the Khalifa of the time? Whilst his Nasibi leanings make it impossible to speak the truth we shall delve into the matter to determine the Ahlul Sunnah definitions of a baghi.
Durr al-Mukhtar, Vol. 6 pg. 410-411:
البغي لغة الطلب ومنه {ذلك ما كنا نبغي} وعرفا طلب ما لا يحل من جور وظلم ، وشرعا هم الخارجون عن الامام الحق بغير حق
Baghi commonly means “to demand”, it is commonly used to refer to one that “demands unlawfully” such as in terms of injustice and tyranny, from a legal perspective it refers to “one that rebels against the legitimate Imam without having any legal justification for doing so”.
ًWe read in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah pg. 41:
“Baghi is one who refuses to obey Imam al-Haqq and opposes him”.
The late scholar Sayyid Abu’l A`la Maudoodi in his ‘Tafhim ul Qur’an’ Vol. 5 pg. 80 collates the opinions of the Ahl’ul Sunnah `ulama about a ‘baghi’. He writes:
“Ibn Humam in Hidaya’s commentary Fatah ul Qadir states that the scholars have declared that a baghi is he who disobeys the rightful Imam. Imam Shafi`i in Kitab ul-Umm states ‘Baghi’ is he who fights the `Adil Imam. Imam Malik declared that it is a duty to fight those who oppose the ‘Adil Imam [al Mudawanna]“.
Legendary Muhadith of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abul Aziz Dehalvi records in his anti-Shia book Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, pg. 181:
“Should know that there is ijma of Ahlul Sunnah Qutb, that Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan from the beginning of the Imamat of Hazrat Amir till the sulh of Imam Hasan remained a baghi and did not obey the Imam of the time….”
We also read on Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, pg. 11:
“The original pure Sect was the Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al-Jammah of the Sahaba and Tabi'een, these are the Muhajireen and Ansar who were the servants of Ali, they were helpers of the khilafah. Their religion was that Murtaza was the Imam of truth, following the martyrdom of Uthman, and that all mankind was duty bound to obey him. Ali during his times was the most superior, whoever disputed with him on the issue of Khilafah, or opposed his reign is a sinner and a baghi. Whoever deemed him unworthy of khilafah was a sinner misled on falsehood..”
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Sa’duddin Taftazani records in his esteemed work Sharh al Maqasid, Vol. 3 pg. 535:
“The aqeedah in Ahl’ul Sunnah is that the first baghi in Islam was Mu’awiya”
Now let us quote some of the esteemed curriculum Hanafi works wherein Mu’awiyah has been clearly equated with unjust and rebel rulers. We read ‘al Hidayah’ Vol. 3 pg. 133, Kitab al Adab and the reference has obviously also been quoted in the commentaries of Hidayah such as in ‘Fathul Qadeer sharh Hidayah’ Vol. 16 pg. 333 and ‘Anayah sharh Hidayah’ Vol. 10 pg. 217:
“It is permissible to be appointed as a Judge from an unjust ruler, in the same way as it is the case of a just ruler. This is because the Sahaba were appointed Judges under Mu’awiya, even though the truth was with Ali (ra). The Tabieen were appointed as Judges by Hajjaj, even though he was unjust”.
We also read in Fathul Qadeer sharh Hidayah. Vol. 16 pg. 333:
‘This is a declaration of Mu’awiya’s oppression’
Al Sadr Al Shahid Husam Al Din records in ‘Kitab Sharh Adab Al Qadi’ Vol 1, pg. 129 - 130 as follows:
ويجوز تقلد القضاء من السلطان العادل والجائر ، وأما العادل فلأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث معاذا إلى اليمن قاضياً وولى عثمان بن أسد على مكة أميرا ، وأما الجائر فلأن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم تقلدوا الأعمال من معاوية بعد أن أظهر الخلاف مع علي رضي الله عنه وكان الحق مع علي.
“It is permissible to accept the position of a judge from a just or unjust ruler, the just ruler (is permissible) because the prophet (pbuh) sent Mu’adh to Yemen as a judge and appointed Uthman bin Asad as a governor of Mecca, from the unjust ruler (it is permissible) because the companions may Allah be pleased with them assumed the duties from Mu’awiya after he (Mu’awiya) showed disagreement with Ali”
We read in ‘Tubyeen ul Haqaiq sharh Kanz ul Daqaiq’ Vol. 5 pg. 84:
(ويجوز تقلد القضاء من السلطان العادل والجائر ومن أهل البغي ) لأن الصحابة رضي الله تعالى عنهم تقلدوه من معاوية في نوبة علي ، وكان الحق بيد علي يومئذ ، وقد قال علي رضي الله تعالى عنه أخواننا بغوا علينا
(It is permissible to be appointed as a judge by a just or unjust ruler or by rebels) because the companions )may Allah be pleased with them( accepted it from Mu’awiya, during Ali’s reign, and the truth was with Ali at that time, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: ‘Our brothers are commiting rebellion against us.’
We read in ‘Bahar al Raiq’ Vol. 6 pg. 460:
(قوله ويجوز تقلد القضاء من السلطان العادل والجائر وأهل البغي) لأن الصحابة رضي الله تعالى عنهم تقلدوه من معاوية والحق كان بيد علي رضي الله تعالى عنه
“(It is permissible to be appointed as a judge by a just or unjust ruler or by rebels) because the companions may Allah be pleased with them accepted it from Mu’awiya while the truth was with Ali (ra)”
Let us now present the views of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 189 H) about Mu’awiyah. Allamah Abdul Qadir Qurshee al-Hanafi Misree while recoding the biography of a Hanafi scholar recorded the statement of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani as follows in Jawahir al Muziyah Tabaqat al Hanafiyah by Allamah Abdul Qadir Qurashi al-Hanafi Misri, Vol. 3 pg. 70-71:
Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Musa bin Dawoud al-Razi al-Berzali, al-Faqih al-Qazi al-Khazen. He heard (hadith) from his uncle Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ayoub al-Razi. He was appointed as a judge of Samarqand. He heard (hadith) from (Samarqand’s) people. He died in the year 361. al-Sam’ani said: ‘He was thiqah and pious’. al-Hakim said: ‘He was jurist of Abu Hanifa’s companions’. He said I heard my uncle Abu Sulaiman al-Jawzjani, who heard Muhammad bin al-Hasan saying: ‘Had Mu’awiya not fought against Ali and he (Mu’awiya) was an oprressor, aggressor and a rebel, we would not have been able to fight the oppressors.’
The notion of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani that they would not have the honor of fighting the rebels if Mu’awiya the commander of rebels had not started the war, shall suffcie to shout the mouths of present day Nawasib like Abu Sulaiman. Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Musa bin Dawoud al-Razi not reacting at the statement proves that he also echoed the sentiments of Imam Shaybani.
As for Salafis, their legendary scholar Rasheed Raza in his book Majalat al-Manar, Vol. 29 pg. 674 attested to the fact that:
ولكن السواد الأعظم من أهل السنة سلفهم وخلفهم يعتقدون أن معاوية كان باغيًا على الإمام الحق أمير المؤمنين علي كرم الله وجهه
The vast majority of the Ahlul sunnah, whether the former or the modern (scholars) believe that Mu'awiya rebelled against the true Imam, the Commander of the Faithful Ali (Karam Allah Wajhu).
The same scholar wrote elsewhere in Mujalat al-Manar, Vol. 33 pg. 447:
فإن متبع الحق مستقل الفكر فيه بلا هوى ولا تعصب لمذهب يجزم بأن معاوية نفسه كان باغيًا خارجًا على الإمام الحق كالخوارج ، وأنه طالب ملك ، ويؤيد ذلك إكراه الناس على جعل هذا الملك لولده يزيد المشتهر بالفسق
Anyone delving into the truth with a free mind unclouded by emotion or sectarian affiliation, shall confirm that Mu'awiyah was rebel (Baghi) and one that departed (Kharij) against the true Imam, he sought the throne and forced the people to transfer the throne to his son Yazid who was known for his lechery (Fisq).
Also Imam Shawkani records in his authority work Nayl al Auttar, Vol. 7 pg. 195:
قوله: أولاهما بالحق فيه دليل على أن عليا ومن معه هم المحقون ، ومعاوية ومن معه هم المبطلون ، وهذا أمر لا يمتري فيه منصف ، ولا يأباه إلا مكابر متعسف
“The hadith about ‘more deserving of rightness’ contains evidence that Ali and those who were with him are on the truth, and Mu’awiya and those who were with him are on falsehood, and any fair person would not doubt about that and only the stubborn person would deny it.”
Allamah Abdul Kareem Shahrastani in his famed book ‘Al Milal wa al Nihal’ Vol. 1 pg. 91 expressed a clear opinion:
ولا نقول في حق معاوية وعمرو بن العاص الا أنهما بغيا على الامام الحق فقاتلهم مقاتلة أهل البغي وأما أهل النهروان فهم الشراة المارقون عن الدين بخبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولقد كان رضي الله عنه على الحق في جميع أحواله يدور الحق معه حيث دار
“We don’t say about Mu’awiya and Amro bin al-Aas except that they fought against the rightful Imam, so he (Ali) fought them deeming them as rebels. And the people of Nahrawan, they were evil and apostate as the Prophet (s) had informed, and he (Ali) (ra) was on the right path in all of his situations, the truth was turning with him wherever he turned.”
Allamah Muhammad bin Aqeel states in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah, pg. 53:
“Mu’awiya and his companions are baghis without a doubt and they are Qasitoon that Al Mustafa warned about, Allah says ‘But as for the unjust (Qasitoon), they will be, for Hell, firewood.” (Quran 72:15)
Ibn Hajar Asqalani states in Talkhees Al Habeer Vol 4 pg. 84:
قوله: ثبت أن أهل الجمل وصفين والنهروان بغا. هو كما قال، ويدل عليه: حديث علي: أمرت بقتال الناكثين، والقاسطين، والمارقين. رواه النسائي في "الخصائص" والبزار والطبراني والناكثين: أهل الجمل؛ لأنهم نكثوا بيعته، والقاسطين: أهل الشام؛ لأنهم جاروا عن الحق في عدم مبايعته. والمارقون: أهل النهروان؛ لثبوت الخبر الصحيح فيهم أنهم: "يمرقون من الدين كما يمرق السهم من الرمية وثبت في أهل الشام حديث: "عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية"، وقد تقدم، وغير ذلك من الأحاديث
His (Al-Rafi'ee) statement {It is firmly established that the people of Al-Jamal (under Aishah), and Siffin (under Muawiyah) and Al-Nahrawan (i.e. the Khawarij) were rebels} is true. What further proves this is the hadith in which he (Imam Ali) says “I was commanded to fight the oath-breakers, the Qasitin and the apostates.” Al-Nisai recorded it in al-Khasais, as well as al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani. The people of Al-Jamal (under Aishah) were the oath-breakers because they broke their bayah to him (i.e. Imam Ali), and the Qasitin were the people of Syria (under Muawiyah) because they left the haq (truth) in their refusal to give him bayah. The apostates were the people of al-Nahrawan (i.e. the Khawarij) due to the establishment of the sahih report about them that “they apostatized from the religion as the arrow leaves the bow (i.e. completely).” The hadith that ‘Ammar would be killed by a rebellious group is also established about the Syrians (i.e. they murdered him)
We further read in Nayl al-Auttar, Vol. 9 pg. 197:
واعلم أن قتال البغاة جائز إجماعا كما حكي ذلك في البحر ولا يبعد أن يكون واجبا لقوله تعالى { فقاتلوا التي تبغي } وقد حكي في البحر أيضا عن العترة جميعا أن جهادهم أفضل من جهاد الكفار إلى ديارهم إذ فعلهم في دار الإسلام كفعل الفاحشة في المسجد
“You have to know that the there is Ijma regarding the lawfulness of fighting the rebel as it is written in al-Bahr (book), and likely it is obligatory for His almighty statement ‘{ then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses}’, and it is also written in al-Bahr (book) that all of the progeny said fighting them is superior to fighting the disbelievers in their homeland because their act of rebellion on Muslims’ homeland is like performing adultery inside a mosque. And know that baghi is fisq by consensus.”[1]
We also read in Faydh Al Qadeer by Al Manawi, Vol 6 pg. 474:
And Imam Abd Al Qahir Al Jarjani said in his book al Imama 'There is a consensus among the jurists of Hejaz and Iraq, from both the rational school and the hadith school which includes Malik, Al Shafi, Abu Hanifa, and Al Awza'i as well as the vast majority of, the theologians and muslims that Ali was correct in his fight of the people of Siffin just as he was correct in his fighting the people of Jamal, indeed those who fought him were rebels who oppressed him.
Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:
“O you who believe! Obey Allah and his Apostle and those in authority among you”. (Quran 4:59)
It is interesting that Abu Sulaiman has failed to comment on this verse in his lengthy article. This is a clear verse that proves beyond a doubt that Mu’awiya's opposition was one that contravened the Book of Allah (swt). This verse provides no room for maneuver. Obedience to those in authority is on par with obedience to Allah (swt) and the Prophet (s). This means that disobeying the Leader amounts to disobeying Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). The verse is absolutely clear. How can anyone interpret this verse as entitling someone to rebel against a leader? Anyone who does so is a rebel.
Now we ask:
● Does Imam Ali (as) not come within this verse?
● Was he not ‘those in authority’?
● Is he not the fourth rightly guided khalifa?
● Did Mu’awiya obey him?
In accordance with this verse and the definitions of Ahlul Sunnah, Mu’awiya's disobedience of Imam Ali (as) had made him a rebel. His entire rebellion was baseless since the Qur’an would not support it. He had no text to justify his actions; he was on the path of falsehood and had led his supporters down that same slippery road of deviance.
If this verse of the Qur’an is not a sufficient indictment against Mu’awiya, then we also have this hadith in Sahih Muslim 1848c - The Book on Government - كتاب الإمارة:
It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims – then he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya. And he who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride and fights for his tribe-is not from my Umma, and whoso from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower).
Mu’awiya openly violated this tradition. He refused to obey Imam Ali (as), he separated from the main body misleading others in the process. The seriousness of this tradition is clear: one who separates and dies “would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya” i.e. he would die a kaafir. Rasulullah (s) did not provide any defense for such individuals. He did not say that they would be rewarded having exercised ijtihad, he said that the perpetrators were not his followers.
This is in relation to those that rebel against any Leader, with regards to those that rebel against Imam Ali (as) we read in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah pg. 73 that Rasulullah (s) said:
“If anyone fights Ali’s caliphate, kill him”. Rasulullah offered no excuses for the opponents of Imam Ali (as), all who come against Imam Ali (as) should be killed; clearly Mu’awiya comes within this hadith.
We read in Usdul Ghaba, pg. 882:
Abu Saeed narrated: ‘Allah’s messenger (s) ordered us to fight Nakithin, Qasatin and Maraqeen, we asked: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger ! You ordered us to fight them but along with who?’ He said with Ali Ibn abi Talib and Ammar bin Yasir will be killed’’.
At another place we read:
Mukhnaf bin Salim said: ‘We went to Abu Ayub and asked: ‘You by your sword fought with Allah’s messenger (s) against the polytheists, then you kill Muslims’? He replied: ‘Rasulullah (s) ordered that I kill Nakitheen, Qasateen and Maraqeen’’.
We read in Matalib al Sa’ul, pg. 106 - 107:
“Ali started by fighting the oath breakers (Nakitheen) who were the people of battle of Jamal and then he fought the Qaseteen who were the companions of Mu'awiya.”
We also read in Sharh al Maqasid, Vol. 5 pg. 307 - 308:
“Rasulullah (s) said to Ali ‘Nakithin, Qasitin and Mariqin will fight you’. Mu’awiya and his companions were Qasateen. They left the truth, which was to follow Ali and give him bayya.”
Of relevance here is the admission of the darling of the Nasibis, Ibn Taymiyya, who writes in Minhaj al Sunnah Vol. 4, pg. 413:
“During Ali’s time the most entitled person to be the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s) was Ali. He was a rightly guided khalifa and to obey him was mandatory”
So from this Nasibis own pen we have an admission that Ali was the rightful Imam and that it was mandatory to obey him. From the hadith mentioned before it is clear that those who refuse to submit to the Rightful Imam and oppose him, are deemed as Qasatheen. The duty was to obey Imam Ali (as) and yet Mu’awiyah and his supporters refused to recognise his authority and give him bayya, hence they were the Qasiteen.
All the above books record traditions in which Rasulullah (s) referred to Imam Ali (as) as the killer of the Fajireen:
For example in Nuzul ul Abrar Chapter “Dhikr Fadail Ali” p24 we read that The Prophet (s) said:
“O Ali you are the Imam of the pious and the slayer of those that are fasiq and fajireen”
In al Mustadrak ala al Sahihain, Vol. 3, pg. 140, we read a more lengthy tradition:
“Ali is Imam of the pious and killer of the fajireen. Aided will be those that aid him, abandoned shall be those that abandon him.”[2]
In addition to this we have the comments of Imam Ali (as) in his letter to Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr taken from History of al-Tabari, Vol. 17, The First Civil war, pg. 154 - 155 (Arabic):
“I have read the letter of the wicked one (fajir) son of the wicked one, Mu’awiya, and the wicked one son of the infidel, 'Amr...”
Ansar.org states:
[Surat Al-Hujarat, verses 9 and 10] “Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other”.
We are not suggesting that Imam Ali (as) was fighting the Kuffar, he was fighting believers. Since the duty is to fight until the transgressors accept the truth, the verse makes it clear that believers can be wrong and when they transgress one is permitted to fight them. Perhaps Abu Sulaiman could elaborate ‘What if this group of believer’s don’t accept the truth and are killed while they were still transgressors? Will they still be equal to those who were on the path of truth? This clearly cannot be the case and Allah (swt) says “Are a Momin and Fasiq equal? certainly not”. The Ulema of Ahlul Sunnah have been uncompromising in the criticisms of a baghi….
We read Nayl al-Auttar, Vol. 9 pg. 197:
واعلم أن قتال البغاة جائز إجماعا كما حكي ذلك في البحر ولا يبعد أن يكون واجبا لقوله تعالى { فقاتلوا التي تبغي } وقد حكي في البحر أيضا عن العترة جميعا أن جهادهم أفضل من جهاد الكفار إلى ديارهم إذ فعلهم في دار الإسلام كفعل الفاحشة في المسجد
“You have to know that the there is Ijma regarding the lawfulness of fighting the rebel as it is written in al-Bahr (book), and likely it is obligatory for His almighty statement ‘{ then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses}’, and it is also written in al-Bahr (book) that all of the progeny said fighting them is superior to fighting the disbelievers in their homeland because their act of rebellion on Muslims’ homeland is like performing adultery inside a mosque. And know that baghi is fisq by consensus.”[3]
Imam Nawawi records in Al-Minhaj, Vol. 7 pg. 47:
وقال أبو حنيفة لا يصلى على محارب ولا على قتيل الفئة الباغية وقال قتادة لا يصلى على ولد الزنى
“Imam Abu Hanifa said that if one dies from baghi group or a robber, one should not read their Funeral Prayer, Qatada says a bastard’s Janaza should not be read either”
We also read in Al-Dur al-Mukhtar, pg. 119:
(وهي فرض على كل مسلم مات، خلا) أربعة: (بغاة، وقطاع طريق) فلا يغسلوا، ولا يصلى عليهم
“It is obligatory over every dead Muslim except four, the Baghi and the highwaymen, they should neither be washed nor their funeral prayers be performed”
We read in Tarikh Dimashq Vol 42, pg. 459, Kanz al ‘Ummal Vol. 11 pg. 356 and al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah pg. 54 - 55:
Narrated Abu Qasim Al Samarqandi, narrated Abu Hussein Ibn Al Naqur, narrated Abu Tahir Al Mukhalis, narrated Ahmed Ibn Abdullah Ibn Sayf, narrated Umar Ibn Shabbah, narrated Abu Ahmed Al Zubayri, narrated Al Hassan Ibn Salih, narrated Hassan Ibn Amro, narrated Rushayd Al Hajari[4], from Habba[5]:
Ali (as) said: “Our Jamaat is Allah’s and one who opposes us is Satan's Party. One who regards them as equal is not from us.”
In Sharh Mawafiq pg. 745 Mir Seyyed Shareef states:
“in eyes of Ahl ul Sunnah there is agreement that those who fought him were sinners and Qadi Ibn al Arabi states that this sin is not fisq, view of the Shia and majority Sunni is that those who fought Ali became fasiq and fajir”
Allamah Sa'duddin Taftazani comments in Sharh al Maqasid Vol 5 pg. 310:
“Amongst Sahaba the differences makes it clear that some Sahaba left the path of truth and got to a point of Dhulm and Fasiq based on enmity, jealousy and a desire for power.”
Ibn Kathir records in Al Bidaya wal Nihaya, Vol 10, pg. 528:
“Imam Ahmed states that Muhammad Bin Jaffar narrated that Sh’eba narrated from Umer bin Marat that he had heard Abdullah bin Salmah saying: On the day of Siffin I saw Ammar like a man of tall height and he was having a standard in his hand and his hand was shivering . He said: In the name of One who possesses my life, I have fought thrice carrying the same standard under the supervision of Holy Prophet (s), this is the fourth time and by the One who posses my life, even if they attack us and make us reach at the “Dates of Hijr'', I still know that our group is on right path while they are on the path of misguidance”
In his flawed attempt to protect Mu’awiya's killing of Hujr, Abu Sulaiman sought to compare Mu’awiya's actions to Imam Ali (as)’s stance at Siffin:
“Ali fought the rebels against his caliphate at the battle of The Camel and Saffeen, which caused the death of the best Companions and in addition, the death of thousands of Muslims, although the reason was one i.e. rebelling against the ruling of the caliph!”.
Now we get a clear understanding of the Nasibi beliefs of Abu Sulaiman. Mu’awiya had no reason to kill Hujr bin Adi, as we have already discussed earlier. His only ‘sin’ was his opposition to the cursing of Ali (as) – pure and simple. The Qur’an and Sunnah cannot support slaying Hujr in this manner.
As for Imam Ali (as)’s stance, not a shred of condemnation can be placed on him, as Abu Sulaiman is clearly seeking to do. Imam Ali (as)’s actions were supported by the Qur’an and Sunnah. He WAS the Ul’il ‘Amr and Rasulullah (s) said the following about Ali (as)
Al Hakim records in al Mustadrak, Vol. 3, pg. 134 and Muttaqi Hindi records in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11, pg. 603, hadith number 32912 that Rasulullah (s) said:
“Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with Ali, the two shall not separate until the meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar”
We read in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11, pg. 621, hadith number 33018 that Rasulallah said:
“Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with Ali”
Al Hakim records Al Mustadrak ala Sahihain Vol 3, pg. 134 - 135 that the prophet said:
“Oh Allah, turn the truth in whichever direction Ali turns.”[6]
These three ahadith make it clear that every decision that Imam Ali (as) takes is Haqq and is supported by the Holy Qur’an. In other words, if he declares war on rebels to his leadership, it is the truth supported by the Qur’an.
If these hadith are not prove within themselves then perhaps Abu Sulaiman could offer his views on this hadith:
“Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those with whom you make war”
Rasulullah (s) is clearly endorsing every position that Ali (as) takes, to the point that one he is also at war with those that Ali (as) is at war with, i.e. Rasulullah (s) considers such individuals not just Imam Ali’s opponents but his own opponents. Despite this Abu Sulaiman’s Nasibi leanings lead make it impossible for him to attribute the truth to Imam Ali (as) ‘s position:
“Although Ali was more deserving and closer to right than Mu’awiyah was”
If anything, this demonstrates how much Nasibis seeks to play down Ali (as)’s position in the eyes of Rasulullah (s). Just contemplating the Nasibis clever play on words Ali was “closer to right” this when Rasulullah (s) stated that Ali is always with the haqq and Abu Sulaiman is suggesting that this was not entirely the case at Siffin! Who should we follow the comments of Abu Sulaiman or those of Rasulullah (s)?
With such clear evidence one wonders how Nasibis like Abu Sulaiman have the audacity to equate Mu’awiya's baseless killing of Hujr to Imam Ali (as) war against his opponents.
Riyadh al Nadira Vol 3, pg.184:
“Rasulullah (s) told Ali that people have enmity to you, and it will open up after me”
In Yanabi al Muwaddah p 135 we learn that Prophet (s) said:
“Protect yourself from your enemies who have hatred in their hearts. Those who hate you Allah has cursed such individuals''
This certainly rings clear with regards to Mu’awiya. His enmity opened to Imam Ali(as) and came to the front. The moment Imam Ali (as) came to power he refused to submit to the authority of Imam Ali (as) and if this was not bad enough he then proved his hatred by introducing the bidah of cursing Imam Ali during the Friday Sermons throughout his dominion (as shall be discussed later).
Ansar.org states:
“if Ali left the fight, a great goodness would happen and the shedding of the blood would be spared”.
This indicates further evidence of Abu Sulaiman’s pro Nasibi leanings. It is indeed curious that he does not seek to ask the same questions to his client Mu’awiya. Why did he not surrender before the battle? Would this not have saved lives? He prefers to attack Ali (as) blaming him for the war and failing to place even a shred of criticism against Mu’awiya. Had Imam Ali abandoned the fight, then the situation would have remained unresolved. Mu’awiya would have continued his propaganda campaign, refused to pledge bay`a and would continue to keep Syria and its people under his helm. How could Ali (as) allow Mu’awiya to continue to act in this way? Ali (as) had provided Mu’awiya with ample opportunity to step in line and Mu’awiya refused. Hence he acted properly in declaring war on Mu’awiya.
In his discussion of Surah Hujurat verse 8 Abu Sulaiman vents his anger against Imam Ali (as) commenting:
“Allah did not put it a condition to fight the transgressor party except when the transgressor party starts to fight. But Ali was the one who started the fight”
This further exposes Abu Sulaiman’s direct attempt to place blame at the door of Imam Ali (as) in his efforts to even read a verse incorrectly so as to attack him. He claims that you can only fight when the transgressors fight first, but this is NOT what the verse states:
“if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses” (Quran 49:8)
The right to fight is not based on defensive Jihad, this can be exercised when the transgressor party has exceeded its limit and acted beyond its bounds, the word fight is not used. What right does Abu Sulaiman have to interpret the verses in this way? Mu’awiya had refused to accept Imam Ali (as) demands, during that time he had incited the Syrians into such a frenzy that they were also opposing Imam Ali (as). An entire region of the Arab peninsula had transgressed and was opposing the rightful khalifa, hence Imam Ali (as) was perfectly within his right to quash their opposition.
If one is to apply Nasibi logic and blame Imam Ali (as) for fighting the transgressors, why do these same Nasibis shower praise on Abu Bakr’s jihad against those who refused to pay zakat to him?
No matter how much Abu Sulaiman would like us to believe otherwise, rebellion is an act of transgression and Abu Sulaiman’s defence is baseless when we know that Rasulullah (s) had referred to the transgressors as the “baghi group” that would fight Ali (as). Rather than speak the truth, he then suggests that perhaps Mu’awiya deemed Ali to be the transgressor. It is interesting to note that Mu’awiya NEVER used this verse to justify his opposition and declare Imam Ali (as) as the transgressor. If we are indeed to accept Abu Sulaiman’s logic then this makes a mockery of Islam, entitling Muslims to interpret the Qur’an in any way they like to get whatever result they like. If Mu’awiya had indeed sought to misinterpret this verse to fight Ali (as) then this does not afford him any protection in the eyes of Allah (swt).
This tradition can be located in the following books:
Ibn Abi Shayba records in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba Vol 17, pg. 105:
Narrated to us ibn Abi Ghania from his father from Isma'il ibn Rajaa from his father from Abi Sa'id Al-Khudri who said: We were sitting in the Masjid and then Allah's messenger (saw) entered and sat with us. We were just staring, no one of us was speaking, and then he (saw) said: "Verily among you there will be a man who will fight the people for the Ta'weel of the Quran just as I have fought for its Tanzeel." Then Abu Bakr stood up and said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger (saw)?" He said: "No." Then Umar stood up and said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger (saw)?" He said: "No, but rather it is the shoe repairer inside the house." Then Ali (a.s) came out towards us and he was holding the shoe of Allah's messenger (saw) that he had repaired.
Footnote: Its chain is Sahih (Authentic), Rajaa is ibn Abi Rabia Al-Zubaydi, scholars have authenticated him and they have not talked against him.
The narration has been narrated also by Ahmad, Al-Nasa'i, and Abu Ya'la, and ibn Hibban, and Al-Hakim and he has authenticated it based on the criteria of the Shaykhayn (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) and Al-Dhahabi has confirmed his authentication. All of them have narrated it through Isma'il ibn Rajaa from Raja.
Ibn Hanbal records in Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 18, pg. 295 - 296:
Narrated to us Hussain bin Muhammad, from Fitr, from Isma'il bin Rija, from Al-Zubaydi, from his father, who said: I heard Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri say: We sat waiting for the messenger of Allah (saw) until he came out to us from one of the houses of his wives (A'isha). Then we stood up and his shoe was ripped. Then Alee (a.s) took the responsibility to fix his shoe. The Prophet (saw) then left and we left with him, and he (saw) said: "Verily, there will be one among you who will fight for the interpretation of this Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." We were honored (to hear such news). Then Abu Bakr and Umar stood up, so the Prophet (saw) said: "No. But rather it's the one who repairs the shoe." Then we went to give him (i.e. Ali(a.s)) the good news and it was as if he had heard it.
Footnote: Shu'ayb Al-Arna'ut: “This Hadith is Sahih and it's chain is Hasan.” And Al-Hakim said: "This Hadith is Sahih (Authentic) upon the standards of Al-Bukhari and Muslim," and Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.
Abi Ya’la recorded in Musnad Abu Ya'la. Vol 2, pg. 341 - 342:
Narrated to us Uthman, from Jarir, from Al-A'mash, from Isma'il bin Rija, from his father, from Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri, who said: I heard the messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Verily, there will be someone among you who will fight for the interpretation of the Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." Then Abu Bakr said: "Am I the one, O messenger of Allah?" He (saw) said: "No." Then Umar said: "Am I the one, O messenger of Allah?" He (saw) said: "No, but rather, it is the one who repairs the shoe." And he (saw) had previously given Ali his shoe to repair it.
Footnote: Hussain Salim Asad: Its chain is Sahih (Authentic)
Al Hakim recorded in al Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol. 3, pg. 132:
I heard Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri say: We sat waiting for the messenger of Allah (saw) until he came out to us from one of the houses of his wives (A'isha). Then we stood up and his shoe was ripped. Then Ali (a.s) took the responsibility to fix his shoe. The Prophet (saw) then left and we left with him, and he (saw) said: "Verily, there will be one among you who will fight for the interpretation of this Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." We were honoured (to hear such news). Then Abu Bakr and Umar stood up, so the Prophet (saw) said: "No. But rather it's the one who repairs the shoe." Then we went to give him (i.e. Ali( a.s)) the good news and it was as if he had heard it.
Hakim said: Authentic on the conditions of the shaykhayn but they did not include it.
Footnote: Dhahabi agreed in the talkhis
Ibn Hibban records in Sahih ibn Hibban. Vol 15, pg. 385:
Narrated to us Ahmad bin Ali bin Al-Muthanna, from Uthman bin Abi Shaybah, from Jareer, from Al-A'mash, from Isma'il bin Rija, from his father, from Abi Sa'id Al-Khudri, who said: I heard the messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Verily among you there will be someone who will fight for the interpretation of the Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." Abu Bakr then said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger?" He (saw) said: "No." Umar then said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger?" He (saw) said: "No, but rather it is the one who repairs the shoe." And he (saw) had given his shoe to Ali (a.s), to repair it.
Shu'ayb Al-Arnaut: The chain is Sahih on the criteria of Muslim.
We read in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11, pg. 613, hadith number 32967 that Rasulullah said:
“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”
This hadith is absolutely explicit every Jihad of Ali (as) will be in defence of the Qur’an, to protect it from misinterpretation. This means that even if Abu Sulaiman is seeking to defend his client Mu’awiya on the basis of alleged Qur’an interpretation, his position is one against Imam Ali (as) and is hence groundless.
Despite Abu Sulaiman’s attempts to defend Mu’awiya this verse IS an indictment against him and proves that he was a transgressor. Whilst he might reject our comments, let us see how Abdullah Ibn`Umar interprets this very verse. Al Hakim in his Al Mustadrak ala al Sahihain, Vol. 2, pg. 502 narrates from Hamza as follows:
“While he (Hamza) was sitting with Abdullah ibn`Umar a man from Iraq came to Ibn`Umar. He said Abu Abdul Rahman, By Allah I have seriously been trying to follow you and adopt an attitude like yours towards the division of the nation and be neutral as far as I could. Yet I have read a verse from the Qur’an that has occupied my mind and I would like you to comment on it. “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, 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), Please inform me how to comply with this verse. Abdullah said, “You have nothing to do with this, now go away. The man left, when he disappeared Abdullah said “I never found in my heart something that I felt about this verse, that I did not fight the aggressor part as Allah commanded me to do”
Underneath the tradition al-Hakim states:
“This is an important narration recorded by many outstanding tabieen. I have used the channel of Shuaib Ibn Abu Hamza to Al-Zuhri because the two Sheikhs (al Bukhari and Muslim) used the channel indicating its authenticity”
Ibn `Umar had already (as mentioned earlier) expressed his regret that he had failed to fight the baghi group i.e. Mu’awiya. Here he went further basing his regret on this very verse (that Abu Sulaiman used to defend Mu’awiya). Since Abu Sulaiman has consistently used Ibn`Umar as an authority throughout the article, one suggests that he ponders over the comments of Ibn`Umar here…or is Abu Sulaiman now going to suggest that he is more learned than Ibn`Umar on the commentary of this verse?
We read in Sahih Muslim 2916c that Umm e Salmah narrated that:
“Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: A band of rebels would kill Ammar”.
This is a famous tradition in which Rasulullah (s) had made it clear that the murderers of Ammar WERE baghi’s – Ammar’s martyrdom at the hands of Mu’awiya's forces at Siffin is clear unequivocal proof that Mu’awiya was a baghi. This would of course be the conclusion reached by one with a rational mind that is searching for the truth, not one that is seeking to defend Mu’awiya turning his deviancy in to a matter of appreciation, Abu Sulaiman is the perfect specimen of this school, he states:
About the Hadith: “Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” This hadith is one of the greatest evidences that the truth lies with Ali but Mu’awiyah interpreted the meaning of the hadeeth differently when Ammar’s death shocked Omro Bin Al-A’as and his son. Omro and his son got astound. Ahmed narrated in his Musnad from Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Omro bin Hazm from his father who says: (When Ammar bin Yaser was killed, Omro bin Hazm entered upon Omro bin Al-A’as and said: “Ammar was killed and the Prophet peace be upon him said that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” Omro bin Al-A’as stood fearing and vomiting until he entered upon Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah asked him: “What is the matter?” Omro answered: “Ammar was killed.” Mu’awiyah asked again: “So what if Ammar was killed?” Omro answered: “I heard the messenger of Allah saying that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” Mu’awiyah told him: “… were we the ones who killed him? Ali and his comrades killed him. They brought him (to the war) and threw him into our lances (or swords).”) [Musnad the people of Syria from Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed, vol.2, Musnad Omro bin Al-A'as, #957, p.163. The Examiner of the book said the narrators of the story are trustworthy].
According to the Qur’an, Sunnah (this very hadith) and definitions of the Ahlul Sunnah `ulama Mu’awiya was a baghi. His attempts to reject this and accuse Imam Ali (as) of killing `Ammar “'' The one who killed Ammar is the one who brought him'' is irrelevant and further exposes his deviancy. In fact his treachery is clear from the fact that not only did he twist the hadith he also became abusive.
We read in History of al-Tabari, Vol. 17, The First Civil war, pg. 69 (Arabic)
“Abdallah [son of `Amr bin al-`Aas] said to his father, “Father, have you killed this man in your fighting today, even though the Messenger of God has said what he said about him?” `Amr asked what that was, and his son said: “Were you not with us while we were building the mosque and everyone was moving stone by stone and brick by brick while `Ammar brought two stones and two bricks at a time? The effort caused him to faint, and the Messenger of God came to him and began wiping dust from his face, saying, ‘Alas for you, Ibn Sumayyah! The people transport stone by stone and brick by brick while you move two stones and two bricks at a time, desiring (divine) reward. In spite of that the usurping party will kill you. Alas for you’” `Amr pushed `Abdallah’s horse away and pulled Mu’awiya toward him. He said, “Mu’awiya, do you not hear what `Abdallah is saying?” Mu’awiya asked what it was, and `Amr reported the story. Mu’awiya said: “You are a stupid old man. You keep on telling stories while you slither about in your piss. Was it we who killed `Ammar? It was only those who brought him here.” And the men came out from their tents and bivouacs, saying, “It was only those who brought `Ammar who killed him.”
Mu’awiya's redefinition is in fact further evidence of how low he was willing to stoop to slander Imam Ali (as) to the point of intentionally misinterpreting a hadith to fit his rebellion. Mu’awiya may well have sought to convince his supporters but Ammar’s death stands testament to where the truth lay.
In his discussion of Siffin, Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi writes as follows in Al Khilfat wa Mulukiyyat, pg.137:
“There were some companions who were reluctant to participate in Jihad as they were unsure which party was that of truth and which party was that of falsehood. After Ammar ibn Yasir’s death the matter became clear. It is on this basis that Abu Bakr al Jassas writes in Ahkam ul Qur’an, Vol. 3 pg. 492: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) fought a rebellious group. Accompanying him were recognised Sahaba who had participated in Badr, they were in the right. The Prophet told Ammar that a ‘baghi group will kill you’ this hadith is Mutawatir and Sahih, so much so that when Abdullah bin Umar bin Aas said this to Mu’awiya he did not refute it”. Allamah Ibn ‘Abdul Barr in al Isti’ab Vol. 2 pg. 424 records the hadith ‘a baghi group will kill Ammar, this is a Mutawatir / Sahih tradition. Allamah Hafid Ibn Hajar in al Isaba writes on Vol. 2 pg. 502 ‘After Ammar’s murder it became clear that the truth was with Ali and on this the Ahl’ul Sunnah became united when previously there were differing opinions”
The Sahabi Khudhayma ibn Thabit was one such individual that remained neutral UNTIL the martyrdom of Ammar ibn Yasir (ra). The Deobandi scholar Shah Moinuddin Ahmad Nadvi reports in Sirat Sahaba page 203:
Hadhrath Khuzaima ibn Thabit was with Ali in Jamal but remained in his tent during Siffeen until news of the martyrdom of Ammar bin Yasir reached him, when he heard that Ammar had been martyred by the army of Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufyan he raised aloud a takbeer at that time and said that only Ali is on the right path and I shall partake in this battle. He said: we've pledged allegiance to Ali, and the specter of doubt that hung over us has been removed on account of the martyrdom of Ammar
Interestingly despite his fondness for Mu’awiyah, Ibn Kathir still states in Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya Vol 10, pg. 526:
وهذا مقتل عمار بن ياسر رضي الله عنه مع أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب قتله أهل الشام وبان وظهر بذلك سر ما أخبره به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم من أنه تقتله الفئة الباغية وبان بذلك أن عليا محق وأن معاوية باغ وما في ذلك من دلائل النبوة
“Ammar bin Yasir was also killed along with Ameer al Momineen Ali (ra). He (Ammar) was killed by Syrians. By his killing, the prediction of Prophet (s) came true because He (s) had predicted that Ammar would be killed by a rebellious group, moreover it further proved that Ali was on right path whereas Mu’awiya was a rebel and there were several prophetic predictions in this regard”
Mullah Ali Qari in his commentary of Mirqaat sharh Mishkaat, Vol.10 pg. 171 records:
“Ammar was killed by Mu’awiya whose party were oppressors and baghis”
Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan in Miratul Manajih Sharh Mishkat al Masabih (Urdu) Volume 8 page 179 offers the following insight of the hadith about Ammar being killed by rebels:
"Three things can be deduced from this text. Firstly Ammar will be martyred, secondly be will be oppressed, thirdly he will be killed by a rebellious group. It becomes clear from these three predictions that Ammar was with the Master of the Universe Ali al Murtadha (ra) in Siffen and attained martyrdom at the hands of Muwaiyah and his supporters"
Allamah Abu Bakr al-Jasas in his authority wok ‘Ahkam al Quran’ states:
“Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) fought the baghi party”
We also read in Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Vol. 5 pg. 280:
“The prophet (pbuh) said to Ammar: ‘a baghi group will kill you’. This tradition is acceptable and Mutawatir, even Mu’awiya couldn’t deny it.”
This hadith is so explicit only one of the caliber of Mu’awiya could redefine it to suit his own needs. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, what about the proponent of this hadith `Ammar bin Yasir? Did he not know where right and wrong lay? If he did then why was he fighting Mu’awiya? Clearly Ammar knew where the truth was in that there is no doubt, and in that connection we have his testimony…
Imam Alauddin Abi Bakar bin Masood al-Kasani al-Hanafi recorded in his esteemed work Badai al-Sanai, Volume 2 page 366:
ولنا ما روى عن عمار انه لما استشهد بصفين تحت راية علي رضي الله عنه فقال لا تغسلوا عنى دما ولا تنزعوا عنى ثوبا فانى التقى ومعاوية بالجادة وكان قتيل أهل البغي على ما قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تقتلك الفئة الباغية
We have proof in the shape of the words of Ammar which he spoke before getting martyred whilst fighting under the leadership of Ali (ra): ‘Do not wash my blood nor remove my clothes because I will meet Muawiya on the day of judgement in this very condition’. Ammar was murdered by rebels because the Prophet (s) said: ‘Ammar will be killed by rebels’.
Imam Ibn Mazah stated in his esteemed work Al-Muheet al-Burhani Fil Fiqah al-Naumani, Volume 2 page 161:
وَكَذَلِكَ مَنْ قُتِلَ فِيْ قِتَالِ أَهْلِ الْبَغْيِ، لَأَنَّهُ إِنَّمَا حَارَبَ لإِعْزَازِ دِيْنِ اللهِ تَعَالَى، فَصَارَ كَالْمُحَارِبِ مَعَ أَهْلِ الْحَرْبِ، وَقَدْ صَحَّ أَنَّ عَمَّارَ بْنَ يَاسِرٍ رضی اللہ عنہ قُتِلَ بِصِفِّيْنَ، فَقَالَ: لَا تَنْزِعُوْا عَنِّيْ ثَوْبًا، وَلَا تَغْسِلُوْا عَنِّيْ دَمًا، وَارْمَسُوْنِيْ فِي التُّرَابِ رَمْسًا، فَإِنِّيْ رَجُلٌ مُحَاجٌّ أُحَاجُّ مُعَاوِيَةَ رضی اللہ عنہ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ، وَزَيْدُ بْنُ صَوْحَانَ رضی اللہ عنہ قُتِلَ يَوْمَ الْجَمَلِ فَقَالَ: لَا تَنْزِعُوْا عَنِّيْ ثَوْبًا، وَلَا تَغْسِلُوْا عَنِّيْ دَمًا، فَإِنِّيْ مُخَاصِمُهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَة، وَعَنْ صَخْرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ أَنَّهُ قَتَلَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ، وَكَانَ مُقَيَّدًا فَقَالَ: لَا تَنْزِعُوْا عَنِّيْ ثَوْبًا، وَلَا تَغْسِلُوْا عَنِّيْ دَمًا، فَإِنِّيْ وَمُعَاوِيَةُ مُلْتَقِي يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عَلَى الْجَادَّةِ
Whoever fought rebels and got martyred is also to be dealt with likewise (i.e. not to give ablution to his body) because he fought for the triumph of religion of Allah which made him at par to those that fought infidels. And this is in Hadith that when Ammar bin Yasir (ra) was killed at Siffeen, he said before that: ‘Do not remove my clothes nor wash blood rather bury me in this very condition because I will fight Muawiya on the day of judgement.’ Similarly it is narrated that when Zayd bin Sohan (ra) got killed on the day of Jamal, he said before that: ‘Do not remove my clothes nor wash blood as I will fight with them on the day of judgement.’ Similarly it is narrated about Sahar bin Addi that he was killed by Muawiya and he had also stated: ‘: ‘Do not remove my clothes nor wash blood because I will meet Muawiya on the day of judgement’.
Mullah Ai Qari stated in Sharah Shifa, Volume 2 page 552:
وأما معاوية واتباعه فيجوز نسبتهم إلى الخطأ والبغي والخروج والفساد وأما لعنهم فلا يجوز
As far as Muawiya and his followers are concerned there is no problem in considering them to be mistaken, rebels, transgressors and sedition creators but it is impermissible to curse them.
We read in Al-Rauz al-Mautar Fi Khabar al-Aqtar, page 364 and Qurtubi also recorded in Al-Tazkirah page 615:
قال الإمام عبد القاهر في كتاب " الإمامة " من تأليفه: أجمع فقهاء الحجاز والعراق من فريقي أهل الحديث والرأي، منهم مالك والشافعي وأبو حنيفة والأوزاعي والجمهور الأعظم من المتكلمين أن علياً رضي الله عنه مصيب في قتاله لأهل صفين، كما قالوا بإصابته في قتاله لأهل الجمل، وقالوا أيضاً: إن الذين قاتلوه بغاة ظالمون له
Imam Abdul Qahir stated in his book Al-Imamah: ‘The jurists of Hijaz and Iraq including Malik, Shafiyee, Abu Hanifa, Auzai and the majority of scholars have an Ijma that Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) was on Haqq whilst fighting the people of Siffeen just like he was on Haqq whilst fighting at Jamal. They have also stated that whoever fought Ali was a rebel and oppressor’.
Whilst commenting on the Hadith ‘Ammar will be killed by rebels, he will call them towards paradise and they will call him towards Hell’ Allamah Munawi stated in Faydh ul Qadeer, Volume 6 page 474:
قَالَ الْقَاضِي فِي شَرْحِ الْمَصَابِيْحِ: يُرِيْدُ بِهِ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَقَوْمَهُ، وَهَذَا صَرِيْحٌ فِي بَغْيِ طَائِفَةِ مُعَاوِيَةَ الَّذِيْنَ قَتَلُوْا عَمَّارًا فِي وَقْعَةِ صِفِّيْنَ، وَأَنَّ الْحَقَّ مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رضی اللہ عنہ وَهُوَ مِنَ الأَخْبَارِ بِالْمُغَيَّبَاتِ «يَدْعُوْهُمْ» أَيْ عَمَّارٌ يَدْعُوْ الْفِئَةَ وَهُمْ أَصْحَابُ مُعَاوِيَةَ الَّذِيْنَ قَتَلُوْهُ بِوَقْعَةِ صِفِّيْنَ فِي الزَّمَانِ الْمُسْتَقْبَلِ «إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ» أَيْ إِلَى سَبَبِهَا وَهُوَ طَاعَةُ الإِمَامِ الْحَقِّ «وَيَدْعُوْنَهُ إِلَى» سَبَبِ «النَّارِ» وَهُوَ عِصْيَانُهُ وَمُقَاتَلَتُهُ، قَالُوْا: وَقَدْ وَقَعَ ذَلِكَ فِي يَوْمِ صِفِّيْنَ دَعَاهُمْ فِيْهِ إِلَى الإِمَامِ الْحَقِّ وَقَتَلُوْهُ، فَهُوَ مُعْجِزَةٌ لِلْمُصْطَفَى صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم وَعَلَمٌ مِنْ أَعْلَامِ نُبُوَّتِهِ
Qadhi (Bedhawi) stated in Sharah al-Masabih that it refers to Muawiya and his followers and this Hadith is Sarih proof of Muawiya and his followers being rebels. They were the ones that killed Ammar during the battle of Siffeen and the truth was with Ali (May Allah be pleased with him). This Hadith was amongst the proofs of knowledge of the unseen as ‘He will call them’ means Ammar will call the group that comprised followers of Muawiya who were to kill Ammar in future during battle of Siffeen. ‘To paradise’ means that Ammar will call them towards the means that leads one to paradise which was calling them towards the Imam of truth (Haq). ‘They will call him to Fire’ means they will call him towards the means that leads to hell which was to disobey the rightful caliph and to fight him. Scholars have stated that this all happened in the battle of Siffeen when Ammar called them towards the Imam of truth but they killed him. It was miracle of Prophet Muhammad (s) being one of the signs of Prophethood.
On page 474, Munawi stated the following words of Imam Abu Mansur Baghdadi:
أَجْمَعُوْا أَنَّ عَلِيًّا مُصِيْبٌ فِي قِتَالِهِ أَهْلَ صِفِّيْنَ مُعَاوِيَةَ رضی اللہ عنہ وَعَسْكَرَهُ. وَقَالُوْا أَيْضًا: بِأَنَّ الَّذِيْنَ قَاتَلُوْهُ بُغَاةٌ ظَالِمُوْنَ لَهُ وَلَـكِنْ لَّا يَجُوْزُ تَكْفِيْرُهُمْ ِببَغْيِهِمْ.
There is an Ijma of scholars that even during the battle of Sifeen with Muawiya and his people, Haq was with Ali. He further stated that all those that fought Ali were oppressors, rebels and unjust but it is impermissible to issue an edict of Kufr against them.
Since the present day followers of those who had shamelessly raised the sword against Ahlulbayt (as) have learnt just a one word by heart i.e. Ijtihad which defense has already been destroyed by us nevertheless without prejudice to the foregoing we would like to respond that even the Ijtihad allegedly exercised by the shameless enemies of Ahlulbayt (as) was only for worldly matters and it had nothing to do with any moral or religious objectives. Qadhi Abu Bakar Ibn Al-Arabi al-Maliki stated in Aridhat al-Ahwazi his commentary of Sahih Tirmidhi, Volume 13 page 169 - 170:
وَقَدْ كَانَ عَمَّارٌ بَرِيْئًا عَنِ الْخُبْثِ مُبَرِّئًا غَيْرَهُ عَنْهُ، وَتَبْرِئَتُهُ لِلْغَيْرِ بِأَنَّ أُمَّةً كَانَ فِيْهَا لَاخُبْثَ عِنْدَهَا، لِأَنَّهُ طَيِّبُهَا، أَيْ شَهِدَ لَهَا بِالطَّيِّبِ بِكَوْنِهِ فِيْهَا، كَمَا شَهِدَ عَلَى الأُخْرَى بِالْبَغْيِ لِكَوْنِهِ عَلَيْهَا، بِقَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم فِي عَمَّارٍ: تَقْتُلُكَ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ. أَيْ الطَّالِبَةُ لِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَإِنَّمَا كَانَتْ تَطْلُبُ الدُّنْيَا وَلَكِنْ بِاجْتِهَادٍ
Ammar was not only free of impurity but was also the one who removed the impurity of others. Removing impurity from others means that the group he was part of was free of impurity in intentions and means his presence in the group was a proof of its purity quite similar that his opposition to the other group was a proof that said group was comprised of rebels as Holy Prophet (s) had said about him’ You will be killed by rebels it referred to a group making illegitimate demands and the said group was demanding worldly affairs through Ijtihad.
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 038, Number 6688:
“Qais reported: I said to ‘Ammar: What is your opinion about what you have done in the case (of your siding with Hadrat Ali)? Is it your personal opinion or something you got from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? ‘Ammar said: We have got nothing from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) which people at large did not get, but Hudhaifa told me that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) 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”.
It is clear from this tradition that Ammar referred to his opponents (and those of Imam Ali) in battle as munafiqs. Even more interesting is that he associated this group with the list of 12 or 14 hypocrites from the Aqaba incident who had tried to assassinate the Prophet (s) and about whom only Hudhayfa was told their names, for which he was called ‘sahib al-sirr’ (man with the secret).
Of interest is Abu Sulaiman’s own admission that Mu’awiya was wrong, he says:
But the truth that should be said is that these thinkings are definitely false and that the truth is with Ali. But Mu’awiyah’s party are excused in their interpretation because they wanted the truth but did not get it.
So he is admitting:
● The truth was with Ali
● Mu’awiya's assertion was false, but is ‘excused’ because he was looking for the truth
Subhanallah! What sort of search for the truth is this? One that entitles an individual to rebel against the rightful khalifa, incite people to join in his opposition and then fight the khalifa! And who has excused Mu’awiya for his transgression? Does Abu Sulaiman have any evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah to prove this point? Rasulullah (s) said`Ammar would be killed by baghi’s. Did he state that this baghi group will be excused because they will be searching for the truth? Is there any verse of the Qur’an stating that one who is a transgressor is excused? According to Abu Sulaiman all this is permissible in Islam and it was based on interpretation i.e. ijtihad. If the truth was with Ali (as), a fact that Rasulullah had vouched for, as we have mentioned, how did Mu’awiya feel that he was on the path of truth by fighting Ali (as)? Abu Sulaiman can defend Mu’awiya all he likes, the fact is he was a baghi and one who is a baghi can NOT use ijtihad to justify his opposition. A Mujtahid can ONLY exercise Ijtihaad when no solution is available in the Qur’an and Sunnah. When the Qur’an states clearly the obedience to the Ul’il Umr is unconditional and we have Ahlul Sunnah traditions in which Rasulullah (s) condemned splitting from the Jamaah then it is evident that the excuses provided by Abu Sulaiman are as weak as the claim that Imam Ali and his party were baghi’s having brought `Ammar to the battlefield.
Abu Sulaiman, that for every Shi’a accusation:
“…against Mu’awiyah, there would be a similar argument from other parties. Ahl Al-Sunnah are pleased by the two parties, and do not consider them impious”.
Only a Nasibi could claim such a lie. Abu Sulaiman by citing this example is in effect suggesting that any sin has been canceled out since both parties were as culpable as each other. This type of answer can only come from those bearing a hidden grudge towards Imam Ali (as). If we take this type of excuse to its logical conclusion then Mu’awiya's alleged father ‘Abu Sufyan fought Rasulullah (s) and Rasulullah (s) fought him, so no blame should be apportioned to either since both were responsible for deaths. In Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khunduq and Hunain Muslims fought kuffar, they were both equal in blame. By the same token we should distinguish between a goat and a cow since both eat grass, or one’s sister from one’s wife since both are women. This is the typical Nasibi thinking, a concerted effort not to distinguish truth from falsehood in their attempts to lower the exalted rank of Maula Ali (as).
In response to this Nasibi defense, what better reply to Abu Sulaiman can there be than Imam Ali (as)’s own assessment of the situation. This sermon of Imam Ali was said at Siffin and can be located in the following texts - Waqi’at Siffin pg. 314, Jamharat Ansab al-Arab, Vol. 1 pg. 353, Sharh of Nahjul Balagha by Ibn Abi al Hadeed Vol. 5 pg. 245:
“I made a promise with Rasulullah (s) that I shall never forego. Your enemies are approaching, you should know that their leader is a hypocrite son of a hypocrite. He is inviting his supporters to Hell Fire while you have the cousin of Rasulullah (s) in your midst, as you know, no one else performed Salat with Rasulullah (s) before me. I am from amongst the participants of Badr while Mu’awiya is the freed captive, son of a freed captive. By Allah! We are on the path of truth whilst Mu’awiya is on the path of falsehood”.
We deem it appropriate to mention that some Nawasib have tried to prove us liars for using ‘Waqi’at Siffin’ as a Sunni text and it has been stated that the author Ibn Muzahim has been called a Shia and as such, they have tried to portray Ibn Muzahim as a weak source. We would like to respond that other Sunni scholars such as Hakim, the author of Al-Mustadrak has likewise been called Shia but that did not mean an outright rejection of the author. We should also point out that Ibn Muzahim has been included in the books of Thiqah narrators by Imam Ibn Habban (al-Thuqat, Vol. 9, pg. 215). Moreover several leading Sunni scholars have relied upon Ibn Muzahim in their respective authority works such as Ibn Abi al-Dunya in his book al-Ikhwan pg. 209, Ibn Abi Shayba in his book al-Arsh pg. 469, Tabarani in his books al-Mu'jam al-Kabir, Mu’jam Al Awsat, and al-Mu'jam al-Saghir, Daraqutni in his al-Sunan, Umar bin Shaheen in his book Fadhel Saydat al-Nisa, Abu Nu’aim al-Asbahani in his book Musnad Abu Hanifa, Ibn Abdulbar in al-Istiab, Samani in Adab al-Emla, Ibn Abi Hatim who in his Tafsir of Holy Quran declared he had relied upon authentic chains only has also narrated from Ibn Muzahim, Ibn Jarir Tabari in his Tafsir as well as in his Tarikh while Ibn Taymiyyah has stated that Tabari in his Tafsir didn’t record from narrators who were liars, Ibn Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq, Ibn al-Athir in Usud al-Ghaba and Khawarezmi in his book al-Manaqib.
One needs to remind our readers that first and foremost Imam Ali (as) was the rightful khalifa and Mu’awiya was a baghi – so right from the start this premise that both parties are just as guilty falls flat. Imam Ali (as)’s actions were supported by the Qur’an and hadith, Rasulullah (s) said he is at war with anyone that Ali (as) fights, proving his actions will always be correct. If we were to take Abu Sulaiman’s allegation as true then this would suggest that Rasulullah (s) was also culpable! Mu’awiya had no texts to support his rebellion. Abu Sulaiman may feel happy living the dream blindly quoting the defence:
Ansar.org states: “Ahl Al-Sunnah are pleased by the two parties, and do not consider them impious” – but we give greater credence to the words of Imam Ali and in Sharh Ibn Al Hadeed Vol. 6 pg. 71, we read the letter of Imam Ali (as) to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, that destroys this baseless notion:
“Protect yourself from Hind’s lying son and his invitation, stop and think, the Imam of guidance and the Imam of destruction, Rasulullah’s wasi (executor) and Rasulullah’s enemies can never be seen as equals”.
Through his opposition and propaganda campaign against the Imam he was responsible for inciting fitnah and causing the death of thousands of people. What is interesting is the fact that ‘defenses’ and ‘explanation’ are ONLY provided by the Ahlul Sunnah for those who rebelled against Imam Ali (as). Why are counter arguments and explanations never provided by Abu Sulaiman and his company for those that rebelled against Abu Bakr, refusing to hand over zakat to him? These individuals are not deemed impious, worse they are deemed murtad! Sayyid Abul A’la Maudoodi, in his book “Murtad ki Saza'' (Punishment of the apostate) states that those who did not pay Zakat became apostates because they rebelled against the Khalifa of the time (Murtad ki Saza, pg. 24 – 25 Karachi edition 1954) Curiously when the companions rebel against Ali (as) and wage war against him the same thinking is not applied, rather as Abu Sulaiman claims they searched for the truth, could not find it but will be forgiven and will be rewarded for it, as Abu Sulaiman comments:
“…the party of Ali was right, and Mu’awiyah was not a despotic, nor a caller to falsehood, but he searched for the truth and did not find it. Therefore, Mu’awiyah is rewarded for his religious interpretation. None of the two was an oppressor or impious”.
Rasulullah (s) clearly referred to the party that killed Ammar as baghi, he did not say that they would be rewarded having exercised ijtihad. He condemned the killers of Amar so hence we can condemn them and call them pious. How was Mu’awiya searching for the truth by opposing Imam Ali (as) who Rasulullah said is with the truth and the truth was with him? To suggest that all acts will be forgiven and rewarded on account of religious interpretation (ijtihad) is such perverse concept it in fact attacks the core of Shari’a – justice. We have dedicated a separate article exposing the fallacy of the ijtihad of the companions, but for the moment the cynical comments from Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work “Nasbaan Muluk Adoud” pg. 224 will suffice:
“Ijtihaad is a very unusual concept, which in effect suggests that you can do whatever you like and can simply present ijtihaad as an excuse, by the same token kaafirs could likewise rely in ijtihaad Shaykh ul Hadith Abu Jahil, Shaykh ul Islam Abu Sufyan and the Great Imam Ibn Ziyad all performed deeds in the name of ijtihaad! Mu’awiya contradicted the Qur’an and Sunnah in his exercise of ijtihaad, and there is no basis to make ijtihaad when there is clear text available”.
Both Sects are in agreement that a Mujtahid must be a pious, praiseworthy and just man. Mu’awiya was devoid of all these requirements, through political trickery Mu’awiya allowed Uthman to be killed and then used his death to propel his political ambitions, by rebelling against Maula Ali that led to the Battle of Siffin, and his army slaughtered many prominent Sahaba. After the martyrdom of Maula Ali (as), Mu’awiya killed his Shi’a to strengthen his reign, and then assassinated Maula Ali (as), Ayesha and prominent Sahaba who he deemed his critics.
Nawasib say that anyone that curses the Sahaba is a transgressor and a kaafir, Maula Ali was a rank higher in that he was from the Ahlul bayt (as) and one of the Ahl’ul Sunnah’s rightly guided khalifas. Mu’awiya opposed him, rebelled against him and cursed him (as we shall evidence in the next chapter). Mu’awiya was neither pious nor just, which thus makes his ijtihad of no value. Mu’awiya did not just kill ordinary Sahaba, he killed the participants of Bayt al Ridhwan, and Sahaba such as Ammar bin Yasir (ra), Khudhayma bin Thabit al Malib bin Ashthar. The Qur’an says killing one momin leads one to Hell and Mu’awiya was responsible for killing thousands, which negates any suggestion that he was Adil (just).
We will rely on the following Sunni works:
1. Al Ahkam fi Usul al Ahkam, Vol. 4 pg. 218
2. al Bahar al Raiq Vol. 1 pg. 3 by Muhammad bin Naeem
3. Tauzhee al Talweeh, pg. 30
We read in Bahar al Raiq:
“Ijtihad involves having knowledge and evidence for the principles of Shari’ah, Fiqh and Ijtihad…”
One who has form grasp of the Shariah is a mujtahid and according to Sunni jurisprudence a Mujtahid is one with a command of the following principles:
1. The Qur’an
2. Sunnah of the Prophet (s)
3. Ijma of the Ulema
4. Qiyas
Mu’awiya was ignorant of these principles. He was brought up in that household which would place their fingers in their ears when they heard the Quran being recited. He lived in that house that was used as a brothel, wherein the inhabitants were idolaters and lead opponents of the Prophet (s). He only embraced Islam through surrender approximately ten years prior to the death of the Prophet (s). Mu’awiya had very little opportunity to sit in the midst of the Prophet. It should also be made clear that the Qur’an and Sunnah is not simple to understand, it took Umar twelve years to recite Surah Baqarah, and at the time of the death he claimed that the Prophet (s) could not die, and did not shift from this stance until Abu Bakr recited the Qur’anic verse ‘And there had been (other) prophets before him’. ‘ If this was the state of such an esteemed figure, then what can we say of Mu’awiya with his limited exposure to the Prophet (s)? Mu’awiya was neither a mujtahid in practice (in his daily life) nor in theory.
In al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah pg. 55 this tradition is taken from Ibn Athir who quotes this sermon of Imam Ali (as) in Tarikh Kamil Vol. 2 pg. 689:
“Mu’awiya and his army should be fought as they are Qasiteen neither are they from amongst those that understand the Qur’an, nor are they experts on the principles of deen, nor are they counted as scholars who can issue verdicts”.
These words discredit the false notion that Mu’awiya had exercised ijtihad Imam Ali (as) made it clear that he had no basis to oppose and had no defense in Shari’a to support his rebellion.
In Tarikh Kamil Vol. 2 pg. 688, the words of Imam Ali (as) are recorded:
“Mu’awiya and his supporters such as Amr bin Aas were dishonest, they had no knowledge of the Qur’an, I know them from their childhood through to their adolescence, they were the worst of children and the worst”.
This testimony of Imam Ali (as) in effect destroys the defense of ijtihad. Ijtihad is exercised by a scholar who is honest and possesses a command of the Qur’an and Sunnah. In the eyes of Imam Ali (as) Mu’awiya was dishonest and ignorant of the Qur’an hence he was in no position to rely on the Qur’an to justify his opposition.
We read in Al Isti’ab, pg. 422 under the biography of Abdullah bin Amro bin al-Aas:
“Ibn Abi Malika narrated that Abdullah bin Umro bin al-Aas said: ‘Why I participated in Siffin! Why I fought the Muslims! By Allah I wish I had died ten years before this incident’. Then he said: ‘By Allah I didn’t strike by sword, nor did I strike by spear, nor shot an arrow, and I wish I never attended this incident, I repent to Allah almighty to seek repentance’. It has been narrated that he held the flag during that incident, therefore he extended regret for fighting beside Mu'awiya, thus he continuously sought forgiveness from Allah”.
Now if both parties were indeed right as is Abu Sulaiman’s claim then why was bin Umro asking for forgiveness having fought with Mu’awiya at Siffin? According to Abu Sulaiman’s logic there would be nothing to be shameful about since both will be rewarded – but the regret, embarrassment and tauba of this participant destroys the fallacy of ijtihad since Abdullah bin `Amr al Aas clearly viewed his support of Mu’awiya to be a great sin for which he sought the forgiveness of Allah (swt).
We read in Waqi’at Siffin pg. 218 that Zaid bin Arqam narrated that he heard Rasulullah (s) say:
“If you ever see Mu’awiya and Amr bin Aas sitting together then split them up because they will never unite on anything good”
We read in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah pg. 163 and Tatheer al Jinan pg. 120 that Rasulullah (s) said the following:
“If you ever see Mu’awiya and Amr bin Aas sitting together then split them up because verily they will only unite on deception”.
This tradition and the former destroys Abu Sulaiman’s defense of ijtihad in the case of Mu’awiya, because Rasulullah (s) said anything they do will be deception i.e. would contradict the dictates of the Deen. Ijtihad is based on sincere interpretation in the absence of nass (text). Rasulullah (s) said the union of these two individuals would ALWAYS be based on deception and never for a good cause NOT on matters pertaining to Deen. Mu’awiya and Amr bin Aas united at Siffin against the Imam of the time. Their claims to avenge the death of Uthman was deception as testified by the words of Rasulullah (s).
Ansar.org states:
Authentic traditions prove that both parties have the same claim and seek the truth they believe. These authentic traditions also declare that the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Hurayrah who says: (The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: “Judgement Day will not come until two parties fight with similar claims.”) [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of "Virtues," Chapter of "Signs of Prophecy in Islam," #3413] This hadeeth, as you see, proves that the two parties have the same demand and the same religion.
We reiterate that we are not saying Imam Ali (as) was fighting Kuffar, the battle was with baghi’s / transgressors. Both parties might indeed have the same demand but the question Abu Sulaiman intentionally avoids is to cast light on which party is on the right path and which party was correct in its demand, Ali demanding obedience or Mu’awiya refusing obedience and opposing him. We know from the hadith cited earlier that Rasulullah (s) said that Imam Ali was on Haqq, supported by the Qur’an and would fight the Baghi Party. So these hadith make it clear that the demands of Imam Ali (as) that Mu’awiya submit to his authority was the correct demand, supported by the Qur’an and hadith. Mu’awiya's opposition was and cannot in retrospect (despite Abu Sulaiman’s loyal efforts) be supported by the Shari’a. He WAS following falsehood. Now let us analyse the second hadith:
Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Saeed Al-khudaro who says: (The messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: “Renegades will pass through a group of Muslims. They would be killed by the more deserving party of truth.”) [Muslim with Explanation, Book of "Zakkat," Chapter of "The Kharijites and their characteristics," #150] This hadeeth clears that both parties ask for the truth and fight for it. Meaning that the two parties were intending the truth and requesting it. This hadeeth also shows that the truth lies with Ali because he was the one who fought these renegades i.e. the Kharijites at Al-Nahrawan.
Interesting is the fact that in this hadith Rasulullah (s) did not say that the other party was also on the truth! It clearly indicates that Imam Ali (as)’s Party IS the party of truth, has Rasulullah (s) showered praise on the other group?
Abu Sulaiman had stated, “These authentic traditions also declare that the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood”. We wonder how it is that Abu Sulaiman has arrived at this conclusion. Did Rasulullah (s) state in either of these traditions “the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood”? He (s) clearly did not identify which party was correct and this can be further proven from the other hadith cited so we should remind our readers of the repercussions for one who attributes a lie to Rasulullah (s).
Abu Sulaiman then cites the words of Al-Nawawi:
“It is a declaration that both parties are believers and fighting each other does not cancel their faith and they should be not called impious.” [Sahih Muslim vol.7, p.235]
Nawawi asserts that it does not cancel their faith, but the Qur’an and Sunnah tell us perpetrators of such crimes have committed kufr:
“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” (Quran 4:93)
Further, we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 7077 - Afflictions and the End of the World - كتاب الفتن Abdullah Ibn`Umar narrated he heard Rasulullah (s) say:
“Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.”[10]
The Holy Prophet said, “Your blood, property, honour and skin (ie body) are sacred to one another” Sahih al-Bukhari 67 - Knowledge - كتاب العلم
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 7076 - Afflictions and the End of the World - كتاب الفتن
So these hadith and verse make it clear:
● To kill a Muslim is an act of kufr (so one is at risk of losing one’s faith)
● The intentional killing of a mu’min places the perpetrator in hell
Now with these facts in mind we should ask ‘how many believers were intentionally killed at Siffin?’
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 then in light of the Qur’an and hadith ALL those who fought against Imam Ali (as), committed kufr, they are murderers and are therefore in hell.
There had to be clear text to support the stance of the parties. The fighting was between two groups of believers. One group was led by the rightful Khalifa of the time who was supported in his actions by the Qur’an and words of Rasulullah, and on the opposing side we had Abu Sulaiman’s client Mu’awiya who had no basis under the Shari’a to transgress in the manner that he did. It is indeed sad that Abu Sulaiman does not even possess the courage to admit which party was correct in light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Rather than do so, he continues to defend Mu’awiya's transgression.
Try as he may these defenses are of no avail. We have the guarantee of Rasulullah (s) in this hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari 2812 that Ikrima narrated:
“Ibn ‘Abbas told him and Ali bin ‘Abdullah to go to Abu Said and listen to some of his narrations; so they both went (and saw) Abu Said 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 abode of the mosque, one brick at a time while ‘Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet 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.”
So from this hadith we learn
1. A rebellious group will kill Ammar
2. Ammar will invite this rebellious group to submit to the will of Allah
3. This rebellious group shall be inviting him to Hell Fire
Some Nawasib of this age have started raising doubts on the authenticity of the above cited words of the Holy Prophet (s) on the ground that the Hadith has been reported through Ikrama who was a Khariji. Other Nawasib whilst accepting that the Hadith ‘Ammar will be killed by rebels’ is authentic and Mutawatir argue the portion ‘He will invite them to paradise and they will invite him to fire’ may not have been said by the Prophet (s) and was included by Bukhari in his book in that very manner. This feeble attempt can be nullified by a simple answer that the Hadith is referenced in the most authentic Hadith book of the Ahlul Sunnah i.e. Sahih Bukhari and some esteemed Imams of Ahlul Sunnah have without any shadow of doubt relied upon this very Hadith to conclude that Imam Ali (as) was with Haq whereas Muawiya and his followers were rebels. For instance Muhammad Bin Umar bin Mubarak al-Hadharmi commonly known as Allamah Bahraf al-Shafiyee (d.930 H) stated in Al-Hasaam al-Maslool Ala Muntaqsa Ashaab al-Rasool, page 115:
لكن أجمع الخلف من التابعين وجمهور السلف على أن عليا رضي الله عنه كان مجتهدا مصيبا فله أجران، لحديث ابن عباس مرفوعا: «ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار
The later Tabayeen had an Ijma and that according to the majority of the Salaf, Ali (ra) was Mujtahid Musib [means his Ijtihad was absolutely correct] hence he will attain two rewards and one Marfu report transmitted by Ibn Abbas is clear proof of this wherein it was narrated ‘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.’
It is pertinent to mention that the Hadith has also been recorded by Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume 18 page 368 which has been declared as Sahih by Sheikh Shoib al-Arnaut. Albani has also declared it Sahih in Sahih al-Jami al-Sahir, Volume 2 page 119 No. 7129. It would also not be out of place to cite another category of Nawasib that accept the version of Hadith that says that Imam Ibn Hibban also included it in his ‘Sahih’ bearing Hadith No. 7204. Ibn Hajar Asqalani also accepted the Hadith and unlike modern day Nawasib, without attempting to water it down, has relied on the complete version of Hadith as cited earlier as ‘Sahih’. He stated:
وَيَكْفِيْ لِإِثْبَاتِ ذَلِكَ الْحَدِيْثُ الصَّحِيْحُ الَّذِيْ رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ: «وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيِةُ يَدْعُوْهُمْ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَيَدْعُوْنَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ». أَخْرَجَهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي ‹‹كِتَابِ الصَّلَاةِ، بَابُ التَّعَاوُنِ فِي بِنَاءِ الْمَسَاجِدِ››، بِهَذَا الَّلفْظِ؛ وَرَوَاهُ فِي مَوْضِعٍ آخَرَ فِي ‹‹كِتَابِ الْجِهَادِ وَالسِّيَرِ، بَابُ مَسْحِ الْغُبَارِ››، بِلَفْظِ: «يَدْعُوْهُمْ إِلَى اللهِ وَيَدْعُوْنَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ». وَرَوَاهُ ابْنُ حِبَّانَ أَيْضًا بِالَّلفْظِ الَّذِي رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي كِتَابِ الصَّلاَةِ.
In order to prove that only one of the two groups adhered to the truth, the following Sahih Hadith is sufficient that has been recorded by Bukhari in the following manner: ‘May Allah be merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. ‘Ammar will invite them to paradise and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.” Bukhari recorded this Hadith in the Book of Prayers with the aforesaid wordings and he recorded the Hadith in book of Jihad with the following words: ‘Ammar will invite them to Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.’ Furthermore, Ibn Hibban has also recorded the Hadith in the wordings in which Bukhari recorded it in the Book of Prayers.
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Mulla Ali Qari in his Mirqat, Volume 11 page 18 also relied upon this very version of the Hadith as follows:
وَفِي الْجَامِعِ الصَّغِيرِ بِرِوَايَةِ الْإِمَامِ أَحْمَدَ وَالْبُخَارِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ مَرْفُوعًا ( «وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ» ) وَهَذَا كَالنَّصِّ الصَّرِيحِ فِي الْمَعْنَى الصَّحِيحِ الْمُتَبَادَرِ مِنَ الْبَغْيِ الْمُطْلَقِ فِي الْكِتَابِ
It has been narrated through Saeed bin al-Khudri as Marfu in Jami al Saghir, Ahmed and Bukhari that “May Allah be merciful to Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. Ammar will invite them to paradise, and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.” This is like Nass Sarih [absolute proof] in respect of the correct meaning of rebellion that is mentioned in Quran.
Ahmed Kurani al-Hanafi stated regarding the Hadith in his book Al-Kothar al-Jari Ila Riyadh Ahadith al-Bukhari, Volume 11 page 22 No. 7084:
(دعاة إلى أبواب جهنم) أي: إلى ما هو كأبواب جهنم، فإن الباب ما يتوصل به إلى الوصول، وهؤلاء الظَّلَمَة بعد الخلفاء الراشدين، ألا ترى إلى قوله في شأن عمار: "ويل ابن سمية تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار
It means that those people are just like the doors of Hell as a door is a means via which one reaches one’s destination hence the oppressors that appeared after rightly guided caliphs were like the doors of Hell. Have you not gone through the statement regarding Ammar: “May Allah be merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. ‘Ammar will invite them to paradise and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”.
Even if for the sake of argument the complete version of Hadith is kept out of consideration, the abridged version is sufficient to prove that Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and his party were on Haq whilst his opponents ascribed to falsehood being rebels and this abridged form of Hadith has also been used by Imams of Ahl’ul Sunnah to arrive at this very conclusion. Ibn Kathir explains it as follows in Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya Vol 10, pg. 526:
وهذا مقتل عمار بن ياسر رضي الله عنه مع أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب قتله أهل الشام وبان وظهر بذلك سر ما أخبره به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم من أنه تقتله الفئة الباغية وبان بذلك أن عليا محق وأن معاوية باغ
This was the murder of Ammar b. Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) on the side of Amir al-Muminin Ali b. Abi Talib. He was murdered by the Syrians. From this, the secret of what the Messenger of Allah (s) had predicted that he (Ammar) would be murdered by a baghi group became clear. It became clear from this that Ali was upon the Truth and that Mu’awiya was a baghi person.
It is relevant at this juncture to remind our readers that Ikrima has been praised by the esteemed scholars of Ahlus Sunnah for instance Allamah Taqiuddin Muqrezi in Al-Imta al-Isma, Volume 5 page 13, Allamah Saleh Shaami in Subul Huda, Volume 1 page 169, Ibn Athir in Jama’i al-Usool, Volume 2 page 422 have used the words “May Allah have mercy upon him” for Ikrima whilst the grand scholar of Deoband school namely Zafar Thanvi in Ela al-Sunan, Volume 3 page 5 (Karachi) has used the words “May Allah be pleased with him” for Ikrima.
There is yet another manner the killers of Ammar Yasir (ra) were condemned. Hakim recorded in his al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 437 No. 5661:
قَاتِلُ عَمَّارٍ وَسَالِبُهُ فِي النَّارِ
The killer of Ammar and the looter of articles are both in Hell.
This has been declared as Sahih by Hakim as well as Dhahabi, who included it in Tarikh Al Islam Vol 3, pg. 582. Abu Bakar al-Haythami has declared the narrators of the tradition as Thiqa (Majma al-Zawaid, Volume 4 page 244). Albani has declared the tradition as Sahih (Silsila tul Ahadith al-Sahiyah Volume 5 page 18 No. 2008). Albani also said this in his Sahih al Jami al Saghir pg 761.
In this connection we have this fatwa of Ibn Taymiyya as recorded in Majmu’ Fatawa Vol 4 pg. 437:
“And it has been narrated in Muslim, ‘O Ammar you will be killed by a group of transgressors’, and this is proof on the correctness of the Imamah of Ali and that it is obligatory to follow him, and those that were calling to his obedience were calling to Jannah and that those who fought him were calling towards hellfire, even though they did ta’wil..”
Rasulullah (s) deemed the opponents and killers of Ammar a rebellious group that was inviting him to Hell Fire i.e. Destruction. This is clear proof that this group was deviant and was so far from the truth that it was in effect recruiting people to destruction in the next world. This being the case, how can individuals who in Rasulullah’s own words were inviting Ammar to the Hellfire be deemed (as Abu Sulaiman would like us to believe) to be pious, innocent individuals searching for the truth?
For Nawawi to comment that neither side should be called impious is symptomatic of those who refuse to separate truth from falsehood. How can we not declare impious those that are deemed impious according to the Qur’an and Sunnah? Allah (swt) deems such individual transgressors and Rasulullah (s) had described those that would fight Imam Ali (as) as Baghi (rebels). If Allah and his Rasul (s) have condemned this seditious element then why should we be condemned for doing likewise?
[1] Al-Bahith al-Hathith by Ibn Kathir (comments by Allamah Ahmad) Shakir pg. 87:
“The accepted fact is that Thiqah is one who is considered preserved for his reports, a Muslim, rational, adult, preserved from lasciviousness (fisq) and what breaks morality, must be careful and not a fool, a preserver – if he narrates from his memory, understanding the meaning of what he narrates. If any of these conditions contains defects, his narration must be rejected. A narrator being just (adala) can be evidenced by his known good deeds, his being well praised or his being just (adala) has been cited by imams, two or one.”
[2] Hakim authenticated it, but Dhahabi weakened it due to Ahmed Ibn Abdullah Ibn Yazid. It seems he was weakened for being the only person to narrate this from Abd Al Razzaq, and Alhamdulillah we know this hadith is authentic in spite of Dhahabi and his nasb.
[4] Rushayd Al Hajari (RA) was one of the companions of Amir al Mumineen, a Rafidhi who believed in Rajah. He was brutally murdered by Ziyad Ibn Abihi in Kufa, and he was weakened by the scholars of the Sunnis for his belief in Rajah. Subhanallah, why is Ali Ibn Abi Talib surrounded by so many rawafidh who believed in Raj’ah? Ibn Hibban records in Al Majruhun that Ziyad killed him for claiming that Ali spoke to him after his death. Rudhayd himself said regarding Ali when told he was dead “Do you not know the secret of Ale Muhammad?” Regarding the Imam speaking to him after death, we cite Quran 36:12: Indeed, it is We who bring the dead to life and record what they have put forth and what they left behind, and all things We have enumerated in a clear Imam.
[5] Habba Ibn Juwayn was one of the Shia of Amir Al Mumineen (AS) in Kufa. The Nawasib at Hadith db have tried to weaken him, but this is hypocrisy as they usually give the verdict of Ibn Hajar who declared him Seduq. Ibn Hanbal said he is Thiqa, as did Ahmed Ibn Salih Al Jayli. One who reads his biography will see that the reason for this weakening was that he was an ardent Shiite, with Al Fasawi saying he was “on the verge of rafidhism.”
[6] Dhahabi weakened this narration but no matter as his nasb is clear and we will dedicate a separate article to this topic inshallah.
[7] Darussalam weakened this hadith. According to Islamqa, this is due to Sabih the servant of Umm Al Mumineen Umm Salama (AS) being Majhul: this is false as Ibn Hajar said he is maqbul and Dhahabi said he is thiqah. Ibn Hibban also authenticated him in Kitab Al Thuqat Vol 4, pg. 382.
[8] Same as above.
[9] Footnote gives other versions of this hadith.The hadith is weakened due to Talid Ibn Sulayman who is weakened because he was a rafidhi. He is weakened for insulting the first 3 but anyone who curses Ali can be thiqah?
[10] There is another version of this hadith: Ibn `Abbas added, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, the following was his will (Prophet's will) to his followers:--It is incumbent upon those who are present to convey this information to those who are absent Beware don't renegade (as) disbelievers (turn into infidels) after me, Striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another.'” Sahih al-Bukhari 1739 - Hajj (Pilgrimage) - كتاب الحج - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
From Abu Bakra: Sahih al-Bukhari 7078
