لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Ali's Internal and External and Internal Policy
Internal Policy
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AIMS OF ISLAM was to
restrain the strong from oppressing the weak, and to put an end to exploitation in all its
forms. When Ali took charge of the caliphate, he dismissed the governors who had been
appointed by Uthman. He was told that it would not be expedient to do so, and that he
ought to consolidate his own position before dismissing them. But his reply to these
suggestions was:
"O Muslims! Do you wish that I should make an
alliance with cruelty, tyranny, treachery and perfidy? Do you wish that I should become an
accomplice in the exploitation of the umma of Muhammad? By God, I shall never do so as
long as the heavenly orbs are pulling each other. I shall wrest from the hands of the
usurper the rights of the weak, and will restore it to them."
The fundamental criterion for comparing social,
economic and political systems, ought to be, not the criterion of hegemony and imperialism
but the humanistic criterion, namely, the measure in which each system is really capable
of reducing, restraining, and eliminating, as far as possible, the various forms of
exploitation of man. Ali was the most implacable enemy of exploitation in all its forms,
and he eradicated it from his dominions during his caliphate. Social organization, he
believed, existed only for the service of man and for the protection of his dignity.
Muhammad Mustafa, the Messenger of God, had knocked
down all man-made distinctions between human beings but after his death, they all came
back. Ali declared that he was going to demolish those distinctions again. Abu Ishaq
Madaini, the historian, writes as follows, in this connection:
"Some companions of the Prophet told Ali that
when distributing the revenues of the public treasury to the Muslims, he ought to give a
larger share to the Arab nobles than to the Arab commoners; and he ought to give a larger
share to the Arabs than to the non-Arabs. They hinted that doing so would be in his own
interest, and they drew his attention to the example of Muawiya who had won the friendship
of many rich and powerful figures through his ‘generosity.' Ali said to them:
‘Are you asking me to be unfair and unjust to the poor and the weak of the Arabs and
the non-Arabs? Doing so may be good politics but is not good ethics. If I were to act upon
your advice, I would, in effect, be imitating the pagans. Is that what you want me to do?
What is important for me, is the pleasure of God, and not the pleasure of the Arab nobles.
If I were distributing my personal wealth to the Muslims, I could not discriminate against
the non-Arabs and the clients. But the wealth that I am distributing to them now, is not
mine; it's their own. How can I show discrimination? How can I deprive a man of his share
only because he is a non-Arab, and give it to someone else only because he is an Arab?
This I shall never do."
Not only the Quraysh and the Arab aristocracy did
not receive any preferential treatment from Ali over the non-Quraysh and the non-Arab in
the distribution of public funds, but the members of his own family received less than
anyone else in his dominions. One of them was his own elder brother, Aqeel. He considered
his stipend to be so small that he could not live on it, and he left Kufa and went to
Syria where he lived in style and luxury at the court of Muawiya. Ali repeatedly warned
Muslims of the dangers of moral compromise and of subverting their worth to materialism.
When Ali ascended the throne of khilafat, he
committed himself to putting an end to the economic caste-system of the Arabs, and their
unIslamic capitalist system. Within four years of his incumbency, he had fulfilled his
commitment. The caste-system of the Muslims and their new capitalist system, both had
vanished from his dominions. All the ‘high priests' of the economic caste-system of
the Arabs, and their neo-capitalists found sanctuary in Damascus. If Muslims are equal,
then their equality ought to be an obvious thing but it was not. Ali made it obvious. And
if Islam prides itself on its attachment to justice, then it (justice) ought to be a
visible thing but it was not. Ali made it visible. He made equality obvious and justice
visible.
From his own officials, Ali demanded and exacted
personal and fiscal integrity of the highest order. He served notice to everyone that even
the most powerful office in the government cannot be used as a sanctuary for miscreants
nor its legitimate privileges employed to withhold evidence of wrong-doing.
What were the mainsprings of Ali's actions and
policies? It appears that every detail of his life was governed by taqwa (the fear of
doing something that would displease God). He entertained only that thought, he uttered
only that word, and he performed only that deed which he knew, would win for him the
pleasure of God. His every thought, his every word, and his every deed, was tested on the
touchstone of taqwa. His whole existence revolved around one question, viz., what shall I
think or what shall I say or what shall I do that will please my Creator.
To the Machiavellians of all times the ends have
justified the means. To them, all means, fair or foul, are legitimate, if they can achieve
a certain end. But if Ali had to employ a certain means to achieve an end, it had to have
the sanction of Al-Qur’an al-Majid. On numerous occasions, the so-called worldly
wisdom and prudence dictated a certain course of action. But if such a course of action
was repugnant to Qur’an, Ali spurned it, and he did so with utter disregard to
consequences.
This policy made Ali extremely predictable and
vulnerable. It is said that if one has the ability to predict, then one has a certain
amount of control over a situation or a person, and control means power. The enemies of
Ali knew exactly what he would or what he would not do in a given situation. This
foreknowledge of his actions and reactions gave them an advantage over him, and they were
ever ready to exploit it. They also took the maximum advantage of his chivalry and
gallantry.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of Ali's
government was its "transparency" and its openness. If ever there was a
government that was "transparent," it was his government. He was suspicious of
secretiveness, and believed only in "open covenants openly arrived at." Muawiya
himself boasted that the key to his own "success" was in his secretiveness, and
he attributed Ali's "failure" to the fact that he (Ali) did not hide anything
from his subjects.
From the Machiavellian point of view, Muawiya was
right. He kept others guessing about each of his moves whereas in the case of Ali, no
guesswork was necessary. In dealing with Ali, his enemies could dispense with speculation
of all kinds. To him, secretiveness smacked of deviousness, and if anything was devious,
it was not acceptable to him. From the first day, he placed the credo of snooping and
secrecy under interdiction in his dominions. When a friend asked Ali why he had agreed to
take charge of the government with its myriad’s of problems, he said that he did so
to restore the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, knowing that no one else in Dar-ul-Islam had
this ability. After the battle of Siffin, Ali said in one of his prayers:
"O God! You know well that the struggle we have
waged, has not been for the sake of winning political power, nor for acquiring territory
nor for worldly goods; rather, it is my aim to implement the luminous principles of Your
exalted religion, and to reform the conduct of affairs in Your land, so that Your humble
slaves may live in security, and Your laws which have remained unfulfilled, might be
established and executed once again as they were in the time of Your Messenger and Friend,
Muhammad."
Ali was unable to conceal his contempt for and his
hostility to those Arabs who, as "the gluttons of privilege" had become
immensely rich and powerful. He and they "repelled" each other. On the other
hand, he was irresistibly drawn toward the poor and the powerless. They were his friends.
Among the rich and the powerful, Abu Sufyan and Mughira bin Shaaba, had made tentative
attempts to ingratiate themselves with him but he had snubbed them, and had put an
unbridgeable distance between himself and them.
Ali turned his caliphate into a "school"
in which he educated or rather reeducated the Muslim umma. He faced an enormous
reeducation job, but he carried it out with consummate style and characteristic flair. He
was a "one-man university" in Islam. The "curriculum" in his
"university" laid the greatest emphasis on character-building of the Muslims. He
found the "blueprint" for character-building in the Book of God, and he found
"precedents" for it in the life of Muhammad, the Messenger of God. At the
"university," he interpreted the "blueprint" and the
"precedents" for the edification and the education of his "pupils"
– the Muslim umma.
Ali was the champion of the vision that united
mankind in obedience to its Creator. He was the champion of our Creator's vision of
justice, truthfulness, purity and peace. The central dedication of his life was to restore
absolute justice to the Dar-ul-Islam. In this quest, he was eminently successful.
Ali's External Policy
Ali's critics often point out that he did not attack
other countries as both his predecessors and successors did, and he did not push the
frontiers of the empire of the Muslims in any direction.
Ali was caliph for four years, and those years were
shot with rebellions and civil war, and all his time was taken up in his efforts to
restore peace to Dar-ul-Islam.
But if there had been no rebellions and no civil
war, and if Ali's reign at home had been peaceful and tranquil, would he have embarked
upon invasions and conquests of neighboring countries? There is no way of answering this
question, but judging by his character and temperament, it appears highly unlikely that he
would have done so. It appears highly improbable that he would have sought
"glory" for himself or for Islam by overrunning other countries. Quest for such
"glory" ran counter to his nature.
The key to the understanding of Ali's policy at home
and abroad, is in the fact that he was the heir and successor of Muhammad, the Apostle of
God, and the Messenger of peace.
Muhammad was the last Messenger of God to mankind.
He was the embodiment of the highest attributes of character and personality. In his life,
there is the most perfect example for all Muslims to imitate, and his program for the
welfare, happiness and salvation of mankind, is the most comprehensive.
Apostleship and Prophethood are the greatest honors
that any mortal can receive in this world. To be an apostle or a prophet means to be
chosen by God. A man must indeed be endowed with most extraordinary qualities to be picked
by the Creator Himself out of the immense mass of humanity to be His messenger to mankind.
Such a man was Muhammad. He was picked out by God to
be His instrument in implementing His plan and program for the world. He lifted the human
race out of its moral and spiritual captivity, and put it beyond the ignorance, fear and
isolation which beset it. God had sent many other messengers before him but he was the
last one of them all, and the message he brought, was not subject to the limitations of
time and place; it was for all time, and its keynote was universalism.
Muhammad was indeed endowed with the most
extraordinary qualities of head, hand and heart. Anyone of these qualities could easily
make him the most remarkable man in history. But at this point, we shall consider only one
of his many qualities – the quality of mercy. He personified mercy. Al-Qur’an
al-Majid has called Muhammad "a mercy for all creatures."
We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all Creatures.
(Chapter 21; verse 107)
This quality of mercy in Muhammad as Messenger of
God, is incompatible with aggression and lust for conquest. Warfare and bloodshed cannot
coexist with mercy.
The message that Muhammad brought from Heaven, and
which he promulgated on earth, is called Islam, and Islam means "peace and
security." Islam is the religion of peace. A man who accepts Islam is known as a
Muslim, i.e., one who has made peace. Muhammad himself defined a Muslim as a person from
whose tongue and hands, other peaceful citizens are safe.
One of the key words in Islamic terminology is Iman
which means "the principles of peace," and the person who has Iman is called a
Momin which means "a man who abides by the principles of peace." Muhammad who
brought God's last message to this earth, is called al-Rasul al-Amin, i.e., "the
Messenger of Trust." Makkah, the city in which he delivered this message, is called
al-Baladul-Amin, i.e., "the City of Peace." Makkah, therefore, is a sanctuary,
and whoever enters it, is safe from harm.
The name of the mother of Muhammad is Amina which
again means "peace." The name of his father is Abdullah which means "the
slave of God." As slave of God, he obeys God, and does not trespass on the rights of
others – the other slaves of God. Amina and Abdullah brought the Messenger of Peace
into the world to put an end to bloodshed and to spread the blessing of peace on earth.
The name of Muhammad's nurse was Umm Ayman which
means "the mother of Fortune." The angel who brought the message of Heaven to
Muhammad, is called al-Rooh-ul-Amin i.e., "the Spirit of Trust." His successor
is called Amir al-Mominin i.e., "the leader of the peaceful believers."
Therefore, from beginning to end, Islam is peace and security.
Another key word in Islamic terminology is jihad.
There is so much fog around this word that it can hardly be seen for what it is. In most
non-Muslim circles, the jihad of Islam is equated with wanton aggression which it is not.
Literally, jihad means effort or struggle. One of the most commendable forms of jihad
imposed upon a Muslim is to fight against ignorance and injustice, and to overcome one's
own lusts and baser instincts. Islam has recognized war as an institution but has allowed
its followers to fight only:
(a)either in self-defense,
(b) or, to impose penalties for breach of peace,
also called Qisas in Arabic which means "retaliation." Qisas is permitted only
to check aggression. Islam does not allow Muslims to wage war for any third reason.
In Makkah, Muhammad presented to the Arabs a program
of religious, ethical, moral and social reconstruction. After the migration to Medina, he
added an economic and a political component to it. It had taken him thirteen years in
Makkah to lay the groundwork of Islam, and it took him another ten years in Medina to
build and to complete its "edifice." These 23 years were the most crucial years
in the career of Islam as a universal system.
When Muhammad began to implement his program, he was
immediately and inevitably confronted by multiple challenges. Characteristically, Islam
produced Ali ibn Abi Talib as its response to those challenges. The 23 years of the
ministry of Muhammad as the Messenger of God, were a long series of crises – both of
war and of peace – and Ali surmounted them all.
Ali was the heir and successor of Muhammad. When he
began to implement Muhammad's program, he too was confronted by multiple challenges. A
quarter-century had passed since the death of his master, Muhammad, and since then many
Muslims had begun to worship economic and political power as their new "idols."
Idol-smashing was nothing new to Ali. Many years earlier, he and his master, Muhammad, had
destroyed the idols of Quraysh in the Kaaba. Now he was called upon once again to destroy
the new "idols" of the Arabs. But he realized that the champions of the new
"idols" would rise in their defense just as the champions of the old idols had
risen in their defense in the times of Muhammad.
Islam was a revolutionary movement in the sense that
it was an emphatic end of an old and fossilized, i.e., polytheistic era, and the beginning
of a new and dynamic, i.e., monotheistic era. Its aims are set forth in Al-Qur’an
al-Majid, and its Prophet has been charged with specific duties, as we read in the
following verse:
A similar (favor have you already received) in that
We have sent among you an Apostle of your own, rehearsing to you Our signs, and
sanctifying you, and instructing you in scripture and good sense, and in new knowledge.
(Chapter 2; verse 151)
These aims, obviously, are so important that they
have been repeated, for emphasis, on three other occasions. They occur in the following
verses of Qur’an:
1. Chapter 2; verse 129
2. Chapter 3; verse 164
3. Chapter 62; verse 2
The aims of Ali's government were the same as the
aims of Qur’an. His policy, therefore, was:
1. to rehearse the Signs of God (before the
Muslims);
2. to sanctify them (the Muslims);
3. to instruct them (the Muslims) in Scripture, and
in good sense;
4. to instruct them (the Muslims) in new knowledge.
As stated above, when Ali tried to enforce this
policy, he met resistance, but not from the pagans. Most incredibly, he met resistance
from the Muslims. The Muslims, and not the pagans, thwarted him in the execution of his
plans, and in the realization of his aims.
The aims set forth in Qur’an for the Muslim
umma do not comprehend conquest of other lands by force of arms. Those critics of Ali who
lament that he did not add new territories to the map of Islam, will also have to lament
the uniform silence of Qur’an on the subject of expanding the dominions of Islam
through war and aggression. In fact, judging by its text, Qur’an appears to have no
interest in military adventures of any kind.
Most of the political and military leaders of the
world agree with President Charles de Gaulle when he said: "The sword is the axis of
the world," which means that the world revolves around the sword. The medieval French
called this concept the "fort mayne" – the strong arm; i.e., whoever has
the strongest arm, rules.
Many leaders also agree with the political
philosophy summed up in the maxim that all is fair in love and war. In pursuit of their
ambitions, they have considered it quite fair to wage war upon other nations, to kill
their men, and to enslave their women and children. If some of these leaders have soaked
the world in blood, and have obliterated cities and civilizations, they have been
acclaimed as the greatest heroes and the greatest military geniuses of history. And yet,
their heroism and genius have only proved Gibbon right when he said:
"What is history but a register of the crimes,
follies and misfortunes of mankind."
Does Islam also equate its program with lust for the
conquest of alien nations? If it does, then how is it different from the programs for
world conquest of such military leaders as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Attila the
Hun, Genghis Khan, Hulago Khan, Tamerlane, Napoleon and Hitler all of whom marched with
those "sisters of victory – murder, pillage, fire, destruction, captivity, loot
and rape?" All wars are alike in at least three particulars: death, destruction and
rape. The pages of history are stained with the blood of the weak and the innocent shed by
the powerful and the ruthless.
If Muslims also stained the pages of history with
blood, is it the proof of the truthfulness or even of the greatness of Islam? Can Muslims
take pride in unprovoked wars of aggression and conquests? If they do, they would find
themselves at odds with the Book of God which states:
There has come to you from God a new light , and a
perspicuous Book – wherewith God guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of
peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light –
guideth them to a path that is straight. (Chapter 5; verses 17,18)
Many Muslims are held in fascination by the
"military glories" of the century 632-732 of their history. President Lincoln
put military "glories" in correct perspective for the glory buffs when he said:
"Military glory is the attractive rainbow that
rises in showers of blood."
Whose blood? The blood of the weak, the inoffensive,
and in most cases, the innocent!
President Truman once called war "the ugliest
invention of man." Is there any invention uglier than war? What invention other than
war has the power to kill men on mass scale, and to make children orphans and women
widows? What other invention of man has the power to reduce cities to rubble and cinders,
and to breed undying hatred and hostility among nations?
The truth is that Islam and war do not blend. Islam
is a blessing of God. In fact, it's the greatest blessing of God on earth. Its name means
peace; and peace and security are blessings whereas fighting and bloodshed are a curse.
The wars and the conquests of the Arabs did not exactly jibe with the program of Islam.
Many of these wars were prompted by political necessity or expediency, or by sheer lust
for conquest. Most of the Arabs who went out of Arabia, after the death of the Prophet,
were not Islam's missionaries. They were plain conquerors. Most of them lacked the
knowledge of Islam, and they lacked interest in spreading Islam. Most of them were born
and bred in the pagan tradition, and they had been fighting against the Muslims only two
or three years earlier.
G. E. Grunebaum
Mohammed himself was quite aware that the Bedouin
had been only superficially won over. "The Arabs (i.e. the Bedouin) say, we have
adopted the faith (amanna). Say (to them): Faith ye have not. Rather say: We have become
Muslim (aslamna). For faith has not yet entered your hearts." (Koran 49:15 )
(Classical Islam – A History 600 – 1258, p. 51, 1970)
Though at the beginning, the Arabs were sent out of
the peninsula for political reasons, as stated above, soon they found reasons of their own
to maintain the momentum of conquest. The propulsive force in their case was the love of
booty. Arabs were invincible in war if they had the assurance of obtaining booty. Apart
from this, there was little else that interested them. If they had no hope of obtaining
booty, they had no interest in fighting. The attitude of the Muslims of Medina toward
Uthman during the last days of his life, makes this point quite clear. They were the same
Muslims who had repeatedly repulsed the attacks of the pagans. But now in their city, the
head of their state was besieged in his own palace. The besiegers were only a few hundred
strangers, with no roots in town, and with no support of any armed force. The siege lasted
for 49 days, and was raised only when Uthman was killed. But the Muslims of Medina were
not roused to act. Why not? They were not roused to act in defense of their khalifa
because they had no hope of obtaining booty.
The love of the Arabs for plunder was an old
addiction. It was this love which was responsible for the disaster of Uhud. The lovers of
booty abandoned a strategic pass, in defiance of the orders of the Prophet, and by doing
so, they changed victory into defeat. Qur’an has also borne testimony to this
predilection of the Arabs in verses 152 and 153 of its third chapter.
M. Shibli
A most complex problem was the love of the Arabs for
plunder. It was this love which triggered most of their wars. In pagan times, the love of
booty was an obsession for them. But when they became Muslim, their love for booty did not
diminish in them.
It is reported that on one occasion, the Apostle of
God sent some of his Companions to a certain tribe for taking punitive action. The leaders
of the tribe in question came to ask if the Muslims would negotiate terms of peace with
them. The captain of the group of the Companions said that peace was very welcome to him
if they accepted Islam. The tribe accepted Islam whereupon the Companions returned to
Medina. But they were very unhappy at this outcome, and they reproached their captain for
depriving them of the opportunity to obtain booty for themselves. They were not content
merely with reproaching him, but also, upon arrival in Medina, complained to the Apostle
against him (their captain). But the Apostle applauded the decision of the captain, and
said that God would reward him for saving the lives of many people. (Life of the Prophet,
Vol. II, 1976, Azamgarh, India).
These companions of the Prophet were the
"model" Muslims. They were supposed to be "unworldly." It would be
entirely logical to assume that since they were the personal friends of the Messenger of
God, they would not be contaminated with the lust for riches. Or, if, at one time, they
were contaminated with such lust, it would be logical to assume that his companionship
modified their character to such a degree that the love of booty was no longer an
obsession with them that it once was. But they proved these assumptions to be wrong. It
were these "pious" and "devout" companions who were eager to plunder a
tribe. But the tribe in question accepted Islam just in time, and thus escaped their
clutches.
The love of the rank-and-file Arabs (the
non-companions, the commoners) for plunder, was even less restrained.
Sir John Glubb
While the Bedouins had formed the mass of those Arab
armies which had conquered Persia and Byzantium for the faith, the instinct for plunder
was ineradicably implanted in their nature. (The Great Arab Conquests, p. 313, 1967)
Love of plunder was an instinct of the Arabs. Ali
wanted to change, or, at least, to sublimate this instinct, and he tried. But the attempt
was only partially successful, and the cost was prohibitively high.
Both during and after the battle of Basra (the
battle of the Camel), Ali had forbidden his troops to plunder the camp of the enemy and
the city of Basra. It was a great disappointment to them. They, however, had no intention
of giving up the fruits of their labors so easily. They believed that the city of Basra
was their prize as conquerors, and that they had a right to make prisoners of the enemy.
When this right was denied to them by Ali, they threatened to disobey his orders.
It was a dangerous situation for Ali. He had to
squelch mutiny of his troops. This he succeeded in doing when he posed the following
question to the potential mutineers: "Which one among you will take Ayesha, the
mother of the believers, as his share of the prisoners of war?"
This question had never occurred to the mutineers,
and they were left utterly bewildered and speechless by it. How could a Muslim make
Ayesha, the widow of his Prophet, a prisoner, and still remain a Muslim? They then
acquiesced into accepting Ali's fiat – no plunder and no captives!
Nevertheless, the loss of opportunity to plunder
Basra, rankled in the hearts of many of Ali's soldiers, and they also resented the curbs
he had imposed upon them. Their resentment simmered until it flared up in the battle of
Siffin. It was this resentment which was so deftly exploited by Muawiya that it broke out
as mutiny, and Ali was compelled to call off the battle which he had almost won.
