Section Two: The Stance of those who called for exercising patience in exacting the retribution till conditions settle, like ‘Ali, al Qa’qa’ and those who concurred with them

Module Two: Seeking retribution from the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the stance of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. – Section One: The Stance of those who were Seeking Retribution for the Blood of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from amongst the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum
November 30, 2020
Section Three: The Stance of those who avoided the Fitnah, they form Majority of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum
November 30, 2020

BACK Return to Table of contents

Section Two: The Stance of those who called for exercising patience in exacting the retribution till conditions settle, like ‘Ali, al Qa’qa’ and those who concurred with them

 

Al Tabari in his Tarikh has cited the causes of the dispute which ensued between the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum regarding the execution of the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Considering the importance of the coming narration, due to it sketching all these causes very meticulously and due to it clearly relaying the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the Fitnah, I will cite it in its entirety:

 

اجتمع إلى علي بعدما دخل بيته طلحة والزبير في عدة من الصحابة فقالوا: يا علي! إنا قد اشترطنا الحدود، وإن هؤلاء القوم- إشارة إلى السبئية وأنصارهم من الأعراب والعبيد- قد اشتركوا في دم هذا الرجل وأحلوا بأنفسهم، فقال علي: يا إخوتاه! إني لست أجهل ما تعلمون، ولكن كيف أصنع بقوم يملكوننا ولا نملكهم! ها هم هؤلاء قد ثارت معهم عبدانكم وثابت إليهم أعرابكم، وهم خلالكم يسومونكم ما شاؤوا، فهل ترون موضعا لقدرة على شيء مما تريدون؟ قالوا: لا. قال: فلا والله لا أرى إلا رأيا ترونه إن شاء الله. إن هذا الأمر أمر جاهلية، وإن هؤلاء القوم مادة، وذلك إن الشيطان لم يشرع شريعة قط فيبرح الأرض من أخذ بها أبدا. إن الناس من هذا الأمر-أي القصاص من قتلة عثمان- إن حرك على أمور: فرقة ترى ما ترون، وفرقة ترى ما لا ترون، وفرقة لا ترى هذا ولا هذا، حتى يهدأ الناس، وتقع القلوب مواقعها، وتؤخذ الحقوق فاهدأوا عني ماذا يأتيكم ثم عودوا.

After ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered his house, Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma entered upon him with a group of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

They said, “O ‘Ali! We have placed the execution of the capital punishments as a requisite, and these people (referring to the Saba’iyyah and their helpers from the Bedouins and slaves) have all taken part in the blood of this man and have violated themselves by doing so.”

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “O my brethren! I am not unaware of what you know, but how do I deal with a people who have full control over us and we have no control over them. Here they are, your slaves have revolted with them, your villagers have joined their ranks, they are amidst you and are able to inflict upon you whatever they want to. So, do you envision any ability to do what you want?”

They replied, “No.”

He further said, “Never, by Allah, I will not adopt any opinion except the opinion that you will choose. This matter (exacting revenge upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a matter of the pre-Islamic era; this is because never does Shaitan initiate any practice but that there will always be people who will hold on to it. If this matter is stirred the people will end up in three groups: a group will aver what you aver, a group will aver other than what you aver, and a group will not aver this or that till the people calm down and the hearts revert to their normal states and the rights are claimed. Hence, remain calm and anticipate what comes your way and thereafter return.”[1]

 

There is no doubt that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was waiting for exclusive authority to be established for him whereafter he would look into the matter of the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Hence, when Talhah, al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and those who were with them demanded the execution of the capital punishment he apologised by saying that they were too many and that they enjoy such strength that could not be underestimated. He, thus, requested them to exercise patience till the conditions became stable and matters became calm whereafter it would be appropriate to seek the rights.

As for the people of Sham they demanded as a requisite for their pledge that the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu be handed over to them and that revenge be taken from them. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to them:

ادخلوا البيعة واطلبوا الحق تصلوا إليه

Enter into the pledge and then demand the right and you will reach it.

 

But they said, “You do not deserve the pledge as long as the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu are with you and you see them morning and evening.”[2]

It is definitively known that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was more accurate in his stance and more correct in his speech; because if he hastened in executing the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu their tribes would have united against him and an internal civil strife would have ensued. This is exactly what happened when Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma executed the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Basrah subsequent to which thousands of people became infuriated, displayed chauvinism, and united as one front to fight Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu addressed them in this regard saying:

 

قد قتلتما قتلة عثمان من أهل البصرة، وأنتم قبل قتلهم أقرب إلى الاستقامة منكم اليوم، قتلتم ستمائة إلا رجلا، فغضب لهم ستة آلاف، واعتزلوكم وخرجوا من بين أظهركم، وطلبتم ذلك الذي أفلت –يعني حرقوص بن زهير- فمنعه ستة آلاف، وهم على رجل، فإن تركتموه كنتم تاركين لما تقولون، وإن قاتلتموهم والذين اعتزلوكم، فإديلوا عليكم، فالذي حذرتم وقربتم به هذا الأمر أعظم مما أراكم تكرهون وأنتم أحميتم مضر وربيعة من هذه البلاد، فاجتمعوا على حربكم وخذلانكم نصرة لهؤلاء، كما اجتمع هؤلاء لأهل هذا الحدث العظيم والذنب الكبير. فقالت أم المؤمنين رضي الله عنها: فتقول أنت ماذا؟ قال: أقول هذا الأمر دواؤه التسكين، وإذا سكن اختلجوا، فإن أنتم بايعتمونا فعلامة خير وتباشير رحمة ودرك بثأر هذا الرجل، وعافية وسلامة لهذه الأمة، وإن أنتم أبيتم إلا مكابرة هذا الأمر واعتسافه كانت علامة شر وذهاب هذا الثأر، وبعثه الله في هذه الأمة هزا هزها، فآثروا العافية وترزقوها، وكونوا مفاتيح الخير كما كنتم تكونون، ولا تعرضونا للبلاء ولا تعرضوا له فيصرعنا وإياكم…فإن هذا الأمر الذي حدث أمر ليس يقدر، وليس كالأمور، ولا كقتل الرجل الرجل، ولا النفر الرجل، ولا القبيلة الرجل.

“You have killed the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the people of Basrah, but you were closer to soundness before killing them than you are today. You killed six hundred men minus one and six thousand people as a result became infuriated; they withdrew from you and left your midst. You sought the person who escaped, i.e. Hurqus ibn Zuhayr, but he was protected by six thousand people, all of them protecting one man. Hence, if you leave him you will be discarding what you proclaim, and if you fight also those who detracted and supposedly they are given victory over you then I think that that which you feared and that with which you drew this matter closer is far greater than what I see you despising. You infuriated the Mudar and Rabi’ah tribes of these lands and, thus, they united upon fighting you and forsaking you to help these people, just as these people had prior to that united to help the criminals of this grave event and this preposterous sin.”

Umm al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked, “So what do you suggest?”

He replied, “I say that the solution to this matter is in letting the matter rest. Once it has settled they will be uprooted. So if you pledge to us this will be a sign of goodness and a harbinger of mercy and will lead to exacting the revenge for this man. And if you refuse but to treat this matter with obstinateness and force it will be a sign of evil and a cause of this revenge going to waste. Allah has raised this matter in the Ummah to trial it. So give precedence to wellbeing and it will be given to you and be keys of goodness as you previously were. Do not make us vulnerable to difficulty nor become victims thereof yourselves, for it will drop us and you. This matter which has occurred cannot be measured, it is unlike other matters; it is not like a man killing a man, or a group of people killing a man, or a tribe killing a man.”[3]

 

And Ibn Dihyah[4] narrates with his chain of transmission till Yahya ibn Hani’:[5]

 

أن رجلا قال لعبد الله بن عمرو، علي كان أولى أم معاوية؟ قال: بل علي: قلت: فما أخرجك؟ قال: أما إني لم أضرب بسيف ولم أوم بسهم، ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: أطع أباك.

A person asked ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, “Is ‘Ali more deserving or Muawiyah?”

He said, “‘Ali.”

So, I asked, “What prompted you to march (against him)?”

He replied, “I did not strike with a sword nor did I shoot an arrow. But Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Obey your father.”

 

This is an established chain. Yahya ibn Hani’ ibn ‘Urwah al Khawlani, known as Abu Hani’ is reliable. Sufyan ibn Sa’id al Thawri has narrated from him and Muslim has narrated from him exclusively.[6]

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was waiting for the reassurance of safety and unity and for the guardians of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to lodge a case against the murderers before he could deal with them. Subsequent to that the claimants and the defendants would appear, the claim would officially be lodged and the answers be given, the evidence be established and ultimately the decision be passed according to the truth.[7]

There is no dispute in the Ummah that it is permissible for the Imam to delay the execution of a capital punishment if it can potentially lead to the eruption of a Fitnah or to the fragmenting of unity.[8]

As for the allegation that has been levelled on ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu being in his army, al Tahawi has explains it in the following manner:

 

وكان في عسكر علي رضي الله عنه من اولئك الطغاة الخوارج الذين قتلوا عثمان من لم يعرف بعينه، ومن تنتصر له قبيلته، ومن لم تقم عليه حجة بما فعله، ومن في قلبه نفاق لم يتمكن من إظهاره كله

In the army of Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu there were rebellious Khawarij who killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. But some of them were not specifically known, some were protected by their tribes, upon some the evidence was not established for what they did, and some contained hypocrisy in their hearts which he was unable to completely expose.[9]

 

Whatever the case maybe, his stance regarding them was one of precaution and simultaneously one of disassociation. Hence, when peace was reached between him and Talhah, al Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum he addressed the people that evening. In his address he made mention of the pre-Islamic era, its misfortunes, and its deeds; also, of the good fortune of the people of Islam due to the affinity and the unity they enjoyed. He mentioned that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala united them after his Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam upon Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and after him upon ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and after him upon ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Thereafter this incident occurred which was imposed upon the Ummah by a group of people, the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who coveted the world and were jealous of those whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had gifted with it and were jealous of the merits with which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had favoured him. They intended to reject Islam and wanted to reverse everything, but Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had a plan which he was bound to reach.[10]

He then said:

ألا وإني راحل فارتحلوا، ولا يرتحلن غدا أحد أعان على عثمان بشيء في شيء من أمور الناس، وليغن السفهاء عني أنفسهم.

Behold, tomorrow I plan to travel so you travel (with me). But anyone who in anyway helped in the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu with anything should not travel, and the foolish should excuse themselves from me.[11]

 

Likewise, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu during the Battle of Jamal heard the people of Basrah passionately raising their voices in Du’a’ he asked, “What is this?” They replied, “It is Aisha supplicating and they are supplicating with her against the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and their cohorts.” ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu also supplicated and said:

اللهم العن قتلة عثمان وأشياعهم

O Allah curse the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and their cohorts.[12]

 

And Ibn Shaybah has narrated that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu heard a voice come from Umm al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anha so he asked, “See what they are saying.” They returned and responded, “They are raising their voices regarding the killers of ‘Uthman.” He thus said:

 

اللهم أحلل بقتلة عثمان خزيا

O Allah send down disgrace on the killers of ‘Uthman.[13]

And Ibn Kathir has quoted the following from him:

اللهم العن قتلة عثمان في البر والبحر

O Allah curse the killer of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the land and in the ocean.[14]

 

And in Fada’il al Sahabah of Ahmed the following is narrated from Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah:

 

بلغ عليا أن عائشة رضي الله عنها تلعن قتلة عثمان في المربد-مربد البصرة- قال: فرفع يديه حتى بلغ بهما وجهه فقال: وأنا ألعن قتلة عثمان، لعنهم الله في السهل والجبل، قال مرتين أو ثلاثا

It reached ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhu was cursing the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Mirbad—the market place of Basrah. He raised his hands till he brought them to his face and said, “I also curse the killers of ‘Uthman. May Allah curse them in the plains and in the mountains.” He said that two or three times.[15]

 

As is clear, even though the focal point of the dispute of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum was the difference of opinion regarding the medium through which it was best possible to unite the Ummah, repel the fitnah, and execute the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then it is still definitively established that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not differ with the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum regarding the ill-intentions of the Khawarij. This is clear from what he said to Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma:

فلا والله لا أرى إلا رأيا ترونه إن شاء الله، إن هذا الأمر أمر جاهلية.

By Allah I will not opine but that which you opine Allah willing, but this is a matter of the pre-Islamic era.[16]

 

He was uninterested in them remaining in his army, and if the conditions were favourable he would have banished them, but the situation was as he said, even though for a limited time:

إنهم يملكوننا ولا نملكهم

They have full control over us and we do not have control over them.[17]

 

Furthermore, even though he did not banish them from his army, he definitely dealt with them with caution and looked at them with disdain. To the extent that al Tabari said that he did not appoint any of them to any position whilst preparing for his march to Sham. He called his son Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah and handed the flag over to him, made ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma the commander of the right section of the army, ‘Umar ibn Abi Salamah the commander of the left section, Abu Layla ibn ‘Umar ibn al Jarrah[18] the commander of the vanguard, and appointed Qutham ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma over Madinah.[19]

He took this initiative in order to proclaim his disassociation from those imposters and to display his ability to run the matters of the Muslims without their help. For amongst his partisans and the supporters of his rule there were enough people to render him independent from seeking their help and having congenial relations with them.

This was the most he could do with that band of people at that time and was enough to excuse him, because they were multitudes of people and had relatives and kinsmen in his army and, thus, he felt that a fitnah would ensue in the Ummah if he dealt with them with more sternness. This is exactly what had transpired with Talhah, al Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum in Basrah. When they killed some, their tribes became infuriated and as a result detracted from them. Hence, all the people of Rabi’ah ibn Qais and most of the people of Bakr ibn Wa’il withdrew from them. Likewise, the Banu Sa’d ibn Tamim, approx. six thousand people, and scattered members of the Khindif tribe also withdrew from them. The people of Rabi’ah had eventually joined the ranks of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[20]

Al Baqillani analyses the aspect of delaying the execution of the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, expressing his approbation for the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following words:

 

وعلى أنه إذا ثبت أن عليا ممن يرى قتل الجماعة بالواحد، فلم يجز أن يقتل جميع قتلة عثمان إلا بأن تقوم البينة على القتلة بأعيانهم، وبأن يحضر أولياء الدم مجلسه، ويطلبوا بدم أبيهم ووليهم… وبأن يؤدي الإمام اجتهاده إلى أن قتل عثمان لا يؤدي إلى هرج عظيم وفساد شديد قد يكون فيه قتل عثمان أو أعظم منه، وإن تأخير إقامة الحد إلى إمكانه وتقصي الحق فيه أولى وأصلح للأمة وألم لشعثهم وأنفى للفساد والتهمة عنهم.

Even if it is established that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was of the opinion that a group of people can be killed in lieu of one person, it was still not permissible for him to kill all the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu except after the evidence was established upon the murderers specifically; and after the guardians appeared in his court and sought the blood of their father and relative… In this regard the Imam had to exercise his Ijtihad to make sure that the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not result in a blood bath and extreme havoc which would equate to his murder or be even greater in magnitude. He had to also understand that delaying the execution of the capital punishment to a feasible time and seeking the right therein is better and more appropriate for the Ummah; it is a more effective method of uniting them, and repelling evil and suspicion from them.[21]

 

Similarly, Ibn Hazm justifies the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following words:

 

فنقول وبالله تعالى التوفيق، إما قولهم: إن أخذ القود من قتلة عثمان المحاربين لله تعالى ولرسوله، الساعين في الأرض بالفساد، والهاتكين حرمة الإسلام والحرم والإمامة والهجرة والخلاف والصحبة والسابقة فنعم، وما خالفهم علي قط في ذلك ولا البراءة منهم، ولكنهم كانوا عددا ضخما جما لا طاعة له عليهم، فقد سقط عن علي رضي الله عنه ما لا يستطيع عليه كما سقط عنه وعن كل مسلم ما عجز عنه من قيام بالصلاة والصوم والحج ولا فرق. قال الله تعالى: لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إذا أمرتكم بشيء فأتوا منه ما استطعتم، ولو أن معاوية بايع عليا لقوي به على أخذ الحق من قتلة عثمان، فصح أن الاختلاف هو الذي أضعف يد علي عن إنفاذ الحق عليهم، ولو لا ذلك لأنفذ الحق عليهم كما أنفذه على قتلة عبد الله بن خباب إذ قدر على مطالبة قتلته

We say, and from Allah do we seek inspiration. As for their statement, “It was incumbent to execute the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu who were at war with Allah and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who were striving to cause corruption in the earth, and were violating the sanctity of Islam, the Haram, leadership, migration, difference of opinion, the honour of the companionship of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the feat of early contributions,” yes (that is completely correct). ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not ever oppose them in that regard nor did he oppose them in disassociating from the rebels. However, they were copious in number and he did not enjoy their compliance. Thus, this obligation was dropped from him due to being unable to execute it just as the obligation of performing Salah, fasting, and Hajj falls away from every Muslim who is unable to carry them out. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says, “Allah does not charge a soul except with that which is within its capacity,”[22] and Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “When I order you to do something then do it as best as you can.” [23] Had Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledged his allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu he would have gained the strength to seek retribution from the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is correct to assert that it was the difference of opinion which had enfeebled the hand of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from establishing the truth against them. Had that not ensued he would have established the truth against them just as he had established it against the killers of ‘Abdullah ibn Khabbab,[24] for he was able to take his killers to task.[25]

 

Also, Ibn al ‘Arabi cites the viewpoint of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following manner:

 

لا أمكن طالبا من مطلوب ينفذ فيه مراده بغير حكم ولا حاكم.

I will not give authority to a claimant over a defendant for him to execute upon him what he intends without a legitimate rule and a legitimate ruler.[26]

 

Thereafter comments saying the following:

 

أما وجود الحرب بينهم فمعلوم قطعا، وأما كونه بهذا السبب، أي بسبب الخلاف حول القصاص من قتلة عثمان، فمعلوم كذلك قطعا، واما الصواب فيه فمع علي، لأن الطالب للدم لا يصح يحكم، وتهمة الطالب للقاضي لا توجب عليه أن يخرج عليه، بل يطلب الحق عنده، فإن ظهر له قضاء وإلا سكت وصبر، فكم من حق يحكم الله فيه… وأي كلام كان يكون لعلي-لما تمت له البيعة- لو حضر عنده ولي عثمان وقال له: إن الخليفة قد تمالأ عليه ألف نسمة حتى قتلوه، وهم معلومون. ماذا كان يقول إلا: اثبت وخذ، وفي يوم كان يثبت، إلا أن يثبتوا هم-أي قتلته- إن عثمان كان مستحقا للقتل، وبالله لتعلمن يا معشر المسلمين أنه ما كان يثبت على عثمان ظلم أبدا، وكان يكون الوقت أمكن للطالب وأرفق في الحال، وأيسر وصولا إلى المطلوب. والذي يكشف  الغطاء في ذلك أن معاوية لما صار إليه الأمر لم يمكنه أن يقتل من قتلة عثمان أحدا إلا بحكم، إلا من قتل في حرب، بتأويل أو دس عليه فيما يقال.

As for the occurrence of war between them, this is categorically known. And as for it occurring due to the dispute around the issue of seeking retribution from the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, that is also categorically known. As for the soundness of stance, it was with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is because a seeker of blood does not have the right to rule; also, the suspicion of the seeker regarding the judge does not legitimate revolting against him. Instead, he should claim his right from him and, thereafter, if the judgement is passed in his favour (well and good) or else he should choose silence and exercise patience. For how many a rights has Allah decided already…? And if the election of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have reached unanimity and thereafter the guardian of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu appeared before him and said, “A thousand people united against the Khalifah and eventually killed him and the suspects are all known,” what could his response have been besides saying, “Establish your claim and take your right and establish the day in which this occurred,” unless the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu could establish that he was deserving of murder. By Allah, you know with certainty, O congregation of Muslims, that oppression can never be established against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The time would, thus, have been more appropriate for the claimant and more convenient for the situation and it would have been much easier to reach the desired goal. What unveils the matter even further is that when Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu became the ruler it was not possible for him to kill any of the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu except after a valid case was lodged against him. Yes of course with the exception of those whom he killed in a battle on the basis of Ijtihad or by forging an allegation against him, as is averred.[27]

 

Ibn al ‘Arabi is also of the opinion that due to the Shar’i evidences such as, “The rebellious group will kill ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu,” and the statement, “The closer of the two groups to the truth will eventually kill the Khawarij who will emerge at the time of disunity amongst the Muslims,” that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the legitimate ruler and that whoever rebelled against him was a rebel whom it was necessary to fight till he surrendered to the truth. It is without doubt that he was more correct in his view and in his statements in his response to the people of Sham urging them to enter into his pledge and thereafter demand their right. Because if he went on to execute the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu before the unity of the Muslims was stabilised the tribes of these men would have supported them and that would cause the emergence of a third group. He, thus, was waiting to take hold of the reign of matters in order for the process of the incrimination of these perpetrators to begin and for the decree of truth to be passed regarding them.[28]

And ‘Abdul Qahir al Baghdadi mentions in his book al Imamah the following:

 

أجمع فقهاء الحجاز والعراق من فريقي الحديث والذين منهم: مالك والشافعي وأبو حنيفة والأوزاعي والجمهور الأعظم من المتكلمين أن عليا مصيب في قتاله لأهل صفين، كما قالوا بإصابته في قتل أهل الجمل (أي أقرب إلى الحق منهم)، وقالوا، أيضا لأن الذين قاتلوه بغاة ظالمون له، ولكن لا يجوز تكفيهم ببغيهم

The scholars of Hijaz and Iraq that comprise of the scholars of hadith, like Malik, al Shafi’i, Abu Hanifah, and al Awza’i, and the vast majority of theologians concur that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was correct in his wars against the people of Siffin. They also concur that he was correct in fighting the people of Jamal as well (i.e. he was closer to the truth than them). They also aver that this is due to the fact that those who fought him were rebels and offenders. However, it is not permissible to excommunicate them because of their rebellion.[29]

 

Ibn Taymiyah condenses the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following words:

 

فهو يرى أنه يجب على معاوية وأصحابه طاعته ومبايعته… وأنهم خارجون عن طاعته يمتنعون عن هذا الواجب، وهم أهل شوكة رأى أن يقاتلهم حتى يؤدوا هذا الواجب فتحصل الطاعة والجماعة

He was of the opinion that it was incumbent upon Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his comrades to obey him and pledge to him, they were rebelling against him by refusing to do so. They were people of might and, thus, he deemed it fit to fight them till they fulfil this obligation which will result in obedience to the supreme authority and unity.[30]

 

And Ibn Hajar says in al Isabah:

وكان رأي علي أنهم يدخلون في الطاعة ثم يقوم ولي دم عثمان فيدعي به عنه، ثم يعمل ما يوجبه حكم الشرع

The view of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was that they should enter into his obedience and thereafter the guardian of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu should emerge and lodge a case on his behalf. Thereafter he will act according to the requirements of the Shari’i ruling.[31]

 

Likewise, al Haythami also justifies the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu saying:

 

فامتنع علي ظنا منه أن تسليمهم إليهم على الفور مع كثرة عشائرهم واختلاطهم بعسكر علي يؤدي إلى اضطراب وتزلزل في أمر الخلافة التى بها انتظام كلمة أهل الإسلام، سيما وهي في ابتدائها لم يستحكم الأمر فيها، فرأى علي رضي الله عنه أن تأخير تسليمهم أصوب إلى أن يرسخ قدمه في الخلافة، ويتحقق التمكن في الأمور فيها على وجهها، ويتم له انتظام شملها، واتفاق كلمة المسلمين.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused, thinking that handing the murderers over to them, Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his people, immediately in spite of their huge tribes and in spite of them being part of the army of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu could cause turbulence and unrest in the matter of the Caliphate, which is the source of keeping the unity of the Muslims intact; especially when it was not consolidated as yet. Hence ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu thought that delaying in surrendering them was more correct till the Caliphate found its feet. Thereafter, he would be able to deal with the matters as they stand, the organisation would be complete, and the unity of the Muslims would be achieved.[32]

 

The deferring of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was based on an existing and well-known need. Hence, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu shifted his base from Madinah to Iraq in order to be closer to Sham, all the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu also marched with him. They forced their way into his army and were many in number, especially the people of Basrah and Kufah. As a result they now returned to the fort of their strength and the pride of their tribes. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, thus, felt that establishing the capital punishment upon them will open a door of such unrest that he probably will not be able to shut thereafter. The great Sahabi, al Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr, also realised this reality and explicated it to Umm al Mu’minin Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, and the two Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Consequently, they acknowledged it, excused ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and agreed with him in his stance which primarily meant repelling the more imminent of the two evils and tolerating the lesser of the two evils.

Prudent political engagement demanded what ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was calling for, i.e. exercising patience, having forbearance, and not rushing into the matter. For the matter was of a magnitude that it required unity of the ranks in order to produce a united stance, subsequent to which the challenge which was threatening the base of the Caliphate could be addressed. However, disunity enfeebled the base of the newly elected Khalifah, and as a result it done away with all hopes of avenging the murdered Khalifah.

Moving on, another Shar’i proof that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was closer to the truth than Talhah, al Zubair and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhum is the following:

And also, what al Bukhari has narrated in his al Sahih via the transmission of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu from Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

ويح عمارتقتله الفئة الباغية

Woe to ‘Ammar. The rebellious group will kill him.[33]

The commentator says:

وفي هذا الحديث علم من أعلام النبوة وفضيلة ظارهةة لعلي وعمار، ورد على النواصب الزاعمين أن عليا رضي الله عنه لم يكن مصيبا في حروبه

In this hadith is a prophecy from the prophecies of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, a clear merit of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and a refutation of the Nawasib who claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not in the right in his battles.[34]

 

And al Nawawi says that the narrations from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam clearly establish that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was right and upon the truth, and that the other group, the comrades of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, were rebels who rebelled on the basis of Ijtihad. They also establish that both groups were believers and that because of the fratricidal war they did not leave the fold of iman nor did they sin.[35]

Likewise, it also appears in an authentic hadith, narrated by Muslim in his Sahih, from Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said:

 

ذكر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قوما يكونون في أمته يخرجون في فرقة من الناس سيماهم التحالق- الخوارج- قال: هم شر الخلق-يقتلهم أدنى الطائفتين إلى الحق, وفي رواية أخرى: يخرجون على فرقة مختلفة يقتلهم أقرب الطائفتين من الحق

Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made mention of a people who will emerge in his Ummah, they will emerge at a time of disunity of the people and their distinctive sign will be shaving, i.e. the Khawarij. He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “They are the worst of the creation, the closer of the two groups to the truth will kill them.”[36]

In another narration it appears, “They will rebel against a disputing group and the closer of the two groups to the truth will kill them.”[37]

 

This hadith clearly suggests that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was closer to the truth than those who opposed him in Jamal and Siffin. However, he was not entirely correct, for prudence and safety was in desisting from fighting. This is because a matter is always judged according to its result and its outcomes, and it is without a doubt that the result of the battles was very painful. Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, thus, praised Hasan radiya Llahu ‘anhu because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala united the Muslims at his hands and preserved their blood from being spilled. Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

 

إن ابني هذا سيد، ولعل الله أن يصلح به بين فئتين عظيمتين من المسلمين

This son of mine is a leader. Probably Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will bring about reconciliation because of him between two big groups of the Muslims.[38]

 

On the other hand, he did not praise ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu for fighting the people of Sham. The most that he said is that he was closer than them to the truth. As opposed to fighting against the Khawarij, for Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam emphatically praised it saying:

 

فأينما لقيتموهم فاقتلوهم، فإن في قتلهم أجرا لمن قتلهم إلى يوم القيامة

So wherever you meet them kill them, for in killing them is reward for whoever kills them till the Day of Judgement.[39]

 

Furthermore, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself was happy and elated after fighting the Khawarij,[40] but was disheartened and distraught after fighting the people of Jamal. And after the Battle of Siffin he said:

لو علمت أن الأمر يكون هكذا ما خرجت

If I knew that the matter would result in this I would never have marched.[41]

 

Even some of those who participated in the battle subsequently regretted, as is narrated regarding Shaqiq ibn Salamah[42] in Sahih al Bukhari. He was asked, “Did you participate in Siffin?” He replied, “Yes, and how bad indeed was Siffin.”[43]

In fact ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself is reported to have said:

 

لله در مقام سعد بن مالك وعبد الله بن عمر، إن كان برا إن أحره لعظيم، وإن كان إثما إن إثما إن خطأه ليسير

What a beautiful stance indeed was the stance of Sa’d ibn Malik and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar. If it was noble it was great in reward, and if it was a sin it was but a small error.[44]

 

In this manner, a brief perusal of the matter in its entirety will reveal to us that the most prudent stance and the most appropriate was the stance of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who stayed away from the Fitnah and gave preference to not fighting the people of the Qiblah. Because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has issued a command to fight the rebelling party only when it refuses to enter into any conciliation, and he has not ordered that it be fought and combatted from the very beginning (without any attempts of negotiation). He says:

 

وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللهِ فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا إِنَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

And if two factions amongst the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight the one that oppressors until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.[45]

 

NEXT⇒ Section Three: The Stance of those who avoided the Fitnah, they form Majority of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum


[1] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/437.

[2] Ibn al ‘Arabi: Ahkam al Qur’an, 2/1718.

[3] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/ 488-489.

[4] ‘Umar ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali, Abu al Khattab, Ibn Dihyah al Kalbi, famously known as Dhu al Nasabayn. The historian and retainer of hadith, from the people of Sabtah in Maghrib. He practiced as a judged in Daniyah in Andalus, thereafter, he travelled to Morocco, Sham, Iraq and Khurasan, and eventually he settled in Egypt. Ibn Khallikan says about him, “He was from the elite scholars and prominent figures. He was an expert in the sciences of hadith and was well versed in Arabic grammar, language, the history of the Arabs and their poetry. He has written: A’lam al Nasr al Mubin fi al Mufadalah bayn Ahl Siffin, al Nibras Fi Tarikh Bani al ‘Abbas; al Mutrib min Ash’ar Ahl al Maghrib, and al Tanwir fi Mawlid al Siraj al Munir which he ended with the following verse:

لو لا الوشاة وهم أعداؤنا ما وهموا

Had it not been for the slanderers who are our enemies, they would never have assumed.

He passed away in 633 A.H/1236 A.D. See: Ibn Khallikan: Wafayat al A’yan, 3/448; al Maqqari: Nafh al Tib, 1/368; al Dhahabi: al Mizan, 3/186.

[5] Yahya ibn Hani’ ibn ‘Urwah ibn Fadfad al Muradi al Kufi Abu Dawood. He narrates from his father, Anas ibn Malik, Abi Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, amongst others. And Shu’bah, al Thawri, and Sharik narrate from him. Abu Hatim said, “A pious person who was from the prominent figures of Kufah.” Al Daraqutni said, “He is an authority.” And he has been deemed reliable by Ibn Ma’in, al Fasawi and al Nasa’i and Ibn Hibban has made mention of him in al Thiqat. See: al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 3/2/309; Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 9/195; al Dhahabi: al Kashif, 3/237; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 11/293.

[6] Ibn Dihyah: A’lam al Nasr al Mubin, slate no. 7.

[7] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al ‘Awasim, p. 146.

[8] Ibn al ‘Arabi: Ahkam al Qur’an, 2/1718.

[9] Al Tahawi: Sharh al Tahawiyyah, p. 546.

[10] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/493.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid. 4/513.

[13] Ibn Abi Shaybah: al Musannaf, 15/277.

[14] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah, 7/250.

[15] Ahmed: Fada’il al Sahabah, 1/455. The annotator has deemed its transmission Sahih.

[16] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/437.

[17] Ibid.

[18] He is the cousin of Abu ‘Ubaidah al Jarrah. See: al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/445.

[19] Ibid. 4/445.

[20] Al Tabbani: Ifadah al Akhbar, 2/52.

[21] Al Baqillani: al Tamhid fi al Radd ‘ala al Malahidah, 231,

[22] Surah al Baqarah: 286.

[23] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter of I’tisam (holding on to the Sunnah), 8/142.

[24] ‘Abdullah ibn Khabbab al Arat al Madani. Al ‘Ijli said, “He was reliable and from the senior successors. The Haruriyyah, Khawarij, killed him when ‘Ali sent him to them. He, thus, sent a message to them saying, “Grant us our retribution for ‘Abdullah,” (i.e. hand his killer over to us). They replied, “How can we give you retribution for him when we all have killed him.” Consequently he set out to confront them and fought them.” And Abu Nuaim said, “He lived during the era of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but there is difference of opinion regarding his companionship. He saw Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his father was a Sahabi.” And al Ghallabi says, “He was killed in 37 A.H/657 A.C. and was from the leaders of the Muslims. Ibn Hibban has also made mention of him in al Thiqat. See: al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 3/1/78; al ‘Ijli: Tarikh al Thiqat, p. 254; Ibn Hibban: al Thiqat, 5/8; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 5/196.

[25] Ibn Hazm: al Fisal fi al Milal wa al Nihal, 4/162.

[26] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al ‘Awasim, p. 163.

[27] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al Jami’ li Ahkam al Qur’an, p. 163-168.

[28] Ibn al ‘Arabi: Ahkam al Qur’an, 2/1717, 1718.

[29] Ibn Dihyah: A’lam al Nasr al Mubin: the eleventh slate.

[30] Ibn Taymiyah: Majmu’ al Fatawa, 35/ 72.

[31] Ibn Hajar: al Isabah, 2/508.

[32] Ibn Hajar al Haythami: al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, p. 325.

[33] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter of Jihad, 3/207.

[34] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 1/542.

[35] Al Nawawi: Sharh Sahih Muslim, 7/168.

[36] Sahih Muslim, 7/167.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter regarding Fitan, 8/48.

[39] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter regarding demanding from the renegades and obstinate people to repent, 8/52.

[40] Sahih Muslim, 7/171-172.

[41] Ibn Abi Shaybah: al Musannaf, 15/275, 293.

[42] Shaqiq ibn Salamah al Asadi, Abu Wa’il al Kufi. A successor who witnessed both the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic era. He has narrated from a group of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum some being, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Muaz, and Sa’d radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Ishaq ibn Mansur quotes Ibn Ma’in saying, “Reliable.” Ibn Sa’d said, “He was reliable and narrated many narrations.” Al ‘Ijli said, “A pious person.” And Ibn ‘Abdul Barr said, “They have agreed upon his reliability.” And al A’mash said, “Hold on to Shaqiq ibn Salamah, for I found the noble people in their abundance considering him to be from the best of them.” He passed away in 82 A.H/701 A.D. See: Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 6/96; Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, 2/258; al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/2/245; al ‘Ijli: Tarikh al Thiqat, p. 222. Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 4/361.

[43] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter of holding on to the Sunnah, 8/148.

[44] Ibn Taymiyah: Majmu’ al Fatawa, 4/440.

[45] Surah al Hujurat: 9.

BACK Return to Table of contents

Section Two: The Stance of those who called for exercising patience in exacting the retribution till conditions settle, like ‘Ali, al Qa’qa’ and those who concurred with them

 

Al Tabari in his Tarikh has cited the causes of the dispute which ensued between the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum regarding the execution of the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Considering the importance of the coming narration, due to it sketching all these causes very meticulously and due to it clearly relaying the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the Fitnah, I will cite it in its entirety:

 

اجتمع إلى علي بعدما دخل بيته طلحة والزبير في عدة من الصحابة فقالوا: يا علي! إنا قد اشترطنا الحدود، وإن هؤلاء القوم- إشارة إلى السبئية وأنصارهم من الأعراب والعبيد- قد اشتركوا في دم هذا الرجل وأحلوا بأنفسهم، فقال علي: يا إخوتاه! إني لست أجهل ما تعلمون، ولكن كيف أصنع بقوم يملكوننا ولا نملكهم! ها هم هؤلاء قد ثارت معهم عبدانكم وثابت إليهم أعرابكم، وهم خلالكم يسومونكم ما شاؤوا، فهل ترون موضعا لقدرة على شيء مما تريدون؟ قالوا: لا. قال: فلا والله لا أرى إلا رأيا ترونه إن شاء الله. إن هذا الأمر أمر جاهلية، وإن هؤلاء القوم مادة، وذلك إن الشيطان لم يشرع شريعة قط فيبرح الأرض من أخذ بها أبدا. إن الناس من هذا الأمر-أي القصاص من قتلة عثمان- إن حرك على أمور: فرقة ترى ما ترون، وفرقة ترى ما لا ترون، وفرقة لا ترى هذا ولا هذا، حتى يهدأ الناس، وتقع القلوب مواقعها، وتؤخذ الحقوق فاهدأوا عني ماذا يأتيكم ثم عودوا.

After ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered his house, Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma entered upon him with a group of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

They said, “O ‘Ali! We have placed the execution of the capital punishments as a requisite, and these people (referring to the Saba’iyyah and their helpers from the Bedouins and slaves) have all taken part in the blood of this man and have violated themselves by doing so.”

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “O my brethren! I am not unaware of what you know, but how do I deal with a people who have full control over us and we have no control over them. Here they are, your slaves have revolted with them, your villagers have joined their ranks, they are amidst you and are able to inflict upon you whatever they want to. So, do you envision any ability to do what you want?”

They replied, “No.”

He further said, “Never, by Allah, I will not adopt any opinion except the opinion that you will choose. This matter (exacting revenge upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a matter of the pre-Islamic era; this is because never does Shaitan initiate any practice but that there will always be people who will hold on to it. If this matter is stirred the people will end up in three groups: a group will aver what you aver, a group will aver other than what you aver, and a group will not aver this or that till the people calm down and the hearts revert to their normal states and the rights are claimed. Hence, remain calm and anticipate what comes your way and thereafter return.”[1]

 

There is no doubt that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was waiting for exclusive authority to be established for him whereafter he would look into the matter of the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Hence, when Talhah, al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and those who were with them demanded the execution of the capital punishment he apologised by saying that they were too many and that they enjoy such strength that could not be underestimated. He, thus, requested them to exercise patience till the conditions became stable and matters became calm whereafter it would be appropriate to seek the rights.

As for the people of Sham they demanded as a requisite for their pledge that the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu be handed over to them and that revenge be taken from them. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to them:

ادخلوا البيعة واطلبوا الحق تصلوا إليه

Enter into the pledge and then demand the right and you will reach it.

 

But they said, “You do not deserve the pledge as long as the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu are with you and you see them morning and evening.”[2]

It is definitively known that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was more accurate in his stance and more correct in his speech; because if he hastened in executing the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu their tribes would have united against him and an internal civil strife would have ensued. This is exactly what happened when Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma executed the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Basrah subsequent to which thousands of people became infuriated, displayed chauvinism, and united as one front to fight Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu addressed them in this regard saying:

 

قد قتلتما قتلة عثمان من أهل البصرة، وأنتم قبل قتلهم أقرب إلى الاستقامة منكم اليوم، قتلتم ستمائة إلا رجلا، فغضب لهم ستة آلاف، واعتزلوكم وخرجوا من بين أظهركم، وطلبتم ذلك الذي أفلت –يعني حرقوص بن زهير- فمنعه ستة آلاف، وهم على رجل، فإن تركتموه كنتم تاركين لما تقولون، وإن قاتلتموهم والذين اعتزلوكم، فإديلوا عليكم، فالذي حذرتم وقربتم به هذا الأمر أعظم مما أراكم تكرهون وأنتم أحميتم مضر وربيعة من هذه البلاد، فاجتمعوا على حربكم وخذلانكم نصرة لهؤلاء، كما اجتمع هؤلاء لأهل هذا الحدث العظيم والذنب الكبير. فقالت أم المؤمنين رضي الله عنها: فتقول أنت ماذا؟ قال: أقول هذا الأمر دواؤه التسكين، وإذا سكن اختلجوا، فإن أنتم بايعتمونا فعلامة خير وتباشير رحمة ودرك بثأر هذا الرجل، وعافية وسلامة لهذه الأمة، وإن أنتم أبيتم إلا مكابرة هذا الأمر واعتسافه كانت علامة شر وذهاب هذا الثأر، وبعثه الله في هذه الأمة هزا هزها، فآثروا العافية وترزقوها، وكونوا مفاتيح الخير كما كنتم تكونون، ولا تعرضونا للبلاء ولا تعرضوا له فيصرعنا وإياكم…فإن هذا الأمر الذي حدث أمر ليس يقدر، وليس كالأمور، ولا كقتل الرجل الرجل، ولا النفر الرجل، ولا القبيلة الرجل.

“You have killed the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the people of Basrah, but you were closer to soundness before killing them than you are today. You killed six hundred men minus one and six thousand people as a result became infuriated; they withdrew from you and left your midst. You sought the person who escaped, i.e. Hurqus ibn Zuhayr, but he was protected by six thousand people, all of them protecting one man. Hence, if you leave him you will be discarding what you proclaim, and if you fight also those who detracted and supposedly they are given victory over you then I think that that which you feared and that with which you drew this matter closer is far greater than what I see you despising. You infuriated the Mudar and Rabi’ah tribes of these lands and, thus, they united upon fighting you and forsaking you to help these people, just as these people had prior to that united to help the criminals of this grave event and this preposterous sin.”

Umm al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked, “So what do you suggest?”

He replied, “I say that the solution to this matter is in letting the matter rest. Once it has settled they will be uprooted. So if you pledge to us this will be a sign of goodness and a harbinger of mercy and will lead to exacting the revenge for this man. And if you refuse but to treat this matter with obstinateness and force it will be a sign of evil and a cause of this revenge going to waste. Allah has raised this matter in the Ummah to trial it. So give precedence to wellbeing and it will be given to you and be keys of goodness as you previously were. Do not make us vulnerable to difficulty nor become victims thereof yourselves, for it will drop us and you. This matter which has occurred cannot be measured, it is unlike other matters; it is not like a man killing a man, or a group of people killing a man, or a tribe killing a man.”[3]

 

And Ibn Dihyah[4] narrates with his chain of transmission till Yahya ibn Hani’:[5]

 

أن رجلا قال لعبد الله بن عمرو، علي كان أولى أم معاوية؟ قال: بل علي: قلت: فما أخرجك؟ قال: أما إني لم أضرب بسيف ولم أوم بسهم، ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: أطع أباك.

A person asked ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, “Is ‘Ali more deserving or Muawiyah?”

He said, “‘Ali.”

So, I asked, “What prompted you to march (against him)?”

He replied, “I did not strike with a sword nor did I shoot an arrow. But Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Obey your father.”

 

This is an established chain. Yahya ibn Hani’ ibn ‘Urwah al Khawlani, known as Abu Hani’ is reliable. Sufyan ibn Sa’id al Thawri has narrated from him and Muslim has narrated from him exclusively.[6]

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was waiting for the reassurance of safety and unity and for the guardians of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to lodge a case against the murderers before he could deal with them. Subsequent to that the claimants and the defendants would appear, the claim would officially be lodged and the answers be given, the evidence be established and ultimately the decision be passed according to the truth.[7]

There is no dispute in the Ummah that it is permissible for the Imam to delay the execution of a capital punishment if it can potentially lead to the eruption of a Fitnah or to the fragmenting of unity.[8]

As for the allegation that has been levelled on ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu being in his army, al Tahawi has explains it in the following manner:

 

وكان في عسكر علي رضي الله عنه من اولئك الطغاة الخوارج الذين قتلوا عثمان من لم يعرف بعينه، ومن تنتصر له قبيلته، ومن لم تقم عليه حجة بما فعله، ومن في قلبه نفاق لم يتمكن من إظهاره كله

In the army of Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu there were rebellious Khawarij who killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. But some of them were not specifically known, some were protected by their tribes, upon some the evidence was not established for what they did, and some contained hypocrisy in their hearts which he was unable to completely expose.[9]

 

Whatever the case maybe, his stance regarding them was one of precaution and simultaneously one of disassociation. Hence, when peace was reached between him and Talhah, al Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum he addressed the people that evening. In his address he made mention of the pre-Islamic era, its misfortunes, and its deeds; also, of the good fortune of the people of Islam due to the affinity and the unity they enjoyed. He mentioned that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala united them after his Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam upon Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and after him upon ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and after him upon ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Thereafter this incident occurred which was imposed upon the Ummah by a group of people, the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who coveted the world and were jealous of those whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had gifted with it and were jealous of the merits with which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had favoured him. They intended to reject Islam and wanted to reverse everything, but Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had a plan which he was bound to reach.[10]

He then said:

ألا وإني راحل فارتحلوا، ولا يرتحلن غدا أحد أعان على عثمان بشيء في شيء من أمور الناس، وليغن السفهاء عني أنفسهم.

Behold, tomorrow I plan to travel so you travel (with me). But anyone who in anyway helped in the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu with anything should not travel, and the foolish should excuse themselves from me.[11]

 

Likewise, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu during the Battle of Jamal heard the people of Basrah passionately raising their voices in Du’a’ he asked, “What is this?” They replied, “It is Aisha supplicating and they are supplicating with her against the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and their cohorts.” ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu also supplicated and said:

اللهم العن قتلة عثمان وأشياعهم

O Allah curse the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and their cohorts.[12]

 

And Ibn Shaybah has narrated that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu heard a voice come from Umm al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anha so he asked, “See what they are saying.” They returned and responded, “They are raising their voices regarding the killers of ‘Uthman.” He thus said:

 

اللهم أحلل بقتلة عثمان خزيا

O Allah send down disgrace on the killers of ‘Uthman.[13]

And Ibn Kathir has quoted the following from him:

اللهم العن قتلة عثمان في البر والبحر

O Allah curse the killer of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the land and in the ocean.[14]

 

And in Fada’il al Sahabah of Ahmed the following is narrated from Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah:

 

بلغ عليا أن عائشة رضي الله عنها تلعن قتلة عثمان في المربد-مربد البصرة- قال: فرفع يديه حتى بلغ بهما وجهه فقال: وأنا ألعن قتلة عثمان، لعنهم الله في السهل والجبل، قال مرتين أو ثلاثا

It reached ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhu was cursing the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Mirbad—the market place of Basrah. He raised his hands till he brought them to his face and said, “I also curse the killers of ‘Uthman. May Allah curse them in the plains and in the mountains.” He said that two or three times.[15]

 

As is clear, even though the focal point of the dispute of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum was the difference of opinion regarding the medium through which it was best possible to unite the Ummah, repel the fitnah, and execute the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then it is still definitively established that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not differ with the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum regarding the ill-intentions of the Khawarij. This is clear from what he said to Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma:

فلا والله لا أرى إلا رأيا ترونه إن شاء الله، إن هذا الأمر أمر جاهلية.

By Allah I will not opine but that which you opine Allah willing, but this is a matter of the pre-Islamic era.[16]

 

He was uninterested in them remaining in his army, and if the conditions were favourable he would have banished them, but the situation was as he said, even though for a limited time:

إنهم يملكوننا ولا نملكهم

They have full control over us and we do not have control over them.[17]

 

Furthermore, even though he did not banish them from his army, he definitely dealt with them with caution and looked at them with disdain. To the extent that al Tabari said that he did not appoint any of them to any position whilst preparing for his march to Sham. He called his son Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah and handed the flag over to him, made ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma the commander of the right section of the army, ‘Umar ibn Abi Salamah the commander of the left section, Abu Layla ibn ‘Umar ibn al Jarrah[18] the commander of the vanguard, and appointed Qutham ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma over Madinah.[19]

He took this initiative in order to proclaim his disassociation from those imposters and to display his ability to run the matters of the Muslims without their help. For amongst his partisans and the supporters of his rule there were enough people to render him independent from seeking their help and having congenial relations with them.

This was the most he could do with that band of people at that time and was enough to excuse him, because they were multitudes of people and had relatives and kinsmen in his army and, thus, he felt that a fitnah would ensue in the Ummah if he dealt with them with more sternness. This is exactly what had transpired with Talhah, al Zubair, and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum in Basrah. When they killed some, their tribes became infuriated and as a result detracted from them. Hence, all the people of Rabi’ah ibn Qais and most of the people of Bakr ibn Wa’il withdrew from them. Likewise, the Banu Sa’d ibn Tamim, approx. six thousand people, and scattered members of the Khindif tribe also withdrew from them. The people of Rabi’ah had eventually joined the ranks of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[20]

Al Baqillani analyses the aspect of delaying the execution of the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, expressing his approbation for the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following words:

 

وعلى أنه إذا ثبت أن عليا ممن يرى قتل الجماعة بالواحد، فلم يجز أن يقتل جميع قتلة عثمان إلا بأن تقوم البينة على القتلة بأعيانهم، وبأن يحضر أولياء الدم مجلسه، ويطلبوا بدم أبيهم ووليهم… وبأن يؤدي الإمام اجتهاده إلى أن قتل عثمان لا يؤدي إلى هرج عظيم وفساد شديد قد يكون فيه قتل عثمان أو أعظم منه، وإن تأخير إقامة الحد إلى إمكانه وتقصي الحق فيه أولى وأصلح للأمة وألم لشعثهم وأنفى للفساد والتهمة عنهم.

Even if it is established that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was of the opinion that a group of people can be killed in lieu of one person, it was still not permissible for him to kill all the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu except after the evidence was established upon the murderers specifically; and after the guardians appeared in his court and sought the blood of their father and relative… In this regard the Imam had to exercise his Ijtihad to make sure that the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not result in a blood bath and extreme havoc which would equate to his murder or be even greater in magnitude. He had to also understand that delaying the execution of the capital punishment to a feasible time and seeking the right therein is better and more appropriate for the Ummah; it is a more effective method of uniting them, and repelling evil and suspicion from them.[21]

 

Similarly, Ibn Hazm justifies the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following words:

 

فنقول وبالله تعالى التوفيق، إما قولهم: إن أخذ القود من قتلة عثمان المحاربين لله تعالى ولرسوله، الساعين في الأرض بالفساد، والهاتكين حرمة الإسلام والحرم والإمامة والهجرة والخلاف والصحبة والسابقة فنعم، وما خالفهم علي قط في ذلك ولا البراءة منهم، ولكنهم كانوا عددا ضخما جما لا طاعة له عليهم، فقد سقط عن علي رضي الله عنه ما لا يستطيع عليه كما سقط عنه وعن كل مسلم ما عجز عنه من قيام بالصلاة والصوم والحج ولا فرق. قال الله تعالى: لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إذا أمرتكم بشيء فأتوا منه ما استطعتم، ولو أن معاوية بايع عليا لقوي به على أخذ الحق من قتلة عثمان، فصح أن الاختلاف هو الذي أضعف يد علي عن إنفاذ الحق عليهم، ولو لا ذلك لأنفذ الحق عليهم كما أنفذه على قتلة عبد الله بن خباب إذ قدر على مطالبة قتلته

We say, and from Allah do we seek inspiration. As for their statement, “It was incumbent to execute the capital punishment upon the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu who were at war with Allah and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who were striving to cause corruption in the earth, and were violating the sanctity of Islam, the Haram, leadership, migration, difference of opinion, the honour of the companionship of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the feat of early contributions,” yes (that is completely correct). ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not ever oppose them in that regard nor did he oppose them in disassociating from the rebels. However, they were copious in number and he did not enjoy their compliance. Thus, this obligation was dropped from him due to being unable to execute it just as the obligation of performing Salah, fasting, and Hajj falls away from every Muslim who is unable to carry them out. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says, “Allah does not charge a soul except with that which is within its capacity,”[22] and Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “When I order you to do something then do it as best as you can.” [23] Had Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledged his allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu he would have gained the strength to seek retribution from the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is correct to assert that it was the difference of opinion which had enfeebled the hand of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from establishing the truth against them. Had that not ensued he would have established the truth against them just as he had established it against the killers of ‘Abdullah ibn Khabbab,[24] for he was able to take his killers to task.[25]

 

Also, Ibn al ‘Arabi cites the viewpoint of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following manner:

 

لا أمكن طالبا من مطلوب ينفذ فيه مراده بغير حكم ولا حاكم.

I will not give authority to a claimant over a defendant for him to execute upon him what he intends without a legitimate rule and a legitimate ruler.[26]

 

Thereafter comments saying the following:

 

أما وجود الحرب بينهم فمعلوم قطعا، وأما كونه بهذا السبب، أي بسبب الخلاف حول القصاص من قتلة عثمان، فمعلوم كذلك قطعا، واما الصواب فيه فمع علي، لأن الطالب للدم لا يصح يحكم، وتهمة الطالب للقاضي لا توجب عليه أن يخرج عليه، بل يطلب الحق عنده، فإن ظهر له قضاء وإلا سكت وصبر، فكم من حق يحكم الله فيه… وأي كلام كان يكون لعلي-لما تمت له البيعة- لو حضر عنده ولي عثمان وقال له: إن الخليفة قد تمالأ عليه ألف نسمة حتى قتلوه، وهم معلومون. ماذا كان يقول إلا: اثبت وخذ، وفي يوم كان يثبت، إلا أن يثبتوا هم-أي قتلته- إن عثمان كان مستحقا للقتل، وبالله لتعلمن يا معشر المسلمين أنه ما كان يثبت على عثمان ظلم أبدا، وكان يكون الوقت أمكن للطالب وأرفق في الحال، وأيسر وصولا إلى المطلوب. والذي يكشف  الغطاء في ذلك أن معاوية لما صار إليه الأمر لم يمكنه أن يقتل من قتلة عثمان أحدا إلا بحكم، إلا من قتل في حرب، بتأويل أو دس عليه فيما يقال.

As for the occurrence of war between them, this is categorically known. And as for it occurring due to the dispute around the issue of seeking retribution from the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, that is also categorically known. As for the soundness of stance, it was with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is because a seeker of blood does not have the right to rule; also, the suspicion of the seeker regarding the judge does not legitimate revolting against him. Instead, he should claim his right from him and, thereafter, if the judgement is passed in his favour (well and good) or else he should choose silence and exercise patience. For how many a rights has Allah decided already…? And if the election of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have reached unanimity and thereafter the guardian of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu appeared before him and said, “A thousand people united against the Khalifah and eventually killed him and the suspects are all known,” what could his response have been besides saying, “Establish your claim and take your right and establish the day in which this occurred,” unless the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu could establish that he was deserving of murder. By Allah, you know with certainty, O congregation of Muslims, that oppression can never be established against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The time would, thus, have been more appropriate for the claimant and more convenient for the situation and it would have been much easier to reach the desired goal. What unveils the matter even further is that when Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu became the ruler it was not possible for him to kill any of the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu except after a valid case was lodged against him. Yes of course with the exception of those whom he killed in a battle on the basis of Ijtihad or by forging an allegation against him, as is averred.[27]

 

Ibn al ‘Arabi is also of the opinion that due to the Shar’i evidences such as, “The rebellious group will kill ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu,” and the statement, “The closer of the two groups to the truth will eventually kill the Khawarij who will emerge at the time of disunity amongst the Muslims,” that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the legitimate ruler and that whoever rebelled against him was a rebel whom it was necessary to fight till he surrendered to the truth. It is without doubt that he was more correct in his view and in his statements in his response to the people of Sham urging them to enter into his pledge and thereafter demand their right. Because if he went on to execute the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu before the unity of the Muslims was stabilised the tribes of these men would have supported them and that would cause the emergence of a third group. He, thus, was waiting to take hold of the reign of matters in order for the process of the incrimination of these perpetrators to begin and for the decree of truth to be passed regarding them.[28]

And ‘Abdul Qahir al Baghdadi mentions in his book al Imamah the following:

 

أجمع فقهاء الحجاز والعراق من فريقي الحديث والذين منهم: مالك والشافعي وأبو حنيفة والأوزاعي والجمهور الأعظم من المتكلمين أن عليا مصيب في قتاله لأهل صفين، كما قالوا بإصابته في قتل أهل الجمل (أي أقرب إلى الحق منهم)، وقالوا، أيضا لأن الذين قاتلوه بغاة ظالمون له، ولكن لا يجوز تكفيهم ببغيهم

The scholars of Hijaz and Iraq that comprise of the scholars of hadith, like Malik, al Shafi’i, Abu Hanifah, and al Awza’i, and the vast majority of theologians concur that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was correct in his wars against the people of Siffin. They also concur that he was correct in fighting the people of Jamal as well (i.e. he was closer to the truth than them). They also aver that this is due to the fact that those who fought him were rebels and offenders. However, it is not permissible to excommunicate them because of their rebellion.[29]

 

Ibn Taymiyah condenses the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the following words:

 

فهو يرى أنه يجب على معاوية وأصحابه طاعته ومبايعته… وأنهم خارجون عن طاعته يمتنعون عن هذا الواجب، وهم أهل شوكة رأى أن يقاتلهم حتى يؤدوا هذا الواجب فتحصل الطاعة والجماعة

He was of the opinion that it was incumbent upon Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his comrades to obey him and pledge to him, they were rebelling against him by refusing to do so. They were people of might and, thus, he deemed it fit to fight them till they fulfil this obligation which will result in obedience to the supreme authority and unity.[30]

 

And Ibn Hajar says in al Isabah:

وكان رأي علي أنهم يدخلون في الطاعة ثم يقوم ولي دم عثمان فيدعي به عنه، ثم يعمل ما يوجبه حكم الشرع

The view of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was that they should enter into his obedience and thereafter the guardian of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu should emerge and lodge a case on his behalf. Thereafter he will act according to the requirements of the Shari’i ruling.[31]

 

Likewise, al Haythami also justifies the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu saying:

 

فامتنع علي ظنا منه أن تسليمهم إليهم على الفور مع كثرة عشائرهم واختلاطهم بعسكر علي يؤدي إلى اضطراب وتزلزل في أمر الخلافة التى بها انتظام كلمة أهل الإسلام، سيما وهي في ابتدائها لم يستحكم الأمر فيها، فرأى علي رضي الله عنه أن تأخير تسليمهم أصوب إلى أن يرسخ قدمه في الخلافة، ويتحقق التمكن في الأمور فيها على وجهها، ويتم له انتظام شملها، واتفاق كلمة المسلمين.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused, thinking that handing the murderers over to them, Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his people, immediately in spite of their huge tribes and in spite of them being part of the army of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu could cause turbulence and unrest in the matter of the Caliphate, which is the source of keeping the unity of the Muslims intact; especially when it was not consolidated as yet. Hence ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu thought that delaying in surrendering them was more correct till the Caliphate found its feet. Thereafter, he would be able to deal with the matters as they stand, the organisation would be complete, and the unity of the Muslims would be achieved.[32]

 

The deferring of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was based on an existing and well-known need. Hence, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu shifted his base from Madinah to Iraq in order to be closer to Sham, all the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu also marched with him. They forced their way into his army and were many in number, especially the people of Basrah and Kufah. As a result they now returned to the fort of their strength and the pride of their tribes. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, thus, felt that establishing the capital punishment upon them will open a door of such unrest that he probably will not be able to shut thereafter. The great Sahabi, al Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr, also realised this reality and explicated it to Umm al Mu’minin Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, and the two Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Consequently, they acknowledged it, excused ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and agreed with him in his stance which primarily meant repelling the more imminent of the two evils and tolerating the lesser of the two evils.

Prudent political engagement demanded what ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was calling for, i.e. exercising patience, having forbearance, and not rushing into the matter. For the matter was of a magnitude that it required unity of the ranks in order to produce a united stance, subsequent to which the challenge which was threatening the base of the Caliphate could be addressed. However, disunity enfeebled the base of the newly elected Khalifah, and as a result it done away with all hopes of avenging the murdered Khalifah.

Moving on, another Shar’i proof that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was closer to the truth than Talhah, al Zubair and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhum is the following:

And also, what al Bukhari has narrated in his al Sahih via the transmission of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu from Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

ويح عمارتقتله الفئة الباغية

Woe to ‘Ammar. The rebellious group will kill him.[33]

The commentator says:

وفي هذا الحديث علم من أعلام النبوة وفضيلة ظارهةة لعلي وعمار، ورد على النواصب الزاعمين أن عليا رضي الله عنه لم يكن مصيبا في حروبه

In this hadith is a prophecy from the prophecies of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, a clear merit of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and a refutation of the Nawasib who claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not in the right in his battles.[34]

 

And al Nawawi says that the narrations from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam clearly establish that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was right and upon the truth, and that the other group, the comrades of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, were rebels who rebelled on the basis of Ijtihad. They also establish that both groups were believers and that because of the fratricidal war they did not leave the fold of iman nor did they sin.[35]

Likewise, it also appears in an authentic hadith, narrated by Muslim in his Sahih, from Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said:

 

ذكر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قوما يكونون في أمته يخرجون في فرقة من الناس سيماهم التحالق- الخوارج- قال: هم شر الخلق-يقتلهم أدنى الطائفتين إلى الحق, وفي رواية أخرى: يخرجون على فرقة مختلفة يقتلهم أقرب الطائفتين من الحق

Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made mention of a people who will emerge in his Ummah, they will emerge at a time of disunity of the people and their distinctive sign will be shaving, i.e. the Khawarij. He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “They are the worst of the creation, the closer of the two groups to the truth will kill them.”[36]

In another narration it appears, “They will rebel against a disputing group and the closer of the two groups to the truth will kill them.”[37]

 

This hadith clearly suggests that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was closer to the truth than those who opposed him in Jamal and Siffin. However, he was not entirely correct, for prudence and safety was in desisting from fighting. This is because a matter is always judged according to its result and its outcomes, and it is without a doubt that the result of the battles was very painful. Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, thus, praised Hasan radiya Llahu ‘anhu because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala united the Muslims at his hands and preserved their blood from being spilled. Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

 

إن ابني هذا سيد، ولعل الله أن يصلح به بين فئتين عظيمتين من المسلمين

This son of mine is a leader. Probably Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will bring about reconciliation because of him between two big groups of the Muslims.[38]

 

On the other hand, he did not praise ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu for fighting the people of Sham. The most that he said is that he was closer than them to the truth. As opposed to fighting against the Khawarij, for Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam emphatically praised it saying:

 

فأينما لقيتموهم فاقتلوهم، فإن في قتلهم أجرا لمن قتلهم إلى يوم القيامة

So wherever you meet them kill them, for in killing them is reward for whoever kills them till the Day of Judgement.[39]

 

Furthermore, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself was happy and elated after fighting the Khawarij,[40] but was disheartened and distraught after fighting the people of Jamal. And after the Battle of Siffin he said:

لو علمت أن الأمر يكون هكذا ما خرجت

If I knew that the matter would result in this I would never have marched.[41]

 

Even some of those who participated in the battle subsequently regretted, as is narrated regarding Shaqiq ibn Salamah[42] in Sahih al Bukhari. He was asked, “Did you participate in Siffin?” He replied, “Yes, and how bad indeed was Siffin.”[43]

In fact ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself is reported to have said:

 

لله در مقام سعد بن مالك وعبد الله بن عمر، إن كان برا إن أحره لعظيم، وإن كان إثما إن إثما إن خطأه ليسير

What a beautiful stance indeed was the stance of Sa’d ibn Malik and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar. If it was noble it was great in reward, and if it was a sin it was but a small error.[44]

 

In this manner, a brief perusal of the matter in its entirety will reveal to us that the most prudent stance and the most appropriate was the stance of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who stayed away from the Fitnah and gave preference to not fighting the people of the Qiblah. Because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has issued a command to fight the rebelling party only when it refuses to enter into any conciliation, and he has not ordered that it be fought and combatted from the very beginning (without any attempts of negotiation). He says:

 

وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللهِ فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا إِنَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

And if two factions amongst the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight the one that oppressors until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.[45]

 

NEXT⇒ Section Three: The Stance of those who avoided the Fitnah, they form Majority of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum


[1] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/437.

[2] Ibn al ‘Arabi: Ahkam al Qur’an, 2/1718.

[3] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/ 488-489.

[4] ‘Umar ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali, Abu al Khattab, Ibn Dihyah al Kalbi, famously known as Dhu al Nasabayn. The historian and retainer of hadith, from the people of Sabtah in Maghrib. He practiced as a judged in Daniyah in Andalus, thereafter, he travelled to Morocco, Sham, Iraq and Khurasan, and eventually he settled in Egypt. Ibn Khallikan says about him, “He was from the elite scholars and prominent figures. He was an expert in the sciences of hadith and was well versed in Arabic grammar, language, the history of the Arabs and their poetry. He has written: A’lam al Nasr al Mubin fi al Mufadalah bayn Ahl Siffin, al Nibras Fi Tarikh Bani al ‘Abbas; al Mutrib min Ash’ar Ahl al Maghrib, and al Tanwir fi Mawlid al Siraj al Munir which he ended with the following verse:

لو لا الوشاة وهم أعداؤنا ما وهموا

Had it not been for the slanderers who are our enemies, they would never have assumed.

He passed away in 633 A.H/1236 A.D. See: Ibn Khallikan: Wafayat al A’yan, 3/448; al Maqqari: Nafh al Tib, 1/368; al Dhahabi: al Mizan, 3/186.

[5] Yahya ibn Hani’ ibn ‘Urwah ibn Fadfad al Muradi al Kufi Abu Dawood. He narrates from his father, Anas ibn Malik, Abi Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, amongst others. And Shu’bah, al Thawri, and Sharik narrate from him. Abu Hatim said, “A pious person who was from the prominent figures of Kufah.” Al Daraqutni said, “He is an authority.” And he has been deemed reliable by Ibn Ma’in, al Fasawi and al Nasa’i and Ibn Hibban has made mention of him in al Thiqat. See: al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 3/2/309; Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 9/195; al Dhahabi: al Kashif, 3/237; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 11/293.

[6] Ibn Dihyah: A’lam al Nasr al Mubin, slate no. 7.

[7] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al ‘Awasim, p. 146.

[8] Ibn al ‘Arabi: Ahkam al Qur’an, 2/1718.

[9] Al Tahawi: Sharh al Tahawiyyah, p. 546.

[10] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/493.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid. 4/513.

[13] Ibn Abi Shaybah: al Musannaf, 15/277.

[14] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah, 7/250.

[15] Ahmed: Fada’il al Sahabah, 1/455. The annotator has deemed its transmission Sahih.

[16] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/437.

[17] Ibid.

[18] He is the cousin of Abu ‘Ubaidah al Jarrah. See: al Tabari: Tarikh al Rusul, 4/445.

[19] Ibid. 4/445.

[20] Al Tabbani: Ifadah al Akhbar, 2/52.

[21] Al Baqillani: al Tamhid fi al Radd ‘ala al Malahidah, 231,

[22] Surah al Baqarah: 286.

[23] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter of I’tisam (holding on to the Sunnah), 8/142.

[24] ‘Abdullah ibn Khabbab al Arat al Madani. Al ‘Ijli said, “He was reliable and from the senior successors. The Haruriyyah, Khawarij, killed him when ‘Ali sent him to them. He, thus, sent a message to them saying, “Grant us our retribution for ‘Abdullah,” (i.e. hand his killer over to us). They replied, “How can we give you retribution for him when we all have killed him.” Consequently he set out to confront them and fought them.” And Abu Nuaim said, “He lived during the era of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but there is difference of opinion regarding his companionship. He saw Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his father was a Sahabi.” And al Ghallabi says, “He was killed in 37 A.H/657 A.C. and was from the leaders of the Muslims. Ibn Hibban has also made mention of him in al Thiqat. See: al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 3/1/78; al ‘Ijli: Tarikh al Thiqat, p. 254; Ibn Hibban: al Thiqat, 5/8; Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 5/196.

[25] Ibn Hazm: al Fisal fi al Milal wa al Nihal, 4/162.

[26] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al ‘Awasim, p. 163.

[27] Ibn al ‘Arabi: al Jami’ li Ahkam al Qur’an, p. 163-168.

[28] Ibn al ‘Arabi: Ahkam al Qur’an, 2/1717, 1718.

[29] Ibn Dihyah: A’lam al Nasr al Mubin: the eleventh slate.

[30] Ibn Taymiyah: Majmu’ al Fatawa, 35/ 72.

[31] Ibn Hajar: al Isabah, 2/508.

[32] Ibn Hajar al Haythami: al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, p. 325.

[33] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter of Jihad, 3/207.

[34] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 1/542.

[35] Al Nawawi: Sharh Sahih Muslim, 7/168.

[36] Sahih Muslim, 7/167.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter regarding Fitan, 8/48.

[39] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter regarding demanding from the renegades and obstinate people to repent, 8/52.

[40] Sahih Muslim, 7/171-172.

[41] Ibn Abi Shaybah: al Musannaf, 15/275, 293.

[42] Shaqiq ibn Salamah al Asadi, Abu Wa’il al Kufi. A successor who witnessed both the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic era. He has narrated from a group of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum some being, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Muaz, and Sa’d radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Ishaq ibn Mansur quotes Ibn Ma’in saying, “Reliable.” Ibn Sa’d said, “He was reliable and narrated many narrations.” Al ‘Ijli said, “A pious person.” And Ibn ‘Abdul Barr said, “They have agreed upon his reliability.” And al A’mash said, “Hold on to Shaqiq ibn Salamah, for I found the noble people in their abundance considering him to be from the best of them.” He passed away in 82 A.H/701 A.D. See: Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 6/96; Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, 2/258; al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/2/245; al ‘Ijli: Tarikh al Thiqat, p. 222. Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, 4/361.

[43] Sahih al Bukhari, chapter of holding on to the Sunnah, 8/148.

[44] Ibn Taymiyah: Majmu’ al Fatawa, 4/440.

[45] Surah al Hujurat: 9.