To understand the decision taken by Imam ‘Ali (as) and answer Nasibi claims that he was responsible for the Battle of Jamal, we need to take into account that Imam ‘Ali (as) WAS the rightful Head of State. The opposition was such that not only was it aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the people against Imam ‘Ali (as), its aim was to cause a mass revolt against him, as we shall see.
Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, …..
The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
These verses, like all verses, are applicable at all times. If the duty on Rasulullah (s) was to quell fitnah against him by killing the proponents, then his rightful successor, Ul'il Amr likewise inherited this same right. If his opponents were insisting on refusing to obey him, preferring to spread fitnah inciting opposition and animosity towards him, the Head of the State was entitled to uproot these seditious elements and kill them.
And those who break the Covenant of Allâh, after its ratification, and sever that which Allâh has commanded to be joined (i.e. they sever the bond of kinship and are not good to their relatives), and work mischief in the land, on them is the curse (i.e. they will be far away from Allâh’s Mercy); And for them is the unhappy (evil) home (i.e. Hell)
Shall We treat those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, as Mufsidûn (those who associate partners in worship with Allâh and commit crimes) on earth? Or shall We treat the Muttaqûn (pious – see V.2:2), as the Fujjâr (criminals, disbelievers, wicked, etc)?
That home of the Hereafter (i.e. Paradise), We shall assign to those who rebel not against the truth with pride and oppression in the land nor do mischief by committing crimes. And the good end is for the Muttaqun
And of course Surah Hujurat verse 9:
And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
We would also like to point out that the scholars of the Sunni school of thought have also conceded that Ali’s stance at Jamal was the correct one. 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 we 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.”
[Note: 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.”]
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.
In Matalib al Seul, pg. 156 - 157 we read:
“When Imam ‘Ali prepared for the Battle of Jamal, he first of all raised his hands to the skies and made this supplication ‘O Allah, Talha bin Ubaydullah gave me bayya without any coercion, he subsequently broke it. May Allah (swt) avenge this and give him no more time, O Allah, Zubayr bin Awwam also broke his bayya to me, he provided assistance to my enemies and ignited the flames of war propaganda’. After this the two armies began to gradually get closer to one another. ‘Ali stood in between both and then said something to Zubayr who withdrew his participation in the battle, whilst Aisha and Talha remained firm in their position”.
From here it is proven that Imam ‘Ali (as) deemed his position to be the correct one. Nasibi opinions attacking Imam ‘Ali (as) are baseless. He deemed his position to have been the right one and Rasulullah (s) said, “‘Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali” – so the Nasibi comments are without foundation. The advocates of Mu’awiya, like Ibn Taymeeya, are particularly fond of playing the ‘Ibn Saba’ defense card when pushed in to a corner, but the fact of the matter is – those that opposed and fought Imam ‘Ali (as) were by definition baghis (rebels) and there was a duty to kill them, they had spread fitnah through the Islamic State, the death of 20,000 Muslims can be placed squarely at the feet of Aisha and her supporters.
It is little wonder that we read the following about Aisha in Iqd al-Farid Vol. 5 pg. 79:
ودخلتْ أم أوفى العَبْدية على عائشة بعد وَقعه الجمل فقالت لها: يا أمّ المؤمنين، ما تقولين في امرأةٍ قَتلت ابناً لها صغيراً؟ قالت: وَجبت لها النار. قالت: فما تقولين في امرأة قتلت من أولادها الأكابر عشرين ألفاً في صَعيد واحد؟ قالت: خُذوا بيد عدوّة اللّه
“After the battle of Jamal Umm Awfa al-Abdia entered on Aisha and asked her: ‘What shall be the punishment if a woman murders her child?’ (Aisha) replied: ‘The fire’. Then (Umm Awfa) asked: ‘What is the punishment for a woman that kills twenty thousand of her children at one place?’ (Aisha) said: ‘Apprehend this enemy of Allah’.
Nawasib such as Ibn al Hashimi and Abu Sulaiman always seek to infer that the efforts of Imam Ali (as) to resolve hostlites through peaceful negotiations proves that he deemed the stance of his opponents was one pursued legitimately by those on the right path. We shall respond by asserting that our Imam (as)’s pursuance of peace was merely in accordance with the first option proposed to him by the Prophet, as recorded in Majma al-Zawaed, Vol. 7 pg. 336:
Ali bin Abi Talib said: ‘Allah’s messenger said: ‘There will be disunity after me, so if you can make peace then do so’.
Al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are Thiqah’
It is indeed a great irony that the noxious Nawasib teach their adherents that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and Aisha held extremely cordial relations and in order to prove this, they rely on the stance of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) letting Aisha go safely after her defeat in the battle of Jamal. Some one should ask these cunning writers, why don’t you inform your adherents about all the events that preceded the battle, citing the grudge that she possessed for Ali bin Abi Talib (as) that caused her to leave her dwelling, join a male anti Ali opposition movement that ultimately fought him? As for the stance of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) allowing Aisha go home safely, that stance was entirely based the instruction that Holy Prophet (s) had given to Ali bin Abi Talib (as), as we read in Majma al Zawaid, Vol. 7 pg. 336 - 337 Tradition 12024:
Abu Rafi’ narrated that Allah’s messenger (s) said to Ali bin Abi Talib: ‘There will be a dispute between you and Aisha’. Ali said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, me?’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes’. Ali said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, would I be in error?’ The Prophet said: ‘No, but when that happens, take her to a safe place’.
Al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are Thiqah’. Ibn Hajar Asqlani said: ‘The chain is Hasan’ (Fath al-Bari, Vol. 13 pg. 60).
Whilst the Prophet (s) in his other predictions had predicted the rebellious conduct that Aisha and other Sahaba would cause, to the point that her colleagues would play the role of infidels with Ali bin Abi Talib (as) remaining on the right path, He (s) also instructed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to treat Aisha gently and one with an open mind can easily comprehend the widom behind such an instruction since her execution would have caused a rift in the Ummah that would have been greater than Jamal, with Nasibi elements demanding justice for the murder of the Prophet’s wife.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Likewise have the Shia taken the actions of the Prophet’s wives (and Sahabah) and accused them of having alterior motives. The righteous believers are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow believers, especially to the Prophet’s wife and lover.
If offering excuses and not suggesting ulterior motives if not the conduct of an upright Muslim, what Fatwa will Ibn al Hashimi attribute to Imam Ali (as) who said as follows to Talhah prior to hostilities commencing at Jamal as recorded in History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Vol. 16 pg. 125-126 (Arabic):
Ali said to al-Zubair: “Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of ‘Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing ‘Uthman.” Ali said to Talhah: “You have brought the Messenger of Allah’s wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
There is nothing from this explicit statement that would suggest that Imam Ali (as) was offering 70 excuses for those ‘Muslim’ that lead out an army against him at Jamal.
Providing excuses may well be appropriate over a minor discretion but when the matter is one wherein the individuals concerned turned their back on the Quran, Hadith (commanding obedience) and participated in activities that involved lies, propaganda, and a battle that shed the blood of thousands of Muslims, then there are no grounds to simply provide excuses for their conduct. If this was to be the case then we would urge the Salafi judiciary to dismantle their function forthwith, and permit citizens to conduct incitement, propaganda and violent rebellion against the State. No actions be sought against such individuals since they are merely adhering to the Sunnah of the Sahaba. The State should not prosecute such reprobates, on the contrary excuses should be offered for their conduct and they should be allowed to behave like this without impunity, after all to quote Ibn al Hashimi ‘the righteous believers are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow believers’
