|
|
"To fight a Baghi is better than to fight kuffar (Ahl'ul Sunnah book al Bahar) Its written that fighting Baghis is agreed by consensus, it's a duty because Allah (swt) says in the Quran whoever dopes baghawath fight him and in Bahaar it says that ijma amongst Ahl'ul bayt that fighting baghi is superior to fighting kuffar because baghi opposition in an Islamic State is like one having Zina in the Mosque".
Sharh Muslim Vol 1 page 314 Nawawi writes
"Imam Abu Hanifa said that if one dies from baghi group or a robber, one should not read their Funeral Prayer, Qatada says a bastard's Janaza should not be read either"
Durre Mukhtarpage 70 Volume 1
Namaz Janaza is fard save 4 categories of people
1. One who dies in robbery
2. One who fights Imam-e-Haqq..
Don't perform their Ghusl or Janaza
al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 23
Kanz al 'Ummal page 89 Volume 6
Imam Ali said:
"Our Jamaat is Allah's and one who opposes us is Satans Party. One who regards them as equal is not from us".
Sharh Mawafiq page 745 Mir Seyyed Shareef states:
"in eyes of Ahl ul Sunnah there is agreement that those who fought him were sinners and Qadi Ibn al Arabi states that this sin is not fisq, view of the Shia and majority Sunni is that those who fought 'Ali became fasiq and fajir"
Sharh Mawafiq page 745
Sharh al Maqasid Vol 2 page 307 Allamah Sa'duddeen comments:
"Amongst Sahaba the differences makes it clear that some Sahaba left the path of truth and got to a point of Dhulm and Fasiq based on enmity, jealousy and a desire for power"
Other Sunni Ulema have also made similar comments:
Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyyah page 394
Al Isti'ab page 55 V 3
Fathul Qadeer page 461 V 5
Kitab ul Hidaya page 134 V 3
Fatawa Qadi Khan p 460
Fayd ul Bari Vol 2 page 56
In his flawed attempt to protect Mu'awiya's killing of Hujr, Abu Sulaiman sought to compare Mu'awiya's actions to Imam 'Ali (as)'s stance at Sifeen:
Ansar.org states:"Ali fought the rebels against his caliphate at the battle of The Camel and Saffeen, which caused the death of the best Companions and in addition, the death of thousands of Muslims, although the reason was one i.e. rebelling against the ruling of the caliph!".
Now we get a clear understanding of the Nasibi beliefs of Abu Sulaiman. Mu'awiya had no basis to kill Hujr bin Adi, as we have already discussed earlier. His only 'sin' was his opposition to the cursing of Ali (as) - pure and simple. The Qur'an and Sunnah cannot support slaying Hujr in this manner.
As for Imam Ali (as)'s stance, not a shred of condemnation can be placed on him, as Abu Sulaiman is clearly seeking to do. Imam Ali (as)'s actions were supported by the Qur'an and Sunnah. He WAS the Ul'il 'Amr and Rasulullah (s) said the following about Ali (as)
Rasulullah (s) said:
"'Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with 'Ali, the two shall not separate until the meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar"
Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32912
"'Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with 'Ali"
Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33018
"Oh Allah, turn the truth in whichever direction 'Ali turns"
al Mustadrak, Vol. 3, Page 124
These three ahadith make it clear that every decision that Imam Ali (as) takes is Haqq and is supported by the Holy Qur'an. In other words, if he declares war on rebels to his leadership, it is the truth supported by the Qur'an.
If these hadith are not prove within themselves then perhaps Abu Sulaiman could offer his views on this hadith:
"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those with whom you make war"
1. Sunan Ibn Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81
2. Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350;
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Vol.3, P149
Rasulullah (s) is clearly endorsing every position that Ali (as) takes, to the point that one he is also at war with those that Ali (as) is at wart with, i.e. Rasulullah (s) considers such individuals not just Imam Ali's opponents but his own opponents. Despite this Abu Sulaiman's Nasibi leanings lead make it impossible for him to attribute the truth to Imam Ali (as) 's position:
Ansar.org states:"Although Ali was more deserving and closer to right than Mu'awiyah was"
If anything, this demonstrates how much Nasibis seeks to play down Ali (as)'s position in the eyes of Rasulullah (s). Just contemplate the Nasibis clever play on words Ali was "closer to right" this when Rasulullah (s) stated that Ali is always with the haqq and Abu Sulaiman is suggesting that this was not entirely the case at Sifeen! Who should we follow the comments of Abu Sulaiman or those of Rasulullah (s)?
With such clear evidence one wonders how Nasibis like Abu Sulaiman have the audacity to equate Mu'awiya's baseless killing of Hujr to Imam Ali (as) war against his opponents.
Riyad ul Nadira V 3 page 234
"Rasulullah (s) told 'Ali that people have enmity to you, and it will open up after me"
In Yanabi al Muwaddah p 135 we learn that
Rasul said:
"Protect yourself from your enemies who have a hatred in their hearts. Those who hate you Allah's has cursed such individuals"
This certainly rings clear with regards to Mu'awiya. His enmity opened to Imam 'Ali(as) and came to the front. The moment Imam 'Ali (as) came to power he refused to submit to the authority of Imam 'Ali (as) and if this was not bad enough he then proved his hatred by introducing the bidah of cursing Imam 'Ali during the Friday Sermons throughout his dominion (as shall be discussed later).
Ansar.org states:"if Ali left the fight, a great goodness would happen and the shedding of the blood would be spared".
This indicates further evidence of Abu Sulaiman's pro Nasibi leanings. It is indeed curious that he does not seek to ask the same questions to his client Mu'awiya. Why did he not surrender before the battle? Would this not have saved lives? He prefers to attack 'Ali (as) blaming him for the war and failing to place even a shred of criticism against Mu'awiya. Had Imam Ali abandoned the fight, then the situation would have remained unresolved. Mu'awiya would have continued his propaganda campaign, refused to pledge baya and would continue to keep Syria and its people under his helm. How could Ali (as) allow Mu'awiya to continue to act in this way? 'Ali (as) had provided Mu'awiya with ample opportunity to step in line and Mu'awiya refused. Hence he acted properly in declaring war on Mu'awiya.
In his discussion of Surah Hujurat verse 8 Abu Sulaiman vents his anger against Imam 'Ali (as) commenting:
Ansar.org states:"Allah did not put it a condition to fight the transgressor party except when the transgressor party starts to fight. But Ali was the one who started the fight"
This further exposes Abu Sulaiman's direct attempt to place blame at the door of Imam Ali (as) in his efforts even reads a verse incorrectly so as to attack him. He claims that you can only fight when the transgressors fight first, but this is NOT what the verse states:
"if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses"
The right to fight is not based on defensive Jihad, this can be exercised when the transgressor party has exceeded its limit and acted beyond its bounds, the word fight is not used. What right does Abu Sulaiman have to interpret the verses in this way? Mu'awiya had refused to accept Imam Ali (as) demands, during that time he had incited the Syrians into such a frenzy that they were also opposing Imam Ali (as). An entire region of the Arab peninsula had transgressed and was opposing the rightful khalifa, hence Imam Ali (as) was perfectly within his right to quash their opposition.
If one is to apply Nasibi logic and blame Imam Ali (as) for fighting the transgressors, why do these same Nasibis shower praise on Abu Bakr's jihad against those who refused to pay zakaat to him?
No matter how much Abu Sulaiman would like us to believe otherwise, rebellion is an act of transgression and Abu Sulaiman's defence is baseless when we know that Rasulullah (s) had referred to the transgressors as the "baghi group" that would fight Ali (as). Rather than speak the truth, he then suggests that perhaps Mu'awiya deemed 'Ali to be the transgressor. It is interesting to note that Mu'awiya NEVER used this verse to justify his opposition and declare Imam Ali (as) as the transgressor. If we are indeed to accept Abu Sulaiman's logic then this makes a mockery of Islam, entitling Muslims to interpret the Qur'an in any way they like to get whatever result they like. If Mu'awiya had indeed sought to misinterpret this verse to fight 'Ali (as) then this does not afford him any protection in the eyes of Allah (swt).
This tradition can be located in the following books:
Riyad al Nadira V 3 p 200
Khasais al Nasai p 87
Manaqib al Khawarzmi p 44
Usd al Ghaba V 4 p 114
Matalib al Sa'ul p 64
Nuzul al Abrar p 24
Fara'id al Simtayn p 160 Ch 33
Yanabi al Mawaddah page 59 Ch 11
Hilayat al Awliya V 1 page 67
Sharh Fiqh al Akbar page 67
al Bidaya V 7 p 362
Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyya page 219
Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32967
History of the Khalifas who took the right way (Part English translation of Suyuti's Tarikh'ul Khulafa" page 180)
al Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol. 3, Page 123
Rasulullah said:
"Verily among you will be one who will fight for the meaning of the Qur'an in the same way that I fought for its revelation. People asked will that be Abu Bakr orUmar? Rasulullah (s) replied 'No, but he who is mending my shoes, that person was 'Ali"
Kanz ul Ummal, Hadith number 32967
This hadith is absolutely explicit every Jihad of 'Ali (as) will be in defence of the Qur'an, to protect it from misinterpretation. This means that even if Abu Sulaiman is seeking to defend his client Mu'awiya on the basis of alleged Qur'an interpretation, his position is one against Imam Ali (as) and is hence groundless.
Despite Abu Sulaiman's attempts to defend Mu'awiya this verse IS an indictment against him and proves that he was a transgressor. Whilst he might reject our comments, let us see how Abdullah IbnUmar interprets this very verse. Al Hakim in his al Mustadrak narrates from Hamza as follows:
"While he (Hamza) was sitting with Abdullah ibnUmar a man from Iraq came to IbnUmar. He said Abu Abdul Rahman, By Allah I have seriously been trying to follow you and adopt and attitude like yours towards the division of the nation and be neutral as far as I could. Yet I have read a verse from the Qur'an that has occupied my mind and I would like you to comment on it. "If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just), Please inform me how to comply with this verse. Abdullah said, "You have nothing to do with this, now go away. The man left, when he disappeared Abdullah said "I never found in my heart something that I felt about this verse, that I did not fight the aggressor part as Allah commanded me to do"
Al Mustadrak by al Hakim, Vol. 3, Page 115
Underneath the tradition al-Hakim states:
"This is an important narration recorded by many outstanding tabieen. I have used the channel of Shuaib Ibn Abu Hamza to Al-Zuhri because the two Sheikhs (al Bukhari and Muslim) used the channel indicating its authenticity"
Ibn Umar had already (as mentioned earlier) expressed his regret that he had failed to fight the baghi group i.e. Mu'awiya. Here he went further basing his regret on this very verse (that Abu Sulaiman used to defend Mu'awiya). Since Abu Sulaiman has consistently used IbnUmar as an authority throughout the article, one suggests that he ponders over the comments of IbnUmar hereor is Abu Sulaiman now going to suggest that he is more learned than IbnUmar on the commentary of this verse?
We read in Sahih Muslim hadith number 6970 that Umm e Salmah narrated that:
"Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) said: A band of rebels would kill Ammar".
This is a famous tradition in which Rasulullah (s) had made it clear that the murderers of Ammar WERE baghi's - Ammar's martyrdom at the hands of Mu'awiya's forces at Sifeen is clear unequivocal proof that Mu'awiya was a baghi. This would of course be the conclusion reached by one with a rational mind that is searching for the truth, not one that is seeking to defend Mu'awiya turning his deviancy in to a matter of appreciation, Abu Sulaiman is the perfect specimen of this school, he states:
Ansar.org states:About the Hadeeth: "Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party." This hadeeth is one of the greatest evidences that the truth lies with Ali but Mu'awiyah interpreted the meaning of the hadeeth differently when Ammar's death shocked Omro Bin Al-A'as and his son. Omro and his son got astound. Ahmed narrated in his Musnad from Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Omro bin Hazm from his father who says: (When Ammar bin Yaser was killed, Omro bin Hazm entered upon Omro bin Al-A'as and said: "Ammar was killed and the Prophet peace be upon him said that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party." Omro bin Al-A'as stood fearing and vomiting until he entered upon Mu'awiyah. Mu'awiyah asked him: "What is the matter?" Omro answered: "Ammar was killed." Mu'awiyah asked again: "So what if Ammar was killed?" Omro answered: "I heard the messenger of Allah saying that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party." Mu'awiyah told him: " were we the ones who killed him? Ali and his comrades killed him. They brought him (to the war) and threw him into our lances (or swords).") [Musnad the people of Syria from Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed, vol.2, Musnad Omro bin Al-A'as, #957, p.163. The Examiner of the book said the narrators of the story are trustworthy].
According to the Qur'an, Sunnah (this very hadith) and definitions of the Ahl'ul Sunnah ulama Mu'awiya was a baghi. His attempts to reject this and accuse Imam Ali (as) of killing Ammar "The one who killed Ammar is the one who brought him" is irrelevant and further exposes his deviancy. In fact his treachery is clear from the fact that not only did he twist the hadith he also became abusive.
We read in History of al-Tabari, Translation volume xvii, The First Civil war, page 69
"Abdallah [son of Amr bin al-Aas] said to his father, "Father, have you killed this man in your fighting today, even though the Messenger of God has said what he said about him?" Amr asked what that was, and his son said: "Were you not with us while we were building the mosque and everyone was moving stone by stone and brick by brick while Ammar brought two stones and two bricks at a time? The effort caused him to faint, and the Messenger of God came to him and began wiping dust from his face, saying, 'Alas for you, Ibn Sumayyah! The people transport stone by stone and brick by brick while you move two stones and two bricks at a time, desiring (divine) reward. In spite of that the usurping party will kill you. Alas for you'" Amr pushed Abdallah's horse away and pulled Mu'awiya toward him. He said, "Mu'awiya, do you not hear what Abdallah is saying?" Mu'awiya asked what it was, and Amr reported the story. Mu'awiya said: "You are a stupid old man. You keep on telling stories while you slither about in your piss. Was it we who killed Ammar? It was only those who brought him here." And the men came out from their tents and bivouacs, saying, "It was only those who brought Ammar who killed him."
Mu'awiya's redefinition is in fact further evidence of how low he was willing to stoop to slander Imam Ali (as) to the point of intentionally misinterpreting a hadith to fit his rebellion. Mu'awiya may well have sought to convince his supporters but Ammar's death stands testament to where the truth lay.
In his discussion of Sifeen Maudoodi writes as follows:
"There were some companions who were reluctant to participate in Jihad as they were unsure which party was that of truth and which party was that of falsehood. After Ammar ibn Yasir's death the matter became clear. It is on this basis that Abu Bakr al Jassas writes in Ahkam ul Qur'an, Volume 3 page 492: 'Ali ibne Abi Talib (ra) fought a rebellious group. Accompanying him were recognised Sahaba who had participated in Badr, they were in the right. The Prophet told Amar that a 'baghi group will kill you' this hadith is Mutawatir and Sahih, so much so that when Abdullah bin Umar bin Aas said this to Mu'awiya he did not refute it". Allamah Ibn 'Abdul Barr in al Isti'ab Volume 2 page 424 records the hadith 'a baghi group will kill Ammar, this is a Mutawatir / Sahih tradition. Allamah Hafid Ibn Hajar in al Isaba writes on Volume 2 page 502 'After Ammar's murder it became clear that the truth was with 'Ali and on this the Ahl'ul Sunnah became united when previously there were differing opinions" (Al Khilfat wa Mulukiyyat - by Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi, pages 136-138)
This hadith is so explicit only one of the calibre of Mu'awiya could redefine it so suit his own needs. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, what about the proponent of this hadith Ammar bin Yasir? Did he not know where right and wrong lay? If he did then why was he fighting Mu'awiya? Clearly Ammar knew where the truth was in that there is no doubt, and in that connection we have his testimony
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 038, Number 6688:
"Qais reported: I said to 'Ammar: What is your opinion about that which you have done in case (of your siding with Hadrat 'Ali)? Is it your personal opinion or something you got from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)? 'Ammar said: We have got nothing from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which people at large did not get, but Hudhaifa told me that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) had especially told him amongst his Companion, that there would be twelve hypocrites out of whom eight would not get into Paradise, until a camel would be able to pass through the needle hole. The ulcer would be itself sufficient (to kill) eight. So far as four are concerned, I do not remember what Shu'ba said about them".
It is clear from this tradition that Ammar is referred to his opponents (and those of Imam 'Ali) in battle as munafiqs. Even more interesting is that he associated this group with the list of 12 or 14 hypocrites from the Aqaba incident who had tried to assassinate the Prophet (s) and about whom only Hudhayfa was told their names, for which he was called 'saahib al-sirr' (man with the secret).
Of interest is Abu Sulaiman's own admission that Mu'awiya was wrong, he says:
Ansar.org states:But the truth that should be said is that these thinkings are definitely false and that the truth is with Ali. But Mu'awiyah's party are excused in their interpretation because they wanted the truth but did not get it.
So he is admitting:
The truth was with Ali
Mu'awiya's assertion was false, but is 'excused' because he was looking for the truth
Subhanallah! What sort of search for the truth is this? One that entitles an individual to rebel against the rightful khalifa, incite people to join in his opposition and then fight the khalifa! And who has excused Mu'awiya for his transgression? Does Abu Sulaiman have any evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah to prove this point? Rasulullah (s) saidAmmar would be killed by baghi's. Did he state that this baghi group will be excused because they will be searching for the truth? Is there any verse of the Qur'an stating that one who is a transgressor is excused? According to Abu Sulaiman all this is permissible in Islam and it was based on interpretation i.e. ijtihad. If the truth was with Ali (as), a fact that Rasulullah had vouched for, as we have mentioned, how did Mu'awiya feel that he was on the path of truth by fighting Ali (as)? Abu Sulaiman can defend Mu'awiya all he likes, the fact is he was a baghi and one who is a baghi can NOT use ijtihad to justify his opposition. A Mujtahid can ONLY exercise Ijtihaad when no solution is available in the Qur'an and Sunnah. When the Qur'an states clearly the obedience to the Ul'il Umr is unconditional and we have Ahl'ul Sunnah traditions in which Rasulullah (s) condemned splitting from the Jamaah then it is evident that the excuses provided by Abu Sulaiman are as weak as the claim that Imam Ali and his party were baghi's having brought Ammar to the battlefield.
Abu Sulaiman, that for every Shi'a accusation
Ansar.org states:"against Mu'awiyah, there would be a similar argument from other parties. Ahl Al-Sunnah are pleased by the two parties, and do not consider them impious".
Only a Nasibi could claim such a lie. Abu Sulaiman by citing this example is in effect suggesting that any sin has been cancelled out since both parties were as culpable as each other. This type of answer can only come from those bearing a hidden grudge towards Imam 'Ali (as). If we take this type of excuse to its logical conclusion then Mu'awiya's alleged father 'Abu Sufyan fought Rasulullah (s) and Rasulullah (s) fought him, so no blame should be apportioned to either since both were responsible for deaths. In Badr, Uhud, Khayber, Khunduq and Hunain Muslims fought kuffar, they were both equal in the blame. By the same token we should distinguish between a goat and a cow since both eat grass, or one's sister from one's wife since both are women. This is the typical Nasibi thinking, a concerted effort not to distinguish truth from falsehood in their attempts to lower the exalted rank of Maula 'Ali (as).
In response to this Nasibi defence what better reply to Abu Sulaiman can there be than Imam 'Ali (as)'s own assessment of the situation. This sermon of Imam 'Ali was said at Sifeen and can be located in the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah - Waq'at Sifeen page 314, Jamarth Khattab al Arab Volume 1 page 353, Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Volume 5 page 245
"I made a promise with Rasulullah (s) that I shall never forego. Your enemies are approaching, you should know that their leader is a hypocrite son of a hypocrite. He is inviting his supporters to Hell Fire while you have the cousin of Rasulullah (s) in your midst, as you know, no one else performed Salat with Rasulullah (s) before me. I am from amongst the participants of Badr while Mu'awiya is the freed captive, son of a freed captive. By Allah! We are on the path of truth whilst Mu'awiya is on the path of falsehood".
One needs to remind our readers that first and foremost Imam Ali (as) was the rightful khalifa and Mu'awiya was a baghi - so right from the start this premise that both parties are just as guilty falls flat. Imam Ali (as)'s actions were supported by the Qur'an and hadith, Rasulullah (s) said he is at war with anyone that 'Ali (as) fights, proving his actions will always be correct. If we were to take 'Abu Sulaiman's allegation as true then this would suggest that Rasulullah (s) was also culpable! Mu'awiya had no texts to support his rebellion. Abu Sulaiman may feel happy living the dream blindly quoting the defence:
Ansar.org states: "Ahl Al-Sunnah are pleased by the two parties, and do not consider them impious" - but we give greater credence to the words of Imam Ali and in Sharh Ibn Al Hadeed Volume 6 page 71, we read the letter of Imam 'Ali (as) to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, that destroys this baseless notion:
"Protect yourself from Hind's lying son and his invitation, stop and think, the Imam of guidance and the Imam of destruction, Rasulullah's wasi (executor) and Rasulullah's enemies can never be seen as equals".
Through his opposition and propaganda campaign against the Imam he was responsible for inciting fitnah and causing the death of thousands of people. What is interesting is the fact that 'defences' and 'explanation' are ONLY provided by the Ahl'ul Sunnah for those who rebelled against Imam Ali (as). Why are counter arguments and explanation never provided by Abu Sulaiman and his company for those that rebelled against Abu Bakr, refusing to hand over zakat to him? These individuals are not deemed impious, worse they are deemed murtad! Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi, in his book "Murtad ki Saza" (Punishment of the apostate) states that those who did not pay Zakat became apostates because they rebelled against the Khalifa of the time (Murtad ki Saza, page 24 - 25 Karachi edition 1954) Curiously when the companions rebel against Ali (as) and wage war against him the same thinking is not applied, rather as Abu Sulaiman claims they searched for the truth, could not find it but will be forgiven and will be rewarded for it, as Abu Sulaiman comments:
Ansar.org states:"the party of Ali was right, and Mu'awiyah was not a despotic, nor a caller to falsehood, but he searched for the truth and did not find it. Therefore, Mu'awiyah is rewarded for his religious interpretation. None of the two was an oppressor or impious".
Rasulullah (s) clearly referred to the party that killed Ammar as baghi, he did not say that they would be rewarded having exercised ijtihad. He condemned the killers of Amar so hence we can condemn them and call them pious. How was Mu'awiya searching for the truth by opposing Imam 'Ali (as) who Rasulullah said is with the truth and the truth was with him? To suggest that all acts will be forgiven and rewarded on account of religious interpretation (ijtihad) is such perverse concept it in fact attacks the core of Shari'a - justice. We have dedicated a separate article exposing the fallacy of the ijtihad of the companions, but for the moment the cynical comments from Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work "Nasbaan Muluk Adoud" page 224 will suffice:
"Ijtihaad is a very unusual concept, which in effect suggests that you can do whatever you like and can simply present ijtihaad as an excuse, by the same token kaafirs could likewise rely in ijtihaad Shaykh ul Hadith Abu Jahil, Shaykh ul Islam Abu Sufyan and the Great Imam Ibne Ziyad all performed deeds in the name of ijtihaad! Mu'awiya contradicted the Qur'an and Sunnah in his exercise of ijtihaad, and there is no basis to make ijtihaad when there is clear text available".
In al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 24 this tradition is taken from Ibn Asheer who quotes this sermon of Imam 'Ali (as):
"Mu'awiya and his army should be killed as they are Qasatheen neither are they from amongst those that understand the Qur'an, nor are they experts on the principles of deen, nor are they counted as scholars who can issue verdicts".
These words discredit the false notion that Mu'awiya had exercised ijtihad Imam Ali (as) made it clear that he had no basis to oppose and had no defence in Shari'a to support his rebellion.
In Tarikh Kamil Volume 3 page 140, the words of Imam 'Ali (as) are recorded:
"Mu'awiya and his supporters such as Amr bin Aas were dishonest, they had no knowledge of the Qur'an, I know them from their childhood through to their adolescence, they were the worst of all people".
This testimony of Imam 'Ali (as) in effect destroys the defence of ijtihad. Ijtihad is exercised by an scholar who is honest and posses a command of the Qur'an and Sunnah. In the eyes of Imam Ali (as) Mu'awiya was dishonest and ignorant of the Qur'an hence he was in no position to rely on the Qur'an to justify his opposition.
Al Isti'ab page 340 Volume 2
Abdullah bin Umro regretted his fighting alongside Mu'awiya at Sifeen and on his deathbed he said "If only I had died 10 years before Sifeen", by joining Mu'awiya and fighting 'Ali he was very embarrassed at time of death and he recited tauba for his sin"
Now if both parties were indeed right as is 'Abu Sulaiman's claim then why was bin Umro asking for forgiveness having fought with Mu'awiya at Sifeen? According to Abu Sulaiman's logic there would be nothing to be shameful about since both will be rewarded - but the regret, embarrassment and tauba of this participant destroys the fallacy of ijtihad since Abdullah bin Amr al Aas clearly viewed his support of Mu'awiya to be a great sin for which he sought the forgiveness of Allah (swt).
We read in Waq'at Sifeen page 218 that Zaid bin Arkam narrated that he heard Rasulullah (s) say:
"If you ever see Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas sitting together then split them up because they will never unite on anything good"
We read in al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 94 and Tatheer al Jinan page 120 that Rasulullah (s) said the following:
If you ever see Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas sitting together then split them up because verily they will only unite on deception.
This hadith has also been recorded in similar words by other leading Sunni authorities" (Kanz al-ummal, 6:88 (Haydarabad); al-Haythami, Majma al-Zawa'id, 7:248)
This tradition and the former destroys Abu Sulaiman's defense of ijtihad in the case of Mu'awiya, because Rasulullah (s) said anything they do will be deception i.e. would contradict the dictates of the Deen. Ijtihad is based on sincere interpretation in the absence of nass (text). Rasulullah (s) said the union of these two individuals would ALWAYS be based on deception and never for a good cause NOT on matters pertaining to Deen. Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas united at Sifeen against the Imam of the time. Their claims to avenge the death of Uthman was deception as testified by the words of Rasulullah (s).
Ansar.org states:Authentic traditions prove that both parties have the same claim and seek the truth they believe. These authentic traditions also declare that the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Hurayrah who says: (The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: "Judgement Day will not come until two parties fight with similar claims.") [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of "Virtues," Chapter of "Signs of Prophecy in Islam," #3413] This hadeeth, as you see, proves that the two parties have the same demand and the same religion.
We reiterate that we are not saying Imam Ali (as) was fighting Kuffar, the battle was with baghi's / transgressors. Both parties might indeed have the same demand but the question Abu Sulaiman intentionally avoids is to cast light on which party is on the right path which party was correct in its demand, Ali demanding obedience or Mu'awiya refusing obedience and opposing him. We know from the hadith cited earlier that Rasulullah (s) said that Imam Ali was on Haqq, supported by the Qur'an and would fight the Baghi Party. So these hadith make it clear that the demands of Imam Ali (as) that Mu'awiya submit to his authority was the correct demand, supported by the Qur'an and hadith. Mu'awiya's opposition was and cannot in retrospect (despite Abu Sulaiman's loyal efforts) be supported by the Shari'a. He WAS following falsehood. Now let us analyse the second hadith:
Ansar.org states:Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Saeed Al-khudaro who says: (The messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: "Renegades will pass through a group of Muslims. They would be killed by the more deserving party of truth.") [Muslim with Explanation, Book of "Zakkat," Chapter of "The Kharijites and their characteristics," #150] This hadeeth clears that both parties ask for the truth and fight for it. Meaning that the two parties were intending the truth and requesting it. This hadeeth also shows that the truth lies with Ali because he was the one who fought these renegades i.e. the Kharijites at Al-Nahrawan.
Interesting is the fact that in this hadith Rasulullah (s) did not say that the other party was also on the truth! It clearly indicates that Imam Ali (as)'s Party IS the party of truth, has Rasulullah (s) showered praise on the other group?
Abu Sulaiman had stated, "These authentic traditions also declare that the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood". We wonder how it is that Abu Sulaiman has arrived at this conclusion. Did Rasulullah (s) state in either of these traditions "the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood"? He (s) clearly did not identify which party was correct and this can be further proven from the other hadith cited so we should remind our readers of the repercussions for one who attributes a lie to Rasulullah (s).
Abu Sulaiman then cites the words of Al-Nawawi:
Ansar.org states:"It is a declaration that both parties are believers and fighting each other does not cancel their faith and they should be not called impious." [Sahih Muslim vol.7, p.235]
Nawawi asserts that it does not cancel their faith, but the Qur'an and Sunnah tell us perpetrators of such crimes have committed kufr:
"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93)
Further, Abdullah IbnUmar narrates he heard Rasulullah (s) say:
|
|