Was Mu'awiya seeking Qisas for the death of Hadhrath Uthman? - Muawiya [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Was Mu'awiya seeking Qisas for the death of Hadhrath Uthman?

Abu Sulaiman of ansar.org puts forward the common excuse:

Ansar.org states:Mu'awiyah did not want to rule, nor refused the leadership of Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased at him, but Mu'awiyah requested from Ali was to give in Uthman's murderers, and only after that he would obey him (Ali).

The contradiction is evident in just this single sentence. On the one hand he states Mu'awiya did not "refuse the leadership of Ali bin Abi Talib" and yet then states it was not until Uthman's killers were handed over that "he would obey him". Hence he WAS refusing the Leadership. In other words Mu'awiya was indeed refusing the leadership of Ali (as) by placing a 'condition' for baya. We should also point out Abu Sulaiman's tactical use of the English language.

Ansar.org states:Mu'awiyah 'requested' from Ali was to give in Uthman's murderers, and only after that he would obey him Ali.

A request in English is simply when a person asks another as to whether such an option was available. Clearly Mu'awiya was NOT in any way making a request, since as Abu Sulaiman says, it was not UNTIL this so-called request was granted that he would give baya. So it was NOT a 'request' but a 'demand'.

Later on Abu Sulaiman passes the following comment:

Ansar.org states:Mu'awiyah did not fight Ali except for the matter of Uthman. Mu'awiyah saw himself as the guardian of Uthman's blood, and Uthman was one of his relatives"

Whilst Abu Sulaiman admires Mu'awiyas stance we ask ' is there any evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah that entitles an individual to delay giving baya UNTIL Qisas is implemented?' If there is, why did Mu'awiya the alleged Mujtahid not cite a source to support his position and why did Imam Ali (as) not accept it? Or does Abu Sulaiman have more knowledge on the Sharia than these two central characters?

Abu Sulaiman also seeks to defend Mu'awiya by saying:

Ansar.org states:"and Mu'awiyah relied on some prophetic hadeeths that show and clear that Uthman would be killed as an innocent and describes the rebels as hypocrites Mu'awiyah and his companions thought they were right according to this and that they were on guidance especially when we know that the hypocrite rebels against Uthman were in the army of Ali. Hence, Mu'awiyah and his companions thought them on astray and therefore they made it lawful for themselves to fight Ali and his faction.."

Could Abu Sulaiman show any reference as to when Mu'awiya cited these traditions to support his action? Or is Abu Sulaiman simply seeking to read Mu'awiya's mind? Do these ahadith (narrations) state that it will then be permissible for Uthman's relatives to rebel against the state and demand retribution forthwith?

We should also ask Abu Sulaiman 'was Mu'awiya's desire for revenge, more important than the smooth running of the Islamic State under the rule of the rightful caliph? Did Mu'awiya not consider the repercussions of such an action? Was there for example not a risk of Munafiqs (hypocrites) and the Kuffar (pagans) exploiting the situation and spread fitnah to further their own machinations? It is indeed interesting that when the same Abu Sulaiman seeks to read the mind of Mu'awiya later by pointing out that Mu'awiya killed Hujr to quell the risk of sedition and yet the same Mu'awiya saw no problem in himself opposing Imam Ali (as) actively participating in rebellion and sedition!

Clearly the risk was inherent - the third khalifa had been killed, so it was a time of upheaval. In light of such tense / delicate circumstances would it not have been better for Mu'awiya to allow the new Khalifa to settle down and then punish the killers of Uthman? What was the exact correlation between giving baya and Imam Ali (as) handing over Uthman's killers? How exactly was Mu'awiyas demand going to help the situation?

One also wonders how Mu'awiya had all of a sudden become the Waris of Uthman demanding Qisas. Hadhrath Uthmans was survived by sons all of who were baligh they were his Waris and they had the right to ask for Qisas not Mu'awiya.

Ansar.org states:Al-Thahabi narrated in "Sayr A'alam Al-Nubala'a" from Ya'ali bin Ubayd from his father who says: (Abu Muslim Al-Khulani and some others went to Mu'awiyah and asked him: "Do you dispute Ali or are you equal to him? Mu'awiyah answered: "By Allah no. I know he is better than I am, and he has the right to rule, but do not you know that Uthman was killed as an innocent? And I am his cousin and the seeker of his revenge? Therefore go to Ali and tell him to send me Uthman's murderers then I will obey him." They went to Ali and talked to him, but Ali refused to hand in Uthman's murderers to Mu'awiyah.) [Sayr A'alam Al-Nubala'a, vol.3, p.140, the examiner of the book said that its narrators are trustworthy]

Abu Sulaiman's use of this reference is indeed disturbing. It is implying that Imam Ali (as) was AWARE who the killers of Uthman were, despite this he let these killers roam free. Does Abu Sulaiman not understand the serious implication of this viewpoint? The Ahl'ul Sunnah have never espoused the view that Imam Ali (as) knew and protected Uthman's killers, they absolve him of any such slander and yet Abu Sulaiman is seeking to offer a new approach casting doubts on Imam Ali (as). This is a subtle and devious method used by Abu Sulaiman, he has consciously cited this reference, implicating Imam Ali (as) as the wrongdoer and Mu'awiya as the distraught sincere relative. It is clear that the majority Ahl'ul Sunnah do NOT believe such slander against Imam Ali (as) but they should be warned of the risks of infiltration by Nasibis seeking protection for their comments under the Sunni garb.

Mu'awiya and his supporters

Abu Sulaiman extols the cosy relationship between Mu'awiya and the people of Sham at several points in his article.

Ansar.org states:"Mu'awiyah ruled Al-Sham for forty years, and his relationship with Al-Sham's people was a relationship of love and loyalty to a degree that the people of Al-Sham agreed strongly with him when Mu'awiyah wanted to avenge Uthman's murder".

When Mu'awiyah took the governship of Al-Sham, his policy with his people was one of the best policies. His people loved him, and he loved them too his people supported him when Mu'awiyah wanted to take Uthman's revenge. They gave him allegiance on that and promised him that they will spend their lives and money for the cause of Uthman, take Uthman's revenge, or Allah take their souls before that. [Al Bidaya Volume 8 p.131]

So we learn:

Mu'awiya loved the people of Sham and vice versa

Such was their love they supported him in his decision to avenge Uthman's murder

It should be made clear than the Sharia is NOT based on the opinions of the Sahaba. The legitimacy of any stance is only valid if it is supported by the dictates of the Qur'an and Sunnah. The premise that the love of the people constitutes legitimacy of a stance is indeed a very faulty logic. The German people had a deep seated love for Adolph Hitler, this does not in any way mean that this support and his subsequent actions were sanctioned by Allah (swt). To love a person and follow him accordingly does not in any way mean that an individual's action is correct. On the contrary the correct approach is to follow Allah (swt)'s Deen. Had he been sincere, Abu Sulaiman would have informed his admiring public as to who should have been followed in those circumstances, the Khalifa Ali (as) or Mu'awiya?

Even if for arguments sake we were to accept this, i.e. love for Mu'awiya constitutes legitimacy to rebel, what is Abu Sulaiman's verdict on those that opposed Mu'awiya and fought him, were they not also the Prophet's Sahaba (companions)?

Mu'awiya exploited people's ignorance and greed to attain support

The reality is that Mu'awiya was indeed a 'master politician' with the ability to use any method to get his way, like the Leaders of Arab nations today, he used methods of maintaining leadership - 'by any means necessary'. This included courting and bribing people and subduing opposition through intimidation and violence.

Ibne Maghazli states in his Manaqib page 128 "Dhikr Sifeen"

"Imam 'Ali wrote a letter to Mu'awiya stating 'Makka and Madina have given bayya to me you should do the same so as to avoid a war between the people of Iraq and Syria'. Mu'awiya used Uthman's blood as an excuse not to give bayya and he used this excuse to mislead the ignorant Arabs, bribing people with money and land".

The issue that Abu Sulaiman intentionally avoids throughout the article is not that they loved and supported Mu'awiya the actual issue that he should answer is 'does The Sharia permit them to act in the way that they did?' This is a question Abu Sulaiman knows he has no answer to which is why he has failed to cite even a single verse to defend Mu'awiya. Mu'awiya was an individual deviated from the truth and had likewise lead others into misguidance.

Abu Sulaiman's attempts to misinterpret the words of Imam Ali (as) as a means of defending Mu'awiya

Ansar.org states:Al-Shareef Al-Ridi narrated in Nahjul Balagha a speech delivered by Ali where Ali says: "In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman's blood, and we are innocent from his murder." [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648] Hence, Ali is confirming that the conflict between him and Mu'awiyah is about the murder of Uthman, not for the sake of leadership or to take control of the Muslims"

If anything Imam Ali (as) is expressing his concern at, is the 'mentality' of the people of the time, both believed in the principles of Deen and yet despite this fact they sought it fit to rebel against the Ul'il 'Amr whilst such an act contradicts the Qur'an. Whilst the spilt was linked to over allegation that Mu'awiya sought retribution forUthman's killers, there is no edict in Islam for an individual to rebel against the rightful Khalifa in order to his own way, and that was what Imam Ali (as) had set out here. He was questioning the legality of Mu'awiya's actions.

Imam Ali (as) questions Mu'awiya's motives

Since Abu Sulaiman's sought to defend his Imam Mu'awiya by misinterpreting the words of Imam 'Ali (as)'s, we present proof that Imam Ali (as) was openly sceptical about Mu'awiya's motives. Coupled with the sermon cited by Abu Sulaiman, one is able to get a true picture of how Hadhrath Ali (as) saw and interpreted his opponent's actions:

This sermon is taken from Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work al-Akhbar al-Tiwal page 173:

"From the Servant of Allah, Ali Ammerul Momineen to Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan. Khaulani has brought your letter to me. You have claimed that I deserted Uthman and instigated people against him. In fact I did no such thing, when people got annoyed with the late Caliph some withdrew their support of him whilst others killed him. I chose to remain in my home keeping aloof from the matter.As regards to your demand that I hand over the killers of Uthman I shall not. I am fully aware that you wish to exploit this as a means to fulfil your own ambitions, which has no aim to avenge the blood of Uthman. By my life if you refuse to abandon your rebellion and opposition, this same chastisement will fall on you as has fallen on every tyrant, sinner and rebel".

Here Imam 'Ali (as) exposes the treachery of Mu'awiya making clear that he has no interest in avenging Uthman's murder rather he had ulterior motives. The harsh reality is that the demand of Qisas was in fact a smokescreen by which Mu'awiya sought to catapult his ambitions of power.

The Imam can only implement Qisas

Even if his motives were sincere Mu'awiya's very demand that the killers of Uthman are handed over to him contradicts the Sharia since the Head of State can ONLY enforce the Law of Qisas.

Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharra Muwaffaq page 530 comments:

"The Imam's duty is to implement the Shari'a, rules on Qisas, nikah jihad, Eid, the rules cannot be implemented without an Imam".

In Sharh al Maqasid page 251 we read:

"The appointment of the Imam is an absolute necessity, he implements the Shari'a and places the required limits upon man".

If one was to accept Mu'awiya's stance, then this in effect gives a green light for blood feuds and vigilantism - the law of the land is a mockery since citizens have the right to kill to avenge the murder of a relative. Does Abu Sulaiman represent this viewpoint, that not only undermines a Khalifa's authority but in effect creates a state of anarchy and violence? If he does not deem this as the correct way for a citizen to behave when there is a rightful Khalifa at the helm, then on what premise is he seeking to defend Mu'awiya's demand?

In an Islamic State Individuals are entitled to voice their concerns / opinions to those in authority. Concerns are only permitted to go as far as 'silent protest' not armed rebellion. There exists no verse in the Qur'an or hadith that entitles individuals to rebel and fight the rightful khalifa if their demands are not met. If this was the case then all Governments would be held to ransom, a 'its my way or the highway' approach - leaders would be constantly watching over their shoulders wondering when the next opposition rebellion would take place. If Mu'awiya was indeed correct in rebelling to get his way, then this sets a clear precedent, if you don't get your way and the rightful khalifa does not listen to your demands then you can rebel. Is this option set out in any of the sources of Sharia? Clearly it is not as we have stated already Allah deems obedience to Ulil 'Amr unconditional, and with regards to 'Ali (as) Rasulullah (s) said:

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

Kanz ul Ummal, Page 614, Hadith numbers 32974 & 32977

Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol. 3, Page 128

Riyadh ul Nadira, Vol. 3, Page 110

This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to 'Ali (as) is unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt).

Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz - one that fights 'Ali (as) is a kaafir

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz comments in - Hadiyyah Majeediyyah page 813

"One who fights 'Ali [r] with enmity is a kaafir according to the ijma of Ahl'ul Sunnah"

On that same page he seeks to protect Mu'awiya citing the Ansar line of defence namely:

"Whoever deems 'Ali [r] to be a kaafir or opposes his khilafath is a kaafir, this trait was evident amongst the Khawaarij at Naharwaan".

Also on the same page Shah Abdul Aziz seeks to protect Mu'awiya by pointing out that Mu'awiya does NOT come within this definition since:

"Mu'awiya and the people of Syria sought revenge for the killing of Uthman".

As we shall prove if this is the defence by which the majority seek to prevent Mu'awiya then this motive is also without any comprehensive proof.

Mu'awiya's actual motive was power

Since Mu'awiya had decided to take it on himself to avenge Uthman's death, perhaps Abu Sulaiman could inform us what efforts Mu'awiya had taken to protect Uthman while he was alive? Had Mu'awiya had any love for his relative he would have sought to protect him, and protect he could, after all he had command over the army of greater Syria (Syria and Damascus). With the largest army in the Empire at his disposal, what action did Mu'awiya adopt? In Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 19 we learn that:

"Hadhrath Uthman asked Mu'awiya for assistance, but Mu'awiya did not listen to him. When the situation got worse and there remained little chance that Uthman would survive Mu'awiya sent Yazeed bin Asand ul Kasheeree with an army and told him to reach the point of Zeekush and remain there. The officer followed this order and when Uthman was killed Mu'awiya ordered his army to return. This was done in order to show the people that he had sent an army but in reality this was just a trick, so that he could exploit Uthman's death as a means of taking power".

The agreement between Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas is clear proof that the motive was power not avenging Uthman's murder

Perhaps the advocates of Mu'awiya will not be convinced, well let us hear the testimony from the mouth of their Imam Mu'awiya. In Iqd al Fareed page 238 Volume 2 Chapter "Dhikr Amr bin Aas" a detailed conversation is cited between Amr bin Aas and Mu'awiya.

"Mu'awiya told Amr bin Aas to give him bayya. Amr replied 'if its with regards to the next world, then Allah (swt) will not be with you, if its in connection with this world then I would like a share". Mu'awiya replied, "in my world there is an equal share". Amr said, "I would like you to put into writing that you will give me Egypt and its surrounding suburbs". Mu'awiya did so adding (in the agreement) that Amr give him bayya. Amr replied that it should also be written (in the agreement) that it (bayya) will be subject to the conditions being met. Mu'awiya replied "people will not look at this" but Amr said "Do this". At this point Umro attended and Amr said "Mu'awiya I have sold my religion at your hands". Umro said "Verily give him the full agreed amount as he was a Sahaba of the Prophet".

Notice how the killing of Uthman is missing from the entire conversation. The discussion is about power and Mu'awiya's bribing of Amr with land to get him on board. Despite Abu Sulaiman's excuses, the words used by Amr bin Aas "Mu'awiya I have sold my religion at your hands", stand as clear testimony that even he felt that he had abandoned his religion by siding with Mu'awiya, but alas for bin Aas his lust for power was so great that it outweighed his iman. Power was the name of the game not the enforcement "revenge for Uthman" was the war cry via which Mu'awiya sought to enhance his ambitions.

We read in al-Akhbar al-Tiwal page 158 "Dhikr Siffeen" that Amr said to Mu'awiya "Give me Egypt to eat from as long as you are a ruler". Tareekh Abu Fida Volume 2 page 238 "Dhikr Siffeen" likewise states that Amr placed a condition that to join Mu'awiya he would be given the power to govern Egypt. It is indeed interesting to note how the promise of power and authority was the factor that 'moved' Amr bin Aas over to the noble cause of avenging the blood of Uthman.

Power was the name of the game not the enforcement "revenge for Uthman" was the war cry via which Mu'awiya sought to enhance his ambitions.

What greater proof of the deviance of Mu'awiya can there be than the admission of his key supporter Amr bin Aas. We read in in Ta'rikh Kamil Volume 2 page 139 "Dhikr Siffeen" that Amr bin Aas said the following to Mu'awiya:

"Avenging Uthman's blood was just an excuse, we are desirous of worldly power, upon hearing this Mu'awiya agreed to hand over Egypt to Amr".

Do the defenders of Mu'awiya need to be convinced any further? This is the testimony of one of the key central characters in this episode admitting to Mu'awiya that Uthman's revenge was an excuse, the real motive was just power. If Mu'awiya disagreed with this assertion then why did he not admonish him and set the record straight?

Mu'awiya's testimony further proves his real motive was power not vengeance for the slain Uthman

Advocate of Mu'awiya, Ibn Kathir records two interesting references that further exposes the real reason for Mu'awiya's opposition:

In Al Bidayah page 131 Volume 8:

Un Sayeed bin Sadeed states that in Nakheela, Mu'awiya read Juma and said this, "I haven't fought with you to fast, pray and give Zakaat go on Hajj, you already do this, I fought to become Leader and Commander you don't like this but I have achieved it".

Al Bidayah Page 128 Volume 8

"Prior to the battle of Siffeen, 'Ali gave Jareer bin Abdullah a letter that said 'Mu'awiya give me bay'a and obey me, do not create fitnah in the Islamic State'. Mu'awiya replied to Jareer, 'If 'Ali makes me Governor over the provinces of Egypt and Syria I will give him bayya, on the condition that after him no one else is given bay'a save me".

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Khawarzmi in his "Manaqib" page 179 Chapter "Dhikr Siffeen" states that:

"Mu'awiya wrote a letter to 'Ali which he sent via the hand of 'Abdullah bin Ukbah. In the letter he stated 'I asked you about my ruling Syria, and placed an additional condition that neither I give you bay'a nor do I obey you, but you rejected this. I continue to hold the same view about Syria and my not giving you bay'a".

This and the previous reference from al Bidaya proves he had NO INTEREST in the killing Uthman rather his interest was one - gaining power. Mu'awiya simply used Uthman's murder as an 'excuse' not to give baya to Imam 'Ali (as). If he was indeed sincere perhaps Abu Sulaiman can explain why Mu'awiya did not ask for the killers to be handed following arbitration between the two sides at Sifeen? After all as Abu Sulaiman states the Syrians loved him and Mu'awiya was so determined to avenge Uthman's death that he deemed it appropriate to go to war. This being the case how is it that he totally abandoned this determination when the two sides were negotiating, if Uthman's death was so important that thousands of lives could be lost, why did he all of a sudden abandon this resolve? If he was sincere would this not have been the very first thing that he demanded? This was clearly a farce and Deobandi scholar Sayyid Ahmad Raza Bijnori in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari "Anwar ul Bari" states on Volume 12 page 73:

"Mu'awiya fought out of a personal desire for power and was motivated by his pro Umayya bias".

Anwar-ul-Bari Sharah Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 12 page 73

Moreover Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his Fatwa Azizi page 161 Chapter 8 under the chapter "Marwan" in answer to question 5 makes the admission:

"The scholars of Ahl'ul hadith having relied on narration's have concluded that Mu'awiya's actions were based on his personal grudge and desire and it was not on account of the enmity that had been borne our between the Quraysh and Banu Umayya following the murder of the possessor of two lights [Uthman], the truth is that he was guilty of a great sin, was a baghi (rebel) and a fasiq (transgressor)".

Fatwa Azizi page 161 Chapter 8

Mu'awiya Thaneeh's condemnation of his grandfather eludes the fact that he fought Imam 'Ali (as) for power

When Mu'awiya ibn Yazeed became khalifa he gave the following sermon:

"Verily Khilafath is Allah (swt)'s. My grandfather fought one that was more deserving of the khilafath and that was 'Ali ibne abi Talib and he performed such acts that you are all aware of, and in consequence he is suffering for these acts"

A number of leading Sunni Ulama have recorded this sermons (Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 301; Hayatul Hayawan Volume page 88; Tareekh Ya'qubi Volume 2 page 241; Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 134; Yanabi al Mawaddah Volume page 325).

This sermon by Mu'awiya's own grandson destroys the notion that he sought Uthman's revenge. He clearly pointed out that his opposition was without any basis rather he just fought for attaining power.

Abu Sulaiman questions the justice of Imam 'Ali (as)

In his defence of Mu'awiya Abu Sulaiman further uses his psychic abilities citing the opinions of Mu'awiyas supporters:

Ansar.org states:"Mu'awiyah's supporters would say: "We cannot give allegiance to anyone except the one who would act with justice and does not oppress usAli is unable to act justly and we do not have to give allegiance to such a person".

On the one hand the Ansar passionately use every method in the Book to stir emotions to the masses, namely Shi'a don't respect the Sahaba, and here Abu Sulaiman's Nasibi mentality shines so clear that he is even supporting the view that Ali was unjust. Does this Nasibi really believe Mu'awiya was more interested in justice than 'Ali (as)? This when we have 'Abu Bakr narrating this hadith:

"Verily Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) spoke the truth, I heard Rasulullah (s) say on the night of Hijrah as we left Makka 'My hand and Ali's hand are EQUAL in dispensing justice" (Taken from Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli al Shaafi page 98, this hadith can also be found in Kanz al Ammal Volume 11 page 604)

Interestingly whilst also defending the rebellious group, Abu Sulaiman manages to travel back in his imaginary time machine and state on their behalf that they would justify their opposition saying:

Ansar.org states:"Uthman's murderers are in the army of Ali, and these murderers are unjust".

Mu'awiya did not apply Qisas against Amr bin Aas

Now perhaps Abu Sulaiman could inform us how Mu'awiya dealt with the killers of Uthman in his own side, did he implement Qisas, as he demanded? He did not and in fact the clearest evidence that Mu'awiya's approach was nothing but a faade, comes from the very fact that he failed to take any action against the killers of Uthman who were also in his army. Is it not logical that the first thing he would do would be to get his own house in order and 'avenge' Uthman's murders by slaying the killers hiding in his army? His trusted general at Sifeen was none other than Amr bin al-Aas who openly admitted his role in the killing of Uthman proudly declaring:

"I am Abu Abdullah. When I scratch an ulcer, I cut it. I used to campaign against him vehemently. I even instigated the shepherds at the top of the mountains to revolt against him." (Al-Tabari Volume 4, pages 356-57)

This can also be found in English version.

Al-Tabari Volume 14, pages 171-172

Despite this, not only did Mu'awiya not kill him, he promoted him to his second in command - would he really have acted in this way if he sincerely wanted to avenge Uthman's murder? Demanding the killers from Ali's side and promoting the killers to Commanders on his own?

The comments of modern day Sunni academic Professor Masudul Hasan in his book Hadrat Ali Murtada (R.A.A) page 248 are indeed worthy of note:

"Mu'awiya in spite of his cry for vengeance for the blood of Hadrat Othman found no harm in making an alliance with a man who had in fact incited the rebellion against Hadrat Othman. 'Amr bin Al-Aas in spite of his bitter opposition to Hadrat Othman during his lifetime saw nothing wrong in joining the chorus for vengeance for the blood of the man in whose murder he was indirectly if not directly involved"

Hadrat Ali Murtada (R.A.A) by Professor Masudul Hasan. page 248