Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter 2: Imam al-Hassan’s Pacifism (Session 2)

Our discussion was about Imam al-Hassan’s (‘a) peace. In the previous session we made a sketch of the issues regarding war and peace in Islam on the basis of the Islamic jurisprudence. We specifically said that, in general (as evident from Islamic history) and in certain situations, it is permitted (or possibly compulsory) for an imam or the leader of Muslims to sign a peace agreement in the same manner that the Prophet (s) officially agreed to do so in different situations.

In certain situations, he signed peace agreements with the ‘People of the Book’ [ahl al-kitab] and at times even with the pagans. Of course, in other specific cases he would fight them.

Then, we gave a summary of the Islamic jurisprudence and we said that, on the basis of the so-called intellectual juristic preferences, it is not wise to assert that if a religion or a system (or call it whatever you wish) permits the law of war then it means that this religion or that system considers it necessary in all situations and in no case whatsoever does it allow for peace or coexistence by means of abandoning hostility.

The opposite point to this is just as wrong, which is when someone claims that they are essentially ‘anti-war’ and wholly ‘pro-peace’. It is likely that many wars created the basis for a more comprehensive peace while much reconciliation prepared the basis for victorious battles.

This was the summary of what we said in the previous session. We then decided to speak about the kind of situation Imam al-Hassan (‘a) was in and what the conditions were, upon which Imam al-Hassan agreed to make peace, or more precisely, forced to do so. Also, what the differences were between the circumstances of Imam al-Hassan and the circumstances of Imam al-Husayn(‘a) that Imam al-Husayndecided not to make peace? There are many differences, the aspects of which I will tell you about and you can judge for yourselves later.

Contrasting the circumstances of Imam al-Hassan (‘a) and Imam al-Husayn(‘a)

The first difference is that Imam al-Hassan (‘a) was in the caliphate position and Mu‘awiyah had the label of a governor. It seems that at the time he had not yet started to call himself the caliph of the nation or the Commander of the Faithful. However, he rebelled as a mutineer and a protestor during Imam ‘Ali’s (‘a) time as caliph, under the slogan of not accepting ‘Ali’s regency, he claimed that ‘Ali had given shelter to ‘Uthman’s killers and that ‘Ali himself was involved in the assassination of the true caliph of the Muslims; therefore, he could not be the rightful caliph.

As such, Mu‘awiyah rebelled as a protestor in a group of protestors under the same slogana combat against a government that was not lawfully established and whose leader has blood on his hands.

Up to then, he never claimed vice regency and people had not started referring to him as the Commander of the Faithful. He would just claim that they were a group of people who did not wish to obey the government.

Imam al-Hassan takes the position of vice-regent after Imam ‘Ali. Mu‘awiyah became more powerful day by day. Due to specific historical

reasons the circumstances of Imam ‘Ali’s government, that Imam al-Hassan later inherited, was being weakened from within.

It has been written, that 18 days after ‘Ali’s martyrdom, Mu‘awiyah leaves to conquer Iraq (these eighteen days include the time it took for the news to spread as far as Damascus and Mu‘awiyah’s announcement for public preparation and mobilization of an army). Here, Imam al-Hassan is in a particular situation: he is the caliph of Muslims and a rebellion has risen against him.

Imam al-Hassan’s murder in this situation would mean the murder of the caliph of the Muslims and defeat of the core of the caliphate. Imam al-Hassan’s resistance to the point of getting killed was similar to that of ‘Uthman during his time. However, it was not similar to Imam al-Husayn’s resistance.

Imam al-Husayn’s situation was a situation of protest against the ruling government.1 If he would get killed (which he did), his death would be an honorable one, which in fact became so. He objected to the situation, the government of the time and the spread of corruption. He believed that they did not qualify for the task and during the passed twenty years they proved what kind of people they really were. He remained persistent upon his word until the very end. For this reason, specifically, his uprising was and continues to be considered honorable and courageous.

Form this point of view, the circumstances of Imam al-Hassan are exactly contrary to those of Imam al-Husayn: he was someone who was placed in the position of governor who faced objections from an opposition. As mentioned before, if he were to be killed, his death would mean the death of a rightful leader. This in itself was an issue which even Imam al-Husayn refrained from: that no one in the position of prophet or a vice regent must be killed. We see that Imam al-Husaynis not willing to get killed in Mecca, Why? He said: it would be the respect for Mecca that would be destroyed. They will kill me anyway. Why should they kill me in such a place of sanctity, which would only cause disparagement to the House of Allah?

We see that during the rebellion against ‘Uthman,2 ‘Ali is trying extremely hard to respond to their demands in order to stop ‘Uthman from being killed (this has also been mentioned in the Nahj al-Balaghah). He defended ‘Uthman to such an extent that once he said, “I have defended ‘Uthman so much that I have fears of being sinful for it.”3

But why did he defend ‘Uthman? Was he a supporter of ‘Uthman as a person? No. The extent of his defence was explained when he said: I fear that you will be ‘the assassinated caliph’. It would be a disgrace for the Muslim World to have a caliph of the Muslims killed during his time at rule. It will be considered as disrespect to the caliphate as a whole. This is why ‘Ali said that they have lawful demands. He advised ‘Uthman to fulfil their demands so that they go back to where they came from. On the other hand, ‘Ali did not want to give the rebels the expression that they should go about their business, forget about the truth and not complain about a situation that was getting worse by the day, even though it would inevitably mean more power for a ruler who was being obdurate. Of course, he would never say

these words and he should not have. But at the same time, he did not want ‘Uthman to get killed while he was still in power. At the end, in spite of ‘Ali’s desire this took place.

If Imam al-Hassan had resisted then, from what is apparent from history, the final result would have been getting killed, which means the death of the Imam and the Caliph in power. Imam al-Husayn’sgetting killed was the death of a protester. This is one difference between Imam al-Hassan’s circumstances and Imam al-Husayn’s. The second difference was in connection with the weakening of Iraqi forces, i.e. the forces in Kufah, which is true.

However, this did not mean that they were destroyed completely and if Mu‘awiyah had attacked, he would have conquered Kufah in one swoop, which is incomparable to the ease and simplicity the Prophet conquered Mecca with. Numerous companions of Imam al-Hassan had betrayed him and the number of hypocrites in Kufah had risen and so Kufah was in a chaotic situation, which was the cause of many historical incidences.

One of the biggest disasters that took place in Kufah was the appearance of the Kharijites. ‘Ali considered the reason for their appearance to be the unrestricted conquers that took place one after the other, without the corresponding training and discipline that were required after such conquers. People who had not been disciplined or had not become acquainted with the depth of Islamic teachings had come among the Muslims, yet claimed to be better Muslims than Muslims themselves.

Nevertheless, disunity had appeared in Kufah. We can all confess to the fact that the hands of the one who is not bound to principles of humanity, religion, faith or morals are more open to different options or methods than the hands of the one who does abides by such principles

Mu‘awiyah had founded the establishment of an enormous base in Kufah. He would constantly send spies to Kufah who would either distribute a lot of money in order to buy people’s consciences or spread false rumours in order to ruin their spirits.

All of this put aside, if Imam al-Hassan had resisted and at the same time prepared a massive army to confront Mu‘awiyahan army of about thirty to forty thousand, or may be as some historians claim even one hundred thousand so he could match Mu‘awiyah’s huge army of one hundred and fifty thousandwhat would have been the outcome? In Siffin, when the Iraqi forces were better and more powerful, Imam ‘Ali fought Mu‘awiyah for eighteen months. After those eighteen months, when he was about to be defeated, Mu‘awiyah and his army carried out that treacherous act of raising the Qur’an on spears. If Imam al-Hassan was to fight, a war would have taken place which would have lasted for many years between these two enormous groups of Muslims of Iraq and Damascus. Furthermore, thousands of people would have been killed without achieving a final goal.

As history shows, there was no chance for them to defeat Mu‘awiyah and in all probability Imam al-Hassan would have been defeated in the end. What kind of honor is there in fighting for years, causing thousands of people to get killed from both sides and a final outcome of either weariness

for both sides and going back where they came from or Imam al-Hassan’s defeat and later being killed in the position of vice-regent.

Imam al-Husayn, however, had a troop which did not exceed seventy two men. He even dismisses them saying, “Leave if you want to, I will stay on my own.” But they resisted until they got killed. They were killed with one hundred percent glory. Therefore, these two differences have been named for the time being:

1. Imam al-Hassan was in the seat of caliphate and if he was to be killed, the caliph would have been killed.

3. Imam al-Hassan’s army did not equalize Mu‘awiyah’s and the outcome of initiating this war would have been a continuation of this war for a long time, large numbers of Muslims getting killed, without achieving the right final purpose.

The elements contributing to Imam al-Husayn’suprisal and their contrasts with Imam al-Hassan’s circumstances

Imam al-Hassan and Imam al-Husayn(‘a) differed from each other in many other situations. There were three fundamental elements involved in Imam al-Husayn’suprisal. When we observe any of these three elements, we see that they had different forms during Imam al-Hassan’s time.

The first element that caused Imam al-Husayn’suprisal was the demand of the tyrant government of the time for Imam al-Husaynto pledge an oath of allegiance to them, “Get al-Husaynto pledge allegiance! Grab him hard. Have no mercy upon him. He must pledge his allegiance.”

They requested for Imam al-Husaynto pledge his oath of allegiance. Taking this into consideration, Imam al-Husayn’sresponse was only, “No, I will not swear allegiance. And he did not. His response was negative.”

What about Imam al-Hassan? Did Mu‘awiyah ask Imam al-Hassan to swear allegiance to him, when he had decided to make peace with Mu‘awiyah? (Swearing allegiance means acceptance of government.) No. On the contrary, one of the conditions of the peace treaty was that there should be no requests for oaths of allegiance. Apparently, historians have also claimed that neither Imam al-Hassan nor anyone from his people, including Imam al-Husayn, his other brothers, companions or other followers of Imam al-Hassan gave their oaths of allegiance to Mu‘awiyah. The issue of giving oath of allegiance was never put forward. Therefore, the element of swearing in allegiance which was one of the issues that forced Imam al-Husayn’sresistance did not exist in Imam al-Hassan’s case.

The second element causing the uprising of Imam al-Husaynwas the Kufah invitation as a prepared city. After twenty years of toleration under Mu‘awiyah’s rule, torture and oppression, the people of Kufah had truly become desperate. You can even see some people who believed4 that Kufah had become a one-hundred-percent prepared city and a sudden course of events transformed the situation.

The people of Kufah wrote eighteen thousand letters to Imam al-Husaynannouncing their preparation. However, when Imam al-Husaynfinally came, they did not help him. Everyone, of course, says, “Then, the grounds were not ready completely.” However, from a historical

point of view, if Imam al-Husaynhad not taken those letters into consideration, then history would have found him guilty. Historians would have said that he lost a perfectly prepared opportunity, whereas in Kufah during the time of Imam al-Hassan, the situation was the opposite. Kufah was tired and irritated. Kufah was depressed and disturbed. Thousands of disagreements could be found there. As we see, Kufah was the city about which Imam ‘Ali, toward the end of his government, constantly complained about. He complained about its people and their lack of preparation. He always prayed, “Oh Allah! Please take me away from these people and give them the government that they deserve so that they may later realize the value of my government. When I say a ‘prepared Kufah’, I mean that an ultimatum had been issued to Imam al-Husayn.”

Unlike others I do not want to say that Kufah was truly prepared or that Imam al-Husayn(‘a) was truly counting on Kufah. No. The ultimatum issued to Imam al-Husayn(‘a) took place in a situation that even if the grounds were not fully prepared, he could not disregard this ultimatum. What about the case of Imam al-Hassan? In Imam al-Hassan’s case the opposite of issuing an ultimatum had taken place. The people of Kufah had already shown that they were not ready.

The situation inside Kufah was so bad that even Imam al-Hassan avoided most of Kufah’s people. He would wear his armour under his cloth whenever he came out, even for prayers. This was because the Kharijites and Mu‘awiyah’s protégés were plentiful and there was a danger of him getting killed. Once when he was praying, he was shot but because he was wearing his armour the shooting did not take affect. Other than this, he would have been murdered.

Thus, an ultimatum was issued to Imam al-Husaynby the invitations from the people of Kufah and because it was issued Imam al-Husaynhad to considered it. But Imam al-Hassan’s circumstances differed in that the people of Kufah had almost announced their lack of preparation.

The third element involved in Imam al-Husayn’suprising was the aspect of ‘enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil’ [al-amr bi’l-ma‘ruf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar]. That is to say, despite the fact that they were demanding for allegiance from Imam al-Husain, his reluctance to do so, regardless of the fact that the ultimatum had been issued by the invitations from the people of Kufah, and his announcement in response of his willingness, this was another element which caused Imam al-Husayn to rise up.

This means that if they had not invited him or had asked him to swear in allegiance with them, he would have still revolted for the sake of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil. Since Mu‘awiyah acquired the caliphate, whatever he carried out was against Islam. His government was tyrannical and oppressive. His oppression and hostility was known by all and can still be seen up to this day. He changed Islamic rules. He was embezzling and misusing the public treasury. He had shed the blood of respectable people and so forth. The worse sin he committed was choosing his alcoholic, gambler son as his ‘crown prince’ and forcefully gave him his position. It is an exigency on us to object to them. As the Prophet says, “If

anyone sees an oppressive ruler with these indications and does not object to the ruler’s sayings or actions, he has committed a sin that deserves the same punishment Allah assigns for the oppressive ruler.”5

There is no discussion, however, in the fact that this was virtually the case during the time of Mu‘awiyah. Imam al-Hassan had no doubt about Mu‘awiyah’s identity. During Imam ‘Ali’s time, Mu‘awiyah objected and said that he only wanted to take vengeance for the blood of ‘Uthman, but now he says, “I am willing to follow the Book of Allah one hundred percent, the customs of the Prophet (s) and the path of the previous caliphs. I will not designate a successor for myself. After me, the caliphate is for Hassan ibn ‘Ali and even after him for Husaynibn ‘Ali.” This means that he confessed to their rights upon the caliphate. “They just have to submit the affairs” (the word in the clause of contract was ‘submit the affairs’), which meant bequeath affairs to me. “This is all I am saying. Imam al-Hassan will step aside for the time being and hand over the job to me and I shall undertake it following these conditions.” He sends a signed blank piece of paper and says, “Any condition Hassan ibn ‘Ali desires can be put down here and I will accept it. If I do not follow the rules of Islam completely, then I would no longer want to have this position. Up to then, people had not had any experience the like of Mu‘awiyah.”

Now let us assume that the opposite had been presented to us by history. In a similar way Mu‘awiyah sends a signed paper to Imam al-Hassan and accepted such pledges saying, “You agree to step aside. What would you want the caliphate for? I will administrate your desires. The only issue remaining is whether the one who is going to execute the Book of Allah and the divine customs will be you or me? Do you want to start a bloody battle because you want to be the one who is going to do this? If Imam al-Hassan had not submitted under such conditions and continued to go through with the war, one hundred thousand of people would have been killed.

There would have been much destruction and in the end Imam al-Hassan himself would have been killed. Today’s history would have blamed Imam al-Hassan and said that such a situation demanded for peace (and he should have made peace). The Prophet also made peace in many instances. After all, one must make peace in some circumstances. Yes, if we were present, then, we would have said that this was nothing other than Mu‘awiyah wanting himself to be the ruler. All right, he can rule. He is not asking you to accept him as a caliph.

He does not want you to call him the Commander of the Faithful6 nor does he want you to swear allegiance with him. Even if you would have said that the life of all Shi‘ahs was in danger, he would sign that all the followers (Shi‘ahs) of your father are under protection and I shall cross out all the resentment I have from them since Siffin. From a financial point of view, I am willing to cancel the taxes of parts of this country and allocate it to you so you can manage yourself and your followers as well as your relatives, so that you would not be in need of us financially.

If Imam al-Hassan had not accepted peace under these conditions he would have been condemned by history. He agreed and when he did, history condemned the other side. Because of his jittery Mu‘awiyah accepted all

these conditions. The outcome was his victory from political aspect, showing that he was one hundred percent a man of politics and that there was nothing but diplomacy in his nature.

Therefore, as soon as he acquired the seat of power and the position of vice-regent, he abandoned all the conditions in the contract he agreed to by not abiding by a single one of them. By doing so he proved his devious personality. Even when he came to Kufah, he bluntly said, “Oh people of Kufah! I never fought with you to make you pray, fast, go to Hajj or pay Islamic taxes. I fought you so that I could be your chief and leader.” He later realized that this statement was not to his advantage and therefore continued, “I know that you will fulfil these duties yourselves and that there is no need for me to insist on them.”

One of the conditions on the contract was that after him the vice regency belonged to Hassan ibn ‘Ali and after him to al-Husaynibn ‘Ali. But after seven or eight years passed from the start of his government he started raising the issue of Yazid’s succession to throne after him.

According to the contract he agreed to leave the followers of ‘Ali in peace. However, he inconvenienced them greatly before causeing problems between them.

What, in fact, was difference between Mu‘awiyah and ‘Uthman? There is no difference other than that ‘Uthman, more or less, saved his position among Muslims (non-Shi‘ahs) as a great caliph who, of course, made some mistakes. As for Mu‘awiyah, he only became famous as a scheming politician. The jurists’ view about Mu‘awiyah and the ones who came after him among the row caliphs who came after the Prophet (s) to execute Islam is that they deviated completely from the Islamic route and got labelled as kings, monarchs and princes.

Therefore, when we compare the situation of Imam al-Hassan to that of Imam al-Husayn, we will see that they are incomparable in every way.

The last issue that I want to talk about is the fluent logic and the sharp blade that Imam al-Husayn(‘a) possessed. What was that?

If anyone sees an oppressive ruler who is doing such and such (i.e. being domineering) and keeps silent about it, he is considered sinful by Allah. This was, however, not applicable to Imam al-Hassan. What was actually offered to Imam al-Hassan was that if he were to follow up such an issue, they would react by doing such and such. Thus, by saying that “they will do such and such” is different to something already being carried out by them and which now only serves as evidence against them.

This is why it has been said that Imam al-Hassan’s peace prepared the grounds for Imam al-Husayn’suprising. It was necessary for Imam al-Hassan to step aside for a while so the hidden and concealed identity of the Umayyad Dynasty became evident for the people. Therefore, the consequent uprising is more justified in history.

After this peace contract, when it became obvious that Mu‘awiyah was not bound to any of the conditions of the contract, some Shi‘ahs came to Imam al-Hassan and said, “This peace contract is annulled.” They were right. Because Mu‘awiyah had breached it; therefore, come and revolt. He said, “No uprising will come after Mu‘awiyah.” This means he gave more

time so that their staus was made more obvious, then the time for uprising would have come. This sentence means if Imam al-Hassan was alive after Mu‘awiyah and present in the time of Imam al-Husayn, he too would have risen against him most definitely.

Therefore, according to the three above-mentioned elements, the uprising of Imam al-Husaynwas serious, lawful and correct. Imam al-Hassan’s situation, however, was completely different and contradictory. Allegiance had been demanded from Imam al-Husaynbut never demanded from Imam al-Hassan (allegiance itself was an issue for Imam al-Husayn). An ultimatum was issued by the people of Kufah. People claimed that Kufah had awakened after twenty years.

They claimed that after twenty years under Mu‘awiyah’s rule, Kufah was not the same as it was before. They had now become grateful to ‘Ali, grateful to Imam al-Hassan and to Imam al-Husayn. When the name of Imam al-Husaynwas mentioned among the people of Kufah, they shed tears. Their tree is now bearing its fruit and the grounds have become green. Come! The grounds are completely prepared. These invitations were an ultimatum to Imam al-Husayn. This was the opposite for Imam al-Hassan. Anyone who saw the status of Kufah, he/she would say Kufah is not at all prepared.

The third issue were the corrupt acts of the government (I do not mean the corruptness of the ruler, no, that is another issue and the corrupt acts of the government is another). Mu‘awiyah still has to show his real self and prepare the grounds for enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil (i.e. for uprising) or produce the so-called obligation. This, however, was completely the case in the time of Imam al-Husayn.

The conditions in the contract

Now I will read you some of the conditions that were included in the contract so you can see what status they had. This is how conditions of the contract had been written:

1) Ruling will be bequeathed to Mu‘awiyah7 under the condition that he follows the Book of Allah, the conducts of the Prophet (s) and the way of the eminent caliphs (it is necessary for me to have a say here: ‘Ali has a principle according to which he says: I will not rise for vice-regency which is my right or I become the caliph or anyone else. This is the people’s duty. I will rise when I see the one who has taken the reins of power has digressed from the affairs).

The following has been mentioned in the Nahj al-Balaghah,

“As long as oppression is only toward me and they have taken away my rights and other affairs are in their line, I submit. I will rise when they have crossed the line concerning the affairs of Muslims.”8

This is actually a clause from the contract. Imam al-Hassan concludes a contract this way. As long as oppression is towards me and they have deprived me of my right but the usurper is willing to undertake upon himself Muslims’ affairs in its correct manner, I am willing to step aside under this condition.

2) After Mu‘awiyah, the government belongs to Imam al-Hassan and if anything happens to him, it will go to Imam al-Husayn. This sentence meant

that the peace agreement was intended for a temporary period of time. Imam al-Hassan had not agreed to leave power to Mu‘awiyah so that he may do whatever he wished for as long as he wished. They had agreed that the peace treaty would be in force “until Mu‘awiyah was still in power”. This peace is for that given period and did not include the time after Mu‘awiyah. Therefore, Mu‘awiyah did not have the right to plan for anything ahead of his time or to choose himself a successor.

3) Mu‘awiyah had made cursing and profanity towards Imam ‘Ali (‘a) a custom in Syria. It was mentioned in the text of the contract that he should put a stop to this, “Mu‘awiyah has to stop cursing ‘Ali in his prayers and can only evoke him in goodness.” This was signed with commitment by Mu‘awiyah. They propagandized against ‘Ali and said, “We curse ‘Ali because he (God-forbid) digressed from the religion of Islam.” The individual who signed this contract has agreed to this much at least: if you call ‘Ali somebody worthy of cursing, then why did you pledge to evoke him by anything but goodness? And if he is worthy of cursing and what you declare is right, why do you act in this way? Afterwards, he even breached this clause and this carried on for ninety years.

4) The Muslims’ treasury which had a balance of five million dirhams was an exception and was not included in the submission of government. Mu‘awiyah had agreed to send Imam al-Hassan two million dirhams every year. This was proposed so that the Shi‘ahs were financially capable to fulfil their own needs and that if they did have any demands, they could be implemented by Imam al-Hassan and Imam al-Husayn.

“To give privileges of gifts and donations to the Bani Hashim and divide one million dirhams among relatives of the martyrs who were killed alongside Imam ‘Ali in the Battle of Siffin and Jamal, these must be reimbursed from the expenses of “Dar Abjard”. Dar Abjard is a region near Shiraz from where taxes and expenses were made exclusive to Bani Hashim.

5) “People in every corner of Allah’s land, Syria, Iraq, Yemen or Hijaz should be safe and sound. Black and red should both benefit from security and must disregard their blunders.” This clause was intended for the spitefulness that existed in the past because these people had in fact fought Mu‘awiyah in Siffin. “And none should be reprimanded for his previous mistakes.

Also, grudges must not be held against the people of Iraq; ‘Ali’s companions must be safe and sound wherever they are and from among them none should be vexed or be fearful for their life, property, family and children. No one should stalk them or injure them. Everyone should be given his/her rights. Whatever is in the hands of ‘Ali’s companions should not be taken away from them. No one should attempt to murder Hassan ibn ‘Ali, his brother or anyone from the Prophet’s (s) Household, overtly or covertly.”

These conditions, especially conditions three and five which were about blasphemy against ‘Ali, were mentioned because when Mu‘awiyah promised to follow the Book of Allah and the conducts of the Prophet and the path of the previous caliphs has this naturally hidden in it. Nevertheless, they knew that Mu‘awiyah paid special attention to these issues and that he

would act contrary to them in private. So, they added another point to the conditions of the contract, “And in no Islamic land shall a threat or intimidation be towards them.” Therefore, he would not be able to use any justification for the acts that he committed. They also wanted to show that: we (the Ahl al-Bayt) are cynical towards your way from the very beginning. This was a collection of the conditions and clauses of this contract.

Mu‘awiyah had a representative by the name of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amir who he sent to Imam al-Hassan with the blank letter he had signed and said, “I shall agree with any conditions you set. Imam al-Hassan put down all these conditions in the peace treaty. Later, Mu‘awiyah read these conditions while saying in many parts I take Allah and His Messenger as my witnesses: if I do not do such and such, then so and so, and they signed the contract.

Therefore, it does not seem that there were any problems with Imam al-Hassan’s peace during the circumstances of his time. Comparing Imam al-Hassan’s peace in the position of leader and Imam al-Husayn’suprising as a protestor is not correct. Therefore, it seems that if Imam al-Hassan had not been there during that time and Imam al-Husayn had become the caliph after ‘Ali’s martyrdom, he too would have signed the peace treaty. Likewise, if Imam al-Hassan was alive after Mu‘awiyah, he would have rebelled against him like Imam al-Husayn. These all resulted from the differences in their circumstances.

Question and answer

Question: Would ‘Ali have made peace if he was in Imam al-Hassan’s position? Imam ‘Ali had said that he was not willing to tolerate Mu‘awiyah’s rule even for one day. How did Imam al-Hassan assent to Mu‘awiyah’s governance?

Answer: As to the first question, regarding whether Imam ‘Ali would have made peace, had he been in Imam al-Hassan’s position cannot be answered so simply. Yes, if Imam ‘Ali had been in such a situation as Imam al-Hassan’s, he too would have made peace. The same also goes if there was a possibility of death in the seat of leadership. But we are aware that Imam ‘Ali’s circumstances differed greatly with the situation of Imam al-Hassan. Social turmoil had broken out toward the end of Imam ‘Ali’s time; the war of Siffin was progressing and had the Kharijites not divided the society from within, ‘Ali would have definitely become victorious.

There is discussion on that issue. However, when you asked, ‘Why did Imam al-Hassan put up with Mu‘awiyah’s governance when Imam ‘Ali had refused to accept his rule even for a day’, then you are mixing the two issues. Imam ‘Ali was not willing to accept Mu‘awiyah as his deputy or as someone chosen by him even for one day.

However, not only does Imam al-Hassan Imam ‘Ali was not willing to accept Mu‘awiyah as his deputy not want to place Mu‘awiyah as his deputy, but he wants to step aside completely. Imam al-Hassan made peace by stepping aside and not being committed. No clause in the contract mentioned anything about ruling. There was no mention of ‘Ali’s name or a successor for the Prophet (s). They agreed for Imam al-Hassan to step down and that Mu‘awiyah could take over under the condition that this person, who under no circumstances qualifies for this task, did the job properly.

Thus, there are many differences between the two. ‘Ali said that he was not willing that a person like Mu‘awiyah represents him somewhere or be his deputy. Imam al-Hassan was also reluctant for this to happen and the conditions in the peace treaty did not conclude anything other than this.

Question: Had ‘Ali made mention in his will of Imam al-Hassan about anything regarding how to deal with Mu‘awiyah?

Answer: I do not remember coming across anything as such. But the situation seemed clear. Even if there is nothing in the historical texts, the state of affairs was clear. ‘Ali himself supported fighting Mu‘awiyah until the end. Even though towards the end ‘Ali’s situation had become chaotic, what disturbed ‘Ali the most was Mu‘awiyah’s state, therefore he believed that Mu‘awiyah must be dealt with and destroyed.

‘Ali’s martyrdom became a new obstacle for fighting Mu‘awiyah. In one of ‘Ali’s famous sermons in the Nahj al-Balaghah, when ‘Ali invites people to jihad and remembers his loyal companions, he says, “Where are the brothers of mine who traversed the path of truth and left the world while joining the Truth. Where is ‘Ammar? Where is the son of Tayhan? And, where is the man called Dhu al-Shahadatayn?”9

And then he cried. He read this sermon during Friday Prayers and invited people to move. It is written that it was not before the next Friday that he was struck down by a sword and martyred.

Initially, Imam al-Hassan decided to fight Mu‘awiyah but he later changed his mind and made peace. This was when he realized the apparent lack of preparation in his companions and the internal conflicts. Imam al-Hassan realized that this would be a disgraceful battle. Going to war with such army would be disgraceful and would cause shame. It was in “Sabath” that one of his own companions hit his foot with a spear.

One of the advantages of Imam al-Husayn’smovement was that he created a strong religious core of men who had been trained to resist the hardships that they faced. There is no record in history shows any of joining the enemy’s army. However, it has been mentioned in history that a large group from the enemy’s army joined them in the event of ‘Ashura. This means there was no one in Imam al-Husayn’sarmy who showed weakness other than one or maybe two. His name was al-Dhahhak ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Mashriqi. When he first came to Imam al-Husayn’sarmy, he told Imam al-Husaynthat he would joint them under the condition that he stays until his presence brought use for Imam al-Husaynand his army. “However, the instant I realize that my presence ceases to bring you an ounce of good, I shall leave,” he continued. He set this condition and Imam al-Husaynaccepted. He was there until the last moments of the day of ‘Ashura, but then he went up to Imam al-Husaynand said, “According to the condition I set, I can now be dismissed, because I feel that my presence is of no use to you.” The Imam said, “If you want to go, you may go.” He owned an excellent running horse.

He mounted on the horseback and whipped the horse to get the horse prepared. Imam al-Husayn’sarmy was completely surrounded, therefore, in order to leave he focused on a point and attacked it. As soon as the army

broke apart he ran away on his horse. A group of Mu‘awiyah’s men tried to follow and he was almost about to get caught.

However, one of the people in that group, who happened to be acquainted with him, told the others to let him go. He told them that he only wanted to flee and not fight. Other than this, no one showed weakness, unlike Imam al-Hassan’s men who showed weakness from the very start. Therefore, if the Imam had not made peace, death would have been associated with stigmatization from his companion’s. These therefore are different.

What I want to say is that both Imam ‘Ali and Imam al-Hassan initially intended to fight; however, the circumstances which later appeared in Kufah caused the Imam to rethink his decision of going through with war. The Imam even marched the little number of people that had joined his army out of the city. He told them to go to Nukhaylah in Kufah.

He read a sermon and invited the people. When his sermon was finished no one showed a positive response until when ‘Uday ibn Hatam got up, reproached the people and then told them that he was leaving. He had one thousand people with him. Then, other people started to leave. Imam al-Hassan also went to Nukhaylah in Kufah. He stayed there for ten days. This time a large crowd joined him but again showed weakness there. Mu‘awiyah and his people gave money to a group of their chiefs to make them leave Nukhaylah; another group in another way and so forth. The Imam then realized that the grounds for an honourable fight were not prepared anymore.

Question: When you say, “If Imam al-Hassan had not made peace, then history would have blamed him, claiming that even though he could fit any condition in the peace treaty, he did not do so,” does not sound right. I say this because people considered the arrival of that signed blank piece of paper nothing but a fraud. It meant that Imam al-Hassan could write whatever he wanted. Mu‘awiyah would still not keep his word. People had come to know Mu‘awiyah during the time of Imam ‘Ali (‘a).

Answer: It just so happens that Mu‘awiyah could have used a different con with that signed paper which was to see whether the conditions set by Imam al-Hassan abided by Islam or not. Because Mu‘awiyah wanted to be sure of what Imam al-Hassan wanted both for the sake of his own position and for the sake of veracity (both Imam al-Hassan and Mu‘awiyah wanted this to happen).

To whose benefit were these conditions, to his benefit or to the benefit of the Muslims? We see that all the conditions were to the advantage of the Muslims and that Imam al-Hassan could not do anything other than this. You say that people perceived this as a fraud. People at the time actually thought to themselves: what a good human he is! And would say to Imam al-Hassan give him your conditions, let us see what you want then! Is remaining as caliph your only condition or do you have something else to say? If you do not have anything else to say he is truly willing to bring prosperity to the Muslims.

You then said people had become knowledgeable about Mu‘awiyah in the time of ‘Ali. It just so happens that they considered him as a bad person

but a good ruler. This is one of the reasons why the people of Kufah became weak. They would say that it is true, Mu‘awiyah is a bad person but he treats the peasant very well. Look at how he treats the Syrians! How happy the Syrians are with him.

This is how those who had become knowledgeable about Mu‘awiyah saw him: he is a bad person but a good ruler. If he becomes the ruler, he would not discriminate between the people of Kufah and others. Mu‘awiyah had become especially famous for his patience and forbearance. He had a political forbearance which historians have criticised him for. He could not use his political forbearance in Kufah. Even if he had, he would have become victorious in spirituality as well as politics.

People would go and swear at him but he would only laugh in their faces because he knew that he would later buy them with money. They would say: you cannot find a better person to govern. Now that he is a bad person, let him be a bad person. On this basis, Imam al-Hassan decided on peace as if he was telling people: fine, we brought the person to do the job. Now let’s see if this bad person is going to execute the job as well as you expect him to or not?

Mu‘awiyah was never known for being a tyrannical ruler. He was only known as an ambitious man and nothing more. During the period when Imam al-Hassan agreed on peace, Mu‘awiyah’s true colors were introduced, with regards to what kind of ruler he truly was.

Question: Did Imam al-Husaynsign the peace letter or not? And was he at all objective to Imam al-Hassan’s peace agreement?

Answer: I have not come across anything concerning Imam al-Husaynsigning the peace treaty, simply because there was no need for Imam al-Husayn’ssignature under the peace treaty. At that time Imam al-Husaynwas a follower and submissive to Imam al-Hassan. He agreed and committed to whatever Imam al-Hassan did. Even when the group who was against Imam al-Hassan’s peace treaty came to Imam al-Husaynand said: “We do not agree to this peace treaty. May we come and swear allegiance with you?” He said: “No, I will follow whatever my brother Imam al-Hassan does.” It has been proven by history that Imam al-Husayncomplied with Imam al-Hassan’s peace treaty. This means that he did not express even the smallest amount of opposition toward his brother over the issue of the peace treaty. When he sees Imam al-Hassan’s determination to peace, he submits. No, no objection has ?been observed from him.

References

1. Now I do not care whether Imam al-Husayn was a rightful protestor and that Imam al-Hasan was a rightful imam or that his objector was illegitimate. I am analyzing the situation from a social point of view.

2. Whose riot was rightful meaning their protests were all proper (now even the Sunnis accept that the protest of the rioters was proper and in place) and thus ‘Ali respected them during the time of his ruling. Malik al-Ashtar and Muhammadibn Abu Bakr were among the protestors and the assassins of ‘Uthman. And later they became one of the special and particular people of ‘Ali, just as they were before.

3. Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 245.

4. Such as the author of “Shahid-e Javid” [the Eternal Martyr].

5. Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 7, p. 300.

6. They inserted as a condition that Mu‘awiyah should never expect Imam al-Hasan (‘a) to call him “the Commander of the Faithful”.

7. The interpretation here is “government”, but the Arabic phrase is “submitting affairs”, which means the job will be handed over to him.

8. Nahj-al-Balaghah, sermon 74.

9. Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 181.

Chapter 1: Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as)

Question 1: Do Shias worship Ali ibn Abu Talib (as)?

Shias do not worship Imam Ali (as). Shias worship Allah (SwT). How can anyone believe that Shias worship Imam Ali (as) when he himself tells us to worship Allah (SwT)?

Nahjul Balagha

In the famous book, Nahjul Balagha, a compilation of the sermons and sayings of Imam Ali (as), the first recorded sermon begins with:

“Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.”

Imam Ali (as) continues: “The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and he who mistook Him, pointed at Him; and he who pointed at Him, admitted limitations for Him; and he who admitted limitations for Him, numbered Him.”

This sermon, and others in Nahjul Balagha show that Imam Ali (as) is the most eloquent exponent of Allah’s existence, His unity (Tawhid).

Other followers

There are other groups, chief among them the Nuzayris, the various groups of the Ghuluww, the extremists, who have worshipped Ali, but not the Shias.

Shias take pride that Ali (as) was not Allah but was the first male to worship Allah, with the Prophet (S); the first to bow down behind Muhammad (S), in prayer (salah), in worship of the one true Lord, Allah (SwT).

The Ghuluww, the Nuzayris and others, who take delight in their worship of Ali (as), are not friends or allies, of the Shias. They are people who have abandoned Islam, who have traduced Ali (as) by ascribing divinity to him. Too many Shias over the years have praised the Nuzayris and the Ali worshippers in their hymns (marthiyas) and in their religious poetry. This is wrong, un-Islamic and this is something the Prophet (S) warned against.

In a famous tradition (hadith) of the Prophet (S), narrated by Ahlul Sunnah and Shia scholars alike, the Holy Prophet said: “O Ali, you have a resemblance to Prophet Jesus (Isa), the son of Virgin Mary whom some Jews hated so much that they slandered him and his mother Mary and whom some Christians loved so much that they placed him in a position not rightly his.”

Shias love Ali (as) but do not, and should not, put him in a position which is not rightly his, that is, above the Prophet (S) or in place of Allah (SwT)

As Imam Ali (as) himself said, “Two kinds of people will be damned on my account. Those who form an exaggerated opinion about me and those who underestimate me because they hate me.” (Nahjul Balaghah, list of short sayings no.116).

So the historical evidence, the consensus of the Shia ulema and common sense are all proofs that that Shias worship Allah (SwT), not Imam Ali (as).

Question 2: Do Shias believe that Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) is superior to the Prophet (S)?

Some enemies of the Shias claim that, we believe, Imam Ali (as) was better or superior to Muhammad (S); some have suggested that we believe that the revelation of the Holy Qur’an was intended for him but mistakenly given to his cousin Muhammad (S). This is nonsense.

Common sense

Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) was either 10 or 12 years of age when the Prophet (S) received his first revelation, (wahi), from the archangel Jibraeel (Gabriel) in a cave. Does it make sense to believe that Shias would claim Jibraeel, an infallible angel, mistook a 12-year-old boy for a 40-year-old man?

Shias do not believe this but rather take pleasure in pointing out how Imam Ali (as) slept in the bed of the Prophet (S) to protect the Prophet’s life. Ali (as) slept in the Prophet’s bed on the night of Hijra so that the Prophet (S) could migrate to Madinah safely. How could we then believe he is superior to the Prophet (S)?

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

In fact, the Prophet (S) famously predicted, in a tradition (hadith) narrated by very famous Ahlul Sunnah scholars like Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal in his Musnad and Imam Hakim in his Mustadrak: “In truth there will be, among you, one who shall fight over the ta’wil of the Qur’an, the interpretation of the Qur’an, just as I fought over its tanzil, its revelation.” Abu Bakr and Umar asked: “Am I he?” The Prophet said: “No, it is the one who is mending the shoes.” The companions turned to the side to see Imam Ali (as) mending the Prophet’s shoes.

This hadith shows that:

• Imam Ali (as) was the one the Prophet (S) singled out to his companions as the protector of Qura’nic interpretation;

• Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) used to mend the Prophet’s shoes and take pride in it.

After the Prophet (S), Ali (as) is the most superior and the greatest being created by Allah (SwT) - but the key point to note here is “after” the Prophet.

Question 3: Where is the proof that Ali (as) was appointed by the Prophet (S)?

This is one of the most important questions to ponder and needs a detailed review. The Shias point to the hadith of Ghadeer Khumm, narrated by the Ahlul Sunnah (see below) in which the Holy Prophet (S) declared: “Man kunto mawla hu fa haadha Aliyyun mawla” - “Of whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also his mawla, i.e. leader.”

Does “mawla” mean friend?

This comes up again and again - especially that “mawla” means friend, not leader, imam or amir. We can analyse this by the following:

Meaning of “mawla”?

According to one study, the word mawla has between 20 and 30 different definitions in Arabic, but only one of which translates as “friend”. Most translate it as “owner”, “leader”, “benefactor”, “guide”, “helper”. Look at the Holy Qur’an, the words, mawla, awla, wali, wilayat, all come from the same root word, “wali”, and are all used in the Holy Qur’an to refer to guidance and leadership. For friendship or companionship, the Holy Qur’an tends to use the words, khaleel, sadiq and hameem.

Context when word “mawla” was used

The word “mawla” was used at Ghadeer Khumm, on the return journey from the last pilgrimage (Hajj) of the Prophet. The Prophet (S) calls back all those who had gone ahead. He calls forward all the people at the back. He then builds a pulpit from camels’ saddles, goes up on it and addresses over 100,000 people in the burning heat of the Arabian Desert, to make an important announcement.

Then the Prophet (S) asked just before the declaration, “Do I not have more authority upon you (alastu awla bi kum) than you have over yourselves?” All the people replied, “Yes, surely.” Then the Prophet (S) declared: “Of whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also his mawla.”

Surely the word “mawla”, in this context, refers to authority, to leadership. The earlier reference is from the verse:

“The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves.” (33:6).[Surah Ahzab]

As Sunni scholar Sibt ibn Jauzi says, “The saying of the Holy Prophet that Ali has authority or is the master over the selves of all the believers clearly proves the Imamate or vicegerency of Ali and that obedience to him is obligatory.”

After the declaration, the Prophet (S) uttered the following prayer: “O Allah! Love him who loves Ali, and be enemy of he who is the enemy of Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali.”

This prayer shows that Imam Ali (as), on that day, was being entrusted with a position that would make some people his enemies and therefore he would need supporters in carrying out his responsibilities. This could not be anything but the position of the mawla in the sense of ruler, master and lord. Are helpers ever needed to carry on or protect a ‘friendship’ from enemies?

The body language

Sunni scholar Allama ibn Hajar Asqalani narrates in his book, al-Isabah, how the Prophet (S) stood next to Imam Ali (as) on a raised pulpit or mimbar built from the saddles of camels, raised Ali’s hand, his arm in the air, and placed a turban on his head. Now, if that’s not a coronation, then what is?

Common sense

Why would the Prophet (S) waste time in the hot Arabian Desert, to tell over 100,000 people that Ali (as) was his “friend”? Didn’t they know that? Wouldn’t you be annoyed if you were in that crowd? Why waste everyone else’s time, and that too after an exhausting Hajj and in all that heat, unless you have something important to announce?

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

Ponder over the Qura’nic verse which was revealed prior to Ghadeer Khumm:

“O Messenger! Convey what had been revealed to you from your Lord; if you do not do so, then [it would be as if] you have not conveyed His message [at all]. Allah will protect you from the people.” (5: 67) [Surah Maidah]

Countless classical Ahlul Sunnah scholars have said that this verse was revealed ahead of the event of Ghadeer Khumm, perhaps the most famous of all being Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi in his Tafisr al-Kabir.

How can Muslims believe, as the Holy Qur’an warns, that the whole of the Prophet’s mission was about to be rendered null and void if he didn’t tell the people that he and Ali (as) were friends? This verse shows how important the announcement was - and how controversial Allah (SwT) knew it would be. The Holy Qur’an says:“Allah will protect you from the people” .

Why might the Prophet need protecting? Because; the issue of succession was being clarified and confirmed, once and for all, explicitly and publicly, and some people in the crowd were going to be upset and rebellious.

And what happened after the sermon at Ghadeer was over? What verse was revealed? According to all the major classical books of the Ahlul Sunnah (Hafiz Jalaluddin as Suyuti, Shaykh Sulayman al-Qandoozi Hanafi, Allama ibn Kathir, among them):

“This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as your religion” (5:3) [Surah Maidah].

This is the final verse of the Holy Qur’an! And what an occasion it was revealed on!

Again, some common sense is needed: would Allah (SwT) really be unable or unwilling to “perfect” his religion and name it “Islam” unless the issue of the Prophet’s “friendship” with Ali was cleared up for the Muslims? This is illogical and an insult to our intelligence! The truth is that Islam was completed and named for the Prophet (S) only after the Prophet (S) announced Ali (as) as his successor. Islam wasn’t complete until the caliphate of Ali (as) was announced, revealed, made clear, to the Muslim masses.

Otherwise, you have to believe that that the 22-years mission of the Prophet (S) was being invalidated over the issue of his “friendship” with Ali (as). And ask yourself this: was it the announcement of a friendship or the appointment of a successor to the Prophet that perfected the religion of Islam? What do you think?

Second caliph’s reaction

It is narrated that after the sermon was over, the Prophet set up a tent with Ali (as) and the companions lined up to give allegiance (bay’at) to Imam Ali (as), led by, Umar ibn Khattab, second caliph of the Ahlul Sunnah.

According to, among others, Sunni scholars like Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi in his book, and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, in his Musnad, Umar ibn Khattab was the first to arrive on the scene, and looking at Ali, he said: “Well done ibn Abu Talib! Today you became the master of all believing men and women, ‘Ameer al-Mo’mineen’!”

This title, Ameer al-Mo’mineen, (Commander of the Faithful), that Shias use today to refer to Imam Ali (as), and for which they are often condemned and criticised by the Ahlul Sunnah, was first used by none other than Umar ibn Khattab. How ironic! Ameer al-Mo’mineen has only one meaning - commander, leader, master of the faithful. When Mullah Umar of the Taliban set up the Islamic Emirate of Afganistan, what did he call himself ? Ameer al-Mo’mineen.

Yet we know from Ghadeer Khumm, from the public testimony of Umar ibn Khattab, that the first and only legitimate Ameerul Momineen, appointed by Allah (SwT) via His Messenger, is Ali ibn Abu Talib (as).

Imam Ali (as) invoked Ghadeer later on

Imam Ali (as) himself offered the event of Ghadeer Khumm, as evidence for his leadership, his caliphate and imamat, later on in his life, after the Prophet’s death. There are numerous examples and one of the most famous is as follows: The Sunni scholars ibn Qutaybah, ibn Hanbal, Muttaqi al-Hindi and Abu Nuaym Isfahani, all record in their books that during the caliphate of Ali, (as) when his authority was being questioned and rebellions were brewing, Imam Ali (as), in public, said to Anas ibn Malik, the famous companion of the Prophet (S): “Why don’t you stand up and testify what you heard from the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadeer?”

Anas answered, “O Ameer al-Mo’mineen! I have grown old and do not remember.” To which Ali (as) responded: “May Allah mark you with a white spot (of leprosy) unconcealable with your turban, if you are intentionally withholding the truth.” And when Anas got up from his place he bore a large white spot on his face. From that day onwards, Anas used to say, “I am under the curse of the righteous servant of Allah, Ali ibn Abu Talib!”

The Ghadeer Khumm incident makes it clear that Ali (as) was the Prophet’s successor. But there are other examples from the Prophet’s life too. For example, at start of the Prophethood, according to the Tarikh, or History, of Allama Tabari, the famous Sunni historian: The Prophet (S) asked three times, at a dinner for his friends and relatives, who will help him in his prophetic mission? On each of the three occassions, only Ali (as) stood up and said he would. On the first two occasions, the Prophet asked Ali (as) to sit down. But, on the third occasion, the Prophet said: “Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you. Therefore, listen to him and obey.” Abu Lahab (the Prophet’s paternal uncle) said to Abu Talib (his brother and Ali’s father) “the Prophet (S) has told you to obey your own son!”

The tragedy is that the majority of the Muslims do not understand today what Abu Lahab understood on the first day of the introduction of Islam in Makkah.

Question 4: Why do Shias think Ali (as) is superior to the first three caliphs?

This is not just a Shia view, that Imam Ali (as) is superior to the rest of the caliphs and sahabah. A number of Ahlul Sunnah scholars and books agree with this view.

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the four Ahlul Sunnah Imams of fiqh, said: “There is no Companion about whom as many merits are reported as Ali ibn Abu Talib.”

The prominent Ahlul Sunnah scholar of India, Shah Ismail Muhaddith Dehlvi, wrote: “Ali al-Murtadha has also an edge over Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and Umar Faruq and this edge lies because of the greater number of his followers and all the highest spiritual and saintly activity, from his days to the end of the world, has to be mediated through him, and he has a say in the kingdom of the kings and the leadership of the leaders and this is not hidden from those who are familiar with the world of sovereignty. Most spiritual chains are directly derived from Ali al-Murtadha. So, on the Day of Judgment, Ali’s army, including followers of high status and great reputation, will outnumber and outshine others to be a source of wonder for all the spectators.”

In fact, to even compare Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) with any of the companions is absurd. It is a misunderstanding of who Ali (as) is, what Ali (as) represented and stood for. Imam Ali (as) was on a different level; he wasn’t a mere companion like Abu Bakr or Umar or even Ammar and Salman.

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

The Sunni scholar Allama Muttaqi al-Hindi, in his famous book, Kanz al-Ummal, narrates a tradition (hadith) from the Prophet (S), in which the Prophet (S) was asked by a visitor to Madinah to name his favourite companion. When he omits the mention of Imam Ali (as), he was asked: “But what about Ali? “To which the Prophet (S) replied: “Look at this man, he asks me about my own self.”

This hadith of course is a reflection of the Ayat of Mubahela of the Holy Qur’an, (Ch.3: V61) [Surah Ali Imran] which states:

“But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of God on the liars”(3:61)

All of the Ahlul Sunnah historians, including Muslim in his Sahih, Book 31, Hadith Number 5915, testify that the Prophet (S) took Hasan (as) and Husayn (as) with him as his “sons”, Lady Fatima (as) with him as the representative of “women”, and Imam Ali (as) as his self, (as his nafs).

The reason why Ali (as) is not just superior to the rest of the companions, including the first three caliphs is because he went beyond what a companion was: he wasn’t just a companion of the Prophet (S); he was, as Allah (SwT) says in the Holy Qur’an, and the Prophet (S) says in his tradition (hadith), a self of the Prophet, nafs al-Rasoolallah.

Question 5: Why did Ali (as) not fight for the leader- ship if it was his God-given right?

Imam Ali (as) never took up arms against Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman. Some Ahlul Sunnah scholars try and argue that this shows he was not opposed to them. This is an incorrect analysis and a misunderstanding of Imam Ali’s (as) thinking and motivations.

The reasons

The reason Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) did not fight after the death of the Prophet (S) is because he did not want to divide the nascent, infant Muslim community. He did not want innocent Muslims to die in battle, killing each other, in order to take power. The historians, Sunni and Shia, record how Abu Sufyan offered him troops but Imam Ali (as) turned him down and criticised his divisive offer.

His divinely-appointed role as Imam

Imam Ali’s (as) imamat, his caliphate, his wilayat, was given to him by the Prophet (S) on the command of Allah (SwT). He was not expected to go and force the Muslims, the people, to follow him; it was their job to find him and follow him. His position as the Imam was not a political or elected position. It was bestowed upon him by Allah (SwT). Kanz al-Ummal, the Sunni book of ahadith, narrates the tradition in which the Prophet (S) told Imam Ali (as): “[O Ali], You are like the Kabah, people go the the Kabah, the Kabah does not come to the people.…”

Common sense

Imam Ali (as) may not have fought against Abu Bakr and Umar; but he never fought for them either, as part of their armies. Why not? He also refused to give allegiance (bay’at) to Abu Bakr for at least six months after the death of the Prophet and his beloved wife Lady Fatima (as), who died soon after the Prophet. Why didn’t he? The Shias, of course, would also argue that he never pledged any formal allegiance to them at any point in his lifetime. Again, why? What was his problem with them?

This is explained in Nahjul Balagha where Imam Ali (as) devotes entire sermons to questioning how Abu Bakr and others robbed him of his right to caliph (caliphate) but this is a Shia book. So consider instead the words of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) to the six-man committee appointed by Umar on his deathbed to pick a new caliph - and narrated by all of the Sunni ulema.

The committee requested Imam Ali (as) to take over the position as caliph but on the condition that he abides with the following:

• The Holy Qur’an

• The Prophet’s traditions

• The laws and regulations, the “sunnah”, introduced by the first two caliphs.

Imam Ali (as) replied that the first two conditions were acceptable to him but, he had his own views and opinion on the third condition. All of the Sunni historians agree that Imam Ali (as) rejected the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar, upon the death of the latter. Why would he do that if he had accepted the legitimacy of their leadership?

Question 6: Why do Shias refuse to accept that the Prophet (S) did not leave a successor?

Some Muslims are of the opinion that the Prophet (S) left it to the people to decide. Wouldn’t he have written a will if he wanted to leave behind a successor or appoint Imam Ali (as)?

Common sense

The idea that the Prophet of Islam who never left Madinah without appointing someone to take charge of the city in his absence, left behind an Islamic state without appointing a successor and without even laying out the rules for how to appoint a successor, is just unbelievable, fanciful and absurd. It is illogical to believe such a thing.

Then there is the issue of the will - or lack thereof. In Islam, making a will is vitally important. The idea that the Holy Prophet (S) who told his followers to make sure they left wills behind, when they died, even if they were the poorest of the poor, would die without leaving a will behind is equally absurd - and an insult to the Prophet (S).

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

The truth is that the Prophet did try to make a will but was prevented from doing so by a group of his companions.

According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Hadith Number 393, Said ibn Jubair narrated: I heard Ibn Abbas saying, “Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn Abbas, “What is (about) Thursday?” He said, “When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah’s Apostle deteriorated, he said, ‘Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray’. The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of the Prophet.”

They said, ‘What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to understand). The Prophet (S) replied, ‘Leave me as I am in a better state than what you are asking me to do.’ Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying, ‘Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.” The sub-narrator (Said ibn Jubair) added, “The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.”

How can it be possible that the people who memorized the Holy Qur’an forgot the last, dying instruction of the Prophet (S)?

According to this tradition (and others) in Sahih Bukhari the Prophet (S) went to write his will but was prevented by a group of his companions, led according to most of the narrations by Umar ibn Khattab, who defied the Qur’anic injunction against raising one’s voice in front of the Prophet (S) and who accused the Prophet (S) of being delirious, of having lost his mind. When the Prophet tried verbally telling them the contents of his will, his final commands, they claim to have forgotten what he said.

Abu Bakr had the foresight to leave behind a will; Umar appointed a six-man election committee - but the Prophet (S)? He died without leaving behind any guidance or will… Does this make any sense?

The reason there was no written, public will is because the Prophet (S) wanted to write such a document but some of his companions knew he was going to put in writing what he had said at Ghadeer Khumm and so they stopped him from doing so. This important event, this act of rebellion on their part at the deathbed of the Prophet (S) is narrated in Sahih Bukhari, in Sahih Muslim, in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and countless other Ahlul Sunnah books of ahadith and history.

Question 7: Why is Ali’s (as) name not mentioned in the Holy Qur’an?

There are four responses to this common and provocative question.

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

Imam Ali’s (as) name might not be mentioned in the Holy Qur’an but there are countless verses of the Holy Qur’an devoted to the praise of Ali (as) and to announcing his superiority over the rest of the Muslims, proving his leadership, his wilayat and his imamat.

Allama ibn Hajar Makki, the famous Sunni aalim, quotes the companion and cousin of the Prophet, Abdullah ibn Abbas, saying that he heard from the Prophet (S) himself that 300 verses of the Holy Qur’an were revealed specifically in praise of Imam Ali (as).

For example, the famous verse of the ring:

“Your master [wali] can be only Allah; and His messenger and the those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor rate, and pay the zakat while bowing down (in prayer), in ruku” (5:55) [Surah Maidah].

Ahlul Sunnah and Shia commentators of tafasir unanimously agree that this particular verse refers to Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as), who gave his ring to a beggar while in the state of bowing (ruku) in the middle of his (salah) prayer, as narrated by Abu Dharr al-Ghafari.

Importance

Why is it so important to have Imam Ali’s (as) name in the Holy Qur’an? Are we ranking people’s importance on whether their name appears in the Holy Qur’an or how many times? If so, then it is worth mentioning that the name of the human being mentioned most in the Holy Qur’an is Prophet Musa (Moses) - 136 times in 34 different chapters (surahs). Then there is Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) mentioned by name 27 times, and Prophet Isa (Jesus) mentioned 25 times.

The Holy Prophet, however, Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Islam and the Seal of the Prophets, is mentioned by name just four times, in surah numbers 3, 33, 47 and 48. Are Muslims expected to believe that Musa is higher in status or more important than the Holy Prophet? Or Yusuf is? Or Isa is? This is what happens when you start determining people’s status on the crude and arbitrary basis of how many times their name is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. Allah (SwT) decides in His wisdom whose name appears in His book.

What if his name had been mentioned?

What if Imam Ali’s (as) name was mentioned in the Holy Qur’an? Would that change anything? Would that change his opponents’ minds about the validity and legitimacy of his imamat? Of course not! Those who do not want to follow Imam Ali (as) would not do so no matter where his name appeared in the Qur’an. After all, the Holy Prophet explicitly said at Ghadeer Khumm: “Of whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also his mawla”. Imagine this sentence as a verse of the Holy Qur’an - how would life be any different? Some would still say it meant friend not leader, others would try and deliberately misrepresent and misinterpret it, or simply ignore it.

It’s a diversionary tactic to bring up the fact that Allah (SwT) in His Infinite Wisdom decided not to refer to Imam Ali (as) by name in the Holy Qur’an, even though He did make around implicit or indirect 300 references to Imam Ali (as) - as testified by Ibn Abbas.

Common Sense

Imagine if we extended this argument - Ali (as) is not the leader because his name isn’t mentioned in the Holy Qur’an; Ali (as) is not important because his name is not explicitly cited in any of the verses of the Holy Qur’an- to the rest of our religious principles, beliefs and obligations. How would we know how to pray morning (Fajr) prayers? Or know that evening (Maghrib) is three units (rakaat) and night (Isha) is four units (rakaat)? The Holy Qur’an doesn’t say so; it was left to the Prophet (S) to explain the details of the Qur’anic diktats, the Qur’anic commandments.

As the sixth Shia holy Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as) famously told his companions: “The Qur’an says to pray Fajr salah (morning prayers) but it is the Prophet who tells us that Fajr is two units of prayer (rakatain), the Qur’an tells us to pay zakaat, but it is the Prophet who tells us how to calculate zakaat; in the same way, the Qur’an tells us to obey the “ulul-amr”, the people charged with authority, and it is the Prophet who tells us that the “ulul-amr” are: Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) and the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt.”

Question 8: Why do you call yourselves “Shias”, or “Shias of Ali”, and not just Muslims?

The word “Shia” in Arabic simply means follower, friend, lover, partisan. It is a word that has no negative connotations. In fact it is used in the Holy Qur’an twice with reference to prophets of God.

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

“And, verily, of among the followers, among the Shias, of Nuh (of Noah), was Ibrahim (Abraham) (37:83)[Surah Saffat].

“And he (Musa /Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being his Shia - min SHIAtehe - and the other being his enemy, and the one who was his Shia cried out to him for help against the one who was of his enemy.” (28:15)[Surah Kahf].

So Shia is a word used by Allah (SwT) Himself! But these Shias weren’t, of course, Shias of Ali (as). Where does this phrase, “Shia of Ali”, come from? It comes from the Prophet’s own lips, during the Prophet’s own lifetime.

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Allama ibn Hajar Makki, Hafiz Abu Nuaym Isfahani, and countless other classical scholars of the Ahlul Sunnah all narrate that the Prophet said: “Glad tidings, O Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shia (your followers) will be in Paradise.”

Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, the famous Ahlul Sunnah scholar of Egypt, in his book, al-Durr al-Mansur, narrates a tradition (hadith) in which the companions say: “We were with the Holy Prophet when Ali came towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shia will acquire salvation on the Day of Judgement.”

Allama ibn Hajar Asqalani, another famous Ahlul Sunnah scholar of hadith, narrates the following tradition of the Prophet (S): “The parable of Ali is like a tree, in which I am the root, Ali is the branch, Hasan and Husayn are the fruits, and the Shias are the leaves.”

Allama ibn Hajar al-Haythami al-Makki - of the Ahlul Sunnah says in his book al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqa that the Shias are “rafidhi” (liars, deviants) and yet in the same book he narrates a tradition from Abdullah ibn Abbas in which ibn Abbas says that: When the verse:“Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation” (98:7) [Surah Al Bayyina] was revealed, the Messenger of Allah said to Ali: “They are you and your Shia.”

He continued: “O Ali! (on the Day of Judgment) you and your Shia will come towards Allah well-pleased and well- pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up. Ali said: “Who are my enemies?” The Prophet (S) replied: “He who disassociates himself from you and curses you. And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-Arsh on the Day of Resurrection.” Ali asked: “Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?” He replied: “Your Shia, O Ali, and those who love you.”

Now, here is an important point to consider: some Muslims ask why there is a sect called Shias? They tend to call themselves Sunni Muslims. But where is the word Sunni in the Holy Qur’an or in the ahadith of the Holy Prophet? Where is the hadith in which the Prophet (S) refers to his “Sunnis” or even to the “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaah”? There isn’t one. But the Shias have been around since the time of the Prophet (S) and Shia is a title of distinction used in the Holy Qur’an.

Question 9: Isn’t Shia’ism a product of Abdullah ibn Saba, a Jewish convert to Islam?

Who is he?

There is a question as to whether Abdullah ibn Saba even existed! In Ahlul Sunnah tradition, he was a Yemenite Jew who embraced Islam very late in life. During the time of Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) he is alleged to have introduced a number of concepts that later were ascribed to both the Shias and the Ghuluww: the exaltation of Ali (as), his divine appointment by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (S) as a successor, and his alleged divinity. These are all claimed to be concepts that were first formulated and expressed by Ibn Saba and his followers, who are also accused of killing the third caliph of the Ahlul Sunnah, Uthman ibn Affan, and dividing the Muslims into two sects.

Yet neutral modern western historians, non-Muslims like Godfrey Hodgson, Leone Caetani, Israel Freidlander and Bernard Lewis have all concluded that he probably did not exist and even if he did, he certainly wasn’t responsible for all the intrigues, plots and religious conspiracies that have been attributed to him by some anti-Shia scholars.

References from books of Ahlul Sunnah

Tabari’s source for the story of Ibn Saba, Sayf ibn Umar, has been discredited by Imam Hakim, Ibn Hajar Asqalani and several other prominent Ahlul Sunnah scholars. In his acclaimed book, “The Succession to Muhammad”, former Oxford University professor Wilferd Madelung writes how “few if any modern historians would accept Sayf ’s legend of Ibn Saba”. Note the use of word “legend”!

Even the Egyptian historian, Dr Taha Husayn, one of the most influential Ahlul Sunnah scholars of the 20th century, has said that the “fabrication” of Ibn Saba was done by the enemies of the Shias and that the insertion of a “Jewish element” was aimed at discrediting the Shias. He noted that the absence of any record of Ibn Saba being present at the Battle of Siffin suggests that Ibn Saba is a fictitious person.

Question 10: Why do you give such importance to the father of Ali (as), Abu Talib? Wasn’t he a non- believer?

Some Muslims not only criticise and reject Ali (as), they even go after his father. Abu Talib is described as an unbeliever (kafir). Even the recent BBC2 documentary on the life of the Prophet (S) presented by Rageh Omaar, stated as a fact that he died as a non-believer.

Yet the following proofs from history and proofs from the Holy Qur’an prove that he was a Muslim.

He perfomed the Prophet’s wedding

Abu Talib performed the wedding ceremony (nikah) of Prophet Muhammad (S) and Lady Khadija (as) and paid the dowry (mahr). How can anyone believe that the wedding ceremony of the Holy Prophet of Islam would be performed by a non-Muslim?

His marriage

Abu Talib was married to Fatima bint Asad, the mother of Ali (as) and stayed married to her even after the advent of Islam. If he was a non-Muslim, this would be in defiance of the injunctions contained in the Holy Qura’n.

Even the Prophet’s own adopted daughters were divorced from the sons of Abu Lahab (who refused to become Muslims). Fatima bint Asad, remember, was the second lady to accept Islam (after Lady Khadija (as) the Prophet’s first wife).

Imam Sajjad (as), the fourth Shia Imam, said about his great-great-grandfather: “I wonder why people doubt the faith of Abu Talib, when a woman cannot continue her matrimonial alliance with a non-Muslim husband after she has embraced Islam, and Fatima bint Asad was amongst those women who embraced Islam at a very early stage and still remained his wife till he breathed his last.”

Evidence from the Holy Qur’an

Ch.4:V 144 [Surah Al Nisa], says:

“O you who believe! Do not take the unbelievers as protectors instead of the believers” (4:144)

and Ch 9:V 23 [Surah Tawba] proclaims:

“O you who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.”(9:23)

The Prophet’s grandfather Abdul Muttalib died when he was 8 years old. The Prophet was looked after by Abu Talib (not by his other uncles, Harith or Abbas); from the age of 8 to 25. The Prophet lived under either the direct or indirect care and supervision of his uncle Abu Talib right up until the latter’s death in 619 ad, when the Prophet was 49. The Prophet lived under the protection of his uncle, the alleged non-believer, for over 40 years! So was the Prophet (S) violating the commands of the Holy Qur’an?

The Holy Qur’an refers to Allah (SwT) and the Prophet, in Ch 93, V 6-9) [Surah Al Duha]:

“Did He not find thee an orphan and give you shelter? And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance. And He found thee in need, and made thee independent.”(93:6-9)

There is no disagreement, as the historical records show, that it was Abu Talib who gave shelter to the Prophet (S) took care of all his needs and gave him guidance. Now how is it that in this case Allah (SwT) is taking credit for things that a “kafir” did? How could Allah (SwT) ask for help from a “kafir” in taking care and bringing up His most beloved and final messenger? How could Allah (SwT) do something that He is prohibiting the believers from doing? The fact that the Prophet of Islam took refuge with, and guidance from Abu Talib shows that Abu Talib was not only a Muslim but a mu’min; not just one who submits, but one who believes.

Here is a challenge: can any person, Sunni or Shia, Muslim or non-Muslim, identify even one occasion on which Abu Talib publicly or privately:

• rejected the concept of unity and oneness of Allah (Tawhid)?

• condemned Islam by name, rejected Islam by name and, in doing so, rejected his nephew the Prophet (S) of Islam?

• worshipped in front of an idol?

On the contrary, when Muslims pray they should thank Abu Talib, because without him, there would have been no Prophet of Islam and, by extension, no religion of Islam. There is no Muhammad (S), without Abu Talib.