CHAPTER IV: IMAM ‘ALI’S IMAMATE
Imam ‘Ali alongside the Prophet
In the first version of the book, we proportionately and briefly discussed about Imam ‘Ali (a)’s role in the changes of Prophet’s significant time. Imam’s position and his reliability to the Messenger (s) is briefly discussed. Imam ‘Ali (a) had the honor to be brought up in the house of Messenger (s).
In this regard, a great deal of attractive narrations collected by Ibn Abi l-Hadid exist. Among them, in a narration by Zayd Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Husayn, he said that in that time the Messenger made meat and date soft by putting it in his mouth for being easily eaten and then it was put in Imam ‘Ali’s mouth.
Imam ‘Ali (a) was the first one who believed in the Messenger (s) due to this kinship.
He said,“No one but the Messenger took me the lead in prayer.”
Since, in this regard, a great deal of witnesses and evidence exists; therefore, there is no room for doubts of equitable people. Concerning Imam’s embrace Islam, it is reportedly said that he was invited by the Messenger (s) to embrace Islam and this indicates Imam’s mental maturity.
Mas‘udi says,“Some said that Imam in the time of his embrace Islam was not old enough so he was only an infant in that time.”
The prophet truly knew the value of devoted companions, while Imam’s self-sacrifice in all the fields was observed, hoe the prophet can consider him like the others. This triggered that in every right time, Imam’s reliability and value was expresses to people through the prophet’s remarks about Imam’s features and characteristics. These are the issues available to us in reliable sources of history and hadith under the title of Imam’s virtues. Later on when in second century, the books of hadith were compiled, their compilers and narrators were to the most part influenced by tendencies of ‘Uthman’s followers who couldn’t tolerate any virtue for Imam. Additionally what the Umayyads and ‘Uthman supporters in the Umayya time made about caliphs and companion defenders was narrated. Some of these fakes ascribed to caliphs were, in essence, Imam’s virtues. These distortions came to a deadlock for Imam’s narrated virtues and their narrators were respectively serious and reliable to be remained in books. Narrators of Kufa, in this regard, played a significant role in keeping these virtues.
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said,“‘Ali is the one for whom a great deal of true virtues is said.”
He said, إن ابن أبي طالب لا يقاس به أحد
“No noe deserves being compared to ‘Ali.”
Among these virtues, some narrations for whose correctness there is no doubt can be mentioned. Significance of some is to the extent that through them Imam’s personality in the Messenger’s eyes can be imagined.
Abu Sa‘id Khudri said,
كان لعلي من النبي (ص) دخلة ليست لأحد وكان للنبي (ص) من علي دخلة ليست لأحد غيره فكانت دخلة النبي (ص) من علي ان النبي (ص) كان يدخل عليهم كل يوم
“No one met the prophet more than ‘Ali, so did the Prophet. The Prophet’s meeting was to come up to them every day.”
Also Zayd Ibn Thabit said to Imam, أنت من رسول الله (ص) بالمكان الذي لا يعدله أحد
“No one owns thy dignity in front of the Messenger (s).”
These words were said by Zayd when he used to tenaciously support ‘Uthman. This caused Imam to know the Prophet (s) as long as none of the other companions did so.
One evidence indicating the Prophet’s heed to Imam was that he married Fatima (s), world selected women, to him. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar had popped the question to Fatima before but they were rejected by the Prophet.
But Imam (a) proposing marriage to Fatima was accepted and said, لست بدجال
“I’m not deceiver.”
“Fatima is yours.”
Having married Fatima, Imam (a) was asked to find a house but it was far from the Prophet’s. And this was done through Harith Ibn Nu‘man’s devotion and leaving his house for ‘Ali.
Perhaps due to such a reason, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar said,“ For knowing ‘Ali’s status to the prophet, you’d better see location of his house to that of the prophet.”
In the course of the brotherhood, the Messenger selected ‘Ali (a) as his“brother”
.
When the Messenger made sermon, Imam ‘Ali (a) used to repeat his remarks in a farther distance.
And in the time of the Prophet’s anger, no one but ‘Ali (a) dared to talk to him.
People made ‘Ali (a) as their mediator in solving their problems.
Quoting ‘Ayisha, the Sunnites said,“Fatima among the women and ‘Ali among the men were the most beloved to the Messenger.”
In Manzalat tradition which is one of the most definite merits of Imam, the Messenger regarded his relationship with ‘Ali (a) as that of Moses with Aaron.
In case of any problem, when someone was to be sent for settling things, The Messenger sent ‘Ali (a).
Once Imam was asked, why is it that you quote traditions more than the other companions? He answered, لأني كنت إذا سألته أنبأني وإذا سكتّ ابتدأني“Because When I asked the Messenger a question, He taught me the knowledge and when I kept silent, he started to speak himself.”
Imam used to say, I faced nothing unknown unless I asked of the Messenger about it and committed the answer to my memory
. I memorized everything he said and never forgot anything.
In a letter he wrote, وأنا من رسول الله كالصنو من الصنو والذراع من العضد“My relation with the Messenger is that of one branch with another or of the wrist with the arm.”
He said,“I followed the Messenger just as a baby camel follows its mother.”
إني لم أردّ على الله ولا على رسوله ساعة قطّ
“I never disobeyed God or his Messenger at all.”
Concerning the declaration of aquittance, God told His Messenger, This message must be delivered either by you or someone on behalf of you. That is why he made Abu Bakr return midway and handed the message to Imam ‘Ali so that it might be read on“Greater Pilgrimage”
.
There are beautiful sentences, in Qasi‘a sermon, about Imam's intimacy with the Messenger. Here are some of his remarks,
“You know my position of close kinship and special relationship with the Prophet. From the very beginning of my life he took me in his lap and kept me embraced to his chest. He used to lay me beside him in his bed, bring his body close to mine and make me smell his fragrance. He used to feed me with his hands often chewing something for me. He never heard me lying nor did he see me doing something wrong. When he was weaned, God appointed his greatest angel to be with him day and night so that he might cover the paths of greatness and avail himself of the worldly virtues. And I used to follow him like a young camel following in the footprints of its mother. Every day he showed me in the form of a banner some of his high traits and commanded me to follow them. Every year he used to go in seclusion in Hara’.I saw him and no one did so but me. In those days, Islam was the religion of Holy Prophet and his wife, Khadidja exclusively. I was the third of the trio. I beheld the divine light of revelation and prophethood and smelled the heavenly fragrance of messngership.”
Being on such intimate terms with the Messenger, Imam said, “By God, there is no verse revealed unless I know about what and where in it was sent.
According to Ibn ‘Abbas, no verse was sent by God unless ‘Ali (a) was Amir and noble. God reproved Muhammad’s companions but always spoke highly of ‘Ali (a).
Regarding those who wondered at ‘Ali (a) being the divider of Heaven and Hell, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said, “Hasn't this been narrated that the Messenger told ‘Ali (a), لا يحبك إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضك إلا منافق“Only the believer loes thee and only the hypocrite loathes thee.”
“Yes”
, they said. Continued he,“As the believer abides in the heaven and the hypocrite abides in the Hell, ‘Ali (a) is the divider of the Heaven and the Hell.”
‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz used to say,“If this ignorant people were informed of what we knew about ‘Ali (a), not two of them would obey us.”
As Salman states,“Should ‘Ali (a) leave you, there would remain nobody to inform you of the prophet's secrets.”
How right Ibn Abi l-Hadid is to say,“No one helped the Prophet as much as Abu Talib and his sons,’Ali (a) and Dja‘far did.”
Once somebody complained to the Prophet about ‘Ali (a) and he stated three times, Leave ‘Ali (a) alone.
فإن علياً مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مومن
“‘Ali is from me and I am from him; he is guardian of every faithful.”
At the night of immigration, ‘Ali (a) saved prophet's life
. In the battle of Badr 30 polytheists were put to death by him. In the battle of Uhud, where many escaped the battle, he remained with prophet and saved his life. One stroke of ‘Ali's sword inflicted on ‘Amr Ibn ‘Abdiwad in Khandaq was considered by the Prophet to be worth more than the worship of Jinn and mankind. This blow put the enemy to rout.
In most battles, Imam was the flag bearer of Muslim's army.
Undoubtedly, Imam’s knowledge had no parallel in Prophet's companions. This is an issue cited by the prophet and his companions, and testified by history. This word of the Messenger, انا مدينه العلم وعلي بابها“I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali (a) is its door,”
bears abundant evidence of this. Uttered on the pulpit, Imam 's remark, سلوني قبل ان تفقدوني“Ask me before you miss me,”
was also indicative of the superiority of his knowledge. This claim, according to Sa‘id Ibn Musayyib, was laid by no one but Imam.
The prophet charged him with the duty of teaching ablution and tradition to people.
‘Ayisha, whose animosity toward Fatima and ‘Ali (a) dated back to prophet's time, said, علي أعلم الناس بالسنة
“‘Ali is most conscious of Sunna.”
According to one of the well-known successors called ‘Ata’, ‘Ali is the most impoverished one among the Prophet’s companions.
‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz also called him the most devout of the companions.
Hundreds of pages can be written about Imam's virtues but this amount will suffice our book which is a short review of Islam's history.
Imam ‘Ali and Caliphs
If it is true to assume that at Messenger’s time, Muhadjirun were of two different political fronts and some were trying to win the caliphate, then one must accept that the relations between Imam and Shiykhs were rather strained. Reports say nothing to prove their disputes, but nor does any reminiscence show their friendship. On ‘Ayisha's own confession, her being at enmity with Imam went back to Prophet's time and this can be considered as bearing witness to the differences between the families of ‘Ali and Abu Bakr. It has been said that when Fatima passed away, all Messenger's wives attended the Hashimites mourning ceremony except for ‘Ayisha who feigning illness, didn’t participate and even was told to be expressing joy of that.
Anyway, Immediately after Abu Bakr's caliphacy and Imam's insistence on proving his rightfulness, unfriendly relations between them were developed. Attacking Imam’s house, Fatima’s being in sulk as well as not permitting Shiykhs to attend Imam’s funeral,
all aggravated the differneces.following that, Imam secluded and went on with his own life.
The administration expected Imam, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance, to refrain from assertion of rightfulness and embark on consolidating their authoritative realm while having swords in hand but he refused to do so. Naturally, adopting such a position Imam was to be humiliated by the administration in front of people. This policy could result in Imam's further solitude.
Cursing Quraysh, Imam said,”Oh God, I seek your help against the Quraysh and those supporting them.” فإنهم قطعو رحمي وصغروا عظيم منـزلتي وأجمعوا على منازعتي أمراً هو لي“They have cut asunder my kinship,lowered my high position and joined together to contest the right to which I was entitled.”
Continues he,“I looked around but found no one to shield and help me except the members of my family. I refrained from fighting them to death, so I overlooked with grieved eyes”
This remark refers to Caliphs’ policy of humiliating Imam. In sermon of Shiqshiqiyya, referring to the consultation Imam states,“When he (‘Umar) was due to die, he selected a group of candidates and included me among them. Oh, good Heavens! What had I to do with this consultation? I wonder why they never equaled me to the first of them but to these people while I was as competent as him.”
It was intolerable for Imam to be among Talha, Zubayr and ‘Uthman who held him in contempt. Strange to say, ‘Umar blamed all 6 men chosen by him for some wrongdoings. What Imam was blamed for, in this regard, was extremely unfounded and humiliating. He was blamed for being kind of a joker, فيه دعابة
. Later, based on this very remark of ‘Umar, Mu‘awiya
and ‘Amr Ibn ‘As told about Imam, فيه تلعابة
“He is a humorous man.”
Seroiusly rejecting this accusation laid against him by ‘Amr Ibn ‘As, Imam in fact rejected ‘Umar's remark.
The life of Imam who was secluded in Medina caused him to remain unknown. The time went by fast, and the Imam, by himself, in Medina, particularly among the old companions of Prophet(s) seemed as acquaintance. Yet, no one knew Imam in Iraq and Damascus. Just a few Yemeni tribes seeing him since his few-month-long trip to Yemen were acquaintance to him.
Djundab Ibn ‘Abd Allah said,“Once after swearing (on oath of) allegiance to ‘Uthman I went to Iraq, therein I quoted ‘Ali’s virtues for the people. The best answer I heard from the people was, “Discard these remarks. Think of something of your benefit.”
I answered,“These issues are beneficial for both of us.”
Yet, after my statement, he was to stand up and leave.
According to Ibn Abi l-Hadid, Muhammad Ibn Sulayman’s interpretation was that one of the factors leading to discard in ‘Uthman’s era was the constitution of council. For, each member of the council had serious aspiration for caliphate. Typically, Talha was among those who looked forward to caliphate. Besides, Zubayr not only helped him but also regarded himself as deserving of governing. Their hope for the caliphate was more than that of Imam ‘Ali (a). Inasmuch as the two Shiykhs discredited him and held him in low esteem. Hence, he was forgotten. Most of those knowing his virtues had been died at the time of the Prophet(s), and a new generation was found that deemed him the same as other Muslims. What merely left among his honors was that he is the cousin of the Prophet(s), his daughter’s husband and his grandchildren’s father. The remainder of facts was forgotten. Quraysh also felt such a hatred for him that was never felt for anyone. To the same extent, Quraysh loved Talha and Zubayr, since there was no reason for abhorring them.
Ibn Abi l-Hadid himself, having pointed out that the people in Siffin were waiting to regard ‘Ammar’s presence in a front as the rightfulness of that front, said, “How surprising the peoples are! Since they accept ‘Ammar as the criterion of truth and error; however, they don’t regard the very ‘Ali (a) as a criterion about whom the Prophet(s) has cited the hadith of sainthood and also said, لا يحبك إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضك إلا منافق“Only the believer loves thee, and only the hypocrite loathes thee.”
This is because all Quraysh tried to, from the very beginning, cover his virtues, remove public memory from him, ruin his features and eliminate his high status in the hearts of people.
Ibn Abi l-Hadid nicely analyzes the reasons behind the Quraysh’s grudge against Imam ‘Ali(a).
Once Imam was asked:”Do you think if the Messenger(s) had a mature son, Arabs would hand the governorship over to him?”
Imam responded:“If he had done something different from what I did, he would have been killed.”
Arabs hated what Muhammad (s) did and felt envious of what God had granted him… they from that time attempted to disentitle Ahl al-Bayt after his departure. Quraysh found his name a means of domination and ladder of promotion and if other wise, they never worshipped God even one day after him and would become apostate. A while after, conquests, come one after another, no hunger and poverty remained after starvation and destitution. This led to popularity of Islam and they kept religion in their many a heart because, however, truth brought this about. Afterwards, these conquests were attributed to strategy and thought of emirs. Among them, some were magnified and some others were forgotten, فكنا ممن خمل ذكره وخبت ناره وانقطع صوته وصيته، حتى أكل الدهر علينا وشرب، ومضت السنون والاحقاب بما فيها، ومات كثير ممن يعرف ونشأ كثير ممن لا يعرف“We were from someone whose memory was last whose luminosity was cut and whose outcry was stopped as if time swallowed us. Years passed this way, many known figures were dead and those unknown came into stage. Under these conditions, what curled the son’s son do? You know that the Messenger(s) never kept me close to himself for his kinship, with me but he did it in time of Djihad ad and advice.
It was just for the same reason of Imam being forgotten in Muslim community he, in his caliphate time, tried to use every chase to introduce himself and speak about his efforts for Islam in the Messenger’s time.
Imam held cold relationship with Abu Bakr with no seemingly left memory. In his contact with ‘Umar, Imam’s memories are many available, that mainly relied upon his judiciary assistance to ‘Umar as well as response to some consultations discussed earlier. ‘Umar refused to blatantly slander Imam and probably Imam did so.
But ‘Uthman was different and never did he bear Imam’s ideas and once he told Imam:”
You are not better than Marwan Ibn Hakam to me?”
‘Abbas asked ‘Uthman to stand by Imam.
‘Uthman said:”What I first fell you is that if ‘Ali wants, no one stands dearer to me than him.
Of course, Imam was unwilling to overlook deviations for his friendship with him. For this, Imam’s relationship with ‘Uthman was partly closer and partly harsher.”
Once an Ansari woman had a quarrel with one of the Hashimites women and when she was acquitted, she was told by ‘Uthman,“This is your cousin, ‘Ali’s decision!”
Opposition to government was difficult for Imam. He attempted, in early years, to resort to seclusion to avoid faring the government. Sa‘d Ibn ‘Ubada was a good experiment. He failed to pay allegiance and immediately in time of caliph I or II, he was told to have been killed by Djinns. Previously mention was made from some sources that his murder had been politically planned.
According to Ibn Abi l-Hadid, Abu Dja‘far Naqib (Yahya Ibn Abi Zayd) was asked:”I am amazed how ‘Ali survived this long after the Messenger’s demise, from all Quraysh’s vengeance.”
Abu Dja‘far said:”Had he not belittled and isolated himself, he might have been killed.”
He let himself off memories and became engaged in worshipping, Qur’an reading and prayer, leaving his first state of mind and sword as if he were like a sinner who had repented, probing the earth and living on the mountains like a monk. He survived because he obeyed rulers of the time; other wise he would have been killed”.
He then refers to Khalid’s action to kill Imam.
Mu‘min al-Taq also believe that Imam made no political effort in this time because he feared being murdered by jinns (like Sa‘d).
Of course, this did not mean that Imam never tried to use chances to take back his rights. From the very outset, he refused to swear allegiance for a few months.
Further, from early times, he joined his family to homes of Ansar to revert back his rights. He insisted so much that he was blamed for having a greedy eye on caliphate.
Imam quoting someone said:”O son of Abu Talib! You raise a greed on this!
He said:”No, by God, you are greedier than I am. You are for from the Messenger(s) and I’m closer to him. I asked for the right I possessed, but you refrain me from having it”.
Imam made reasoning of this kind a lot, يا معشر قريش! إنا أهل البيت أحق بهذا الامر منكم، أما كان فينا من يقرء القرآن ويعرف السنّة ويدين بدين الحق؟“O Quraysh people! We, Ahl al-Bayt deserve more than you in caliphate! Are there no people among us who read Qur’an and follow Sunna and true religion.”
On Imam’s evaluating successorship of three caliphs, it is to be said that he was in no time free to offer his appraisal of Shiykhs. Unlike ‘Uthman, what he believed, he found a chance to retell it. It was why his troops in Kufa were included of those, except a few, had approved of Shiykhs and he could not talk freely about them. Once he found a chance to talk some part of his sufferings but he was stopped talking. Upon ‘Abbas’s insistence, he kept on talking, تلك شقشقة هدرت“No, Ibn ‘Abbas! What you heard was flame of grief that rose.”
Imam with all caution was never prepared to adopt conditions of ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Awf for caliphate during council of caliphate. Ibn’Awf conditioned that if Imam were willing to act upon conduct of Shiykhs, he would place him caliph.
Imam said:”I would act according to my Idjtihad”.
Imam openly rejected conduct of Shiykhs and believed that it was in the most part against conduct of the Messenger(s) and based on improper Idjtihad. Imam says he has obeyed Abu Bakr in affairs he obeyed God.
Imam’s words and his approach here show that he never admired past manners.
In later times, Mu‘awiya wrote to Imam that he felt envious of early caliphs and rebelled against them!
Imam wrote back, “you think I am against them an dwant to take revenge. If so, why are you worried to be inquired? You are not blamed… and you said you found me like a camel harnessed to swear allegiance. By God, you wanted to scold, praise and scandalize but you’re scandalized yourself. What belittles a Muslim who is oppressed and assured of his religion. His certainty is strong and his hesitation is aside? … And I never apologize for caviling ‘Uthman because of innovations.
Despite Imam’s explicit criticism, particularly his attitude in council, one cannot refer to Imam’s familial relationships with ‘Umar, or ‘Uthman for his belief in their proper rule. Even his praise of some caliphs compared to others cannot be a reason for his basic approval of them. When he learned that he could not face the party and a campaign waged is not beneficial to Islam, he chose to compromise. Imam justified his allegiance to Abu Bakr and his approval according to Muhadjir and Ansar as to a necessity and preservation of unity among Muslims.
Imam referred to Aaron’s speech in front of Moses(a) for justifying his silence, Aaron said,
إِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَنْ تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ .
“I feared lest thou shouldst say: Thou hast caused division among the Children of Israel.”
Imam said of Saqifa, بل عرفت أنّ حقي هو المأخوذ وقد تركته لهم، تجاوز الله عنهم“When I learned I am withdrawn with my rights, I left to them, may God punish them.”
In the past, Sunnis never accepted that Ahl al-Bayt found themselves more qualified for caliphate than others, that is early caliphs. Yet, now somewhat broad-minded factions of Sunnis admit that ‘Ali(a) simply pledged allegiance just for unison with Abu Bakr while knowing himself rightful for caliphate.
Anyway, Imam’s isolated life in that society indicates that both Imam and caliphs knew they can not treat others in such a way that it might mean confirmation of their view, particularly about caliphate. Meanwhile, frequenting to the mosque and even establishing familial links like ‘Umar’s marriage to Umm Kulthum had been usual. This marriage was insisted by ‘Umar and Imam agreed in spite of his early opposition. Not to mention, Imam married Abu Bakr’s wife, that is Asma’, daughter of ‘Umays to himself after Abu Bakr died and brought up Muhammad, Abu Bakr’s son in his house.
Shi‘ism During Imam’s caliphate
Muslims’ disagreements over caliphacy as well as other fields were dealt with in previous parts in detail. Now in the light of carrying out more precise researches, it is not fair of anyone to deny the existence of the ‘Alawites and Quraysh parties in Messenger’s time let alone denying it from Saqifa on. al-Duri approves the two parties being present earlier than Saqifa.
This political disagreement which, from the very beginning, had a religious root, fomented the religious differences. For example, it was of great importance that initially, some companions considered merely Qur’an as proof.In other words, not deeming the decrees of prophet as proof and prohibiting people from writing and quoting traditions did influence theology.’Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Awf’s laying it down that caliphate will be turned over to anyone accepting to act according to the conduct of Shiykhs, and Imam's stating that he will act only in accordance with his own individual reasoning, indicate the aggravation of religious differences.
As long as ‘Umar was in power, the majority of people, excluding Imam's supporters, believed in rulership.
But when ‘Uthman, because of heretical religious deeds, was denied by a large number of companions, the problematic question was it that whose words should people regard as the religion and whom should they imitate.
Imam ‘Ali replaced ‘Uthman. In the very beginning he was not accepted by the people of Damascus. Little by little, though temporarily, Basra went a different way as well. In Medina proper, though few, some companions balked at obeying or swearing allegiance to Imam. Apart from political issues, the important case was elucidating the religion especially in the case of differences or novel matters. Here two political and naturally religious parties began to emerge. The first group consisted of those having accepted Imam and deeming it necessary to obey him. The second group, motivated by ‘Uthman’s oppressedness, didn't accept Imam’s leadership and opposed him.
In this regard, Apostates and Deviators had no difference. At this point two terms, religious and political, were coined“‘Ali's Shi‘a and ‘Uthman’s Shi‘a”
were gradually distinguished as respectively“Shi‘a or al- Shi‘a”
and“Uthmani or al-’Uthmaniyya”
.
Generally“Shi‘a”
was in opposition to“Uthmani”
. But this title was not applicable to all individuals. There were some Shi‘ite Muslims who were called so merely because they opposed ‘Uthman or stood for Imam as the Shi‘istically legitimate caliph.
There were also some who regarded Imam as basically appointed by the Messenger and believed in a kind of divine right for his leadership.
Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that they should have refrained to cooperate with the early caliphs. Conditions being so, Imam himself had kept silent for Muslim interests and had repeatedly notified this point. What should be told about ‘Uthmanids is that upholding the idea of Imam's illegitimacy, the Umayyads managed to dominate this view over a great part of Muslim community. But except for Basra, this opinion was not favored in Iraq. By contrast, in every appropriate accasion, the belief in ‘Alawi's rightfulness emerged in the field of politics. Hidjaz also did not fully surrender to the Umayyads, but tried to maintain another idea, content with Shiykhs. During the first to third century, religious and political changes triggered a great transition in that classification. Now, the matter related to our discussion is to show that the group known to us as Shi‘ite Muslims did believe in ‘Ali's divine designation. After swearing allegiance to ‘Ali, Khuzayma Ibn Thabit said,” We chose one whom God chose for us.”
In response to ‘Umar who said,“Quraysh refrained from choosing ‘Ali because they abominated both prophethood and caliphate being in my family.”
Ibn ‘Abbas replied,“They abominated what God had sent down.”
Opposing Mu‘awiya, Darimiyya Hadjuniyya said, واليت عليًا على حبّه المساكين وإعطائه أهل السبيل وفقهه في الدين وبذله الحق من نفسه وما عقد له رسول الله من الولاية“He loved ‘Ali because the Messenger confined the sainthood to him.”
According to Tabari, once ‘Ali returned to Kufa from Siffin and Kharidjites parted with him, The Shi‘ite Muslims remained with him saying that they are charged with another allegiance, نحن أولياء من واليت وأعداء من عاديت“We are amiable to your friends and opposed to your enemies.”
According to Iskafi, the majority of people, based on the Book and tradition, and Imam's Shi‘ite Muslims, on being amiable to the friends and enemies with the enemies, swore allegiance to ‘Ali.
The emphasis on such an allegiance as the second allegiance and its content implies that allegiance-swearers tended toward Shi‘a. In the original tradition, the emphasis is put on the allegiance of“‘Ali's Shi‘a”
. Abudhar,passed away at ‘Uthman's time, called people toward the People of House and commemorated Prophet's family this way, ايها الناس! إن آل محمد هم الأسرة من نوح والآل من إبراهيم والصفوة والسلالة من إسماعيل والعترة الطيبة الهادية من محمد، فأنزلوا آل محمد بمنـزلة الرأس من الجسد بل بمنـزلة العينين من الرأس فانهم منكم كالسماء المرفوعة وكالجبال المنصوبة والشمس الضاحية وكالشجرة الزيتونة اضاء زيتها وبورك زندها“The family of Muhammad(s), is the family of Noah and Ibraham and the selected progeny of Isma‘il and saint posterity. Regard them as the head attached to body and the eyes attached to head, the high sky, firm mountains, shining sun and olive tree.”
Added he,“Muhammad(s) is the heir of Adam, other prophets are not superior to him and ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the legatee of him and the heir of his knowledge.”
Addressing people he said,” If you, the folk astounded after the Prophet had preferred whom God had preferred, deferred whom God had deferred and confined sainthood and heritage to the People of the House, you would have benefited from all blessings.”
Elsewhere Abudhar has been quoted,“Oh, people! In case of being involved in prospective seditions, resort to Imam ‘Ali and the Book.
When he was to be exiled to Rabada and Imam and his children went to see him off, having a look at Imam, Abudhar said, seeing you and your children reminds me of what Prophet told about you and makes me cry.
Expressing regret for people not benefiting from Imam while he lives, Salman said,”
I swear by God, after him, no one will inform you of the secrets of your Prophet.”
Quoting the Messenger of God, Miqdad said,“knowing the family of Muhammad(s) is the released from fire, loving his family is the pass from the Path and sainthood of his family is the security from chastisement.
‘Ammar also narrated a tradition from the Messenger, I advice the one believing in God and admitting me with the guardianship of ‘Ali, son of Abi Talib, “Anyone loving ‘Ali, loves me and anyone loving me, loves God.”
There are lots of these quotations from Abudhar, Salman, ‘Ammar, Miqdad indicating their Shi‘istic beliefs. Abu Hatim Razi puts the definition of“Shi‘a”
this way,” This is the title of those who loved ‘Ali during the Messenger's time, for instance, Salman, Abudhar, Miqdad Ibn Aswad, ‘Ammar Ibn Yasir and etc.
Commenting on these four, The Messenger stated, “The Heaven looks forward to four men, Salman, Abudhar, Miqdad and ‘Ammar.
Describing ‘Ali, Umm Sanan, the daughter of Khaythama Ibn Kharasha, composed this,
قدكنت بعد محمد خلفاً لنا أوصى إليك بنا فكنت وفيا
“Thou art Muhammad’s remainder to us, He made his will to thee about us and thou art the faithful.”
Inciting ‘Ali’s troops at Siffin,Umm al-Khayr said, هلموا رحمكم الله إلى الإمام العدل والتقي الوفي والصديق الوصي“May God bless thee. Hasten toward the sincere, pious and just successor.”
The point that Imam ‘Ali is regarded by these and many of his companions as“the Successor”
, shows that they imagined him far beyond a caliph who has gained the caliphacy through public allegiance.
The sources contain lots of poems indicating the use of this comment by Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi, Ibn Tayyihan, Ibn ‘Idjlan and other Shi‘ites companions of Imam.
Inviting the people to swear allegiance to ‘Ali, Malik Ashtar stated, هذا وصيّ الأوصياء ووارث علم الأنبياء“O people! He is “the successor of the successors”
and“The heir of Prophets’ knowledge.”
In Siffin, he composed this,
من رآى عزة الوصيّ عليّ إنه في دجى الحنادس نور
“Everyone knows ‘Ali, the chief successor, he is the very man who illuminates dark night.”
Lamenting over ‘Ali's martyrdom, Umm ‘Irban said,
وكنا قبل مقتله بخير نرى مولى رسول الله فينا
“We had a good life before he was killed because we stayed with the Messenger(s).”
A lot of poems composed by the Messenger's companions some of which were ‘Ali’s supporters, interpret Ghadir tradition as sainthood and leadership. For instance, the poems of Qays Ibn Sa‘d Ibn
‘Ubada, Hassan Ibn Thabit as well as Imam ‘Ali himself.
Qays Ibn Sa‘d composed this about Ghadir:
وعـليّ إمامـنا وإمـام لسـوانا أتى به التنـزيل
يوم قال النبي من كنت مولا ه فهذا مولاه خطب جليل
انّ ما قاله النبيّ على الأمـ ة حتم ما فيـه قال وقيل
“‘Ali is our Imam and everyone’s, he is the one who has introduced Qur’an
It was on a great day when the Prophet(s) said, “‘Ali is the lord of whomever I am his lord”
What the Prophet(s) said to Umma ends up all babbles”
Hassan Ibn Thabit also composed this one about the same,
يناديهـم يوم الغدير نبيهم بخــم واسمع بالرسول مناديا
فقال له قم يا علي فاننـي جعلتك من بعدي اماما وهاديا
“Their Prophet called them to obey God at Ghadir Khum, a great herald whose call must be heard
‘Ali was told, “O rise up! For I placed thee an Imam after myself.”
The combination of these quotations indicates the recognition of ‘Ali as an Imam introduced by the Messenger. They regarded Imam's rightfulness in his legation on the part of Messenger and asked the others to follow him as the legatee of the Messenger.
According to Ibn Tayyihan, verily our Imam and guardian, is the legatee of the Messenger.
Ibn ‘Idjlan used to say,“How possibly can we separate while the guardian is our Imam.”
According to Hudjr, the son of ‘Adi, he is the guardian after the Messenger, and the prophet consented to his being the legatee.
A newly converted man called Zadan Farrukh came upon Kharidjites on his way. They asked him about ‘Ali, he said,“The Commander of the Faithful is the legatee of the Messenger and the lord of mankind”
.
They killed him. In his well-known letter to Mu‘awiya, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr mentioned Imam as وارث رسول الله ووصيه“The Heir of the Messenger and his successor.”
There is also a poem quoted from ‘Ubayda Ibn Samit which is composed during Saqifa.
The measures taken by Imam for propagating the idea of“Divine leadership”
are among the most important reasons of Shi‘istic propagation and its distinction from his caliphate. He himself has composed a poem about the content of Ghadir Tradition, in which he has interpreted the mentioned tradition as indicating the necessity of sainthood over people.
فأوجب لي ولايته عليكم رسول الله يوم غدير خم
“The Messenger(s) deemed his sainthood for you obligatory on the of Ghadir Khum.”
In a lengthy letter to Mu‘awiya, Imam has explained this issue in detail. The letter contains significant points about Imam's contribution to the propagation of Shi‘istic sainthood. Some major parts of the letter are quoted here for its great importance in terms of“Imamate Thought”
.
“The Almighty God says, “Obey God and execute the commands of the Messenger as well as Holders of Authority”
. This verse addresses us, The People of the House, not you. Then, Qur’an forbade affray and disunity and ordered surrender and unity. You are the folk acknowledging God and his prophet and admitting them. God informed you that” Muhammad(s) is the father of none of your men, he is the God's Messenger and the Seal of The Prophets“and also said, “Retreat if he is killed or dead “,and Mu‘awiya, you and your companion retreated, apostatized and broke your pledge to God as well as your allegiance, and all these will not harm God. Oh, Mu‘awiya! don't you know that Imams are from among us not you. God informed you that Holders of Authority must be capable of deducing the knowledge and you must refer to God, his Messenger and Holders of Authority, the bearers of knowledge, in all that you disagree. So anyone keeping his pledge to God, shall find Him faithful to His promise. We are the family of Ibrahim envied by all and you are those who envy us. There was a party of Banu Isra‘il who told their prophet, “Send us a king; we will fight for God's sake.”
And when God sent Saul as a king for them, they envied him and said,” How can he hold control over us?”
and deemed themselves more deserving of kingdom.These all are the past happenings and now we narrate them to you and their interpretation and esoteric exegesis are available to us, and anyone ascribing lies to us will fall into despair. You are typical of that... Let it be known to you that we, the People of House, are the envied family of Ibrahim. We were envied as our fathers were envied before.
The Almighty God said,“The family of Ibrahim, the family of Lot, the family of Jacob, the family of Moses, the family of Aaron and the family of David; we, too, are the family of our prophet, Muhammad(s). “Oh, Mu‘awiya, don’t you know that Allah says, “The closest people to Ibrahim are those who follow him as well as this prophet and the believers, God is the believer’s patron.”
We are kins by blood cited in this verse,”The prophet merits more than the believers to themselves and his wives are the mothers of believers and according to the holy Qur’an the genealogical relatives are merited over Muhadjirun and Ansar (Helpers).”
We are the People of House, God has chosen us“Nabuwwat”
, prophethood, is ordained to us the Book, wisdom and knowledge belong to us and Ka‘ba and Isma‘il’s House and Ibrahim's abode belong to us. So we deserve sovereignty. Woe is to you Mu‘awiya. We are more deserving of Ibrahim, we are his family and the family of ‘Imran are more deserving of Him... and the family of Muhammad(s) are more deserving of him...We are the people of house from whom God has removed all impurity.
Every prophet has an invitation exclusive to him, his progeny and family and every prophet leaves a testament for his family. Don’t you know that Ibrahim gave his last testament to his son Jacob and when Jacob was due to die, he also left a will and Muhammad(s) made a will.This was the tradition of Ibrahim and other prophets and Muhammad(s) followed them by order of God. The Book is sent down to us and the Messenger has been raised up from among us and the verses have been read to us. We depend on, witness, call to and uphold the Book.Oh, Mu‘awiya! Do you seek another God but Allah or another book except Allah's Book? Or another Qibla but Ka‘ba, the House of God, home of Isma‘il and abode of our father, Ibrahim. Do you want another religion but that of Ibrahim or another sovereign and commander but God? God has placed this sovereignty and commandership in us.You revealed your animosity toward us, well showed your spite and jealousy and proved that you break your pledge to God and distort his verses as this one revealed to Ibrahim,“God has selected your religion for you.”
Do you turn away from Ibrahim's religion while God has selected him in this world and he is from among the virtues in the Hereafter. Do you seek another decree but that of Allah? Or another Imam not from our family? The leadership belongs to Ibrahim, his progeny and the believers who follow them and do not turn away from his religion. It was also said, anyone who follows me is from me.”
Agitated at Imam’s calling himself the relative of all prophets, Mu‘awiya wrote in response,
“Not content with your kinship with the Messenger, now you relate yourself to all the prophets. Beware that Muhammad(s) was one of the prophets raised up for all, he delivered God’s messages and had nothing more. Now tell us what is the merit of your kinship and the superiority of your right and where in the Book did you find your name? Wherein is your sovergnity, leadership and superiority mentioned?
Yes, you as well as us, follow the previous Imams and caliphs.”
Then he mentioned his being ‘Uthman’s heir. Repelling him, Imam accused him of animosity toward the prophets and interest in his unbelieving forefathers and added,
“Beware that we are the People of Messenger's House. The infidel dislikes us and the believer bears us no grudge. You have denied Muhammad’s leadership and regarded him as Messenger not Imam. This denial makes you deny the leadership of all prophet’s. But we testify that he was both Messenger and Imam. And about your denying my kinship with the Messenger and my right, verily our due and right is mentioned in the Holy Book, and God mentions us as having an equal share with the Prophet where he says,”
A fifth of anything that you acquire as spoils belongs to God, the Messenger and the relatives.”
And elsewhere is said,“so give the relative his due.”
Don’t you see that our due is mentioned with that of God and Messenger and yours is mentioned with the strangers...you deny my leadership and sovereignty. Haven’t you seen that in the Book, the almighty God says he has made the family of Ibrahim superior to the world.
He is God who has exalted us over all mortals.If you can, separate us from Ibrahim, Isma‘il, Muhammad(s) and his family, in the Holy Book.
The aforesaid letter is quoted by Abu Ishaq Thaqafi, a Shi‘ites historian of the third century A.H.(283 A.D.) The belief in“divine leadership”
of the Commander of the Faithful is completely obvious in the letter and different deductive aspects of it are outstanding. The most important part is the relation and link between prophethood, succession, and leadership as a noble course of action in the history of prophets. Mu‘awiya’s denial of the Messenger’s leadership is also remarkable in this letter. Anyhow,in his words, Imam has tried his very best in proving the superiority of“The People of House “over others and having a “divine right.”
Proving such a right, Imam considers leadership as an integral part of it, to which the other caliphs are not entitled. There are also some other proofs indicating the Shi‘istic thought in works handed down by Imam. In a sermon about the People of the House, Imam says,“They (the descendants of Muhammad) are the trustees of his secret. Anyone taking refuge to them will be led towards God.They are the center of knowledge about him, the preachers of his religious commandments, the protectors of Qur’an and Sunna, and mountain -like citadels which guard the religion and make the Islam stable, firm and powerful.”
Elsewhere he states,
فأين تذهبون وأنى توفكون والأعلام قائمة والآيات واضحة والمنار منصوبة فأين يتاه بكم بل كيف تعمهون وبينكم عترة نبيكم وهم أزمة الحق وأعلام الدين وألسنة الصدق فأنزلوهم بأحسن منازل القرآن وردوهم ورود الهيم العطاش
“Where are you going and when are you due to return? The landmarks are fixed, beacons are lighted and direction indicators are set up. To what extent are you being misled and confused? The descendants of the holy prophet(s) are amongst you. They are the reins of right, ensigns of faith and speakers in the language of truth. Place them in the best Qur’anic positions turn to them as thirsty camels gather round water springs.”
“We are the tree of prophethood, the centers which receive the messages of God and descending place of blessing angels.
We are mines of knowledge and springs of wisdom. Our friend awaits blessings of God and our enemy awaits punishment and wrath.”
Elsewhere it is said,“Muhammad’s progeny revives the knowledge and kills the ignorance; you are informed of their knowledge because of their prudence, their appearance out of their inward, and their silence because of their philosophy of expression. They are neither at odds with the gospel truth nor render it wrong. They are pillars of religion and the shelter that harbor the people; upon their return, the gospel truth re-settled and the credal error, from there, was driven away and cut off with tongue. They knew, learned and applied the religion as they had to, not just lending an ear to it. Religion narrators are legion but its protectors are few in number.”
Elsewhere it has been stated,“Beware, when infant, my saint progeny is the most patient and when adult they are the most knowledgeable of all. Beware that we are from among the People of House whose knowledge and decree is rooted in God’s knowledge and decree. In case, you follow us, you will be guided through our wisdom and if not, God will have you brought to ruin.”
Elsewhere it goes to say,“They embarked on seas of sedition, adopted heresies and abandoned traditions. The faithful were isolated and wicked liars got loud in declaring their views. We are particular people, companions, the treasures of prophethood and the pearls of prophetic mission. Houses should be entered through their doors and whoever stepping into the house not through their doors should be called a thief. They are true applications of long Qur’anic verses and treasures of beneficent Allah; Once they speak, they tell naught but the truth and in case they remain quiet, they are not outpaced.”
Elsewhere he states this way,“Where are those, who falsely and unjustly deemed themselves and not us as the most knowledgeable. God raised us in position and kept them inferior to us. He has conferred on us the eminence of which he deprived them. He allowed us the entry to sphere of divine favor from which he dismissed them. With us guidance is to be sought and blindness (of misguidance) is to be changed into brightness. Verily Imams are from among the Quraysh, the tree of which is planted in the family of Hashim.The others do not deserve it nor would others be suitable as heads of affairs.”
In these sentences as well as the previously mentioned letter, a kind of prophetic inheritance for transfering the right of leadership is put forth by Imam. This is not the inheritance used for transferring the material rights but the one accompanied by executorship, knowledge, wisdom, purity and inerrancy.
This is the culture raised up by Qur’an among prophets and the right Ibrahim wants for his progeny. God says,” The despots never access to my mission.” Despite the key role that“selection”
plays, God considers the prophets as each other’s descendants.
Treating it as an ordinary heritage The Sunnites accuse the Shi‘ite Muslims of having such an idea about leadership while Shi‘a approves of the text which is within the framework of divine heritage existing in Qur’anic culture. In a letter indicating his dispute with Quraysh, Imam wrote about his being insistent on caliphacy,“Am I greedy to ask for my inheritance and the right granted to me by the Messenger and God?”
In this phrase, inheritance and divine right are cited together.
More important is Imam's reference to the Ghadir tradition at the threshold of entering Kufa- After suppressing those who broke their allegiance in the battle of Djamal. As several Sunnites sources specify, The people of Kufa as well as Messenger’s companions were brought together by Imam at the mosque of Kufa and all those who had witnessed and heard the Messenger uttering the Ghadir tradition were asked to stand up and give evidence of that. A large number, only twelve of which had participated the battle of Badr, bore witness.
Referring to this tradition publicly in fact implied his reference to“divine right “on “Sainthood”
.
The culture of“Proof”
in Qur’an confirms the leading attitude of Imam. This concept is applicable only to the prophet and those chosen by God and resembling them in rank.
Imam has stated,“God never allowed the creation to remain without a prophet deputed by Him or a Book sent down from Him or a binding argument.”
Elsewhere he said,“Verily the earth is never devoid of those who maintain God’s binding argument either openly and reputedly or fearfully and secretly so that God’s binding argument and proof should not be rebutted or his signs overlooked.”
In a letter to the one in charge of collecting alms, Imam included instructions for treating people and telling them, عبادالله! أرسلني ولي الله وخليفته لآخذ منكم حق الله في أموالكم“O servants of God! The vicegerent of God and His caliph sent me to you for collecting God’s share in your properties.”
The comments“The vicegerent of God and His caliph”
Imam attributed to himself are totally Shi‘istic concepts. Anyhow, having been formed during the caliphate of Imam, this theory constitutes the main identity of Shi‘ites thought about Imamate.
During his caliphate, by referring to upcoming incidents entitled“Malahim wa Fitan”
in various sermons, he turned out to be a figure not rivaling an ordinary caliph, he foretold the future but not as a political analyst. The charisma of Imam’s personality in the eyes of gnostics and sufis, was deeply rooted in the conception leading the public to deem him deserving of“sainthood”
in its full sense and also in remarks and conducts of him who officially claimed to be omniscient and asked all people to question him before they miss him.
At the end of these proofs, it will be proper to mention another important narration. When ‘Ayisha was ready to revolt against ‘Ali, the Messenger’s graceful wife, Umm Salama, tried to stop her going.
‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr said objectingly,“You harbor old animosity towards the family of Zubayr.”
Umm Salama answered, “Do you think people will turn to Talha and your father while ‘Ali about whom God said, عليّ وليّ كل مؤمن ومؤمنة“‘Ali is the guardian of all believing men and women”
is present.
‘Abd Allah said,“We haven't heard him saying such a thing.”
Umm Salama replied,“You may have not, but your aunt, ‘Ayisha, has.”
I myself heard the Messenger saying, عليّ خليفتي عليكم في حياتي ومماتي فمن عصاه فقد عصاني“Alive or dead, I place ‘Ali as my caliph to you, so whoever disobeys him, he has disobeyed me.”
‘Ayisha has also confirmed this.
Based on things mentioned, what should be said about the interpretation of comments written in Nahdj al-Balagha on the allegiance of Muhadjirun and Ansar is that at that time, the allegiance of these two was the principle behind selecting a caliph, and Imam enjoyed this principle. Facing the opposition of deviators and apostates Imam had to refer to this principle. With this deduction of Imam lots of people followed him and fought his enemies. There is a poem quoted from one of Imam’s adherents who compared his pledge to that of early caliphs to prove his rightfulness and public commitments to him,
له في رقاب النـاس عهد وذمـة كعهد ابي حفص وعهد ابي بكر
فبايع ولا ترجع علي العقب كافراً أعـيذك بالله العزيز من الكفر
“People owe him just as ‘Umar and Abu Bakr do. So swear an allegiance and avoid infidelity, do you excuse yourself in atheism!”
But neither Imam considered this as a legitimate way of leadership nor did his close companions who deemed his leadership far beyond the allegiance of Muhadjirun and Ansar, accept such a basis. In conclusion, the differences from Saqifa to the martyrdom of Imam have been influential in many of the Islamic thoughts, But related to our discussion are issues concerning ruler ship and caliphate.
Here, a brief conclusion is drawn from the effects these events had on forming of political views. Obviously, as mentioned earlier, in the course of murdering ‘Uthman and ‘Ali's caliphacy, Shi‘ism changed both in quality and quantity. Previous to this, only a few companions tended towards Shi‘a but because of aforesaid reasons it spread in Iraq. This trend is called“‘Alawites and Shi‘ites”
. Its full version can be regarded in ‘Uthman's rejection and the proof of ‘Ali’s caliphate.The full version of it includes ‘Ali’s Imamate after the Messenger and his superiority over the other caliphs. There has been some controversy over the quality and quantity of some exaggerated trends emerging at that time.
The other trend was called“‘Uthmanids”
. This trend was crystallized during to wars of Djamal and Siffin.The aforesaid course of action came to a dead end in Djamal but its impacts on Basra remained to be seen and the people of that city were reckoned as“‘Uthmanids”
.
The second trend prevailed over Damascus and Iraq during the Umayyads. The Umayyads ruling was the manifestation of ‘Uthmanids sect's prevalence. This sect deemed no legitimacy for ‘Ali's caliphacy on the pretext of the third caliph being murdered either by ‘Ali himself or at his instigation. They also said not all of the people had approved of him. This has been a common belief among the ancestors of Sunnites who were called the ‘Uthmanids. During that period“Shi‘ite Muslims”
and“‘Uthmanids”
were opposed to each other. The ‘Uthmanids believed that ‘Uthman was to replace Mu‘awiya in caliphate. Their legitimacy was based on Mu‘awiya 's claim to be a relative of ‘Uthman and consequently his blood-wit.
Basra and Kufa, tending towards ‘Uthmanids and Shi‘a respectively, were rivals to each other. The distinction between Shi‘ism and ‘Uthmani's sect was the interesting point about the battle of Djamal.
The murderer of one of Imam's companions called Zayd Ibn Suhan said he had killed him while he believed in ‘Ali.
Opposing ‘Ammar he composed this:
لا تبرح العرصة يا بن اليثربي حتى اقاتلك على دين علي
“O Yathrib-born! Leave not the battlefield so that I might fight you by relying on ‘Ali’s religion.”
“‘Uthman's religion”
was coined versus“‘Ali's religion”
. A poet from Damascus, told about the Damascus army:
ثمانين الف "دين عثمان" دينهم كتائب فيها جبرئيل يقودها
“80 thousands are those whose religion is that of ‘Uthman’s, troops who are led by Gabriel.”
A poet participating in Siffin, introduced himself this way,
انا ابن ارباب الملوك غسان والدائن اليوم به دين عثمان
“I am son of king of kings and today I follow ‘Uthman’s religion.”
In a poem Rufa‘a Ibn shaddad told,
انا ابن شداد على "دين علي" لست لعثمان بن اروى بولي
“I am Ibn Shaddad, a follower of ‘Ali’s religion and never am I guardian of ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Arwa.”
It has been said that 80 thousand of Damascus army believed in“‘Uthman's religion “.
There was also a third trend, in addition to Shi‘a and ‘Uthmani, called “Qa‘idin”
. Nashi’ Akbar recognizes this group in two different names and trends. The first one was“Hulaysiyya”
who believed that when a sedition is raised one must stay around his/her house.
They deemed both groups as misled and infernal.To them religion was seen as tarry to war and sedition as getting involved in it. ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas belonged to this group. They believed that only one of the two groups was right but the righteous group was unknown to them. Abu Musa Ash‘ari, Abu Sa‘id Khudri and Abu Mas‘ud Ansari were from among this group.
As... Nashi’ Akbar clarifies,these were called“Mu‘tazilites”
. Later, Wasil Ibn ‘Ata’ and ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ubayd also thought the same about Talha and Zubayr.
Considering the situation of that time, these groups put the emphasis on the concept of“Sedition”
, to them, being“‘Abd Allah, the murdered”
was preferable to being“‘Abd Allah, the murderer”
.
People’s Allegiance to ‘Ali (a)
Without doubt, during the caliphacy of the first three caliphs, Imam was not politically active in the current affairs and except for counseling some Judicial cases and, to a lesser extent political issues, did not take an active part in politics. In other words, he did not take part in the ruling system of caliphs, but just led the opposition party indirectly. His victory after ‘Uthman, in large measures, indicated the domination of anti-Quraysh and anti-Umayyads. These opponents enjoyed the support of Iraqi tribes, Egyption migrants and also the assistance of Ansar and native Medinans.Some of Muhadjirun at the head of which was ‘Ammar Ibn Yasir, were reckoned among this group. These formed a part of ‘Uthman's adversaries. But because of ‘Uthman's being inattentive to a group of Quraysh itself and his overattention to Umayyads, the former had also joined the opposition party. Talha, Zubayr and ‘Ayisha were presiding over this group. ‘Amr Ibn ‘As who was deposed from Egyptian rule, opposed ‘Uthman. Of course all these claimed that ‘Uthman had stood aloof from the practice of Prophet. Therefore the overall direction of the rebellion was returning to the Prophet's conduct, fostering justice and not being cruel or unjust to people. The head companions who had lived up to that time, and participated in ‘Umar's election council- especially Talha who was supported by ‘Ayisha were candidates for caliphate. Their joining to the opposition party was a glimmer of hope for caliphate. Despite their fame in Iraq and Hidjaz, concerning records, knowledge and piety none of them could hold a candle to ‘Ali; moreover, ‘Uthman's failure as the representative of Quraysh naturally resulted in the power of ‘Ali, the representative of the opposition party who had opposed the ruler's policy from the very beginning.
From the starting-point of public opposition to ‘Uthman, Imam ‘Ali (a) was as the mediator of the two parties or on the other hand, opponents’ spokesman and he transferred people’s oppositions to ‘Uthman. Although being considered as the mediator, Imam (a) acted moderately. Having objected to ‘Uthman’s some indecent behaviors
, Imam (a) under the conditions of being mediator obeyed ‘Uthman’s rights, took him on oath of promise and calm opponents along with obeying opponents’ conditions. It was natural that although Imam (a) didn’t play any role in ‘Uthman’s murder and his coming to power, the Umayyads and some parties of Quraysh accused him of doing so. In spite of it, most of those being of Imam’s close companions ranked among the opponents and even being accused of having a hand in ‘Uthman’s murder. Imam’s supporters were all anti-‘Uthman. And as indicated before, this was the starting-point of Shi‘ism forming among people of Kufa whose important political activity was opposition to the ruling caliphate. They were indeed satisfied with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
At any rate, Imam’s supporting party consisting of Ansar, the majority of companions as well as Kufa’s Qur’an reciters was strong to the extent that Talha and Zubayr weren’t allowed any appearance. Also there existed no reference to Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas
. In continuation of Sa‘id Ibn Musayyib’s long narrations concerning ‘Uthman’s murder, it’s mentioned that after that ‘Ali (a) came to his house and all the people rushing to his house asserted ‘Ali (a)’s caliphate.
They wanted him to reach out his hand to people for allegiance but Imam (a) said,“Allegiance is Badr’s companions’ not yours. And the caliph is the one they choose.”
After that, all the people of Badr who were alive came to ‘Ali (a) and called for allegiance to Imam (a).
Confronted by the insistence of the Prophet(s)’s companions, Imam averted the admission of caliphate. Tabari quoted from Muhammad Ibn Hunayf that after ‘Uthman’s murder, a number of companions came to my father, saying that we know no body more deserving of caliphate than you.
‘Ali (a) said,“It’s better for me to be your vizier rather than your emir”
.
They answered,“We admit nothing but swearing allegiance to you.”
Imam said that his allegiance ought to be in mosque rather than in secrecy.
According to Ibn ‘Abbas,“I feared lest a problem might be arisen in the mosque.”
When he went to the mosque, Muhadjirun and Ansar went there and pledged allegiance to him. Besides, Abu Bashir ‘Abidi has been quoted as saying that after the assassination of ‘Uthman, the people went repeatedly to ‘Ali (a) till they managed to compel him admit the caliphate.
Imam ascended the pulpit and said,“He was not in want of caliphate and he admitted it reluctantly, and shall accept to govern them providing that people will adhere thoroughly to him.”
It’s been noted in the narrations that Talha and Zubayr were within this throng of the people as well. When all gathered in the mosque, Talha was the first to swear allegiance. Averting allegiance, Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas said that he won’t swear allegiance as well. Tabari points out a narration with respect to the belief that Talha and Zubayr’s allegiance arose from their fear of Malik’s sword. However, the narration is not in conformity with the other ones. Imam asked them to be caliph themselves, and he shall swear allegiance to them. Yet, in so far as, by no means, they found themselves apt, they were satisfied with swearing allegiance to Imam, in order that they hereby find a position for themselves. By chance, their later remarks made it known that by compelled allegiance they meant that they didn’t have anybody at Medina to whom they swear allegiance, whereas Imam ‘Ali (a) has had abundant number of supporters.
Previously, in our discussion on allegiance, we’ve pointed out that, in principle, Imam was among those compelling others to swear allegiance. As after the riot of Djamal rebels, he never forced Marwan to swear allegiance as quoted by him.
Immediately after allegiance Imam was asked to turn over Basra and Kufa but he refused to do so.
Muhammad Ibn Hanifa says,“All Ansars except a few, swore the oath of allegiance to ‘Ali. The opponents consisted of Hassan Ibn Thabit, Ka‘b Ibn Malik, Maslama Ibn Mukhallad, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and some others reckoned among the ‘Uthmanids, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, Zayd Ibn Thabit and Usama Ibn Yazid were among non-Ansar opponents who all benefited from generosity of ‘Uthman's caliphate.
Tabari says, “As far as we know, not even one of Ansars infringed the allegiance to ‘Ali.
Hence, some, who allegedly did not swear allegiance to ‘Ali were probably those not taking part in battles of Djamal, Siffin and Nahrawan not those not taking the oath of allegiance to ‘Ali.
As Diyar Bakri relates, All the Badr participants who had lived up to that time swore allegiance to ‘Ali.
‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abzi has been quoted, 800 of us who were present at Ridwan allegiance, took part at Siffin 63 of whom including ‘Ammar were killed.
As Ibn A‘tham narrates, at first Imam rejected the allegiance saying, “I beheld in everything a profound disintegration which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept.”
Then, accompanied by people, he went to Talha and asked him to accept the caliphate.
Talha said,“There is no one more deserving than you.”
The same happened to Zubayr and both of them undertook not to do anything contrary to Imam’s will.
Ibn A‘tham talks about the role of Ansar in taking the oath of allegiance to ‘Ali and about their deputies who addressed the people in the mosque some of whom where Iraqi and Egyptian migrants.
People said,” You are“God's helpers”
and we will do what you say.”
They too introduced ‘Ali as the caliph and the cheering people approved him as well. That day people left the mosque and next day Imam entered the mosque and said, choose someone that fits your purpose and I shall follow you.
They said,“We haven't changed our mind since yesterday.”
At first, Talha who was paralyzed in hand took the oath. This was considered as ill omen! Then Zubayr took the oath and following him Muhadjirun and Ansar and all Arabs, non-Arabs and kinsfolk present in Medina did so.
Imam's words, better than anything else, are expressive of why he refused to accept the burden of people's allegiance. The first reason was that to him, the society was so decadent that he couldn't either lead it or enforce his criterion and intentions.On the day of allegiance he told,
“Leave me alone and go in search of someone else. We are facing a matter with several faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept The clouds of sedition have darkened the skies thoroughly and the right path can't be discerened. Let it be known to you that if I accept your request I shall make you act according to my own judgments and will not care about the suggestions and blames of the reproachful.”
Imam knew that amidst those seditions, leading the society properly was beyond the bounds of possibility. Once he got that people won't leave him to himself, he managed to place them under the obligation of obeying him fully and resigning themselves to his will.
Following happenings made the hardships of working within sedition and doubts dawn on Imam. Once he said,“If I knew the heightened situation, I would have never got involved in it from scratch.”
Later on, he wrote about the day of allegiance,
“When you revolted against ‘Uthman and killed him, turning toward me you wanted to swear allegiance to me. I balked at doing so and held my hand back. You struggled to open my hand and I prevented it. You pulled my hand and I resisted. You crowded so densely round me that I thought you will either kill each other or me, you said”
we swear allegiance to you for we find no one but you and will consent to no one except you and after the allegiance we will neither get separated nor will there be in any disagreement between us.” so I felt compelled to accept your request and called the people to take the oath of allegiance. I accepted the allegiance of any one swearing at will.Not taking aversion to the one not willing to take the oath, I left him to himself. Talha and Zubayr were from among those swearing allegiance to me and if they didn’t want to do so, I would compel neither them nor any one else.”
Once, in Kufa, Imam saw a man called Abu Maryam from whom he asked the reason for his coming there.
He answered,” I have come for my promise to you because you said if you had come to power, you would have done so and so.”
Imam said,“I have kept my word, but I am in grips with the most malignant people who do not obey me at all.”
There are some significant points about ‘Ali's election as the Community leader. First, people’s participation in the first Caliph’s election was initially confined to the participants in Saqifa and evidence shows some sort of previous conspiracy or at least coordination of anti-Hashimites party earlier than allegiance.
‘Umar was appointed through a will and ‘Uthman, too,was selected by a confined council. By contrast, ‘Ali’s election was largely demanded by Medinans.
As a matter of fact, this was the only allegiance and election which can be called a public one. The new point about this allegiance was the participation of Iraqi and Egyptian delegates in addition to Muhadjirun and Ansar. Of course, based on the common, well-establishd tradition of those days, according to which only Muhadjirun and Ansar were of good standing, no credence was attached to their choice. Despite of that, their presence did increase public turnout in Imam's election. This was not an unknown phenomenon for Imam and the others. During a sermon Imam said,
Your allegiance to me was not a hasty and precipitate action nor is my and your position the same. I seek you for Allah's sake and you seek me for your own benefits.
This, according to Ibn Abi l-Hadid
is an allusion to Abu Bakr’s election. In order to prevent the idea of opportunism and conspiracy in public opinion, Imam didn’t allow people to take the oath at his house, stating that,“There can be no allegiance without Muslim’s consent.
The allegiance should not take place secretly. I go to the mosque, anyone who wishes can come there to take the oath to me.”
Then he entered the mosque and people took the oath to him.
This is one of the reasons of Imam’s delay in accepting people’s request.
Secondly, Apart from what was set forth about Imam and his true Shi‘ite Muslims’ belief in his Imamate, the“tradition of allegiance”
was fully established and Imam could not trespass it. This was a good proof against Imam’s opponents and for him who was publicly selected. According to Dinwari, during a speech following allegiance Imam stated,“Oh, people! You took the oath of allegiance to me in accordance with the previous traditions. Prior to the allegiance, the choice was yours but after that you have no choice. Imam must be firm and the folk must resign themselves to his will. This was a public allegiance, anyone denying it, has in fact denied Islam, allegiance to me was not precipitate.
Notwithstanding, Imam was determined not to force anyone to take the oath. He even didn't call to account those who had sworn the oath but were inattentive in settling the case of apostates. When Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and Usama Ibn Zayd made some excuse for not performing Imam's command, Malik Ashtar said, “Oh, the Commander of the Faithful! Although we are not from among the Muhadjirun and Ansar but we are from “The followers of righteousness”
.
Despite Muhadjirun and Ansar’s superiority in Islam, they are not supreme in what they share with us. This has been a public allegiance, anyone going back upon it deserves to be reprimanded. Coax those who intend to violate the allegiance and imprison them in case they refuse.
Imam stated,“I call them but they are decided in their very votes.”
Hasan and Husayn told their father,” Marwan -who after ‘Uthman’s murder, had sworn allegiance and now was taken into captivity in the battle of Djamal - will take the oath to you.”
Imam answered,“Did he not swear me allegiance after ‘Uthman's murder? I don't need the allegiance of such a treacherous person with a hand like that of Jews.
According to Baladhuri, following Djamal, Marwan told ‘Ali (a), “Unless forced, I won't swear allegiance to you.”
Obviously, not taking the oath differs form rebelling. Once according to the accepted standards the oath is taken and the public allegiance is accomplished anyone disobeying rebelliously or claiming caliphate, must be restrained;otherwise, what the caliphate would mean?
Despite this, Imam gloried in not forcing anyone to take the oath to him.
‘Adi Ibn Hatim also told Mu‘awiya,“‘Ali (a) compelled no one to take the oath.”
The third point is that the accepted method of allegiance, was that of Muhadjirun and Ansar based on which, Imam was nationally accepted as the caliph and apostates were rejected.
Even it has been said that even if Imam were the one killing ‘Uthman, he remains the caliph, for Muhadjirun and Ansar who dominate over people have taken the oath of allegiance to him.
Obviously, Imam relied on this method with the purpose of convincing his opponents who, based on the same method, approved Muhadjirun and Ansar and the legitimacy of previous caliphs. Not to mention that in addition to Muhadjirun and Ansar, the delegates from Iraqi tribes and some Egyptians had also sworn allegiance to ‘Ali (a), and this point was taken into consideration by Malik Ashtar.
In a letter to Mu‘awiya Imam wrote,“Those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, have sworn allegiance to me in the same way.”
Now he who was present at the election have no right to go back upon his oath and he who was absent has no right to deny the oath of participants. Consultation is confined to Muhadjirun and Ansar.God feels satisfaction at they gathering round a man and selecting him as their caliph. Should anybody go against such decision or fall into heresy, they will return him to the position from where he kept away and should he refuse to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him.
As far as the initial caliphs were in power, this was deemed as an acceptable principle, except for the time when some ‘Uthmanids relied on a few companions not swearing the oath and they also, making an excuse of Muslims fratricide, evaded to act in obedience to the orders of ‘Ali (a) in combating his enemies.
Mu‘tamir Ibn Sulayman narrated,“I told my father, people say the allegiance to ‘Ali (a) was not accomplished. He answered, “My son, allegiance belongs to the people of Mecca and Medina who did take the oath.”
Another point is that on what allegiance was sworn. ‘Uthman was recognized as outcast because he violated divine rules and in early caliphs time, it was an acceptable principle to act upon the Book and the Prophet’s tradition. Although a few of them disregarded some dimensions of the Prophet’s biography and even Qur’an, after ‘Umar, condition of Shiykhs biography was included in allegiance that Imam ‘Ali rejected. According to Tabari, swearing allegiance to ‘Ali happened to say that Book of God has to be referred about the close, the mean, the endeared and the stranger.
This position reflects issues during ‘Uthman.
An Egyptian, Ibn A‘tham says, named Sudan Ibn Hamran Muradi who is to be murderer of ‘Uthman said,“O Abu Hasan! we swear allegiance to you provided that if you acted like ‘Uthman,you’ll be killed”
.
That’s right, replied ‘Ali (a), then people acted according to Book of God and the Prophet’s tradition.
One person insisted on including Shiykhs biography as terms of allegiance in addition to above two, yet Imam disapproved and saying that even if Abu Bakr and ‘Umar act upon something except the Book and the tradition, they are untruthful.
Imam merely found himself yielded to Qur’an and tradition and unwilling to disobey it and so were his companions and commanders.
O people!, said Qays Ibn Sa‘d, we swore allegiance to a man better of whom we never know after the Prophets(s). Rise up and swear allegiance to the Book and His Prophet.If we failed to do so, allegiance is withdrawn.
Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, Egyptian ruler said if you observe in my deeds obedience and fear from God, I praise God because of this gift bestowed upon me and it has guided me. If not, I have to be scolded.
Imam himself disapproved those who wanted to condition the allegiance to make Imam overlook what they have in their hands and said the only right they have in front of him is to comply with the Book and the tradition and nothing else.
Qa‘idin and No Congregation Formation
There emerged no agreement like that of Shiykhs time in the course of swearing allegiance to Imam and despite allegiance of the Ansar and Muhadjirun. A few people opposed in the course of allegiance to Abu Bakr but congregation formed since, later, opponents also swore allegiance. Then, ‘Umar claimed that the opponents must join "congregation". This congregation faced no problems in time of ‘Umar. It wasn’t first time when a rebellion shaped in time of ‘Umar and congregation split apart. ‘Uthman’s improper attitude led to fragmentation in the Islamic community. In that time Kufiyans and a major part of Egyptians found ‘Uthman a wrongdoer if not willing to kill him, they didn’t know him to be qualified for caliphate either. This idea wasn’t strongly rooted in Kufa and ‘Uthman was never admitted by people. Later on, it wasn’t known that if anyone wants martyrdom, he shall go to Dar al-Bittikh in Kufa for compassion of ‘Uthman.
Medinans were hesitant about this and they are said to be followers of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. They never approved ‘Uthman.
There were people of Damascus and Umayyads who retained sanctity of ‘Uthman and founded "‘Uthmanids"
, recalled as "anti-Shi‘a religion". As a matter of time, the Sunnites approved ‘Uthman. From third century on, the ‘Uthmanids with a gradual change of name into people of Sunnat and Djama‘at approved ‘Ali (a). Anyway, "Djama‘at" persisted till ‘Umar and up to mid-rule of ‘Uthman
and broke up into branches. This congregation in a real sense ceased to return until Mu‘awiya that strangled all opposition by force and trick. However, it is obvious that the congregation differed from that of the old one foundationally. Allegiance to Imam ‘Ali met the requirements of a proper one. Muhadjirun and Ansar in addition to emissaries of Iraq and Egypt swore allegiance to him. But due to disagreements continued by Qa‘idin, the wicked ones, the deviators and the apostates and that a full-scale congregation came not to be formed, the subject congregation wasn’t so legitimate in the eyes of the majority of the companions through support of which the disagreements can be challenged and their founders can be called "rebels". This wasn’t accepted by the Sunnites save the basis of the mentioned rebellions on the part of the companions that wasn’t regarded as "Idjtihad", exertion, and so they were exonerated. They didn’t analyze the Kharidjites this way calling them real rebels. The "legitimate congregation" resisted against "rebellion" through support of a Qur’anic verse in the chapter of Hidjrat that says,“If two groups of the faithful began to fight each other, try to bring them to a compromise. And if one offended the other, try to fight the offender to bring it back to bow to God. If it did so, make a just peace between them and exert justice for God love just people”
.
If, Abu Hanafiyya said later, Amir al-Mu’minin(a) had no conduct of Djihad with the rebels, we didn’t know the rules of fighting with them.
The Commander of the Faithful held that the mere swearing no allegiance and even expressing dissent verbally can not justify armed campaigning against them. The first disagreement came from Qa‘idin, those who likely swore allegiance to ‘Ali but refrained from helping him in his war with the Infidels and the Deviators. Baladhuri narrates that they didn’t swear allegiance.
Some of such as ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar said that they will be the last people to swear allegiance.
These people believed that "congregation" is not organized.
Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas said,“I will swear allegiance when I’m the last one”
.
Imam left them alone in front of these oppositions. Here it is to be noted that there must be a distinction between the particular and general allegiance when a forcible allegiance is in question. In fact, when the "particular" people swear allegiance, caliphate is established, afterwards all must attend the general allegiance. Malik Ashtar’s speech against the disagreement of Qa‘idin denotes such a case. Imam rejected force too.
When the Kharidjites opposed, they were said to be silent, if they want to be safe. If they say something, they will be given reasons and in case they turn to swords, they will be resisted.
And he further said,“As long as you remember Allah, we keep our mosques open to you and as long as you stay with us, we keep your share of booty but if you pull your swords out, we launch a war with you.”
Anyway, Qa‘idin regarded "congregation" incomplete to justify their opposition and naturally questioned ‘Ali’s caliphate. They said people of Damascus would complement this congregation whilst until then allegiance of people of Haram wasn’t considered sufficient. Mu‘awiya too having a large number of Damascus people in his control denied forming of "congregation" along with ‘Ali and naturally rejected his caliphate.
In front of ‘Ali’s call, Mu‘awiya wrote to people of obedience and congregation,“The community you’re talking about is also available to us.”
He accused ‘Ali of murdering their caliph and dispersing their community.
There is no reasonable justification about the Infidels. The evidence show that these people opposed merely because of authoritarianism despite the commitments they had in allegiance. Imam tried hard to rehabilitate peace and in no case he resorted to weapon. Imam regarded their launching war the only permit to wage war.
Aside from all incentives and internal problems, the events in period of caliphate resulted in different sectarian and religious tilts that left behind works not only in jurisprudic-ideological matters but also in the field of Imamate issues. Later, "political community" came to posed again and the Sunnites calling themselves independent of "people of innovation" and devaluing their participation in or separation from "congregation" named themselves“people of congregation.”
Abu Hatim Razi writes about the term of congregation for the Sunnites, “Since the majority of people accepted caliphate of the Umayyads during Mu‘awiya and after in Marwanids time, people from the followers asserting this called themselves people of congregation…. And saying that “if anyone opposes us, he breaks apart the unity, opposes Umma and abandons the tradition. By "people of Sunnat and Djama‘at", they meant that they named themselves so because they were unanimous by the same Imam despite all sectarian differences they had.
The pivotal role in "congregation" is in fact the same Imamate. According to a Sunnites mind, community appears when all people generally agree on an Imam who is in power in whatever way. Such an Imam is entirely legitimate according to a Sunnites. In Shi‘a thinking, Imam is beyond a mere political consensus and community normally has its given sense.
Allegiance wasn’t sworn to Imam on Friday, Dhi l-Hadjdja 18,36 H.
Imam’s Problems
When Imam took charge of caliphate, he faced tremendous problems. These obstacles in addition to political disorder after death of ‘Uthman darkly imaged the future. Here, problems are reviewed and the solutions ahead of Imam will be discussed. Before everything it is to known that these problems were important for a person like Imam who showed more sensitivity to observing principles and applications than anybody else. Some time earlier, every caliph had opened a way temporarily and just for the purpose of expanding the conquests. But now it wasn’t obvious that many of those ways were off the roads and time passed had shown this. Typically, ‘Umar considered tribal tenets in regulating chancery. Presently after fifteen years, its social and even political negative consequences have turned up. To arrange the issue more, Imam’s problems are multi-dimensionally dealt with,
(1) The first problem wasn’t to follow economic justice. Earlier referred that ‘Umar set the chancery in accordance with the Islamic records of people and tribal shape. Those of the companions who had embraced Islam sooner than others shared more. The same condition kept on during ‘Uthman as well. He began his generosity leading to greater rich-poor distance in the community. All this property includes the fifth of booties and tributes that were annually received and came from the conquered territories belonging to all people. When Imam came to power, he raised equal sharing of this property. His reason rested upon what the Prophet(s) had done.
Imam in his very speech referring to the point that he will act upon the Prophet’s biography spoke of his fiscal policy and called virtue of Muhadjir and Ansar superior over others, that is kept and rewarded by God. وإني حاملكم على منهج نبيكم صلى الله عليه وآله
But in this world, anyone who accepts call of God and His Messenger(s) and becomes a Muslim and pray before Qibla, he will benefit from all rights and Islamic rules. You’re servants of God, Imam added, and property is God’s that will equally be divided among you. The pious people are well rewarded by God.
Underlining his policy, Imam said,“Lest someone tomorrow say”
, حرمنا علي بن ابي طالب حقوقنا
Imam tomorrow that day ordered ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Abi Rafi‘, Anyone came, give him three Dinars.
In there Sahl Ibn Hunayf said, This man wasn’t my slave who wasn’t set free yesterday.
Imam said,“All are given three Dinars and no one is over another.”
A group of Umayyads elites as well as Talha and Zubayr did’nt turn up to get their share. Tomorrow that day, Walid Ibn ‘Uqba with a number of people came to Imam and referring to his father’s murder by ‘Ali in Uhud, murder of Sa‘d Ibn ‘As in there, humiliation of Marwan’s father in front of ‘Uthman and…. Asked Imam not to take back at least what has been given to them of the property. Besides, ‘Uthman’s murderers are retaliated. Imam turned him down and so they started to reveal their discords.
Tomorrow again, Imam made a sermon and based his sharing of property on the Book out of wrath. Imam came down the pulpit and after rendering two units of pray sat with Talha and Zubayr on the corner of mosque. These two people spoke of first, Imam’s not consulting with them and second,
خلافك عمر بن الخطاب في القسم
A major disadvantage is that you disagree on the way of division comparing ‘Umar. You gave our share just like that of others who took no sufferings for Islam.
Imam said, ؛ As long as there is a rule in Qur’an, consultation is not required. Otherwise, I would’ve consulted with you. As for equal sharing, we all witnessed that the Messenger(s) did as the Book says.”
Zubayr said,“This is our reward? We acted in this way for him! To have ‘Uthman killed and he today puts people over us whom we were over.”
Ibn Abi l-Hadid regards public habit a major problem for disagreement of companions with Imam while Abu Bakr had the same manner as the Prophet’s and nobody opposed him.
Imam in response to companions who objected to his method and referred to ‘Umar’s manner said, أفسنّة رسول الله أولى بالاتباع أم سنة عمر
“Does obeying the Prophet’s tradition stand first or that of ‘Umar’s.”
Serious disapproval of this manner induced some companions of Imam to go to Imam to ask him to prefer Arab and Quraysh noblemen than Mawali and non-Arabs.
He rejected them and said,“Are you telling me that I gain victory through cruelty.”
Later, Ibn ‘Abbas writing to Imam Hasan said,“People left your father alone and went to Mu‘awiya because he equally shared the property among them and they never endured this act of your father.”
Some people explicitly reasoned their opposition as that ‘Ali failed to observe their equal rights.
Anyway, one feature Imam became known after wasn’t that, قسم بالسوية وعدل في الرعية
(2) Elsewhere it wasn’t referred that one of the consequences of conquests wasn’t that different races of Arab, Iran, Nabat, Byzantine and Barbar were intermingled with one another. Many of them were gone or taken to other regions by migration or for war. A large number of them were prisoners from Arab tribes brought to Damascus, Iraq and Saudi Arabia from different parts. The captives released were called“Mawali”
. This meant that the prisoner belonged to this Arab tribe and now he is linked to that tribe in one way or another. It wasn’t natural that Mawali were of lower class of Arabs and enjoyed less rights. One of the difficulties the government had wasn’t how it should treat this case. What is certain is when Imam came to power, the community had assumed Arab superiority over Mawali a definite principle. This disturbed Imam’s justice-seeking morale that never found religiously a reason for veracity of the above-mentioned distinction but adversely equality of Muslims had clear reasons.
‘Umar had said that the Arab slaves be released by means of public property,
thus differentiating diverse races, Imam rejected the distinction. Two women are said to have come to Imam ‘Ali and expressed their destitution.
It is, Imam said, up to us to help you in case you tell the truth. Then he sent a man to market to buy them dress and food and pay them one hundred dhms.
One of them said in objection,“I’m an Arab while the other is Mawali, why should we be treated equally?”
Imam replied,“I read Qur’an and I thought, there I noticed no superiority, as small as a mosquito’s wing, of Isma‘il children over those of Isaac.”
Once Imam intending to divide some property said,“Rev.Adam gave birth to neither a male slave nor a female one, servants of God are all free…. now some property is with me and I’ll divide it among the black and white people equally with no distinction.”
Treating Arabs and non-Arabs in parity was not something endurable for Arabs. Umm Hani, Imam ‘Ali’s sister, came to Imam to get her grant and Imam granted her twenty dhms. Her non-Arab slave also came to Imam and he gave her twenty dhms. When Umm Hani heard this, she went to see Imam in fury. Imam’s response to her accorded with Qur’an that he has not seen any differentiation between Arabs and non-Arabs there.
Imam elsewhere told Muhadjirun and Ansar that he never gives anybody anything aimlessly and, لأسوين بين الأسود والأحمر“The black and the white will be treated in parity.”
Imam’s just treatment towards Mawali and non-Arabs raised protest of prejudiced people like Ash‘ath Ibn Qays.
When Imam wasn’t up on pulpit, Ash‘ath shouted, غلبتنا عليك الحمراء“The white Mawali has overcome us and you see that.”
‘Ali became angry hearing that.
Ibn Suhan said,“It’ll become clear today what status Arabs are placed in.”
‘Ali said,“Who excuses me to penalize these sturdy-body people resting in their beds till mid-noon while a group of people stay away their beds because of vigil nights? Are you telling me that I should abandon them and become an oppressor. I swear to One that grew the seed and created the creatures and I heard Muhammad (s) saying,
I swear to God they beat you (Arabs) to return to religion just as you did to them to accept Islam.
Mughira ®abbi says, ‘Ali (a) was interested in Mawali and was kind to them but ‘Umar loathed them and kept away from them.”
Included in Imam’s poetry, there is a piece of poem that talks about negating the effect of racial problems on divine and human honor,
لعمرك ما الإنسـان إلاّ بـدينه فلا تترك التقوى اتكالاً علي الحسب
فقد رفع الإسلام سلمان فارس وقد هجن الشرك الشـريف أبا لهب
“Religion, swear by thy soul, brings value to man
Thou not for a lineage seek divine piety Whilst Abu Lahab was down for no deity.”
(3) More important problem ahead of Imam was religious deviations and the very thing companions accused ‘Uthman of that under title of innovationism. Apart from the innovations, the other major problem was that many people were not well-informed about religion and no action was taken to religiously inform them. A few objective typical distortions Imam was engaged are mentioned herein,
One of the problems earlier talked about is that a group of companions and a number of caliphs brought up rules despite availability of Qur’an and tradition and merely based on“expediency”
. Inter alia, this regarding tradition is more clearly and substantially is cited in historical and hadith sources. Perhaps what Abu Dja‘far Naqib said could be the clearest statement one moderate Sunnites has expressed about.
The companions, he says, unanimously rejected most of the verses (the words of the Messenger Is») and it was because of the interest they discovered in rejecting them such as sharing portion of ®awi al-Qurba and that of Mu’allafa Qulubuhum.
Imam criticized this approach while making a detailed speech and at the same time showed his commitment to the tradition. Referring to the fact that for resolving one problem there has been given different views and the ruler has proved all those views, he says this is when their God is One, their prophet is one and their Book is one. God said to them to go a different direction and they have obeyed His command? Or they have been prohibited from disagreement and they have disobeyed Him? Or what God sent is an incomplete religion and He asked them to help for making it complete? Or they are His partners and they have right to say and God must be pleased of the path they seek? Or the religion God sent was complete and the Prophet (s) has failed in conveying it?
This is while God say,“We avoided not a thing in the Book”
.
Imam expresses amazement in his another speech about the wrongs of different groups and that,“They neither receive a prophet nor the deed of a successor… they follow sceptisism and go after passion and lust. Well-known to them is something that they know and are pleased of and deny what they are not happy with. In tribulations they only rely on themselves and in undoing the problems they depend on their own ideas. It seems each of them is his Imam who finds, in his rule, to have snatched and used the sturdiest means.”
What was interesting was that“according to caliph II and III”
they had the right to have their own special divine legislation in some affairs and put aside the tradition (like ‘Uthman who, unlike the prophet and his own pre-caliphs, performed completely his praying service in Mina). Yet, Muslims as a matter of time deemed the actions of caliphs unbreachable as a religious tradition.
‘Umar himself when dying said,“Assigning not a successor is a tradition (Prophet!) and assigning is also a tradition (Abu Bakr).”
Therefore, to him, what Abu Bakr did had also been considered“tradition”
. After his death, ‘Abd al-Rahman had conditioned that he would leave the caliphate to someone who practices the tradition of the Prophet and Shiykhs.
One clear typical response of Imam to these innovations was his approach towards nightly prayers of Ramadan that ‘Umar set up accepting it to be an innovation-though he believed it was a good innovation. When Imam was in Kufa, some people came to ask him to designate an Imam to perform their nightly prayers of Ramadan. He banned them doing so. At night they cried out,“O Ramadan”
.
Harith A‘war came to Imam and said,“People are moaning and are upset about what you said.”
Imam said,“Leave them alone to do whatever they want and whomever to choose for congregational Imam.”
This quotation shows that what tribe Imam has been dealing with and how they have been following him.
Imam in a letter to Malik, referring to selection of righteous people and about the worldly-minded religious people said, فإنّ هذا الدين كان أسيراً في أيدي الأشرار ، يعمل فيه بالهوى وتطلب به الدنيا“This religion has been in the shackles of the wrong people, they moved forward out of passion and captured the world under the name of religion.”
One of the important deviations that essentially led to other ones was that scribing was prevented. Rashid Rida referred to point that this has irreparably damaged the Islamic culture.
Such an action as mentioned earlier was because of disregarding the tradition.
The action of caliphs to collect Qur’an and disregard the Qur’an ‘Ali brought as well as to comment and downgrade its verses indicated inattention to the Prophet’s speech Imam recorded.
Imam ‘Ali regarded doubt and scepticism among people a major cause for emerging civil wars among Muslims, ولكنّا إنما أصبحنا نقاتل إخواننا في الاسلام على ما دخل فيه من الزيغ والإعوجاج والشبهة والتأويل“We today fight our Muslim brethren because they mixed Islam with deviation, scepticism and distraction.”
Imam underscored the concept of scepticism. He elsewhere said,“Scepticism is called scepticism for it resembles the right.”
(4) Another problem Imam had wasn’t social corruption. Serious public welfare triggered loosening of religious ideals and values in society and religion wasn’t just valued in appearance. When caliph III turned to serious welfare, His subjects also turned to it and this created a problem for society in respect of religion. The society involved in sedition and corruption cannot simply turn back to moral balance. Imam in one of his speeches introduces his society like that of ignorant one.
He says,“Your condition today looks like the day God raised up His Messenger(s).”
Imam there spoke of reversed values in that society and of the necessity to change it. This society has to be screened, those moved forward be brought back and those left behind be driven ahead.
Know that, he also said, after Hidjra -and learning from Shari‘a- you were back to nomadic nature and following compromise you were fragmented….. knowing that you cast off your link to Islam, went beyond its limits and failed to follow its rules.
Imam also stated about corruption of the time,
واعلموا رحمكم الله أنكم في زمان القائل فيه بالحق قليل واللسان عن الصدق كليل واللازم للحق ذليل. أهله معتكفون على العصيان، مصطلحون على الادهان، فتاهم عارم وشائبهم آثم وعالمهم منافق وقارئهم مماذق لا يعظم ضعيرهم كبيرهم ولايعول غنيهم فقيرهم
“Know that may God bless you! You are living at a time the truth- seeker is little and tongue falls short of truth. Those following truth are humiliated and people are grappling with disobedience and ready to accept compromise. The young are bad-tempered and the old are sinful, the reciter is after profit. Neither the small respects the aged nor do the potent aid the destitute.
Emergence of Mu‘awiya as a deceitful and deviated man in the field of Islamic politics wasn’t itself the greatest element of sedition and corruption in society, so were the ‘Uthmanids tendency in Basra as well as the Kharidjites in Kufa. These were ill currents that blocked the way of followers of truth at times by knowing that they were wrong and at other times imagining that they are going after truth.
Observing Mu‘awiya’s sedition, Imam began to say, “I verified the case and I learned that I have no way but fighting or I stand infidel against what Muhammad (s) said.”
Reformation, Imam’s Fundamental Policy
Imam considered his major mission a reformation. This was because he abided by religion and tradition. In addition, it is to be noted that Imam was basically brought to power by those who had murdered the former caliph due to his corruption and hoped that the new caliph reform the shortcomings. The aim of this group in proportionate to character of Imam was one of the main reasons of their approach towards him. The policy of early caliphs was to expand the conquests. This also expanded Islam and naturally could be an advantage for caliphs, not to mention, it would fill the pockets of people with dhms and Dinars.
Imam now had to make up for the shortcomings of this time. It was very difficult for him to do so because he had to stand against many of the noblemen and influential people. Here, Imam’s reformational actions are reviewed. First, it is to be noted that these actions contained two parts. One part was to be done by means of speech and peaceful social actions, but the second part was to be carried out through war with those who were not ready to observe the rights of the legitimate ruler of society and had rebelled against him. Some of the actions taken in the first part are dealt with here.
One of the moral problems in the society Imam was engaged in was mammonism, welfarism and acquisitiveness of triumphant Arabs. This case had engaged them so much that it can be said Djamal war was resulted and Imam was not prepared to raise shares of Talha and Zubayr more than the others. Under such circumstances, Imam was determined to speak in detail in his speeches about this and protract people from mammonism. By contrast, he prohibited them from sitting at the majestic entertainment tables by writing letters to his agents, something that was very natural in time of ‘Uthman. In case Imam’s words about reproaching the world outright, it would become a detailed book.
Nahdj al-Balagha is replete with these words and this, in great number, shows that Imam insisted very much in this regard. Presenting an outstanding paradigm of man with a piety is seen in the sermon known as ″Hammam″. In some of the sermons, Imam explicitly scolds people due to mammonism,“You have forgotten the death in your hearts and deceiving aspirations have been substituted. This world has captured you more than the other world.”
Imam placed elucidation of religion atop of his reformational actions and tried to lead the society to improvement by raising up the Prophet’s tradition as well as resuscitating the forgotten rules and positive laws of religion. Imam on explaining his activities for reforming the society says,
ألم أعمل فيكم بالثقل الأكبر وأترك فيكم الثقل الاصغر وركزت فيكم راية الايمان ووقفتكم على حدود الحلال والحرام والبستكم العافية من عدلي وفرشتكم المعروف من قولي وفعلي وأريتكم كرائم الأخلاق من نفسي
“Did I not raise rule of Qur’an among you and my two offsprings - who are the lamp of religion path after me - and did I not leave for you the selective jewels that is the Prophet’s progeny. I set up banner of faith among you and separated you from limits of legal and illegal. I clad you in garment of health out of justice and spread the known among you through my word and deed and revealed to you the best ethics through my ethicality.”
Imam in his speech emphatically referred to practicing the Book and the Prophet’s tradition. The Imam’s faithfulness to the Messenger’s tradition is an important point in his reformational policies. Basically, violating the tradition according to him, is one of the blatant signs of deviation.
In the early times when Talha and Zubayr complained of Imam’s not consulting with them, Imam said,“By God I had no inclination to caliphate and no need of rulership, but you made me be in charge of that. As I came to power, I looked at the Book and what it has prescribed to us and the rules we are bound to obey and I did so. I followed the tradition set by the Messenger (s). I required not to ask you of your idea about this but you.”
Imam in his contact with ‘Uthman about being clothed in a pilgrim state during Hadjdj or about doing the same in the visitation and Hadjdj together says on the tradition of the Messenger (s), ما كنت لأدع سنّة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لأحد من الناس“I never leave tradition of the Messenger (s) because of anybody.”
‘Uthman was sick one year of the years he used to perform his prayers in Mina so he asked Imam to perform prayers instead.
Imam said,“If I perform prayers, I’ll do it as the Prophet did.”
‘Uthman said,“No. Do as I do.”
Imam rejected his request.
Imam said,“If I’m absent, then who will be among you to act upon the Prophet’s conduct?”
I was doing prayer service, Mutrif Ibn ‘Abd Allah says, along with ‘Imran Ibn Husayn (one of the Prophet’s companions) behind Imam ‘Ali. After the service ‘Imran held my hand and said, لقد صلى صلاة محمد، ولقد ذكّرني صلاة محمد (ص)“He performed the service like that of the Prophet’s. He reminded me of how the Prophet said the prayers.”
Abu Musa Ash‘ari who performed the service just behind Imam said, ذكرنا علي بن ابي طالب صلاة النبي (ص)“‘Ali reminded us of the Prophet’s prayers.”
It was very important to revive the Prophet(s)’s biography for Imam’s reformational policies. The pure companions of Imam realized this fact as well.
‘Ammar said about the constructie measures of Imam, لو أن علياً لم يعمل عملاً ولم يصنع شيئاً الا أنه أحيا التكبيرتين عند السجود لكان قد أصاب بذلك فضلاً عظيماً“‘Ali has done nothing but reviving two “Allah Akbar”
when prostrating back, for this, he has achieved a high virtue.”
Imam declared up on pulpit in the face of ‘Umar’s policy of not scribing hadith,“Those who are willing to put down knowledge, they can bring paper and pen”
.
Harith A‘war provided means of writing and wrote what Imam said.
Afterwards, Imam Hasan(a) also advised his offsprings to write the Prophet(s)’s hadith.
We know that Imam ‘Ali himself wrote the Messenger’s hadiths. After that, his hadith booklets were available to Ahl al-Bayt and they regularly narrated hadith for Shi‘ite Muslims from“‘Ali’s booklet”
.
As seen in time of caliph II, the story reciters alongside preventing from scription of hadith were permitted to narrate for people in the mosque about the Jewish sagas on former prophets and Christian priests. Imam stood against the development of story reciting and banned it while spreading hadith scription. Imam in principle opposed narration of Jewish works.
He is quoted to say,“Whoever has a book from the antecedent, he shall ruin it”
.
Imam stood against someone who had narrated story of Rev. David (a) with Awriya from Jewish sources and said,“If someone says it, he’ll be executed Hadd, whipping”
.
It is known that Rev. David is attributed to murder by intention and adultery in this fake story. When he came to Basra, the story reciters were expelled out of mosque.
After him, Imam Hasan (a) was also hindered from story reciting.
Imam Sadjdjad (a) stopped Hasan Basri,once being a story reciter, reciting stories and he admitted to do so.
Imam in one of his first speeches said, وإني حاملكم على منهج نبيكم صلي الله عليه وآله“I will spread tradition of the Prophet(s) among you.”
One of the reasons that caused Imam ‘Ali, more than the other companions, to describe the personality and morality of the Messenger(s) in historical books, is that he himself followed the Prophet’s manner. For the same reason, he kept in his mind all actions of the Prophet(s) from the very beginning and later he tried to delineate his personality most eloquently.
Hasan Basri in response to someone who asked him of Imam said, أراهم السبيل وأقام لهم الدين اذا اعوجّ“He showed the way to people and straightened religion when it went astray.”
This very well-considered statement made by Hasan exactly accorded with the policy Imam adopted during his caliphate.
Another poet, addressing Imam, composed this,
أوضحت من ديننا ما كان مشتبها جزاك ربك عنا فيه إحسانا
“What was skeptical is now clarified by you, may God grant thee virtues and benevolence.”
Abudhar when describing Imam said, علي رز الدين“‘Ali strengthens religion.”
Imam himself insisted on matching his conduct with that of the Messenger(s)’s. After Djamal war, he talked about his attitude towards Basrans,“I acted in treating Basrans as the Prophet did to Meccans.
Imam mentions resuscitation of tradition as one of the functions of “Imam”
.
Elsewhere, he regards the best servant of God a just Imam who attempts to revive the tradition and the most evil-doing servant of God a cruel Imam who destroys it.”
In general, Imam ‘Ali seriously avoids the concept of innovation and says, in this regard, that a tradition fades away when an innovation emerges.
Imam poses two points as his testament, stop blasphemizing and preserving tradition of the Prophet(s).
He considers the saints those people who, يحيون سنن الله وسنن رسوله“Revive traditions of God and His Messenger(s).”
He says hypocrite dissidents are those who swim in the sea of sedition, use innovations and put aside traditions.
Imam says people are divided in two groups,
متبع شرعة ومبتدع بدعة
These statements and the like in Nahdj al-Balagha reveal Imam’s strong mind in following tradition and avoiding the innovation. This position was adopted in front of those who created innovations at least in some cases and when they were objected, they said,“If they are innovations, they are good ones”
.
Imam was not willing to cheat in the field of religion and he said, والله لا أدهنت في ديني“I swear by God I never cheated in the field of religion.”
Once a man of Banu Asad was brought to Imam for execution of whipping (retribution). Banu Asad asked Imam to dispense with his whipping.
Imam said,“Ask me to do something at my discretion.”
They came out while being contented.
Imam executed whipping for the man and said,“This was owned by God and I had no control over it.”
Imam said about his role of guiding Umma,“O people! I gave you advice the prophets did to their Umma and I let out what the legatees spread out after themselves. I behaved you with the lash of “preaching”
, but you rejected and I called you with the speech to bar you from disobeying, yet you failed to do so. By God! Do you expect an Imam but me to join you in the straight path?”
Also, he said of himself,“Verily I look like a lamp in the dark among you; one who steps in the dark, he shall use light of that lamp.”
Anyway, Imam insisted on exact compliance with the Prophet(s)’s tradition such that he even tried to act like the Prophet(s) in his actions.
When Imam objected why he serves people in the mosque with good food but he himself eats wheat germ with bread at home, he weepingly replied, “I swear by God I had never seen bread without wheat germ in the Prophet(s)’s home.
What Imam said meant that he attempted to have his food like that of the Prophet(s)’s.
Imam in the Face of Infidels (Djamal War)
Only several months after Imam came to power in 36H., the first civil war happened in Djamadi al-Thani of that year among Muslims instigated by a group of promise-breachers led by Talha, Zubayr and ‘Ayisha. To further clarify the historical background of this bitter event, it is to review the political lines of then Medina.
It was mentioned in the post-demise of the Messenger(s) that there had been two tendencies of the Umayyads and the Hashimites none of which could attain caliphate after Imam, The Umayyads due to being long-standingly anti-Islam and the Hashimites because of Quraysh’s envy and problems they had with Imam ‘Ali.
The middle faction of Quraysh, that is Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, came to power leading to this group being set aside. No matter what happened during these two men, a suitable ground was prepared for ‘Uthman, one of the Umayyads, among all Quraysh. As said in the section relating to selection of ‘Uthman, he was so popular among Quraysh people. When ‘Uthman dealt with just the Umayyads around Quraysh, the middle line once again was capricious of caliphate. Among them, Talha, a fellow-tribe of Abu Bakr of Banu Taym, wanted to attain caliphate with the support of ‘Ayisha. Zubayr also helped him for a while and he himself was eager to grab caliphate.
When Djamal war was waged, Ibn ‘Abbas said to Zubayr,“‘Ayisha wants the government for Talha, what are you doing here?”
This middle line failed to find an opportunity in Medina and observed that ‘Ali of the Hashimites, after abdication of the Umayyads, assumed power. Now what had to be done? It first approved of the new government assuming that it can play a major role in the new government. Talha and Zubayr suggested to rule over Basra, Kufa or Damascus. Imam smartly said that they were more needed in Medina.
This aim was not fulfilled and Talha and Zubayr, leaders of the middle line, departed to Mecca to do the lesser pilgrimage and there they could talk to ‘Ayisha, gone to Mecca before the death of ‘Uthman and was still there.
Up to now there are three political lines. The Hashimites, the Umayyads, and the middle line of Quraysh that long time after appeared as“Abna’ al-Muhadjirun”
in rebelling against ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr. Djamal movement crystallized showdown of Quraysh’s middle line knowing itself follower of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Talha and Zubayr could satisfy ‘Ayisha to join them and this was the greatest breakthrough for them. ‘Ayisha both had familial relationship with Talha and showed mercy on her nephew. In this trip, ‘Abd Allah played a major role in accompanying ‘Ayisha. They could absorb three thousand people and move up to Basra.
The infidels made excuse for three reasons. First, ‘Uthman was oppressedly murdered. This was posed while Talha, Zubayr and ‘Ayisha were among those who mostly contributed to rebellion resulting in ‘Uthman’s murder. They recklessly said that they had repented and now they were ready to make up for what they have done by seeking revenge for oppressed caliph! Certainly, this was raised for stupefied Muslims who were unaware of the real story. Another point was that they were forced to swear allegiance in Medina; therefore, the allegiance is improper and Imam’s government is illegitimate at least to them as they are not committed to obey caliph because of the forcible allegiance according to what they said. The solution they brought up was that everything should be resolved in a way raised in the end of ‘Umar’s lifetime, that is“Shuwra”
.
When ‘Ayisha asked Talha and Zubayr of her duty, she was told,“Go and tell the people that ‘Uthman was oppressedly killed and the affairs have to go back to council of Muslims meaning the situation created by ‘Umar.”
The council in which Talha and Zubayr took part raised a hope for their caliphate. This council caused Talha, Zubayr and Waqqas to imagine that they are fully illegible for caliphate. Zubayr in the midst of Djamal war told Imam ‘Ali that he was not more illegible for caliphate than them.
The Umayyads residing in Hidjaz rushed to help this group opportunistically. Marwan Ibn Hakam, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir,’Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Attab Ibn Abi l-‘As and Sa‘id Ibn ‘As were among those who instigated people. A little while after, Sa‘id Ibn ‘As and Mughira Ibn Shu‘ba, initially one of the defenders, abdicated.
The Umayyads’s assistance, at this time, was just because of opportunism and for believing in what Talha and Zubayr said. We know that Marwan at the end of Djamal war spear-killed Talha in revenge for ‘Uthman.
More contemplation has to be made about ‘Ayisha, wife of the Prophet(s). ‘Ayisha had a high status during her father’s rule and ‘Umar’s, her father’s friend. ‘Umar gave her share more than the other wives of the Messenger(s) and this wasn’t because she played a leading role in changes of his caliphate.
‘Ayisha is said to have owed a lot to ‘Umar.
‘Ayisha said,“During mourning service of ‘Umar, she heard jinns
elegizing for him. Even in her sleep, she dreamed as if ‘Umar were endowed with prophethood.”
By taking advantage of her talent in narrating hadith and credited with being the Prophet(s)’s wife, she maintained this to the end, although she and Mu‘awiya could not get along well. ‘Ayisha, during these years, tried to recognize herself as the dearest wife of the Messenger(s) leaving behind an acceptable image of herself and her father. She said she was six or seven when engaged and nine when married.
Despite the news that the Prophet(s) at times excused her from Abu Bakr,
she said,“Her marriage to the Prophet(s) ordained from God.
This is while we know that Zaynab, daughter of Djahsh, was the only wife of the Prophet(s) who was so proud of that.
In the later times of ‘Uthman’s caliphate, ‘Ayisha challenged him hard. Having been influenced by anti-‘Uthman opposition as well as her own criticisms, she stood against him. Unlike other wives of the Prophet(s), ‘Ayisha primarily became involved in politics and naturally had a political personality. She could not remain silent in front of a wave of anti-‘Uthman rebellion. The considerable point is that what compelled her to engage in such a venturous political action in spite of a lot of problems she faced? To us, as far as her disagreement with Imam was concerned, the only incentive she had to take part in this was the vengeance she exerted against the Hashimites, Fatima and ‘Ali within the years of the Prophet(s)’s lifetime. Shiykh Mufid has mentioned a few examples of ‘Ayisha’s grudge.
Otherwise, we know that she wasn’t the most conscious people to be concerned with ‘Ali’s exoneration from ‘Uthman’s murder.
In addition, she wasn’t interested in reversion of caliphate to Banu Taym. When anti-‘Uthman opposition peaked, ‘Ayisha had gone to Mecca for the Hadjdj. There, she heard that ‘Uthman wasn’t murdered and Talha succeeded him. She became happy and went up to Medina to reach Saraf. She wasn’t told there people have sworn allegiance to ‘Ali.
Hearing this news, she returned to Mecca and cried out, “O the oppressed ‘Uthman.”
When ‘Ayisha heard that people swore allegiance to ‘Ali, she said,“One night of ‘Uthman equals the entire lifetime of ‘Ali.”
After Imam wasn’t martyred, ‘Ayisha named the child brought to her“‘Abd al-Rahman!”
After Djamal war came to a defeat, ‘Ayisha said to Ibn ‘Abbas,“No town I’m more angry at than the one where you, the Hashimites, live in.”
‘Ayisha also said when informing about the Prophet(s)’s arrival in ending days of his life,“Two people helped him by his arms. One of them wasn’t Qutham Ibn ‘Abbas and there wasn’t another man!”
According to narrator, by another man she meant ‘Ali.
Of course, she sometimes confessed that the dearest man to the Prophet(s) was ‘Ali and the dearest woman was Fatima. When she was questioned why she did so, she said with a brown face,“It was something done!”
‘Ali himself mentions the reasons why she exerted vengeance against him. First, the Messenger(s) had preferred him than her father in different cases. Second, there wasn’t brotherhood between Imam and the Prophet(s) and so ‘Umar wasn’t selected for Abu Bakr. Third, keeping doors of companions’ houses closed into the mosque and leaving Imam’s house door open to it. Fourth, when Abu Bakr failed to do anything the day before, banner of triumph wasn’t handed to Imam in Khaybar war. Fifth, there wasn’t the story of declaring the exoneration for which the Prophet(s) firstly dispatched Abu Bakr, but he wasn’t brought back as ordered by God and Imam took charge of it. Sixth, it wasn’t ‘Ayisha’s grudge against Khadidja whose daughter, Fatima, also had experienced that. Seventh, there wasn’t popularity of Imam towards the Prophet(s) in such a way that once ‘Ali came up to the Prophet and he wasn’t given a seat next to him. The Prophet(s) praised him in response to ‘Ayisha’s objection. This greatly raised her vengeance against Imam.
Shiykh Mufid in his ending part of his book“al-Djamal”
details another chapter on why ‘Ayisha rendered grudge against Imam.
Later on, when Imam Hasan (a) was to be buried near the Prophet(s), she opposed and said,“Why do you want to bury in my house someone whom I dislike?”
Ahmad Amin explains about the reasons why ‘Ayisha exerted vengeance against Fatima(a).
Talha and Zubayr came to Mecca and well learned that they cannot do anything without ‘Ayisha.
They said to her,“If Basrans meet you, they will be united with you.”
Imam said about ‘Ayisha,“She is most obeyed among people.”
Through various talks, ‘Ayisha was convinced to join them to Basra. It was not so easy to go because she had to, in the first place, respond to her blatant disagreement on this Qur’anic verse that obligates the Prophet(s)’s wives to stay in their homes, وقرن في بيوتكن .
This verse clearly bans the Prophet(s)’s wives from leaving their homes meaning their participation in political struggles. As said that ‘Umar even was doubtful about their going on the Hadjdj and he only once permitted them to do this by setting a lot of restrictions. Some wives such as Suda and Zaynab were not willing to go on pilgrimage for the same reason.
Umm Salama tried hard to stop ‘Ayisha going. Interesting to know is that ‘Ayisha had asked her to join them to Basra. She said to Umm Salama quoting from ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir,“One hundred thousand swords are ready in Basra. Have you come to fix this?
In revenge for ‘Uthman!, Said Umm Salama, were you not the hardest against him? Were you not the one who called him “Na‘thal”
, the old stupid man?
Umm Salama described a few virtues of Imam ‘Ali and asked him not to oppose someone to whom Muhadjir and Ansar have sworn allegiance.
She referred to this speech of the Prophet(s), عليّ ولي كل مؤمن ومؤمنة .
‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr standing at the door said,“We haven’t heard the Prophet say such a thing”
.
But your aunt, said Umm Salama, has heard that and this speech of the Prophet who said, علي خليفتي عليكم في حياتي ومماتي ‘Ayisha confirmed that she has heard such a thing
.
‘Ayisha spoke of her action taken for the improvement of Muslims’ affairs! She attempted to absorb Hafsa.
He has the same idea, Hafsa said, as ‘Ayisha’s. In this way, he decided to go to Basra but ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar stopped him helping Djamal companions.
Umm Salama, one of Ahl al-Bayt enthusiasts, wrote to Imam telling about the action of rebels,“By God if the Prophet(s)’s wives had not been banned leaving their homes, I would have come with you. Now I let the most beloved of my loved ones, that is my son, ‘Umar Ibn Abi Salama, come with you.”
Umm Salama began to publicize Imam ‘Ali among Meccans and said to them,“I call you to seek after divine piety and in this time I know no one better than ‘Ali.”
When Maymuna, another wife the Prophet(s), heard about Talha and Zubayr’s rebellion, she told the bearer of the news,“Join ‘Ali because he has never gone astray and nobody has been let astray by him”
. She repeated this three times
.
Umm Fadl, daughter of Harith, in a letter by a courier to Imam, told him about the readiness of rebels.
Medina was already in control of the Hashimites and the rebels could not return. Damascus was also under the yoke of Mu‘awiya and it was obvious that they would not benefit from going to Damascus.
Because Mu‘awiya is obeyed there and they will become only his plaything. On the other hand, they had the common aim with Mu‘awiya and that was they had to prevent from Imam’s caliphate. Now that Damascus is in the hands of Mu‘awiya, Iraq must be decontrolled by Imam. People like ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir, who was after rule of Basra, insisted more on that. Walid Ibn ‘Uqba is said to have stopped them from going to Damascus since Mu‘awiya was not ready to help ‘Uthman, then how could he leave everything to a guess?
Mu‘awiya also faild to take any interest in their coming to Damascus, so he falsely wrote to Zubayr that he has secured allegiance of Damascus people. He asked Zubayr to seize Iraq, Damascus will be ready for him. In that case, there remains nothing for ‘Ali. These talks led to their moving on to Basra hoping that friends of Talha and Zubayr in Basra and Kufa
to assist them. Ya‘la Ibn Umayya arriving with a lot of property from Yemen, gave them all to rebels and they mobilized a group and mounted them on Ya‘la Ibn Umayya’s horses and moved up to Basra.
Referring to the fact that she is Umm al-Mu‘minin and a rightful mother of Muslims, ‘Ayisha tried to attract people towards the rebels.
When the rebels came to Basra, Ka‘b Ibn Sur, leader of Azd tribe, intended to abdicate. ‘Ayisha came up to him and invited him. He initially insisting on his abdication said that he could not help but fulfilling what his mother said.
Anyway, ‘Ayisha’s name was very effective in attracting the people.
Later, Talha in his speech in Basra said,“God has brought ‘Ayisha to you. You know that how dignified she was in front of the Prophet (s) and what status she had in Islam.”
Basrans just for the sake of ‘Ayisha declared they would defend the rebels.
When fighting began, Talha said,“O people! ‘Ali has come to shed the blood of Muslims. Tell not that he is the Messenger’s cousin. Someone who is with you is wife of the Prophet and trustworthy Abu Bakr’s daughter, she is the one whose father was the most beloved to the Prophet.”
On the day of attack, one of Basran companions of rebels said in a piece of poetry,
نحن نوالي أمّنا الرضية وننصر الصّحابة المرضية
“We hold sainthood of our contented mother and help Companions pleased by God.”
In Basra, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hukaym Tamimi, brought to Basrans the letters Talha wrote to them and used them against ‘Uthman and said to him,“Do you know these letters?”
Talha said,“Yes, but I knew repentance and revenging for ‘Uthman the only way to compensate!”
Djamal troops moved on. In midway, in Huw’ab region, ‘Ayisha heard dogs barking. She all of a sudden recalled a report from the Prophet (s) that he kept away his wives from a sedition trap when hearing barking of the dogs on the way. ‘Ayisha became determined to go back but ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr brought to her fifty people of Banu ‘Amir to testify that the region was not called Huw’ab.
‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf was ruler of Basra on behalf of Imam (a). He dispatched Abu al-Aswad Du’ali and ‘Imran Ibn Husayn to Djamal rebels near Basra. They asked Djamal companions why they had gone there.
They replied,“We have come in revenge for ‘Uthman and that the caliphate be left to Shuwra.”
‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf ordered the people to bear arms. The rebels came to Basra reaching Mirbad region and in there Talha first spoke of the oppressedness of ‘Uthman.
He said,“People have sworn allegiance to ‘Ali only by force.”
He further said that now he must abdicate the resign from caliphate and selection of caliph in Shuwra be the same tradition of ‘Umar Ibn Khattab.
Zubayr and after him ‘Ayisha made speech. Some people acknowledged him and some others shouted that he is telling lies. At this time the crowd parted in two and attacked each other with shoes. This resulted in an armed figting.
One of the opponents, of ‘Abd al-Qays great men, cried out,“These people were the harshest against ‘Uthman. After that they swore allegiance to ‘Ali and we were told about that and we too did so.”
Talha ordered to catch him and shaed his head and face.
According to Ibn Khayyat, some of the people sheld them with stones when arriving in Basra.
At any rate, after relatively controlling Basra, they signed a contract with Ibn Hunayf saying that they wait for Imam ‘Ali to come provided the royal residence, public property and mosque remain in the hands of ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf. Despite the contract being signed, the rebels breached the contract fearing that Imam might come and they could not stand against him, so they nightly marched into the mosque and arrested ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf while he was up at doing the night prayer. They shaved his head and face and overlooked killing him
, instead expelled him out of the city merely because they feared his brother Sahl Ibn Hunayf whom Imam had placed instead of himself. Observing him in this condition, Imam began to cry.
The rebels looted the public property after killing about fifty people
as well as its watch-outs.
When Talha and Zubayr saw the public property, they said, هذا ما وعدنا الله ورسوله ! .
According to a narration, Talha at the very beginning of his arrival in Basra, asked about dhms that had been promised to him.
With the relative control of rebels over Basra, there emerged a disagreement between Talha and Zubayr over saying the prayers. This conflict temporarily came to an end with a compromise over their saying the prayers each on a day. At this time, Hukaym Ibn Djabala, commander of ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf-led forces, began to fight with the rebels with several hundred people. This fighting led to his martyrdom and his three brothers.
From Basra, ‘Ayisha wrote letters to people of Medina and Yamama and called them to support Djamal rebels.
In her letter to people of Yamama, she wrote,“The deviated ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf calls people on the way to hell while we call people to the Book of God.”
She had written this letter before Imam’s arrival for justifying the crimes of rebels in Basra event.
She also wrote to Medinans telling them about the victory of rebels in Basra. The letter dated Rabi‘ al-Awwal 5th, 36 H.
When Imam (a) heard about the departure of rebels, he substituted Sahl Ibn Hunayf in place of himself and quickly moved to Iraq accompanied by a large number of the Prophet’s companions and some other Medinans who are reportedly considered to be four thousand people.
According to Sa‘id Ibn Djubayr, eight hundred people of Ansar and four hundred of those who attended the Ridwan allegiance, joined Imam (a) in Djamal.
When Imam sent Hashim Ibn ‘Utba Ibn Abi Waqqas from Rabada to tell Abu Musa to mobilize people to join Imam. Abu Musa disagreed on Kufiyans support from Imam. By saying that this is a sedition and being absent in sedition is better than attending it
, he did not allow people to rush to support Imam (a).
In addition, he threatened Hashim as well. Hashim came up to Imam and Imam sent ‘Abd Allah and Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr to mobilize people in Kufa, but they failed to do so. This time, Imam sent his son, Imam Hasan (a) along with ‘Ammar to Kufa. Besides, he deposed Abu Musa and posed Qara¨a Ibn Ka‘b Ansari over Kufa.
The enthusiastic speech of Imam Hasan (a) caused nine thousand six hundred and fifty people of Kufa to join Imam’s troops.
Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi, of Kufa pure and virtuous men called people to support Imam. Afterwards, people were set to back their Imam up under any circumstances.
Imam Hasan (a) appearing as the Prophet’s descendant played a key role in inciting Kufiyans. Similarly, ‘Ammar, once ruller of Kufa, was known after piety and people recognized him as a criterion of credal error and gospel truth based on the narration,
الحق مع عمّار يدور معه حيث دار
Kufiyan troops joined Imam in Dhi Qar and moved towards Basra.
Basran tribes were subdivided in three groups. One group including Rabi‘a joined Imam. Another group such as Banu ®abba joined ‘Ayisha and the other one such as Ahnaf Ibn Qays, of Banu Tamim leaders, resigned from the war.
Abdication of a large number of tribes showed that it is very difficult for many to make decisions. Some of the tribes appearing in the two sides brought about to some extent tribal disputes.
Talha in his speech in time of war said,“Some of the Mudari hypocrite dissidents, Rabi‘a Christians and Yemeni foot soldiers helped Imam ‘Ali (a).
His speech raised objection of those who had come to war imagining defense of cause of rebels and this made them resign.
Many people deemed rebellion right merely because it was led by Talha, Zubayr and ‘Ayisha.
Harith Ibn Hut told Imam, “Do you think that Talha, Zubayr and ‘Ayisha are unrightful?”
Imam replied,
اعرف الحق تعرف اهله، واعرف الباطل تعرف اهله
Apart from ten thousand Kufiyans with two thousand people from ‘Abd al-Qays and twelve thousand people comprising Imam’s troops,a large number of Basran tribes in addition to a great multitude of Medinans among whom there were scores of the Prophet (s)’s companions, accompanied Imam.
Imam ‘Ali by no means was willing to wage this war. Hence, three days after arrival in Basra, by sending frequent massages, he asked the rebels to join back to“congregation”
and“obedience”
. But he received no positive response from them.
Imam sent Sa‘sa‘a Ibn Suhan with a letter to Basra. He spoke with Talha and Zubayr but when he talked to ‘Ayisha, he felt that she intended to raise wrong doing more than the other two. After Imam’s return, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas was sent to Basra.
He said to Talha,“Haven’t you sworn allegiance?”
Talha said,“I was forced by sword to do so.”
Ibn ‘Abbas said,“I myself observed that you voluntarily swore an allegiance.”
Talha spoke about ‘Uthman’s blood.
Ibn ‘Abbas said,“Was it not true that ‘Uthman drank water from his own house well for ten days? and you did not let him drink fresh water. Then ‘Ali came to you asking you to let him drink water.”
After that, Ibn ‘Abbas talked to ‘Ayisha and Talha.
‘Ayisha was so confident about her victory that she did not show any flexibility.
Ibn ‘Abbas attempted by making sound reasoning to warn them of the danger waiting for them, yet they failed to accept it.
However, Imam insisted that war not take place. He stopped his companions launching the war and officially announced that no one has the right to launch war.
Even on the day of war, before noon, Imam (a) handed a Qur’an to Ibn ‘Abbas to go to Talha and Zubayr and talk to them while calling them to Qur’an.
Ibn ‘Abbas talked to Talha and Zubayr but ‘Ayisha even did not permit them to talk and said,“Go and tell your lord that sword will rule between us.”
Ibn ‘Abbas says,“I was not very far from them when they showered us with their spears.”
On the morning of Djamadi al-Awwal 10th
, Imam’s division was prepared. Khurayba was the region of fighting where existed before Basra and later it became a place of Basra. That day up to noon, Imam resisted against the rebellion troops and advised them.
Imam (a) said to ‘Ayisha,“God ordered you to stay at home, fear God and go back.”
Imam scolded Talha and Zubayr for bringing ‘Ayisha. Malik was placed commander of the right wing, ‘Ammar Yasir as the commander of the left wing, Nu‘man Ibn Rib‘i Ansari, according to some sources, Djundab Ibn Zuhayr Azdi was placed over the infantry and the banner was given to Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya Khariba.
Imam (a) with his fiery speech prepared the troops for battling the enemy.
On the other side, ‘Ayisha rode on camel-litter covered with armor. She appeared in the battlefield and made speech regularly talking about the oppressedness of ‘Uthman.
Imam primarily handed a Qur’an to one of the ‘Abd al-Qays people to go to the battlefield calling the rebels to Qur’an and warning them of disunity. The rebels speared him martyred. Mother of this young man present there jumped herself over her son. The companions helped bring his body to Imam.
Imam (a) who, until that time, had ordered his troops not to launch the war by observing martyrdom of that man commanded Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya to attack the enemy.
Fighting kept on from noon to night. It was most intense around ‘Ayisha’s camel and as said over seventy hands were amputated wanting to reach her camel’s reins. ‘Ayisha picked a handful of soil and tried to stupify people and did just as the Prophet (s) had done. She spattered the soil towards Imam’s troops and said,“Woe betide you!”
Imam said to her, وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ رَمَى
“One who speared was not thee but the devil.”
When rebelling troops were defeated, Marwan Ibn Hakam knowing that the murderer of ‘Uthman is nobody but Talha, speared him killed.
Interestingly, Ibn Khayyat says,“Once the war was begun, the first one killed was Talha.
This shows that Marwan mainly has come to war to kill Talha. Later on, he felt proud of this such that he himself told the story to Imam Sadjdjad (a).
It has been said that Imam (a) called Talha in a battlefield and said to him, “Go Abu Muhammad! Do you remember what the Prophet said about me?”
اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه“O Allah! Love his friends and loathe his enemies.”
Talha replied,“I ask the repentance from God! If I had remembered that, I would have never risen up.
Zubayr stayed with the troops to the insistence of his son, ‘Abd Allah and did not leave the battlefield even with the Imam’s speech. In one case, Imam (a) remembered what the Prophet had said, “Your aunt’s son, that is Zubayr, will rebel against you.”
Zubayr acknowledged the report.
The sources saying that Zubayr anyway had run away from the stage of fighting
or had deserted the battlefield while being remorseful, are in clash with each other.
After Imam’s speech, Zubayr intended to go back, but returned to the battlefield by the insistence of his son, it is probable that this might have caused his last run away to be assumed as his repentance. While if he were really remorseful, he would make his serious decision to return in the very beginning. When he left the battlefield, a person named Ibn Djurmuz chased and killed him in the right occasion.
Imam said about him,“Zubayr was closer to me than Talha. He was always from us, Ahl al-Bayt, so long as his son ‘Abd Allah grew up and separated us.”
Malik played a role in Imam’s caliphate as much as when he came in grips with ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr, he was almost to kill him but in front of those of his troops whom he was separated from, ‘Abd Allah said,“Kill me with Malik Ashtar.”
His purpose was to have Malik killed.
‘Adi Ibn Hatim Ta’i was among Imam’s defenders who lost both one eye and one of his sons in this war. ‘Amr Ibn Himaq Khuza‘i was another companion of the Prophet (s) who stayed close to Imam in this war. He was, according to Dinwari, among the pious people of Kufa and many pious people joined him.
Observing the resistance of Basrans around Djamal, Imam ordered the camel to be killed. Some of Imam’s companions surrounded the camel and killed it.
Later on, ‘Ayisha said,“I could see ‘Ali from inside the camel litter who was engaged in war shouting, al-Djamal, al-Djamal.”
Imam neared the camel litter and blamed ‘Ayisha addressing her,“Ya Shaqira’.”
One point is worth saying that ‘Ayisha watched outside from inside the camel litter through the hole made.
Once she asked a person who had the reins of the camel in hand,“Is ‘Ali present among the people?”
He replied,“Yes.”
‘Ayisha asked him to show ‘Ali to her. When ‘Ali was shown to her, she said,“How identical he is to his brother!”
The man questioned,“Whom do you mean?”
She said,“The Prophet.”
Once the man heard that, he let the camel’s reins loose and joined Imam’s troops.
After the war came to an end, ‘Ayisha who was motionless like a stiff, was taken out and sent along with her brother, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, to Basra and after some days she could leave there. Afterwards, she was sent to Medina with a number of Basran men and women.
A long time after, ‘Ayisha frequently expressed remorse of what she had done.
When she read the verse, وقرن في بيوتكن she cried so much that her veil became wet.
Ibn Qutayba says,“A woman came to ‘Ayisha and said, What do you say about the woman who has killed her little child?”
‘Ayisha said,“She must go to hell.”
The woman said,“What do you say about the woman who has killed (that is ‘Ayisha) twenty thousand of her elder children?”
‘Ayisha herself when dying, said,“I have created events after the Prophet. Bury me near other wives (rather than beside the Prophet).”
According to another narration, ‘Ayisha said,“My absence in Djamal was better than having ten sons of the Prophet.”
Many Basrans from different tribes were killed in this war. According to Baladhuri, only two thousand five hundred and fifty two people of Azd tribe were killed.
Eight hundred from Bakr Ibn Wa’il, five hundred from Banu ®abba and seven hundred people from Banu Tamim had been killed.
There seem to be other exaggerative numbers given. For example, Djamal war victims are said to be totally twenty thousand people.
‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr also says that there have been fifteen thousand people killed.
According to Shiykh Mufid, the same number of twenty thousand people seems correct.
Abu Hatim Nami quoting from his grandfather that the people killed in Djamal numbered twenty thousand people.
This number seems incorrect because in a war lasting only five to six hours, there could be not many casualties to this extent. Imam’s troops martyrs are said to number between four hundred to five hundred people.
Known figures among martyrs of Imam’s companions number six. Among them, Zayd and Sayhan are children of Sawhan. There are two more people called Saq‘ab and ‘Abd Allah, brothers of Salim Ibn Mikhnaf (Abu Mikhnaf’s grandfather) as well as two others named ‘Alba’ Ibn Harith Sadusi and Hind Djamali.
What is certain is that the immediate defeat of Basra troops (five hundred people killed compared to over nineteen thousand people of the rebels killed) shows that rebelling troops had no strong incentives although Umm al-Mu‘minin was present among them. Major problem was that Talha and ‘Ayisha despite the fame they won in the affair of ‘Uthman, were more notorious than that they can deceive people of Basra considering themselves as avengers for ‘Uthman.
After the war was put to an end, Imam (a) ordered his troops not to chase anybody. Whoever gave in, he shall not be killed and no wounded shall be murdered. Imam set free even people like Marwan and children of ‘Uthman.
At that time, Marwan said,“He will not swear allegiance unless he is forced to do so.”
Imam said,“Even if he swears allegiance, like Jews, he will violate his allegiance.”
Imam did not let people take advantage of private property of people except what the enemy had used in war. This was amazing to the people who up to now gained booties after any victorious war. Imam was objected concerningly, and he ashamed them by saying that who would take ‘Ayisha if the property is to be shared?
However, simple-minded Arabs had this problem in mind that how it is rightly possible to kill people of a tribe but their property seizure is forbidden.
Imam (a) began to search among those killed. When he saw Ka‘b Ibn Thur-former judge of Basra on behalf of ‘Umar-he had Qur’an hang from his neck. Imam said to take Qur’an off his neck.
He then ordered to have Ka‘b be seated in front of him, and talked to his dead body just as the prophet had done to Quraysh’s killed people in Uhud,“O Ka‘b! I found what my God had promised. You also found what your God had promised you!”
After Djamal fracas came to an end, Imam (a) entered congregation mosque and began to reproach the Basran infidels who were the first people standing against their Imam.
Imam called them
womanish troops and animal followersجند المراةً واتباع البهيمةً .
Imam wrote in letters to Medina and Kufa about the story of Basra.
Then he ordered to have the public property shared among his companions who are said to number twelve thousand people. Unlike Talha and Zubayr who said when observing Bayt al-Mal,“This is the same promise of God and his messenger”
, this time Imam (a) said,“O white and yellow jewels, deceive people but me.”
After some time, sojourning in Basra, Imam went up to Kufa on Monday, Radjab 12th or 16th, year 36 H.
after appointing ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas as the ruler of Basra. His arrival in Kufa is said to be on Monday, 12th of Radjab.
Imam Stays in Kufa
Imam departed to Kufa after subsiding rebellion of infidels. Imam stayed over in Kufa until his martyrdom. It is outlandish to say that Imam generally decided to leave Medina, although it is even far from fact his return to Medina might have been possible after his stay in Kufa. His departure to Kufa has to be considered as some kind of action to safeguard religion from the harm of infidels such as Mu‘awiya. Iraq was in a touchy situation. In principal, after beginning of conquests and expansion of Islamic realm, two points triggered increased importance of Damascus and Iraq over Medina and in other words Hidjaz. First, a large number of tribes had come to Damascus and Iraq from Hidjaz among whom there were seen many of companions. Second, the extent, possibilities and hidden talents in this regions had been incomparable to Hidjaz. When infidel rebels began their movement in Mecca, they well came to this conclusion to move towards Iraq before ‘Ali (a) captures it. In case they could succeed in seizing Kufa and Basra, Hidjaz would come in their hands. The problem was that they first assumed power in Basra but an incomplete one. Second, Kufa was taken totally out of their control. In contrast, Imam could bring Kufa under his control, placing it as a base for his Shi‘ite Muslims in the future. Regretfully, the same action of the infidel rebels caused Basra not only to tilt towards ‘Uthmani religion but there emerges a permanent enmity between Basra and Kufa in Iraq, fading out solidarity in this region.
It was not easy for Imam to get out of Madinat al-Nabi and there was no way out just as when the Prophet (s) left Mecca with all sanctity and his sense of patriotism. In that time, he had not so many followers in Mecca. In contrast, Medina bowed to him knowing that it was economically reliable. Now Imam ‘Ali (a) had felt that his two strong enemies, one having Damascus in control and another Basra, trying to take Kufa out of his control. Seizure of these two cities meant that the whole Iran with all of its economic capacities has come under their control. Imam (a) was not the man to become discouraged in the face of these problems and to abdicate from caliphate, something the rebels thought of and imagined that Imam leaves the affairs to Shuwra by observing this condition. On the contrary, he was determined to fight with the rebels and for the same reason he swiftly moved towards Iraq.
The major reason was that Medina could not stand and resist for some factors.
First, economically speaking, Hidjaz was unable to bear confrontation with Iraq or Damascus. Medina, the best region, could not properly meet the needs of its people. Now how could it feed a huge army?
Second, Medina was not able to endure an all-out war with Damascus in terms of human power. The maximum number of those Medinans who aided Imam (a) in Djamal war is four thousand people.
This population could not undo the problems of succession in facing his plenty of enemies.
Third, Medinans save Ansar were not so much interested in Imam ‘Ali (a). Muhadjirun (immigrants), their children as well as Meccans were great number of people who had departed to this city after departure of the Prophet (s). Families of the Umayyads and those of Djamal rebels did not allow people to completely assist Imam (a). The people of this city, during ‘Uthman period, suffering from increased desire of welfare took away their fighting spirit. Moreover, the citizens, particularly some companions, like ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas, Muhammad Ibn Maslama, Usama Ibn Zayd, Zayd Ibn Thabit and many others did not show the least interest to Imam (a), knowing themselves more religious jurist than that they lend an ear to his speech. When Imam was in Kufa, Sahl Ibn Hunayf, Imam’s ruler in Kufa, told Imam that many people are attracted by Mu‘awiya.
Imam in a letter wrote to Sahl, I have been told that people staying with you some of whom secretly go to Mu‘awiya. Do not feel sorry that number of your men is decreased and their assistance is stopped. Their deviation and your release from their suffering suffice to say that they are escaping from the truth and rushing to ignorance. They are people of this world and they are after it. They have seen and heard the justice and knew that people are equal in front of justice. So, they ran away to have their own ends meet alone. May they be far from the blessing of God.
Meccans had no better situation either. When Imam (a) wrote to Khalid Ibn ‘As to secure allegiance from Meccans but they refused to do so.
Kufa in different ways and just in the face of Medina had an entirely good condition. In the first place, Iraq had no problem of population. There were many tribes living there, those who had shown their military power in conquering Iran. Iraq economically was the most important source for people of this land. Furthermore, there were a lot of tax and tribute from Iran and Iraq, an unlimited wealth, in the hands of Muslims. When ‘Uqba Ibn ‘Amir asked Imam not to leave Medina and get somebody else to go.
Imam said, إن الأموال والرجال بالعراق
“The properties and the men are in Iraq.”
This was quite clear for others. ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir leaving Basra for Mecca after ‘Uthman was murdered, he was told in a piece of poetry by Walid Ibn ‘Uqba,“You left Iraq, center of men and came to a silent city!”
Ibn A‘tham presents importance of Iraq as if Damascus has been only a corner of it.
Fundamental aim of Imam (a) was to face Mu‘awiya after stifling of Djamal rebellion. It was impossible to do this without Imam’s appearance in Iraq that was near Damascus.
Besides, Imam had a lot of supporters from among Yemeni tribes who were actually his devotees. They played a very important role in the war when Imam assumed caliphate and they stood in all battle scenes to the very end.
Of course it is to be noted that Iraq had its own specific problems. Later on, more explanation will be given about Iraqis on the occasion of confusion in this city at the beginning of Imam Hasan (a)’s succession. It is only to refer that Kufiyans were recognized the most controversial people over trifles. They were enthusiastic people and not showing moderation in this regard. Also, the strong force of tribes headmen was one of the serious problems of Imam during his caliphate.
War with Oppressively perverse People in SiffIn
Upon his arrival in Kufa, Imam did not go to ruler’s palace. The palace, in many years, had been converted to an aristocratic one.
When Imam was asked to go there, he said,“I’ll never go to palace of the owls.”
He then went to altar of Kufa mosque and temporarily resided there. Afterwards, he went to Dju‘da’s house, son of his sister, Umm Hani.
Kufiyans as the victorious people in Basra warmly red-carpetted Imam.
At this time Damascus was the most important problem for Imam to think of.
From the years before Imam assumed caliphate, Damascus belonged to the Umayyads. Perhaps ‘Umar who had placed Damascus at the discretion of Yazid and next Mu‘awiya, children of Abu Sufyan, thought that the Umayyads deserve having Damascus if not rightful of seizing caliphate but because they were leaders of Quraysh. Henceforth, as earlier said, he did not make any changes to Damascus and even never remained critical of Mu‘awiya. With the arrivel of ‘Uthman, Mu‘awiya was completely stabilized in situation. At this time, he regarded Damascus to be his own kinghood and mainly the imagination that he someday is deposed never occurred to him. Mu‘awiya was very vigilant to have Damascus people be mentally fed by him and not by any other people. For the same reason he never let Abudhar stay there. Subsequently, whoever came to Damascus intending to effect the minds of the people as Mu‘awiya thought, he would be expelled out of there.
Anti-‘Uthman rebellion on the part of the companions and other people made him treat the case cautiously. On one hand, he never decided to stand against the companions. In this case, it was hoped that if someone came to power, he would have no pretext to demote Mu‘awiya because of supporting the deviated caliph. On the other hand, with the confidence Mu‘awiya took in Damascus people, he could count on this point that he would have an excuse for rebellion given the fact that he is being set aside. It happened to be so.
Having come to power, Imam (a) was up to send ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas to rule over Damascus. He primarily wrote a letter to Mu‘awiya in which he asked Mu‘awiya to accompany the aristocrats of Damascus to Medina, informing him that people murdered ‘Uthman without his consultation but now they have selected him as caliph with consultation and consensus.
Mu‘awiya failed to reply Imam’s letter and he only sent him a white letter writing,“From Mu‘awiya to ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.”
Someone who had carried the letter to Imam (a) said,“I am coming from the people who believe that you have murdered ‘Uthman and they are pleased with nothing else but killing you.”
This story was linked to the beginning affair of Djamal rebels that engaged Imam’s mind for some time. In this time, the story of Djamal provided Mu‘awiya with another propagandistic chance. By referring to turbulence of Talha, Zubayr and ‘Ayisha, as the Prophet’s wife, he could fix Imam’s having a hand in murder of ‘Uthman in the minds of Damascus people better than before.
After Djamal story came to an end, Imam (a) settled in Kufa because it was obvious that he would soon fight with Damascus troops. In this case, it was only Iraq that could do such a thing. In the very moment Imam arrived in Kufa, Shann Ibn ‘Abd Qays composed, “Now we are relieved from war with the infidels, but there is a horrendous snake in Damascus that if stinks anyone, he’ll be filled with a dead fatal venom in his body; therefore, in order to remedy, before it stinks, smash its head and throw it aside.
It is to be noted that challenge between Damascus and Iraq, in principle, predated the Sassanids period. Arabs of these two regions, each was engaged in fighting in support of one of the two great powers of that time, that is Romans and the Sassanids. Of course, presently new immigrants entered this region and had different incentives compared to the past, but the old grounds could also affect it. Damascus surrender meant that its people had yielded to Iraqis. This could be true in the other way round. Ka‘b Ibn Dju‘ayl composed,
أرى الشام تكره ملك العراق وأهل العراق لها كارهونا
وكل لـصاحبـه مبغـض يرى كلّ ما كان من ذاك دينا
“Damascus people dislike Iraq’s rulership and so do Iraqis, they call each other enemies and dismiss each other’s doings as bad.”
This was not an easy confrontation and it was clear from scratch that Iraqis and Damascus people will have hard days ahead.
‘Amr Ibn ‘As, some time in the midst of Siffin war, wrote to Ibn ‘Abbas, “The situation has become very critical and know that, إن الشام لا تملك الا بهلاك العراق، وأن العراق لا تملك إلا بهلاك الشام
“Damascus is only captured by destroying the Iraqis and so is Iraq by killing Damascus people.”
Shurahbil Ibn Simt objected to Imam’s envoy saying that,“You have come to annex Damascus to Iraq?”
In this time, other towns except Damascus and its suburbs swore allegiance to Imam
and Imam in Kufa designated rulers for different regions of Iraq and Iran.
Malik Ashatar was dispatched to Djazira (including Musil, Nasibayn, Dara, Sindjar, Amid, Hit and ‘Anat). This region was specifically a key region because it was situated near Damascus and Zhahhak Ibn Qays was in power there on behalf of Mu‘awiya. Djazira people held ‘Uthmani religion
and those of“the ‘Uthmanids”
having fled from Kufa and Basra, had taken shelter in some parts of Djazira cominated by Mu‘awiya.
Zhahhak-controled regions included cities of Raqqa, Ruha and Qirqisiya’. When Malik Ashtar went to Djazira, he prepared troops and attacked Haran. He had an intense fighting with Zhahhak troops in this invasion. He could bring this region under his control.
It goes to say that Imam (a) on his arrival in Kufa tried to brighten public minds about different matters and prepare them for supporting him in the subsequent developments. He talked to the great people and noblemen and asked their support for himself against Mu‘awiya. Iraq was then dominated by the same noblemen. Headmen of tribes were more powerful than the ruler of the city and Imam (a) could not reorganize things without attracting their attention. At the same time, Imam’s procedure was not to make progress in the affairs without consultation of people. This for people with no political perception created more desire of cooperation. In response to Imam who said that he intended to write a letter to Mu‘awiya calling to his obedience, people said,“Whatever you do, we obey you. We obey you just as we obeyed the Prophet.”
Imam also decided to reveal the fact to those rulers of the cities who were appointed by ‘Uthman and had no certain problems. Included among them were Djarir Ibn ‘Abd Allah Badjali, ruler of Hamadan and Ash‘ath Ibn Qays, ruler of Adharbaydjan.
According to Dinwari, one of the reasons of anti-‘Uthman rebellion was to give rulership of Adharbaydjan to Ash‘ath. This happened after ‘Uthman married Ash‘ath’s daughter to his son.
Ash‘ath decided to flee to Damascus and only the shame he had from the side of his friends and their opposition to this action he took caused him to stay there.
Noblemen of Kufa and other parts were given an audience by Imam and made excuses for justifying their no support of Imam in Djamal while strengthening their allegiance to him. Speaking about preparing to join Mu‘awiya was something they were engaged in. for example, cooperation of Ahnaf Ibn Qays on behalf of Imam led to coming of Banu Sa‘d and Banu Tamim tribes to Kufa from Basra and this largely affected consolidation of Kufa
.
By sending a letter to Mu‘awiya from Kufa, Imam attempted to convince him to obey Imam of Muslims. Imam in a letter told him that his caliphate was based on then criteria and he had to admit it. Imam wrote,“verily the allegiance people in Medina swore to me is mandatory for you in Damascus too. The same people who had sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman have done so to me similarly, so everybody present here has no way but to decide upon allegiance and everyone absent has no alternative except abandoning it. Shuwra is the right of Muhadjirun and Ansar and when it is formed and the members agreed on leadership of a man called Imam, then this is the very consent of God
…if you are rebellious, I’ll fight you asking help of God. You’ve talked a lot about murderers of ‘Uthman. First, go on the way Muslims cover and come with them to me for trial, so I oblige you and them to follow Book of God…and know that you’re released on parole and the liberated prisoners do not deserve caliphate and participating in Shuwra”
.
When Djarir Ibn ‘Abd Allah handed Imam’s letter to Mu‘awiya in which he asked him to stop his seditious actions and join the community of Muslims, Mu‘awiya asked people to assemble in the mosque.
While praising Damascus as“sacred territory”
, he said,“I am your caliph on behalf of ‘Umar Ibn Khattab and ‘Uthman. I am guardian for blood of ‘Uthman who has been oppressedly killed. What do you say about blood of ‘Uthman?”
All people declared their support of his revenge for ‘Uthman. This was Mu‘awiya’s response to Imam (a). What was more interesting in Mu‘awiya’s speech was that he said he had been appointed to rule Damascus on behalf of ‘Umar.
‘Uthman also said,“How should I depose Mu‘awiya from Damascus while ‘Umar has appointed him?”
This was while he had demoted many of ‘Umar’s agents from different cities.
By deceiving Shurahbil Simt Kindi, one of Damascus noblemen and headman of Yemenis
, Mu‘awiya could draw support of many of Damascus people.
Mu‘awiya regularly sent people to him to give testimony that ‘Ali has murdered ‘Uthman. Account of this deception shows stupidity of Shurahbil and those who followed him and Mu‘awiya.
Mu‘awiya told Djarir Ibn ‘Abd Allah, representative of Imam,“Write to ‘Ali to set Damascus and Egypt for me and when he passed away, he should not leave allegiance of anybody to me. In this case, I entrust everything to him and know him a caliph.”
Djarir wrote this to Imam and Imam replied, “Mughira in Medina suggested this to me and I rejected. I do not do such a thing because, لم يكن الله ليراني أتّخذ المضلين عضداً“God never sees me in a position of taking advantage of the deviators as my arms.”
In fact, Mu‘awiya tended to capture Damascus unequivocally and even if Imam ‘Ali is caliph, the region should be in his control in the form of an independent emirate. When Mu‘awiya made speech in Damascus, he said,“Why is ‘Ali in caliphate superior to me. If Hidjaz people have sworn allegiance to him, Damascus people have done so to me. These two regions are equal in this regard.”
He also in a letter wrote to Imam,“As long as people of Hidjaz observe the truth, they were more preferred than Damascus people. But now since they have abandoned the truth, the truth belongs to the Damascus people.”
Replying him, Imam wrote,“As for what you said about “now people of Damascus are superior to people of Hidjaz”
, show me a man from Quraysh who can be approved in Shuwra or his caliphate can be legal. If you claim so, Muhadjirun and Ansar deny you … allegiance to me is generally sworn and nobody can oppose it and there will be no revision.”
At this time, Mu‘awiya was called emir rather than“Amir al-Mu’minin”
in Damascus; nevertheless, there were people who applied this term to Mu‘awiya. The first man to call Mu‘awiya Amir al-Mu’minin was Hadjdjadj Ibn Khuzayma who in his first meeting with Mu‘awiya said,“Your uncles descendants from Banu ‘Abd al-Mutallib killed your Shiykh.”
However, Djarir Ibn ‘Abd Allah Badjali returned from Damascus to Kufa after four months.
Malik punished him hard and blamed him for selling his religion to Mu‘awiya in Damascus. A short while later, Djarir left Kufa for Qirqisa while a large number of people from Badjala-excluding nineteen people-joined him. After Djarir along with Thuwayr Ibn ‘Amir left for the place, Imam set ablaze their houses.
This time, ‘Amr Ibn ‘As lived in Palestine. He stood aside and went to Palestine after his opposition to ‘Uthman that essentially emanated from ‘Abd Allah Ibn Sa‘d Ibn Abi Sarh who was put in his place in Egypt. From there, he provoked people and even serfs against ‘Uthman.
He is said after murder of ‘Uthman to have asked his children what he must do.
His son said,“Go to ‘Ali.”
‘Amr said,“If I go to ‘Ali now, he’ll say, “You are like one of the Muslims enjoying equal rights as they do”
,“but Mu‘awiya considers me as his partner.”
Mu‘awiya felt that he could be of an important help to him. At the same time, Mu‘awiya as in all cases, by touching ‘Amr’s weak point that is government of Egypt, asked his accompaniment. Mu‘awiya, it is said, asked ‘Amr to rush to him after he received Imam’s letter through Djarir Ibn ‘Abd Allah.
It is also said that his son, ‘Abd Allah, bewared him of his action
, but Muhammad, his another son, induced him to do that. ‘Amr himself expressed his initial hesitation in a piece of poetry.
However, ‘Amr Ibn ‘As was more corrupt than to overlook government of Egypt. He was primarily one member of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’s band. He commanded the conquests and ‘Uthman had set him aside because he used the help of his relatives in this regard. In essence, ‘Amr was one of the organs of Quraysh party who was at odds with the Hashimites. He quickly made his decision and joined hands with Mu‘awiya after being assured that he could gain the world, that according to him was government of Egypt, by selling his religion. Talking to Mu‘awiya, he composed,
معاوي لا اعطيك ديني ولم أنل بذلك دنيا فانظر كيف تصنع
فإن تعطني مصراً فأربح بصفقة أخذت بها شيخاً يضرّ وينفع
“O Mu‘awiya! I sell not my religion for you and I sought not a benefit from your world, now this is you and all this, so if you give rulership of Egypt to me, I am fully benefitted.”
It was a great success for Mu‘awiya to see ‘Amr joining him. The first thing Mu‘awiya consulted was about Roman troops. ‘Amr proposed a compromise and said that Romans would quickly accept it.
Mu‘awiya put this into effect and Imam (a) mentioned it in one of his speeches.
‘Ubayd Allah Ibn ‘Umar joining Mu‘awiya in Damascus-that was because he feared Imam retaliating him for murder of Hurmuzan and two other people in Medina
-complemented Mu‘awiya’s excuse in having son of caliph II in his hands and this was publicly and highly important to Mu‘awiya who counted on this.
Mu‘awiya began his propaganda for betraying people of Medina and Mecca as well as the renowned authorities in different cities. He wrote to Medinans that we have risen up in revenge for ‘Uthman. If we become victorious, we will settle everything as Shuwra manipulated by ‘Umar and we are not after caliphate. Medinans were irritated by what Mu‘awiya and ‘Amr said about caliphate and mentioned this important principle to them that“Tulaqa”
(those released on parole) have no right to speak about caliphate.
Mu‘awiya made an effort to deceive people like Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, Muhammad Ibn Maslama and Usama Ibn Zayd whom he heard had not sworn allegiance to Imam (a) or had been unwilling to obey him in his wars. He in these letters regularly talked about Shuwra. None of the people mentioned responded him favorably.
Sa‘d Waqqas also wrote,“‘Umar let no body in Shuwra unless those who were rightful of the caliphate. Presently, there is some disagreement with ‘Ali on the fact that it would be good if Talha and Zubayr stayed home.”
We know that the bottom line of all Sa‘d’s speech was that he deserved caliphate because ‘Ali (a) has a problem and others are all dead. The only person remaining is Sa‘d Waqqas!
‘Ali’s idea about“Qa‘idin”
was that, خذلوا الحق ولم ينصروا الباطل“These people downgraded the gospel truth and assisted not the credal error.”
Mu‘awiya wrote to ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar,“He does not want caliphate for himself but he wants it for you. ‘Abd Allah rejected his suggestion.”
This time, Imam (a) and Mu‘awiya exchanged two detaile letters which contained important points.
Mu‘awiya in his letter wrote to Imam that,“After the Prophet there were caliphs who came to power and you were envious of them and rebelled against them and we realized that rebellion in your wrathful look, your outcry, your sigh and in your delayed allegiance to caliphs, seeing that you were pulled like a male nose-ringed two-humped camel by force to reluctantly pay allegiance to them.”
Further, Mu‘awiya spoke about Imam’s enmity to ‘Uthman and the fact that he was killed in his house and he remained quiet.
Mu‘awiya also said that,“If ‘Ali wanted to stop ‘Uthman’s murder, he could do it, but he did not. Now if ‘Ali tells he truth, he can leave ‘Uthman’s murderers to me for allegiance.”
In his response, ‘Ali (a) by referring to the victory God bestowed on the Prophet (s) and that He suppressed his enemies, mentioned that,“The people who mostly insisted on provocation against him were his family.”
Imam further said that they, Ahl al-Bayt, was the first people who believed the Prophet (s) while his tribesmen were up to kill their Prophets, wanted to uproot them and leave them in their hearts with sorrow and did the intemperate things to them. He also added that,“We were banned from having good food and drinking fresh clean water and granted us dismay. We were placed spies and guards, were forced to climb up unevenly impassable mount and were waged war. They put down a treaty not to eat, drink, marry and trade with us and never join hands with us, leaving us unsafe unless we hand them the Prophet (s) to be killed.”
By mentioning what pains he had taken in the wars in time of the Prophet (s), Imam further said,“You spoke of my envy of caliphs of my belated allegiance to them and of my rebellion against them. As for rebellion, I invoke by God if that could be true. Concerning my delayed approval of them as well as being displeased with what they did, I never apologize anybody for this.”
Imam (a) continued to say his reason for his rightfulness of caliphate. He also talked about his no implication in murdering of ‘Uthman, citing Abu Sufyan’s idea about Saqifa event and that he asked Imam not to let Abu Bakr capture caliphate but to make him pay allegiance to him.“I refused, Imam added, to do so because people were almost close to days of infidelity and I strongly feared disunity among Muslims.”
This letter is a major proof of Imam’s attitude towards caliphs and his idea about his rightful caliphate. After this, he wrote letters to Mu‘awiya and ‘Amr Ibn ‘As, trying to keep them away from the wrong way they were after.
Imam (a) became determined to Djihad with Mu‘awiya. He repetitively recited this to himself, امرت بقتال الناكثين والقاسطين والمارقين
“Now, it is turn of the deviators, the apostates and the infidels to be launched a Djihad by Imam.”
Imam called his outstanding companions of Muhadjirun and Ansar, asking them to express their idea about going to Damascus. Hashim Ibn ‘Utba, nephew of Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas said that those people allegedly claim about revenge for ‘Uthman. They seek after this world and they must be suppressed as soon as possible.
‘Ammar said that if they rushed one day earlier, it would be better. He composed,
سيروا إلى الأحزاب أعداء النبي سيروا فخير الناس أتباع علي
“Move towards the parties and enemies of the Prophet because the best people are ‘Ali’s followers.”
Qays Ibn Sa‘d said,“Making Djihad with them is more obligatory than the one with the Turks and Romans.
Sahl Ibn Hunayf also declared Ansar’s readiness for joining and obeying Imam (a). Among the people there, one person objected and said, “You want to dispatch us to kill our Damascus brethren as you took us, yesterday, to kill our Basran brothers!”
People began to crack him down. The man ran away and the people after him leading to his murder in public turbulence in Bazar.
Malik Ashtar said,“You shouldn’t be fretted with what this wretched traitor said. All people are your Shi‘ite Muslims.”
Kufa environment was, at this time, so good that no one dared disagree or even express dissent. Among the people, one who raised such and idea was Han¨ala Ibn Rabi‘a. His tribesmen put him under so much pressure that he nightly fled and joined Mu‘awiya though he seemed not to have taken part in the war.
However, even people who were fairly decent more or less remained in doubt. Abu Zubayb Ibn ‘Awf asked Imam to officially testify that the way followed to cut off Wilayat’s link to Damascus troops and replaced with enmity to them is a true one. Imam attested that. After Imam (a), ‘Ammar attested that and he became assured of his way, relying on the two testimonies.
Some people from companions of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas‘ud - once in charge of Kufa’s Bayt al-Mal - came to Imam and said,“We come with you but our division base will be independent. This is because we want to see who is after the credal error and embarks on rebellion.”
Imam approved of their idea. One group of four hundred people led by Rabi‘a Ibn Khuthaym, expressing doubt about the war, asked Imam to send them to one of the borderlines. Imam sent them to Riy borderline and Bahila people who were displeased with Imam (a) and nor was Imam pleased with them were sent to Diylam frontier after he granted them their bounties.
‘Abd Allah Ibn Badil while in his speech confirming Imam’s position said to Imam,“Their opposition to you is because of your previous strikes against them.”
He then said to people,“How should Mu‘awiya pay allegiance to ‘Ali while his brother, Han¨ala, his uncle, Walid and his grandfather, ‘Utba are all killed in one war?”
Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi and ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq marched and began to curse Damascus people. Imam summoned them and said that he did not like them to be known after curses. Instead, they could ask God to stop bloodshed and make peace.
‘Amr Ibn Hamiq stressed over hid friendship with Imam and Imam prayed for him.
‘Amr stood on his pledge until he was martyred by Ibn Umm al-Hakam, Mu‘awiya’s ruler in Djazira.
Imam in a public sermon called all people to Djihad after he was assured of the fact that Mu‘awiya receives nothing but force and on the other hand, lords of Kufa defend him in war with Damascus.
After him, Imam Hasan (a) began to speak,“God prepared for battling against your enemy, Mu‘awiya and his troops because he is already in state of alert. Leave not your spirit of campaign that, if abandoned, casts off bonds of hearts and that careering of sword and spear assures assistance and prevention of defeat.”
After him, Imam Husayn (a) induced people, in a speech, to fight with Damascus people.
Imam wrote to Ibn ‘Abbas to ask for Basrans’ help. Many Basrans, after being called by Imam, joined Ibn ‘Abbas to Kufa. Ibn ‘Abbas put Abu l-Aswad Du’ali in his place in Basra. He wrote to Mikhnaf Ibn Salim to put somebody in his place in Isfahan and join Imam and he did so.
At this time, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr was ruler of Egypt on behalf of Imam. Writing a detailed letter to Mu‘awiya, he blamed Mu‘awiya for countering with Imam.
Muhammad wrote as to Imam ‘Ali’s background,
“Now I see that you talk about being his counterpart while you’re you and he’s he who beats all with his unique record of all alms and virtues. He is from the people of the first man who has embraced Islam, more reliable in faith, more purified in family, having an honorable wife who stands higher than all people and he is of the best people to his cousin. Whilst you are damned of the cursed son. You and your father flamed seditions against religion of God and attempted to put out glow of Islam. You organized factions and parties, collected properties and for so doing, you held familiar company with anti-Islam tribes. Your father died after this way and you substituted him and the evidence is that the remaining groups, opposition parties, hypocrite leaders who have taken refuge in you are against the Prophet (s) and you have supported them. And the evidence for ‘Ali, in addition to his public superiority and his Islamic initiative, is his companions of Muhadjirun and Ansar whose virtues are cited in Qur’an and left in memories and God praised them …. Woe unto you! How do you parallel yourself to ‘Ali whereas he is legatee of the Prophet (s) and his descendants and is the first man who obeyed him and stood up to his promise until his last days of life. The Messenger (s) kept him his confidant and his partner.”
Replying him, Mu‘awiya wrote,
“To one who reproaches his father. Your letter is received … You charged your father intemperately … We and your father were together in the lifetime of the Prophet. We know that we have to respect the right of son of Abu Talib and his supremacy over us is apparent, … After the Prophet in that time, your father and his discriminator were the first people who disentitled ‘Ali of his right and opposed him and they both unanimously allied with each other in this regard … They never let him in their works and never revealed their secrets to him as long as they passed away… Therefore, if what we are up to is true, your father initiated it and if it is cruelty, your father again founded it. We are his partners and we followed his guidelines. In case your father had not covered this way before us, we would have never opposed son of Abu Talib and would have surrendered ourselves. But we observed what your father did and we too followed his foot-prints and modeled his manner.”
Kufa poised for battle with Damascus. Imam ordered the warriors in Nukhayla, a military camp in Kufa, to come together. Decorating pulpit of Kufa with the bloody garment of ‘Uthman, while seventy thousand Shiykhs weeping around it, Mu‘awiya was made to prepare Damascus people for battling Iraqi troops.
Imam’s uprising from Nukhayla happened on 5th of Shawwal, 36 H.
The first dispute raised in Imam’s troops was conflict over headmanship of Yemeni tribes. Imam (a) deposed Ash‘ath and posed Hassan Ibn Makhdudj. This spurred conflict between Kinda and Rabi‘a. Upon hearing about this conflict, Mu‘awiya compelled one of Kinda poets to stimulate Ash‘ath against Imam but he obtained no luck in that time and this was finished by placing him over the left wing of Iraqi troops.
Unfortunately, the enfeebled, spoiled and opportunist spirit of Ash‘ath caused him to stand against Imam. It has been said that he had been writing letters to Mu‘awiya ever since Imam called him to Adharbaydjan and ordered to have his properties appraised.
Ya‘qubi has mentioned his relationship with Mu‘awiya when Qur’ans were raised up.
Imam (a) en route arrived in Ctesiphon and asked the citizens to join his troops. Behind Imam, eight hundred people along with Qays Ibn Sa‘d and a short while later about four hundred people along with his son, Yazid, joined Imam’s troops. Imam on the way turned down all gifts of Iranian headmen and bewared them of welcoming emirs in such a way.
Upon request of his companions, Imam wrote another letter to Mu‘awiya and called him to Book of God, tradition of the Prophet (s) and prevention of bloodshed but Mu‘awiya poetically responded him that there rules sword between them.
On the way, Imam (a) demanded Raqqa ‘Uthmani - religion people
who were supporters of Mu‘awiya to install a bridge over the river for the troops to pass. Citizens refused to do so and they finally did it under the threat of Malik. Imam kept three thousand people with Malik until all the forces pass through. In the end, Malik was the last one who crossed the bridge.
On passing through Iraq, when Imam reached Karbala, he reported about the horrendous event that would happen to Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet (s) in this land.
In northern Iraq and Syria, front troops at Roman border, by passing through Hit, Qirqisiya’ and Raqqa faced front forces of Damascus led by Abu l-A‘war Sulami.
Imam sent Malik forward to counter with them reaffirming to him that he, at any rate, should not initiate the war. Upon his arrival, Damascus troops launched fighting and the two sides were engaged in combat for some time. Afterwards, Damascus troops pulled back.
Concerning the time of Siffin war, there appear contradictory historical reports.
It seems that there exist two quotations. Baladhuri has cited Imam’s arrival in Siffin to be on Dhi l-Hadjdja (36).
He reports the war from Dhi l-Hadjdja (in the year of 36), referring to fightings in this month and after in Safar when major war took place.
Ya‘qubi says water dilemma goes to Dhi l-Hadjdja, 36 H. and that war in the year of 37 H. lasted forty days. However, he says arbitration goes to Ramadan, 38 H.
he means that the arbitration happened in Safar, 37 H. about one and a half year after Siffin war! Based on this report, a treaty was put down in Safar and as prescribed it will be brought to an end by Ramadan.
Ibn Athir began events of Siffin from Dhi l-Hadjdja, 36 H. and ended in Safar, 37 H., referring to arbitration within events of the same year.
According to Khalifa Ibn Khayyat, Siffin war intensely lasted from 7th to 10th of Safar, 37 H.
It seems war exceeded those days.
According to another report by Nasr Ibn Muzahim, the first date specified is that when Imam (a) reached Siffin, he had correspondences with Damascus troops in the region of Siffin during months of Rabi‘a al-Akhir to Djamadi al-Thani.
Following this, Ibn Muzahim mentions events of Radjab. This condition continued up to Dhi l-Hadjdja during which forces from the two sides fought with each other. After that in Muharram, hostilities came to a cessation and the main war was waged in Safar.
Naturally, months of Rabi‘ al-Awwal and the two months of Djamadi can not be said to relate to the year of 36H. because Imam had arrived in Kufa in Radjab of that year. As Nasr said, Siffin war was launched from the second month of the year 37, lasting up to Safar of next year. In this way, Ibn Muzahim’s mention of dates exceed one year beyond those of Baladhuri’s and some other historians. Dinwari’s dates are exactly what Nasr mentioned.
This is while Dinwari has set date of arbitration in Safar of the year 37
despite his reference to Rabi‘a al-Awwal and the two Djamadis and it can not be true according to his previous settings. As his book’s proofreader said, Muharram of the year 37 H. is the month when war stopped.
It is to be said that Ibn A‘tham regards arrival of Imam’s troops to be in Muharram of the year 38 H.
that seems untrue.
If this statement that Kharidjites selected ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb their leader in Zayd Ibn Husayn’s house in the late Shawwal, 37 H. and that Imam ‘Ali’s war with them happened in Safar of the year 38 H. is true
, it is inevitably to be accepted that what Nasr Ibn Muzahim said is not true. Overally, it is to be said that the majority agree on major fighting happening in Safar of the year 37 H.
The region of fighting was in Siffin after which the war was known. Siffin is a cramped village of Roman villages that stands at a rifle - shut of the Euphrates. Alongside the Euphrates, there rest trees around which water surround and in the wilderness of two Farsangs (leagues) and there was no passing way except the Euphrates that is restricted and paved.
When Iraqi troops approached Damascus troops, they noticed that they had stationed in the region having the paved route, passing through swamp, under their control. They had positioned bowmen and horsemen to prevent Iraqis from frequenting to the coast of the Euphrates.
Number of Damascus troops is said to be amounting to one hundred twenty thousand people.
Imam’s troops moving out of Kufa also numbered eighty thousand people who were added by many of Ctesiphon people on the way.
Imam (a) sent Sa‘sa‘a to Mu‘awiya to tell him that his troops launched the war whereas Imam was up to talk to him again make an ultimatum.
“Now, Sa‘sa‘a said, you have barred us from water and Iraqi troops can not remain silent, with all this, Imam doesn’t want to launch the war.”
Mu‘awiya rejected what Sa‘sa‘a said. ‘Amr Ibn ‘As opposed Mu‘awiya’s decision. He spoke about ‘Ali’s valor and also said that,“You - that is Mu‘awiya - and I have heard ‘Ali when Fatima’s house was inspected saying if he had forty men …
.”
But Mu‘awiya could not admit that and fighting began. The story of banning the water, on one hand linked to that of the water not reaching ‘Uthman
and on the other hand it was associated with the event of Karbala.
Iraqi troops dominated the water through fighting with the courage of Malik
and Imam ordered the troops not to ban Damascus forces from using water. By breaking out a news (through a spear on which there was a letter sent to Imam’s troops but the sender was anonymous, perhaps it was from a friend!) that Imam controlled region will be enundated, Mu‘awiya displaced Iraqi troops. Imam who opposed the displacement of troops yielded to Iraqi’s decision and Iraqi troops could only control the water after re-fighting. What Ibn A‘tham said about these events slightly differ from Nasr’s report.
In all these events, Malik played a pirotal role and strongly treated the Damascus troops.
Large numbers of forces had been killed in the fighting about which Nasr has given an account in the form of boastful speeches and wars. A number of Qur’an reciters from Iraq and Damascus mediated between the two armies, trying to resolve the dispute through talks. These mediatory attempts continued for a long time.
As referred, with Dhi l-Hadjdja coming to an end, Muharram came and war was supposed to come to a cessation.
Negotiations of Imam’s envoys with Mu‘awiya came to a deadlock. Murdering of people such as ‘Ammar, ‘Adi Ibn Hatim, Malik and those who, according to him, had a hand in murder of ‘Uthman, was set by him as his condition. This was something unacceptable both by Imam and by Iraqi tribes. Imam (a) once in front of Abu Muslim Khawlani asked murderers of ‘Uthman to be prepared. In that time, mosque became filled with crowds saying that they are murderers of ‘Uthman.
In Siffin, the same thing happened and about twenty thousand people of Iraqi troops stood away and said that they were ‘Uthman’s killers.
Mu‘awiya’s insistence on this condition was because he knew they would never accept that. He attempted to deceive those who had come as representatives and had been apt to be deceived. He said to Ziyad Ibn Hafsa,“I want you to join us with your family and I make a pledge, after victory, to dispose you with each one of the two cities you want.”
Ziyad said,“I have an axiom from my God for what He betowed me and I want not to be patron of wrongdoers.”
With the elapse of Muharram, month of illegals came to an end and Siffin war was launched between Malik and Habib Ibn Muslim in the first day of Safar, that as said, had been Wednesday!
In the night of war being launched, Imam advised all his forces, لا تقاتلوا القوم حتـى يبدءوكم
“Avoid fighting these people until they launch the fighting.”
Imam (a) here intended to leave a chance for return of Damascus troops to truth. Imam advised his troops this way,“If they did not initiate war, you don’t fight them because you have full proof as to praise of God and as you leave them to launch the war, this is another proof for you and against them. If you fought and defeated the enemy, do not kill any fugitive and wounded, keep the pudenda veiled and do not mutilate any killed. In case you rushed into enemy camp, disgrace not anybody and enter not any house unless under my order. Take not away any of their property save what exists in the division camp. No woman has to be harmed although your honor is abused and your commanders and good relatives are charged with abuse because those women are weak in respect of soul and wisdom. We had the duty (in time of the Prophet Is») not to harm them when they were pagan.”
However, war began on Safar 1st
, and the two sides intensely fought with each other. It seemed that each day one of Imam’s commanders led the frontline. Malik on first day, Hashim Ibn ‘Utba on second day, ‘Ammar Yasir on third day, Muhammad Hanafiyya on fourth day and ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas on fifth day commanded the frontline.
War escalated in the next Thursday and the left wing of Iraqi army split apart but it was compensated with bravery of Imam himself.
Imam himself was present among the troops and regularly called them to resistance by praying and preaching.
Nasr Ibn Muzahim carefully formulated most of his invocations and speeches and portrayed two-peopled war scenes as far as possible.
Qays Ibn Sa‘d, each day, spoke for Ansar and incited them against Damascus people
, emphasizing that companions of the Messenger (s) are with them. Seventy people, he said, of those in Badr stay with us and our commander is cousin of the Prophet (s),“a trustworthy person of Badr.”
Ya‘qubi has put that seventy people of Badris, seven hundred people of Ridwan allegiance - prayers as well as four hundred people of Muhadjir and Ansar stayed with Imam ‘Ali (a). From Ansar, there stayed nobody with Mu‘awiya except Nu‘man Ibn Bashir and Maslama Ibn Mukhallad.
Just as Imam once brought Ansar together, moving towards Damascus troops, so Mu‘awiya readied those two people and moved ahead.
‘Ammar Yasir was among the people who directly talked against Mu‘awiya.
In response to some one who asked him how he would fight these Muslims while the Prophet (s) said,“I have a duty to fight as long as they declare monotheism, then their life and property is secure.”
‘Ammar said,“This is true, but these people have not embraced Islam. They inwardly rendered blasphemy until they found helpers today.”
In another speech in Siffin, he rightly stressed over the point that these people deceitfully posed blood of ‘Uthman, yet their aim is, ليكونوا بذ لك جبابرة وملوكاً
“He may become a tyrant by doing this.”
In Siffin, ‘Ammar seemed to many a sign of distinguishing gospel truth from credal error. The Prophet (s) said about him, تقتلك الفئة الباغية
“You will be killed by an aggressive group.”
This successive narration led some people to see in what front ‘Ammar stands and is martyred.
‘Amr Ibn ‘As himself had narrated this hadith. Mu‘awiya objected why he had narrated that. ‘Amr composed a piece of poetry saying,“I didn’t know this would happen in Siffin.”
This made a problem for Damascus troops as ‘Amr was supposed to arrange a face-to-face debate with ‘Ammar at the presence of a number of people from the two sides. ‘Ammar said to ‘Amr who, in the very beginning, made a profession of faith (Tashahhud),“You had abandoned this from time of the Prophet (s) and on.”
‘Amr who in deceit was saying,“What are we fighting for?”
Was told by ‘Ammar,“You are the most obeyed among the troops. Do something to stop bloodshed.”
He said,“Now I tell why I am fighting you.The Prophet (s) ordered me to fight with the infidels as well as with the deviators who are the very you, as for the apostates “Kharidjites”
…. I wonder if I have to consider them or not.O You who are devoid of good qualities! Do you know not that the Messenger (s) said for ‘Ali (a), من كنت مولاه فهذا عليّ مولاه ، اللّهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه“I love God, his Messenger (s) and after him ‘Ali.”
‘Ammar continued to talk about ‘Uthman,“He opened to you gates of evils.”
‘Amr asked,“Did ‘Ali kill him?”
‘Ammar said,“No, but God of ‘Ali killed him.”
He said,“Were you among the murderers?”
‘Ammar replied,“I helped those who killed him and this day I fight with enemy helping them.”
‘Amr Ibn ‘As said to accompanying Damascus troops,“He confesses to murder of ‘Uthman.”
‘Ammar was martyred in one of the days of intense fighting. Several people of Damascus troops claimed responsibility for his murder.
It is also said that some Damascus people said prayers over his stiff !
To Mu‘awiya, murder of ‘Ammar Yasir was“conquering the conquests.”
‘Ammar composed about war with Damascus troops in a poetic line, religious justification of which is said to be interesting,
نحن ضربناكم على تنـزيله فاليوم نضربكم على تأويله
“Earlier, We beat thee for his descension and now we beat thee for his interpretation.”
It meant although Damascus people have embraced Qur’an and Islam, they really never confessed to it. Muslims also made use of sense of“rebellion”
.
Mughira Ibn Harith Ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib said in a poem,
أهل الصلاة قتلناهم ببغيهم والمشركون قتلناهم بما جحدوا
“Prayer-holders are killed for their rebellion and the atheists are murdered for their denial.”
In the midst of fighting, Imam handed a Qur’an to one of his troops to go to Damascus troops and call them to Qur’anic arbitration, but they killed him.
Imam’s troops superiority was utterly apparent. Once, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Badil neared Mu‘awiya’s settlement and made him retreat. Another time, ‘Utba Ibn Abi Sufyan suffered so much a defeat that he took aback as far as twenty leagues.
Of course, in some cases, left or right wing of Iraqi army temporarily disintegrated. Reports say that Imam himself fought and killed different people, one of whom was Hurayth, Mu‘awiya’s Mawali and a very strong man. He himself defied Imam and in the very beginning was sworded killed by Imam.
‘Urwa Dimashqi asked Imam for a challenge and was split in halves by Imam.
Another report says that Imam had trace of three strikes on his head and two on his face.
Nasr Ibn Muzahim reporting this says that Imam (a) was never wounded.
Imam asked Mu‘awiya for a combat. Whoever wins the battle, he shall assume power. Mu‘awiya turned down his request.
Imam once faced ‘Amr but he could run away the battle by unveiling his genitals because Imam was very ashamed of what he did.
The same thing happened to Busr Ibn Artat.
Fighting was so intense that these days only in one battle over five hundred people (Ibn A‘tham, One thousand) confronted with the same number of Damascus troops and none survived the battle!
Siffin war was tribally formed. Many tribes half of whom in Iraq and another half in Damascus stood against each other. Rabi‘a
and Hamdan tribes, headman of the latter of which was Sa‘id Ibn Qays sacrificed in the most part in as much as Imam said in a piece of poetry,
فلوكنت بوّاباً على باب جنة لقلت لهمدان ادخلوا بسلام
“If I were gate keeper of Heaven, I would tell Banu Hamdan people to enter there in goodness.”
Imam said about Rabi‘a as well, وكان علي (ع) لا يعدل بربيعة أحداً من شدة محبته لهم“‘Ali never equaled Banu Rabi‘a to anyone for his love extended to them.”
Mu‘awiya advised Damascus troops to aim at no people but Hamdanis since they stand as ‘Uthman’s adversary.
The truth is that Mu‘awiya feared them and he was at weakening them. ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, one of Damascus troops commanders, was murdered by one of Hamdanis in one of these battles. Dhi l-Kila‘, one of the greatest commanders of Damascus troops, was killed in Siffin. He is said to have heard through ‘Amr Ibn ‘As, in time of ‘Umar, (seemingly through a person named Abu Nuh who quoted this to him from ‘Amr Ibn ‘As in Siffin)
the Prophet (s) saying that ‘Ammar is killed by an aggressive tribe, so he used to fight while being in doubt. Mu‘awiya liked very much to kill him fearing that he might be a trouble for Damascus troops. In contrast, a good many of marked troops of Imam (a) were also martyred. One of Siffin martyrs, Uwiys Qarani
, is the noted Gnostic who was and, still is, highly ranked among Muslims. Ibn A‘tham while reporting his martyrdom in Siffin made an account of him.
Hashim Ibn ‘Utba, known as Hashim al-Mirqal, who had lost one eye in conquests, was the most devoted companions of Imam being martyred in Siffin. He was Sa‘d Waqqas’s nephew and unlike his position of being among Qa‘idin stayed with Imam with complete assurance until he was martyred.
Khuzayma, another companion of Imam, was also martyred in Siffin and Imam approved his one testimony as two, for which he was known after“Dhu al-Shahadatayn”
meaning two witnesses.
After their martyrdom, there were still seen famous people in troops, like Ashtar (who was nicknamed by Mu‘awiya as lion of army)
, ‘Adi Ibn Hatim and Qays Ibn Sa‘d.
It is to be noted that a number of Kufiyan women also attended Siffin war, exhorting Iraqi forces against those of Damascus by making poems in which Imam was praised and his virtues were retold. Among them, there were Suda, daughter of ‘Umara Hamdani, Umm Sanan
, Zarqa’, daughter of ‘Adi Hamdani
and others whose biographies are mentioned in various sources.
Umm Sanan addressed ‘Ali in Siffin and said,
قد كنت بعد محمد خلفاً لنا أوصى اليك بنا وكنت وفيّا
“After Muhammad(s), he was his successor among us and he kept his promise well in front of us.”
One of these women named Umm al-Khayr said in Siffin, إنها إحن بدريّة وضغائن جاهلية وأحقاد احديّة، وثب معاوية عند الغفلة ليدرك بها الفرصة من ثارات عبد شمس
“Mu‘awiya’s waging war comes from his vengeance in Badr, Uhud and from his ignorant bigotry and it is because he wants to take revenge for ‘Abd-e Shams.”
Another woman was Djurwa, daughter of Murra Ibn Ghalib Tamimi who was later brought by Mu‘awiya to Damascus. When she was asked by Mu‘awiya about Imam ‘Ali (a), she said, حاز والله الشرف حتى لا يوصف ، وغاية حتى لا تعرف
,“By God, he attained an indescribable nobility and reached a station beyond imagination.”
Mu‘awiya tried to break apart Iraqi army in ways except war. Writing different letters to Abu Ayyub Ansari, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas and others under the pretext of stopping bloodshed and even of promising caliphate to Ibn ‘Abbas
, he attempted to force them to oppose Imam (a). Besides, he changed the condition by frequently granting money to his troops, لم يبق من أهل العراق أحد فى قلبه مرض إلاّ طمع فى معاوية“There remained no one but the problematic Iraqis who joined Mu‘awiya in his caprice and this was such that Imam was bothered.”
Mu‘awiya also wrote to Imam asking him to leave Damascus to him without wanting to obey him. This was the same thing he had demanded before and as mentioned, he intended to establish an independent emirate in Damascus. Imam turned him down.
This time, Damascus people strongly spoke about severe bloodshed and publicized their aim of ending the war. Such a measure was taken just to hinder Damascus conquest, and probably to bring about a gap and discard in Iraq’s army. This was what Mu‘awiya failed to do repeatedly; yet as we shall wee later, he finally made it. In one of these days, one of the Damascus people came between the two armies and proposed that Iraq any return to Iraq and Damascus army to Damascus, so to avert a bloodshed.
Confirming his truthfulness, Imam said,“I know that you made this proposal out of benevolence and pity; however, I have considered well, contemplated carefully and assessed the dimensions of this deed haunting me, and I have found no way but submitting to was, or refuting what Allah has inspired the Prophet(s). Indeed, Allah, the blessed and exalted, doesn’t like His friends to remain reticent and submit while tyranny and mutiny are prevailing on the earth, and not to enjoin the good and forbid from the evil. That’s why I realized that to me, the war (with all its hardship) is easier than enduring the hell with its chains.”
In one of the last war days, the battle became so intense that it started by the morning prayer and continued up to the mid-night. During all this period, Ashtar was busy provoking the army. This night was called“Layla al-Harir”
, the night of clamor. Again the war started from the middle of that night and continued up to the noon of the next day.
“The enemy fought to its last grasp”
, said Imam, in a sermon.
Mu‘awiya and ‘Amr thinking that everything was finished and feeling that they cannot be so hopeful of Damascus army, embarked on a trick. The next day after the night of clamor, when the war lasted to the moon of that day,
500 Qur’ans were raised above the spears of the Damascus people.
There were loud voices crying,“O group of Arabs! Think of your women and girls. If you’ll be killed, who will stand up to Romans, Turks and Persians tomorrow?”
As a result of this measure, little by little, this proclamation was heard within the Iraqi army that the enemy has admitted the arbitration of Qur’an, and we don’t have the right to fight them. Imam defined this remarks strongly and announced that this deed is nothing but a trick. Sa‘sa‘a said that Mu‘awiya took this measure after he heard Ash‘ath Ibn Qays reminding of the women and girls at the night of clamor, and that Arabs are collapsing.
Besides, Ash‘ath was the first person opposing Imam on the continuation of the war. We’ve previously pointed out that the account of his correspondence with Mu‘awiya, since his dismissal from Adharbaydjan has been mentioned in historical records. Here, Ya‘qubi as well clarified that Mu‘awiya conciliating Ash‘ath wrote to him and invited him there.
Ash‘ath’s measure was supported by the Yemeni.
The minimum problem concerning Ash‘ath was that he was apt to deviation from the outset, and was drawn to this path. In the thick of the clashes, we have in hand some of his remarks against Mu‘awiya and with respect to instigating Iraq army.
It ought to be known that tribal obstinacy played a crucial role and in all likelihood, Imam’s true heed to Malik caused Ash‘ath to take umbrage.
The escalation of the discrepancy amongst the army of Imam, has induced much more hardships for him. Imam felt that he is no more the commander, and the people have tied his hands, and turned out to be his emir.
Even so, Imam stood up and said,“I deserve to admit the arbitration of Allah’s book more than the others; however, Mu‘awiya and his companions are not the companions of religion and Qur’an. I know them better than you. I was with them since my childhood.”
At this moment, about 20000 of the Iraq army came to Imam, and without calling him“Amir al-Mu’minin”
, asked him to accept the arbitration of Qur’an. Among these people were a group of Qur’an-reciters being contented with Qur’an recitation, and a number of whom joining the Kharidjites’s range.
At this time, Ashtar at the front line approached Mu‘awiya division camp while fighting. War dissenters asked Imam to order Ashtar back. Imam sent Yazid Ibn Hani for him.
Ashtar sent a message that,“Now it is not the time for a return.”
“You’ve prompted him to fight, if Ashtar doesn’t return, we’ll kill you.”
Said the dissenters.
As a result of this statement, Ashtar returned and he was stopped. In a letter to Mu‘awiya, Imam noting that we know you’re not the follower of Qur’an, pointed out the acceptance of Qur’an arbitration.
Ash‘ath went to Mu‘awiya asking him regarding the way of executing Qur’an precept. He said that it’s better that one of our people and one of yours sit together and express their opinion concerning Qur’an precept in this regard. He forwarded this opinion to Imam. Afterwards, a group of Damascus and Iraq Qur’an-reciters came between the two armies and recited Qur’an for some time and agreed to revive what the Qur’an has revived. Thereafter, Damascus people appointed ‘Amr Ibn ‘As. Ash‘ath and a number of those joining the Kharidjites later, proposed Abu Musa Ash‘ari. Imam refused him on account of his opposition to him in Djamal battle, but they insisted in this regard. Imam’s proposal was either Ibn ‘Abbas or Ashtar, but they said that Ashtar believes in war, Ibn ‘Abbas shouldn’t be either, for ‘Amr Ibn ‘As is from Mudhar tribe, so the other side should be Yemeni. لا والله لايحكم فيها مضريان حتى تقوم الساعة
“By Allah, two persons from Mudrids won’t judge in that until the Day of Resurrection.”
Imam saw that insistence is out of place and said,“Do whatever you want.”
Later on Ibn ‘Abbas said,“Had at that time some companions been patient, the victory would have been imminent.”
So it was agreed that a convention will be written. In this convention pointing to the appointment of these two persons by Damascus and Iraq people, it was mentioned that these two persons are due to comment on the matter of their disagreement,“Provided that these two abide by the divine covenant and pledge in the firmest and greatest manner which Allah has extracted promise from each of his creatures. And that during the duty on which they were dispatched, they put Qur’an before themselves, and do not exceed, I their judgment, what has been written in the Qur’an, and if they don’t find, they will act on the basis of the comprehensive Sunna of the Prophet (s), and they should in no way, act in conformity with their desires, neither should they be entangled in suspicion.”
Besides, it was agreed that in case of the death of one of these two, before judgment, the commander of the aforesaid side would be able to appoint somebody else. During this span of time, if one of the two commanders passed away, the people of that area will appoint another just person instead of him. Further, it was stated that,“it is compulsory for the judges to adhere to the divine treaty and pledge and not to offer an interpretative judgment of their own in opposition to the Qur’anic text, and not to oppress deliberately and not to be entangled in suspicion and not to overlook the order of Qur’an and Sunna of the Prophet(s) in their judgment. And if they don’t do so, the people won’t submit to their judgment, neither will they admit the treaty and the liability approved by those two.”
In the convention, the date of the arbitration was sset on the end of the next Ramadan (to wit eight months from Safar to Ramadan) and it was agreed that the issue will be resolves anyhow up to the pilgrimage season.“If they don’t judge on the basis of the Qur’an and Prophet’s (s) Sunna till the end of the season, the Muslims will remain at war as they were from the onset, and there is no condition between the two groups in this regard.”
The aforesaid treaty was concluded on Wednesday (according th Abu Mikhnaf, on Friday)
, on Safar 17, 37 A.H.
In this convention, equal rights were been determined for Imam and Mu‘awiya. In the first stage, Imam’s name was accompanied by the title“Amir al-Mu’minin”
, the Commander of the Faithful, but it was not acceptable for Mu‘awiya.
Ash‘ath insisted on the elimination of this title, Imam said,“Glory be to Allah, A Sunna like The Prophet’s (s) one, where Suhayl Ibn ‘Amr, the representative of polytheists, insisted on the ommition of “Rasul Allah”
, the Messenger of Allah, in Hudaybiyyah peace pact.”
Anyhow, the convention was written, but among a group of Imam’s companion, a riot broke out which paved the way for Kharidjites incidents later. Some disagreed with the convention there except for those being truly among the Shi‘ite Muslims of Imam, and bearing the arbitration course for Imam’s sake.
Malik was among them, when Imam (a) was told that Malik is not satisfied with this convention, Imam (a) said,“When I will be satisfied, Malik will be so as well, and I’m satisfied. You said he has kept himself aloof from me, but I don’t reckon that he’ll do so. There are not two persons or even one person amongst you like him, who think so about their foe.”
Imam returned to Kufa along with the army on Rabi‘ al-Awwal 37 A.H.
In Kufa, loud voices of cries and weeps were heard from each house, and Imam confirming the martyrdom of their martyrs, offered his condolence to them. Finally, Imam sent Abu Musa to the arbitration site.
Imam dispatched 400 persons along with Abu Musa Ash‘ari, accompanied by Shurayh Ibn Hani as their commander, and ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas as their congregational prayer leader. Additionally, Imam notified Abu Musa of the defiled nature of Mu‘awiya and advised him tremendously.
At this time, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, Mughira Ibn Shu‘ba, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr had to come to Mu‘awiya and were present at the meeting incident of ‘Amr Ibn ‘As and Abu Musa.
‘Amr Ibn ‘As, when meeting Abu Musa, spoke of the virtues! of Mu‘awiya and noted that Mu‘awiya is the blood-wit of ‘Uthman, and Allah has put a“Sultan”
for blood-wit. Abu Musa relied on the revival of ‘Umar tradition concerning the issue of council. Once he spoke of ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, but ‘Amr said that a weak person like him could not take the responsibility of such a deed. It was not only unclear under which principles this council being regarded as a pretext by the dissenters, ought to be shaped, but not obvious who should be the member of such a council. Once ‘Umar relying on his own power has placed caliphate among six persons so that they will choose one out of them. What was the connection of this matter to leaving the work to the“Council among Muslims”
, so to select one for themselves? Abu Musa insisted on this matter and an account of that he was of the belief that firstly we ought to leave this belief aside that one of the two persons either Imam or Mu‘awiya should be the caliph, so that thereupon we shall select some one. Hence, for Abu Musa’s part, the declaration of these two commands’ deposition of Imam’s commentary on the pulpit, ‘Amr Ibn ‘As announced that he has just the right to depose ‘Ali (a); however, I have the caliphate to Mu‘awiya! Abu Musa cried out in protest and insulted ‘Amr Ibn ‘As. Abu Musa called ‘Amr a dog, and ‘Amr called Abu Musa a donkey and the session turned out in chaos. So hereby, without speaking of the Qur’an and the Sunna of the Prophet (s), and merely under the pretext of ‘Umar tradition, the arbitration course itself gave rise to another disagreement between Damascus and Iraq.
From that time on, the people of Damascus called Mu‘awiya“Amir al-Mu’minin”
, and this was the most significant outcome of the arbitration for the Damascus people. Abu Mikhnaf stated that when Iraqi people were going to Siffin, they were all amiable and kind towards each other. When they returned, however, they all had hostility and hatred towards each other.
The Kharidjites said,“You were flaccid in implementing Allah’s order”
, and another group told them,“You disobeyed Imam and our group.”
Imam became sorrowful on account of their remarks.
War with Extremist Kharidjites
Exactly when Ash‘ath Ibn Qays read the arbitration convention for various groups of the army, a group of the army cried out in front of him, لا حكم الا لله“The only judgment is that of Allah’s.”
According to Nasr Ibn Muzahim, some people from Banu Murad, Banu Rasib, and Banu Tamim chanting aloud, and expressing their disgust concerning the arbitration of men said,“Just Allah merits arbitration.”
Among the dissenters, ‘Amr Ibn Udayya (and in another narration ‘Urwa Ibn Djudayr)
attacked Ash‘ath. His sword was quietly dropped on Ash‘ath’s horse. Shortly after the coming of Ash‘ath to Imam and his declaring that all but few of the people were satisfied, the shouts of“the only judgment is that of Allah”
grew louder. Their question was,“What about our murdered persons?”
Allah has settled Mu‘awiya’s work, and Allah’s order is nothing but suppressing Damascus army. It is obvious that in front of some people like Ash‘ath, many people of Iraqi army were not ready to submit themselves to Damascus people whatever reason there might be when one group won’t do so? They asked Imam to forsake the issue of arbitration, and in principle, to report of his former opinion which has led to polytheism. Imam by referring to the verse, اوفوا بالعقود“Fulfill the obligations,”
said that now the agreement has been reached and we have no remedy but patience up to the end of the duration of this convention.
Imam said to them,“As you see, most of this crowd are not in line with war, and if you wage war these people will be together than Damascus people towards you.”
In their way back to Siffin, the people were divided into two groups, a group protesting against the arbitration, and another group accusing them of being separated from the company.
Near to Kufa, a group was little by little separated from the army and went to Harura’ area half a league away from Kufa.
That’s why later on these people were referred to as Haruriyya.
The most outstanding persons of Kharidjites were as follows, Hurqus Ibn Zuhayr Tamimi, Shurayh Ibn Awfi al-’Absi, Farwa Ibn Nawfal Ashdja‘i, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb Rasibi. These people came to Imam, after his entering Kufa, and asked him not to dispatch Abu Musa for the arbitration.
Imam said,“We have admitted something that we cannot violate.”
As it seems from the names of these persons, no one amongst them was from the renowned people of Iraq. In contrast, they belonged typically to a nomadic tribes such as Bakr Ibn Wa’il and Banu Tamim.
The Kharidjites, for the most part, were from nomads who, in principal, had no idea concerning Imamate and politics as being matters beyond tribal issue. They demonstrated this tendency of theirs within a framework out of a deviated interpretation from the slogan“the only judgment is that of Allah”
. Amongst the Kharidjites was ‘Itris Ibn ‘Arqub Shaybani who was from the companions of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas‘ud.
Kharidjites put forward some crucial issues. Their first question was that how Imam consented to the arbitration of“men”
in the act of“religion”
. Their second question was that why Imam was contented to have his title of caliphate, to wit Amir al-Mu’minin, omitted. Their problem, as Ya‘qubi puts it, was that Imam spoilt his executorship through this measure.
Their another question was that why Imam didn’t give the permission of distributing booties after their triumph over the infidels. How is it that their killing was permissible, but taking their possessions was not lawful?
With respect to the omission of the title“Amir al-Mu‘minin”
, Imam invoked the omission of the title“Rasul Allah”
, Allah’s Messenger, in the Hudaybiyya peace pact.
Besides, he said regarding arbitration,“I disagreed with this arbitration from the outset, later, as well, when I yielded to it on account of the people’s compulsion, I stipulated that I will abide by their judgment provided that they judge on the basis of Allah’s book, inasmuch as we have originally admitted the arbitration of Qur’an rather than that of men.”
Moreover, Imam announced his decision concerning the continuation of war against Damascus, after the collection of tribute. Thus hereby, many of those joining the Kharidjites, joined Imam’s adherents’ group.
Yet, there were a lot still sticking to their own beliefs. They disagreed with the arbitration by referring to the only judgment is that of Allah. Sticking to appearances, and drawing hardline deductions through ضرب القرآن بعضه ببعض“He put Qur’an aside,”
were considered among Kharidjites’ peculiarities. Imam said in front of those chanting this slogan and protesting against him in the mosque, كلمة حق يراد بها الباطل“This is a truthful statement aimed at drawing an untruthful interpretation from it.”
Imam encountering his foreign dissenters said that if they remained reticent, we would leave them on their own. If they propagated and spoke in return, we would speak with them and if they revolted against us, we would wage war against them. At this moment, one of the Kharidjites stood up and said,“O Allah! We seek refuge with you from submitting to abjectness in your religion, this is a frailty and shall lead to Allah’s wrath.”
According to another narration, it’s been pointed out that the continuation of Kharidjites protest lasting for six months after Imam’s return from Siffin resulted in Imam’s dispatch of ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas and Sa‘sa‘a Ibn Suhan to them for the purpose of discussion. They didn’t submit to these two persons’ request concerning their return to the group. Imam asked them to select 12 persons and he himself separated this number and held talks with them.
Initially, Imam spoke with them about the Qur’an evidence with regard to arbitration and said,“I, ‘Ali, despite disagreeing with their request, was fearful that they might invoke those verses concerning the admissibility of arbitration.”
Kharidjites’ orator stood up and said,“We fought side with you so far as you were confident of your action at Djamal and Siffin battle; however, at present you are dubious. You must repent and attest to the fact that you’ve been misled. In that case, we will be with you.”
Imam said,“From the moment when I embraced Islam, I was not a bit doubtful about it. Allah has basically guided you and rescued you from infidelity, through us. I had said that two judges ought to judge on the basis of Allah’s book. If they didn’t do so, to me, their judgment will be of no value.”
Their leader, Ibn al-Kawwa’ detached himself from them along with 500 persons. Some have noted that he was with the Kharidjites in Nahrawan, and therein was involved in a wrangle with Imam.
Kharidjites’ problem was that they regarded the acceptance of arbitration as infidelity, and therefore they asked Imam to witness his infidelity and repent of it,
not that he has merely committed a sin. Hence, Imam said in a poem,
يا شاهد الله عليّ فاشهد آمنت بالله ولي احمد
من شك في الله فاني مهتد
“O thou, Allah’s witness!
To me, thou be a witness!
I believed in Allah, the Master of Ahmad
Whoever doubts Allah
I have been guided”
Anyhow, the repeated remarks of Imam and his companions failed to bring a number of Kharidjites back from the path they’ve chosen. On Shawwal, 31 A.H. the Kharidjites gathered at Zayd Ibn Husayn’s house and selecting ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb Rasibi as their leader,
they resettled their political and military situation. This decision was made after Ramadan month in which Abu Musa was dispatched for arbitration. Following the arbitration, they didn’t allow staying in Kufa and decided to go to Mada’in. There from, they wrote to their Basri co-thinkers inviting them to come round to them. Some of them didn’t deem it advisable to go to Mada’in on account of the presence of Imam ‘Ali’s (a) Shi‘ite Muslims and chose Nahrawan. After the announcement of arbitration result, Imam ‘Ali (a) declaring his opposition to the arbitration result, asked the people to congregate to the division camp for fighting the infidels.
Imam sent for the Kharidjites and told them,“These two judges acted in opposition to the Qur’an, and I’m leaving for Damascus. You accompany me as well.”
They said,“we are not allowed to appoint you as Imam.”
After the congregation of people in Nukhayla, Iraq moved to Anbar city and left there for Shahi village, and therefore they went to Dabaha and to Dimimma.
The Kharidjites gathering at Nahrawan by now, encountered ‘Abd Allah the son of Khabbab Ibn Arat on their way. They asked ‘Abd Allah’s opinion concerning Imam ‘Ali (a).
He said,“Amir al-Mu’minin and Imam of the Muslims.”
They killed ‘Abd Allah along with his pregnant wife. It’s been said that the Kharidjites, on their way, asked everybody encountered by them, about his opinion regarding arbitration. They killed him in case of not being in line with them.
This movement led Imam to decide to confront them.
The reason behind this matter was that Imam was not able to leave Kufa alone with such criminals, while therein there were just the women and children. Imam went over to Mada’in and there from headed for Nahrawan. Imam, in a letter to Kharidjites invited them to return to the group. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb, in the answer of Imam’s letter, pointing to what has so far taken place, notified of the same former remarks concerning Imam’s doubt in religion and the necessity of his repentance. Qays Ibn Sa‘d and Abu Ayyub Ansari were against them and asked them to join them for fighting Mu‘awiya. Kharidjites said that they don’t admit the Imamate of the Imam. They will be ready to accompany them, only if their leadership will be in the hands of some like ‘Umar.
As soon as Imam realized that these people are not submissive, he put his troops being 14000 in number, into array against Kharidjites. At this moment, Farwa Ibn Nawfal along with 500 persons of Kharidjites were separated from the Kharidjites and resided in Bandanidjayn and Daskara.
Another number of them left gradually, to the extent that just 1800 cavalry men and 1500 infantry men remained alongside ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb.
At this time, Imam also asked his companions not to initiate the war.
Kharidjites started the war. They were overthrown, and their leader was very swiftly killed.
Apart from the fugitives, four hundreds of those having been fallen in the battlefield were delivered to their families. This clash took place on Safar 9, 38 A.H.
When the war was terminated, Imam asked the people to head for Damascus to fight the infidels. The people, however, showed signs of fatigue, and the remarks of Ash‘ath Ibn Qays led Imam to return to Nukhayla, the people went to Kufa, and just 300 persons remained with the Imam.
Consequently, Imam returned to Kufa. From that time on, Imam invited the people for Djihad, holy was, against the Damascus people once in a while, but no one gave a favorable answer. It was here where Imam in his long sermons, reproached Kufa people and spoke repeatedly of their disloyalty up to the end.
Here another movement ought to be taken into account as well, a movement somewhat resembling that of Kharidjites. Khirrit Ibn Rashid, taking part in Siffin battle, in his way back to Kufa, objected to Imam and said that he won’t pray along with him anymore. His objection was similar to Kharidjites’ remarks. He considered arbitration a mistake. At night, he left Kufa together with his companions for Kaskar. Qaradha Ibn Ka‘b, the governor of Sawad areas, wrote a letter to Imam reporting that an army from Kufa has arrived this area and when encountering a person from the peasants of Euphrates areas namely Zadhan Farrukh, have asked him about his religion. He said that he is a Muslim. They asked his opinion concerning Amir al-Mu’minin (a). He replied he is the commander of the faithful and the successor of Allah’s Messenger(s). Hence, they cut him into pieces by their swords.
This measure of theirs was exactly the same as Kharidjites’ when encountering ‘Abd Allah Ibn Khabbab. Imam wrote to Ziyad Ibn Khasafa commissioning him to suppress Banu Nadjiya under the leadership of Khirrit Ibn Rashid. Subsequent to the sever clash during which five companions of Khirrit were killed and two persons of Imam’s army were martyred,
the rebels headed towards Ahwaz. Therein some natives as well as some Kurds joined them. Imam was compelled to dispatch a separate force to suppress them. Ma‘qil Ibn Qays Riyahi was selected for this commission, and he headed towards them along with some armies. When the rebels were moving towards Ramhurmuz, Ma‘qil, on his way reaches them and fought them. During this conflict, 70 persons from Banu Nadjiya and 300 of Kurds and the other natives accompanying him were killed. Khirrit headed hurriedly towards the coast, and therein he was able to deceive a number of people from Banu ‘Abd al-Qays.
Imam wrote a letter to the residents of that area calling them for“obedience”
. They scattered from around Khirrit too. Once again, Ma‘qil clashed with him, and this time Khirrit and most of those along with him were killed.
According to Baladhuri, Khirrit acted in such a way that the Kharidjites assumed that he is of their opinion.
The Kharidjites, Formation and Characteristics
The Kharidjites’ emergence in religious sects arenas, is one of the significant political and mental alterations in the history of Islam. In fact, the advent of this group is the symbol of hard-line tendencies of the Islamic world in the political and mental areas. A sect which strived for having a place in the realm of politics along two or three countries through applying their extreme view points, but exactly due to this very extremity, were not able to gain a privilege. The important question is that how these incidents appeared. Generally, it ought to be said that when some discrepancies appeared in the Islamic society, various stands were adopted to confront the disputable issues. Some stands had some principal aspects and some others were within the two extremes. If we separate the deviation of apostates and infidels from the Islamic current, the tarring of some people like ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar and Sa‘d Waqqas and some others in front of that stand deems a sort of extreme act. In opposition to that, Imam’s act was a realistic and principled one. In a stage where this movement failed to pursue its natural course on account of some people’s opposition, the hard-line tendency displayed itself. This tendency ought to resist all the currents. Apart from the infidels and fronting the principled movement of Imam, every moment such a stand had a tendency to more extremity and was obliged to separate all the dissenters from its front by the hallmark of infidelity, and to justify its holy war against them.
The tendency towards extremity amongst the Kharidjites was not merely due to the political and intellectual currents, but it had its own specific social and mental aspects as well. Some points should be taken into consideration for understanding the conditions leading, in principle, to such a branching in the society,
(1) During the years when the nomad immigrants had come to Iraq, every time, through participating in the conquest, they gained some noticeable victories, and took the possessions of some countless booties. The front being against them was that of fidelity, the war against which was lawful easily justifiable. They were the mere truth, and the opposite front was the mere error. Djamal battle was the first action during which the Muslims clashed with their coreligionists. In this war despite the victory, there was not any booty and this issue brought about a problem for the aforesaid. Their question was that how it was possible that shedding somebody’s blood was allowed, whereas taking his money was not so.
This problem demonstrated itself at Djamal battle and naturally caused the primary interpretation of the Muslim nomads to be altered from the holy war and the forces opposing them. The aforesaid problem was attributed to Imam ‘Ali (a) by Kharidjites through their objections. Later on, this issue caused the Kharidjites not to leave a medium between infidelity and faith (say unbeliever and infidel libertine, or even a Muslim libertine), rather to bring the problem to an end and to call some (including just themselves) believers and the opposite group unbeliever whose blood was allowed to be shed and whose money to be taken as well.
(2) The other problem arose from the reasons behind revolting against ‘Uthman and finally his murdering. This caliph was accused of religious heresies and his stands caused two diverse deductions from Islam to be drawn among his dissenters and assenters. Such issue has not been recorded before then. In principle, this measure caused the monotonous religious attitude among Muslims to be changed and some suspicions regarding which one is the right of Islam to be induced. It is obvious that this issue itself called for positions against it, which inevitably showed itself within the two extremes. ‘Uthman’s murdering caused the religious leadership to be out of the hands of the government and to be in the hands of some personally claiming to be theologians. One of these clans was Kufa and Damascus
“Qur’an reciters”
that through relying on this Qur’an recitation, restrained themselves from taking part in the battle, and stood between the two armies to see which one is the rightful! The contribution of the Qur’an-reciters to the conversions leading to the Kharidjites’s appearance and even the presence of a number of them amongst the Kharidjites is indicative of this very point. Besides, the independent positions of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas‘ud refusing to follow the Imamate of the society have been pointed out. They observe that ‘Abd Allah himself has taken a stand against ‘Uthman and has called ‘Uthman’s legitimacy into a serious question, through not allowing ‘Uthman to say his prayers. Through repudiating Imamate, the Kharidjites indicated that they have been impressed with this point. That is to say, they believed that they themselves ought to make decisions on the religion and even their other political affairs, and that, in principle, there is no need to have an Imam. The superficial justification of this matter was that Qur’an makes them dispense with the need for having an Imam. This arose from the hard-line attitude of the Qur’an reciters who considered themselves to surpass others and determine their way more properly.
(3) The problem of tribes’ domination over the central sovereignty is not an issue to be overlooked easily. This matter was crystallized firstly through the fact that the tribes were not content with Quraysh’s domination. Even their admitting of Imam to this extent, was due t the fact that Imam himself was against rather than alongside Quraysh. This is well obvious from the Imam’s remarks. Imam regarded Quraysh as his foe.
However, ultimately Iraq tribes refused to accept even the Imam, inasmuch as their animosity was far more sever than that permitting them to accept a person having a blood retaliation with Quraysh anyhow. It should be kept in mind that the Kharidjites were a sect not accepting being from Quraysh as a condition for caliphate. As it’s been noted, one of the motives behind revolting against ‘Uthman was Egyptian and Iraqi tribes’ concern over the indisputable domination of Quraysh, and the Umayya, in particular, over the Muslims’ regulations, and specially their financial affairs. The tribal structure in the new Islamic community, had preserved its power. During the first years, the prevalence of central power via religion had somewhat outshined the tribal criteria. However, presently by the victories subsiding, the Iraq tribes have taken notice of themselves, and after revolting against ‘Uthman, their power has been enhanced. When one could dethrone a caliph on account of the crimes he has committed, one could stand up to the next caliph and threaten him with death. Imam (a) was exposed to this issue. He went to Iraq, so to suppress the infidels’ riot. Thus he was naturally in need of Kufiyan tribes’ forces. They assisted him to extinguish the sedition. Afterwards, the heads of the tribes having a worthy influence in their own tribe, benefited from this power as a lever in confronting Imam. Having undermined the central power, finally this issue led to the defeat of this power against Damascus enemy. At Siffin battle, each tribe resisted, in an orderly way, its enemy through preserving its own tribal structure. From the onset of the establishment, the composition of Kufiyan population was also on this basis. The influence of tribes’ needs was very sweeping and was regarded as a government in a government. Tribes’ mutiny against the first two caliphs was unprecedented. ‘Uthman as well withstood these tribes as before. However, his killing demonstrated that he has been defeated against the tribes. It ought to be known that this situation was repeated in Imam ‘Ali’s (a) caliphate. When the Qur’ans were raised above the spears, the head of Kinda tribes, Ash‘ath Ibn Qays said,“You have to send for Ashtar to stop fighting; otherwise, we will kill you as we killed ‘Uthman.”
Both he and those later being ranked amongst the Kharidjites, compelled Imam to accept Abu Musa Ash‘ari as his representative.
Another group known as Qur’an-reciters, and having a party under this title in ‘Uthman killing incident, withstood ‘Ali (a) and asked him to accept Damascus army request concerning invitation to Qur’an. Those later on joining the Kharidjites, threatened him that if he won’t accept their request, they will kill him just like ‘Uthman.
So hereby, the arbitration was imposed on Imam and Imam pointed out repeatedly his unwillingness in this regard,
and he regarded this that, لا امر لمن لايطاع“The one not obeyed, can give no order,”
as his problem.
When a man went out of the houses of his tribe and went to those of another tribe, and while shouting, sought help from his tribe, his target is to induce disturbance and sedition. The people of the tribe he was among whom, attacked him and beat him. He returned to his tribe and kicked a great disorder, a chaos in which the swords were drawn from the sheaths and a war was waged.
Amir al-Mu’minin himself introduced the“aged”
, and the elders as the main foundation of obstinacy, and the chief pillars of sedition.
Thereafter, Imam was entangled with these tribes. Some groups from the Iraqi Arabs stood up to him, they were the Kharidjites who not only resisted him, but also wounded his son Imam Hasan (a) after him. Supposing that, he has taken no notice of their request concerning the war against Mu‘awiya.
(4) All these incidents happened in an area where, before Islam, there were diverse Christian, Zoroastrian, Mazdaki and various Christian and Jewish tendencies that had crucial influence on the present mental disturbances in these areas. It is not strange to see that major sectarian trends appeared in Iraq. Even amongst the Sunnis, various theological and juristic trends are the fruits of scientific efforts of Iraqi cities. In this regard, Damascus can in no way be compared with Iraq. In contrast, Damascus under Umayya’s control chose an easy way in accordance with what the Umayya propagated. As a result of this matter, Damascus dominated Iraq without any trouble and it owed this victory to its unity. Besides, this point should be taken into account that, that number of companions coming to Iraq didn’t go to Damascus. This issue was influential in bringing about diverse and apposing courses in Iraq.
(5) The significant concept which can notify of these mental and political disturbances is that of sedition from which every group benefited for their own benefit. Imam ‘Ali (a) dissenters, in Imam’s was against apostates, believed that this war was nothing but sedition. They believed that in sedition, one ought to be“‘Abd Allah, the murdered”
, rather than“‘Abd Allah, the murderer”
.
For Imam ‘Ali’s (a) part,“sedition”
title referred to a disturbance in the political circumstances, as well as disobedience to the former caliph of the Muslims. According to the application of sedition in Nahdj al-Balagha, Imam called those acts leading to Djamal, Siffin and Nahrawan battles seditious
, and asked those being alongside it to be like an adolescent camel that has neither a back strong enough for ridding, nor udders for milking.
This means that lack of obedience on the part of a rebelling group is called sedition.
“Doubt”
is the concept resembling sedition, in which the truth and error are intermingled together and remained unknown.
Thus, in this way, Djamal and Siffin battles ought to be regarded as one of the most basic incidents influencing Muslims’ political thoughts and making evaluation more difficult for the masses of people due to those doubts raised later on. The emergence of doubt and sedition had an important impact on the formation of hard-line sects trying to bring the work to an end and wipe sedition off the society by drawing clear lines. The application of equivocal concept made the work much more difficult. The extreme use of“infidelity”
concept arose from this need.
(6) The main problem if this group’s formation is based on two interrelated implications. The first point is that“judgment”
is merely confined to Allah and it is not correct to leave arbitration to“men”
. The second point is that this incorrectness is not a simple one, rather it is at the extent of“infidelity”
and those learning arbitration to“men”
became“infidel”
. At the outset, this infidelity was put forward with regard to Imam. Supposing that, as it was natural, ‘Uthman should have been considered an infidel too. Talha and Zubayr as well, were not immune to that. Hence, in this way, the concept of“infidelity”
took a crucial role in their thought.
As for the issue of the only judgment is that of Allah, the problem lied in defining the term“judgment”
According to the evidences, it seems that they have defined“judgment”
as“judge”
. As a result of this issue, not only the arbitration of Abu Musa Ash‘ari was rejected, but also the“Islamic ruler”
existence was doubted. Such a matter sounded unnatural, but it was declared and was repudiated by Amir al-Mu’minin (a).
Imam said,“They stated that there is no need for governance, whereas, there is no escape for men from “Imam”
pure or impure.”
This sentence, (the only judgment is that of Allah) is a truthful statement, but what (they think) it means, is wrong.
Is it possible that the Kharidjites thought concerning not being in need of Imam, arose from their spirit of tribalism and pan-Arabism? It should be known that they had some Qur’anic reasons, however, their hasty interpretation, originally arising from their harsh morale, resulted in extremely unified meanings.
The Kharidjites, during the Imamate of Imam ‘Ali (a), didn’t have opportunity to put forward their other viewpoints. However, later on, they put forth novel viewpoints in the arenas of political affairs and specifically Imamate. It’s noteworthy that their belief concerning“infidelity”
had had such a profound impact on the theological discussions that it forced the Islamic sects to react to the subtle definition of faith and infidelity. The Kharidjites extremity with regard to generalizing the concept of infidelity caused all the groups to express their opinion in this regard. One of these groups was Murdjiyan who said that it is not possible for them to clarify precisely the truth and error, and all ought to be deemed Muslims, and the Shi‘ite Muslims and ‘Uthmani disputes as well as judging cardinal sinners should all be left to Allah.
Thabit Qutna, a Murdji’i poet said,
نرجي الامور اذ كانت مشبهة ونصدق القول فيمن جار أو عندا
“We leave )to Allah( all the dubious affairs, and we judge correctly the oppressor or obstinate.”
This curse tried to regard all the opposing groups as Muslim, and hereby to decrease the differences.
Fighting the Kharidjites was not a simple measure. The Kharidjites, for the most part, were among the Qur’an reciters and those being apparently people of Qur’an and prayer, and their leader, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb was renowned as Dhu al-Thafanat (the one whose forehead has been marked by prostration.) In spite of that, he was the most pious of all of them. Hence, he could easily persuade the people of Kufa and his Shi‘ite followers into fighting them. Imam’s opinion concerning the Kharidjites has been noted in various sermons. Amongst these remarks, there is an interesting narration. Imam was asked whether the Kharidjites are infidel.
Imam replied,“They have escaped infidelity.”
Again he was asked,“Are they hypocrite?”
Imam said,“The hypocrite remember Allah just a bit, whereas these people call Allah day and night.”
He was asked,“So what kind of people are they?”
Imam said,“They are a group who have been entangled in sedition and thereupon have become blind and deaf.”
Imam ‘Ali narrated that once the Prophet of Allah (s) said,“O ‘Ali, people will fall into sedition through their wealth, will show obligation on account of their religion, will desire his mercy, and will feel safe from his clout, and regard his unlawful matters as lawful by raising false doubts and by their misguiding desires. They will then hold lawful (the use of) wine by calling it barley water, a bribe by calling it a gift, and taking if usurious interest by calling it sale.”
Imam added,“I asked the Prophet of Allah(s), how should I deal with them at that time, whether to hold them have gone back in heresy or just in sedition?”
He said,“Sedition.”
Perhaps this very remark of the Prophet of Allah (s), caused Imam’s attitude with respect to sedition to be so strong that he indeed regarded the incidents facing him as sedition. The Kharidjites themselves were unable to comprehend this meaning. They expected all to be either faithful or infidel. Anyhow, perhaps on account of the asceticism and the warship that the Kharidjites displayed out of themselves, fighting them was more difficult. However, Mu‘awiya’s sedition was far stronger and more dreadful than them.
Hence, Imam said elsewhere,“I have put out the eye of sedition. No one except me advanced towards it when its gloom was swelling and its madness was intense … when seditions come they refuse (gospel truth against credal error) and when they clear away they leave a warning. They cannot be known at the time of approach but are recognized at the time of return. They blew like the blowing of winds, striking some cities and missing others. Beware that the worst sedition for you in my view, is that of the Umayya, since it is blind dim.”
That’s why Imam asked his Shi‘ite Muslims not to waste their energy fighting the Kharidjites, لا تقتلوا الخوارج من بعدي فليس من طلب الحق فاخطأه كمن طلب الباطل فأدركه“Do not kill the Kharidjites after me, since the one seeking the gospel truth, but going the wrong path is not like the one seeking the credal error and finding it.”
By the second group, Imam exactly meant Mu‘awiya and Damascus people. Imam’s remark concerning the Kharidjites was that you thought the Kharidjites have been eliminated, but they still exist in the loins of men and wombs of women. Whenever a chief would appear from among them, he would be cut down till the last of them would turn thieves and robbers.
The Kharidjites remained, they went to remote cities, plundering everywhere under the pretext of infidelity. Finally, they went to Sidjistan, and were ranked among those calling themselves ‘Ayyar, wanderer.
A point proved to be true regarding Kharidjites and other hardliners is that, their aims may sound more eminent from some aspects; however, their way if action is in such a manner that masses of people cannot be compatible with them. This issue that they regard every cardinal sinner as infidel, is, in itself, a matter that the society cannot admit. Even the Mu‘tazilites who considered cardinal sinner neither a faithful nor infidel, rather a libertine person, couldn’t influence masses of people. Superficialism is another Kharidjites characteristic. They were amongst the Qur’an-reciters and even some of Kufiyan worshipers. Such members of the society are always threatened with being entangled in the risk of extremity.
Invasions of Damascus Army
It was already discussed how Imam’s endeavor was focused on re-mobilization of the Iraqis for a battle against Damascus; however, those declaring readiness were few. Though Imam, in his sermons, asked people for an aid, rarely ever did they follow.
In a sermon he has stated,“I come in grips with the crowd laying disobedient when ordered and remaining silent when called. O wrong crowd! Why on earth thou keep waiting? Why thou stand still in helping divine religion? Where is thy religion that prepares thee? Where is thy fervor that outrages thee? Cry I make and help I seek. Neither to my word thou lend an ear nor my order, thou obey until the end comes and the evility turns up. Neither a reprisal thou can join nor can thou lend a hand for an aim to stop thee leaving. Moan thou nipped and move thou never made.”
In another sermon,“O people in diversity with distressed hearts in reversity! In bodies thou are nude, in intellect thou are dude. In knowing the Truth I cherish thee like a foster-mother. From the Truth you trotter away as goats from a roaring lion. Alas! with thee off justice the darkness I clear, uncrooked path of Truth I gear.”
“O people laying disobedient if ordered and remaining silent if called! The provided chance never thou take, the challenge never thou dare, thou reproach when likely the crowd prepared behind an Imam, thou withdraw when unwillingly involved in a hard task. O cowards! Why on earth thou keep waiting? Why thou stand still in aiding and taking back thy rights? May thou be dead or despised! By Allah, far away from me thou shall remain if my hour comes, for thy company I hate. With thee when I am, without help really I am. Who on earth in truth art thou? Thou hast no religion to prepare thee? Thou hast no fervor to propel thee? Not a surprise rogues follow Mu‘awiya when called enjoying no benefit a bit. Thee I call the survivors of Islam and piety to benefit thee a lot. On me thou turn back and with me thou art at odds… What I adore more is death to come forth”
.
Addressing the people these speeches were delivered by Imam in 39 and 40. They manifest his firm will before the Qasitin (the oppressors). Mu‘awiya, conscious of the prevailing state in Iraq as well as the resident’s weakness, was set to undermine Imam’s might and set the scene for entering Iraq through attacking on areas ruled by Imam in Hidjaz and even in Iraq. He expressed his intention as follows,“The Iraqis will be overawed with such murders and plunder, the dissidents and the secessionists will become valorous and those saved of disputes will be absorbed”
.
The attacks known as“Gharat”
were repeated every now and then and martyred many a real Shi‘ite Muslim anywhere. Abu Ishaq Thaqafi Shi‘i (born in 283) has presented a list of the Gharat in his book authored in the third century under the same title. The reports of such attacks can be found in other historical sources too.
Egypt was the first attacked land. When elected as the caliph, Imam appointed Qays Ibn Sa‘d Ibn ‘Ubada to Egypt governorship. Nevertheless, when he left for Iraq to suppress the Nakithin, (allegiance breachers) he urged him to return from Egypt.
Qays set out to Medina and then to Iraq
to participate in Siffin. Subsequent to Siffin once Egypt was in unrest and an uprising against Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr was likely, Imam determined to dispatch Malik to Egypt.
Appointed for the second time as the governor of Hidjaz after Siffin, Malik received a letter to go to Egypt. As soon as Mu‘awiya was informed, he wrote to the treasurer in Qulzum to remove Malik in any way possible and in exchange not to deliver the remainder of treasure. Accordingly, he martyred Malik with poisonous honey.
Where he was martyred was called ‘Ayn Shams.
Upon learning Malik’s muder, Mu‘awiya said,“‘Ali had got two arms one of which was ‘Ammar cut off in Siffin and the other was Malik cut off now.”
On the other hand, when Imam heard the news, sorrow was visible on his face for a number of days stating,“What good features Allah had granted Malik! Who Malik really was! If a mountain, a great mountain he was. If a rock, a solid rock he was. O Malik! By Almighty Allah, over your demise many are grieved while many are thrilled. For such a person tears should be shed. Shall any one be ever re-born like Malik?”
Now Damascus had access to Egypt, agitated. It not only was adjacent to Damascus but also had many from among the ‘Uthmanids who could back the Damascus army. In addition, it was the time to fulfill the promise Mu‘awiya had given to cunning ‘Amr Ibn ‘As, the governorship of Egypt. Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr was the governor in Egypt then. ‘Amr Ibn ‘As who had led the Arabs’ army when conquering Egypt before advanced with a massive army. In a letter, he warned Muhammad to surrender if willing to remain secure. Another threatening letter was sent by Mu‘awiya reading, he knew no other enemy for ‘Uthman but Muhammad, so the time was ripe for a reprisal. Writing to Imam, he enclosed the two letters with his. Imam recommended him to resist and ordered him to send Kinana Ibn Bishr (allegedly the one who hit ‘Uthman on the head with a mace
) to Damascus accompanied by an army but stay with another army in the city. Kinana left with two thousand soldiers and Muhammad stayed there on alert with the same number. In bravely clashes with Damascus army, Kinana along with his troops were martyred. Muhammad who was left all alone in Egypt took refuge in a ruined place. The commander of the vanguards in the army was Mu‘awiya Ibn Khudaydj who traced Muhammad, beheaded him, set him inside a carcass and then burned it.
It was the policy that Mu‘awiya and his followers pursued in martyring the divine figures under the pretext of ‘Uthman’s murder.
As soon as Imam was told, he turned so gloomy that he made very pungent remarks addressing Kufa people.
In his sermon, he pointed out,“It exceeded fifty days that I seek help. After such a long period the army recruited is the least mighty one.”
It was in this very sermon when Imam declaimed, ألا دين يجمعكم ألا حميّة تغضبكم؟
“Where is thy religion that prepares thee? Where is thy fervor that outrages thee? “
When asked for what his grief was Imam responded, “He was as dear as my sons”
.
Suffering the loss of Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, one of his closest companions, as well as Egypt, Imam wrote to all Muslims in various spots recounting the agonies he had suffered since the Prophet’s departure. He, in the letter, referred to the unjust attitude that there had been concerning the Prophet’s household following his departure, nation’s allegiance, how Nakithin breached their allegiance, how the war of Siffin was waged and how the Kharidjites stood against him. Then touching upon the excuses people made he added,“What thou nagged was Blunt art our swords and blank art our quiver. No bayonets do our spears hast and sticks at what we call spears. Let us return to get prepared with the best of horses and weapons…’ I did order thee to dismount in Nukhayla, set up a camp and stay there on standby … A crowd of thee stayed with me making unjustifiable excuses and another group left me disobeying. Neither firm were those who stayed nor returned those who left. Once noticing the camp, less than fifty soldiers I found. I headed for Kufa disappointedly but as yet, out hast thou never stepped. Why on earth thou keep waiting? A blind eye hast thou turned to that thy lands get shrunk, thy towns get occupied and my Shi‘ite Muslims get slayed? Not a border guard is seen on the borders but enemy’s.”
Furthermore, Imam urged them to prepare against the rival.
Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr’s murder was considered as a triumph for the ‘Uthmanids around the globe in Mu‘awiya’s view.
Egypt which was now out of Imam’s hand was ruled by ‘Amr Ibn ‘As as late as his death in 43 for three or four years who preferred the worldly life in exchange for the abiding one in the Hereafter.
About Basra also Mu‘awiya was hopeful as Basra ‘Uthmanids had written to him seeking for help. He was well aware of the grudge Basra people bore Imam ‘Ali (a) for they had lost many in Djamal war. According to Thaqafi, in order to consult ‘Amr Ibn ‘As Mu‘awiya wrote,“Nowhere can a belligerent and invincible crowd be found as many as Basra people.”
Mu‘awiya called upon ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir Hadrami to travel to Basra to mobilize Mu‘awiya’s followers under the slogan of revenge for ‘Uthman’s murder and occupy the town. Meeting the Tamimites in Basra, ‘Abd Allah talked to the ‘Uthmanids having gathered. On propounding his aim Zhahhak Ibn ‘Abd Allah Hilali objected to him as saying,“Do you order us to unsheathe our swords once again (after Nakithin) and battle with one another in order to let Mu‘awiya still be on the throne and you be his minister and to breach the allegiance we have sworn to ‘Ali (a)? By Allah, one single day of ‘Ali’s lifetime spent when the Prophet alive was far much better than whatsoever Mu‘awiya and his lineage have ever carried out.”
Some were in ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir’s side and some in Zhahhak’s. As a rule, the majority backed Ibn Amir other than a few like Ahnaf Ibn Qays. Between the Mudari and Yemeni Arabs there was a strife; however, Mu‘awiya had previously advised ‘Abd Allah to trust the Mudari ones. It upset the Azdites. At the same time Ziyad Ibn ‘Ubayd who was the vicegerent of Basra governor resorted to Sabra Ibn Shayman Azdi and wrote to ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas, Basra governor, in Kufa; as a result, the news of Basra spread. On the one hand Ziyad supported by the Azdites led Friday prayer and urged then to back Amir al-Mu’minin with whom Ansar and Muhadjirun were and stand against the Tamimites. On the other hand Ibn ‘Amir organized an army in Basra and took the possession of some properties. The news of the Azdites’ support for Ziyad and the Tamimites’ for Ibn ‘Amir created chaos in Kufa. Imam was demanded by Shabath Ibn Rib‘i not to let the Azdites overcome the Tamimites. Nonetheless, Mikhnaf Ibn Sulaym advocated the Azdites. Urging them to back the principles of the religion, Imam advised,“Thou should restrain from battling and insulting one another for the sake of Islam and its reputation and unite”
. Imam sent Ziyad Ibn ®ubay‘a from the tribe of Tamim to Basra for hindering the Tamimites to support Ibn ‘Amir. His attempt was a little fruitful. Bu while asleep at night, a number of the Kharidjites attacked him and killed him running away.
Sent by Imam together with fifty of the Tamimites to Basra, Djaria Ibn Qudama met with the Shi‘ite Muslims and read out Imam’s letter to them. Regarding the allegiance people had sworn Imam had written,“If keep thy allegiance, if follow my advice and if obey my order, in line with the Divine Book and the Prophet’s tradition I shall treat thee and the path of Truth I shall raise among thee. By Allah, no other ruler do I know to be well aware of his tradition but myself since Muhammad passed away. The gospel truth is what I tell. I intend neither to reproach the deceased nor to find fault with their deeds.”
Then Imam had added that if they breached their allegiance, he would suppress them with his army. To make up the incident of Djamal, the Azdites declared their readiness for a battle against Ibn ‘Amir. After a time of being under siege, the ‘Uthmanids’s houses were razed to the ground at Djaria’s behest. In a letter Ziyad notified Imam that a number were burned, a number who fled fell prey to swords and a number who surrendered were pardoned.
The movement led by Zhahhak Ibn Qays, a well-known commander of Damascus army, is among Damascus invasions. As reported by Thaqafi when the Kharidjites revolted against Imam, ‘Umara Ibn ‘Uqba Ibn Abi Mu‘ayt wrote to Mu‘awiya,“A group of the Qur’an reciters and the devout from among ‘Ali’s followers have stood against him. Combating them, ‘Ali has killed them. And now since his army and the inhabitants of his town have taken up arms against him, the seeds of discord are sowed among them.”
Mu‘awiya, extremely delighted, sent Zhahhak Ibn Qays along with a three - or four - thousand soldier army to Iraq and ordered him to loot anywhere he went, kill any Shi‘ite Muslim he noticed and then leave there promptly for another place. Zhahhak who went to Kufa not only plundered people’s properties but also rushed a caravan of pilgrims and killed a number. Imam ‘Ali (a) in Kufa called upon people to defend themselves.
When Imam found them that indifferent, he told them,“By Almighty Allah, I wish I had one of thee in lieu of a hundred men of thee.”
Once more Imam desired to be dead! Then Imam sent Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi with four thousand troops to stop Zhahhak. Hudjr encountered him in Tadmur and in their clash, nineteen soldiers from the rival army were killed and two people on Hudjr’s side were martyred. With Zhahhak’s overnight escape another invasion of Damascus was ended.
In the meanwhile ‘Aqil Ibn Abi Talib wrote to Imam to be kept abreast of the latest developments. Describing Zhahhak’s invasion abortive, Imam referred to the injustice Quraysh had done to him and wrote,“O Allah! A calamity thou descend for Quraysh to sever their kinship with me, for those allying and usurping my right of ruling left behind by my brother, Muhammad. To the one they gave it whose neither kinship with the Prophet (s) nor record in Islam was like those of mine”
. The letter indicates how Imam constantly mentioned his usurped right any chance he got.
The other invasion made by Damascus army to Iraq was the one headed by Nu‘man Ibn Bashir with two thousand soldiers. He was supposed to attack on ‘Ayn al-Tamr, on the outskirts of the Euphrates. He was the one and the only one from Ansar who had joined the ‘Uthmanids. Although there were a number of Ansar who had balked at supporting Imam ‘Ali (a), never did they join Mu‘awiya. When Malik Ibn Ka‘b deployed with a hundred heard about Bashir’s probable attack, he asked Sulaym for help who was the treasurer in that side of the Euphrates. Imam learning the news of Nu‘man’s attack on the one hand and observing the Kufiyans hesitant to rise on the other hand objected to them as uttering,”O Kufiyans! When the vanguards of Damascus army thou notice, the doors thou shut and into homes thou creep like a lizard in to its hole and a hyena in to its den. By Allah, how abject is the one whose helpers art thou!”
Sulaym sent fifty of his troops led by his son, ‘Abd Allah, for Malik’s aid. Damascus army afraid of the aid army upcoming fled after a short clash. Mu‘awiya said his intention of sending the army had been“To jeopardize the Iraqis”
. Anyhow, this attack was fruitless as well.
Following Imam’s remarks it was ‘Adi Ibn Hatim who accompanied a thousand people from the tribe of Tayy to Nukhayla. Another a thousand also joined him and they advanced towards the banks of Euphrates and made several attacks on southern part of Damascus.
Mu‘awiya sent an army to Dumat al-Djandal to have them, obedient to neither Damascus nor Iraq, pay tax alms (statutory Islamic levy on specified items to be used for Muslims’ welfare). Another army led by Malik Ibn Ka‘b was sent by Imam too. A fight was started between them which lasted a whole day long. Next day Damascus army returned while Malik stayed there for ten days inviting people to help. Not being helped, he returned disappointedly as well.
One of the other invasions made against Iraq was led by Sufyan Ibn ‘Awf Ghamidi along with six thousand toward Hit and then toward Anbar. Imam’s adherents were few there none of whom were willing helpers except a very small number with Ashras Ibn Hassan Bakri who resisted unit being martyred. After plundering Anbar, the invaders went back. On being informed, Imam on the pulpit of the mosque, summoned people to gather in Nukhayla and move to stop them. In the answer, nothing came up but silence. Imam left the mosque and sent Sa‘id Ibn Qays Hamdani together with an eight-thousand army to stop them but they had already arrived in Damascus.
When Sa‘id returned, he found Imam so seriously sick that he could in no way stand on the pulpit. Imam therefore wrote a letter complaining about Kufiyan people, sat on the platform by the mosque gate and asked Sa‘d, one of his Mawalis (freed slaves) to read it out loud.“If any other option there were, never a word would I breath to blame thee … O people, Djihad (holy Islamic war) is a portal of the Heaven portals opened to Allah’s special friends, attire of piety, chain mail of solidity and a shield of inflexibility… Be informed, daily and nightly, overtly and covertly for a battle with thy foes I invited thee, to attack them before being attacked …? Enable thou remained and disobedient thou laid until the enemy occupied thy homeland. It was Ghamidi who assaulted Anbar, slayed Ashras Ibn Hassan, plundered the weapons and massacred the righteous men. Even I heard no one stopped the man, from among thy foes, who invaded the house of a Muslim woman, under our protection, took her anklets off her ankles and her earrings off her ears. Yet, safe and sound they returned with not a single injury. If this life a Muslim man departed ashamed and saddened of such an act, never should he be blamed for my part. Wonder! What grief I suffer and what pain I bear when in accord I find them in credal error and in discord I find thee gospel in Truth …! O wrong crowd under the guise of right men! O gang of the foolish like the kids and the brides in bridal chambers! Allah solely knows how dejectedly I keep living amongst thee! I beg Him from thee to take me and toward Himself to ascend me…”
.
These remarks could merely persuade three hundred to gather in Nukhayla. Imam’s next sermons bore no fruit as well.
Prior to Hadjdj season in 39 AH. Mu‘awiya dispatched an army to Mecca with Yazid Ibn Shadjara Rahawi as the head to absorb people to Mu‘awiya during Hadjdj period. On the other hand, Imam being told of his intention, sent a group commanded by Ma‘qal Ibn Qays Riyahi to Mecca. Qutham Ibn ‘Abbas who was the governor imagined that no one would defend him, so decided to leave Mecca first but they trusted its holiness and stayed. It was Dhi l-Hadjdja 7th when Damascus army arrived in Mecca. To avoid clashes, the commander for whom observing the holiness of the city was allegedly significant sent a message to Qutham that both give up leading the congregational prayers and let people pick one out. As soon as Hadjdj ritual terminated, Damascus army returned. Following the Damascus army, Ma‘qal Ibn Qays went to Mecca and moved as far as Wadi al-Qura. They could only capture a few numbers of the fatigued ones who were exchanged later for Iraqi captives. After the event, Imam told people,”Defeated thou hast become be this nation … for the more active they get, the more passive thou go; the harder they try, the lazier thou become. I do behold disunity among thee as unity among them…”
One of their most notorious attacks was Busr Ibn Artat’s on Hidjaz and Yemen. He, a ruthless criminal, was ordered by Mu‘awiya to massacre ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims anywhere he traced. Why Busr was dispatched was the ‘Uthmanids living in Yemen had revolted against ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas, the governor, after realizing weakness within Iraqi troops. They had written to Mu‘awiya seeking for help. First Busr entered Medina of which governor, Abu Ayyub Ansari, had been appointed by Imam. Having no troop he had to flee. Busr set fire to his and others’ houses, secured allegiance from people by force, designated Abu Hurayra as the governor and sent him to Mecca. Qutham Ibn ‘Abbas also left there and fled. Busr then set out to Ta’if where he sent a man from Quraysh to Tabala therein many a Shi‘ite Muslim resided. At his behest, all were slayed and their possessions were plundered. Mecca residents, panic-stricken, had to flee among whom were ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas’s wife along with his two sons, Sulayman and Dawud captured and both beheaded. It is said that they were murdered in Yemen concealed in an Iranian-born man’s house. Keeping on his trip, he went to Nadjran where he killed ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas’s father in law, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abd al-Muddan. This very event is very considerable in Mu‘awiya’s shameful political life. When Busr arrived in Yemen, ‘Ubayd Allah had already left. Although a number of Shi‘ite Muslims defied for a while many were martyred. Busr committed countless crimes. He beheaded one hundred Iranian-born Shi‘ite Muslims. Then he moved toward Hadramawt where allegedly numerous Shi‘ite Muslims resided. He had said he would kill one out of four. Upon being informed, Imam sent Djaria Ibn Qudama with an army to follow him. When Djaria heard that Busr had gone to Mecca, he went there but he had already left. When arriving in Kufa, Djaria found Imam ‘Ali (a) martyred, so he swore allegiance to Imam Hasan (a).
Imam who was extremely annoyed with the Kufiyans, pronounced a malediction, for not only had they left Imam helpless but also they never protected their wives and daughters and allowed Damascus wicked men to access them. As an instance we narrate a malediction of Imam ‘Ali’s here,”I saw ‘Ali (a) speaking to people”, Abu Salih Hanafi,“While having the Holy Qur’an on his head, the papers of which rustling”
. ‘Ali was uttering,“O Allah! From whatever written in this Book they prevented me. Upon me thou bestow any what of this Book”
.
O Allah! In disfavor I hold them as so they hold me and of them I hast become tried as of me they haste become so. Unlike my nature is what they force me to act, an action unknown to me as yet. O Allah! Better than them grant me helpers but worse than me to them. O Allah! Dissolve their heart like salt in water.
Imam ‘Ali’s Martyrdom
In was Ramadan, 19th 40 A.H. at dawn when Imam was preparing to head for Siffin to battle once again with Mu‘awiya but he was wounded by the most black-hearted man in the world named ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Muldjam Muradi and martyred three days later on Ramadan 21st.
As reported by Ibn Sa‘d, three Kharidjites called ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Muldjam, Burak Ibn ‘Abd Allah Tamimi and ‘Amr Ibn Bukayr Tamimi allied in Mecca to kill Imam ‘Ali (a), Mu‘awiya and ‘Amr Ibn ‘As. To visit his Kharidjites’ friends, ‘Abd al-Rahman went to Kufa. Once he went to meet a group from the tribe of“Taym al-Rabbab”
, he saw a girl called Qutam Bnt Shadjanna Ibn ‘Adi whose father and brothers had been killed in Nahrawan. When Ibn Muldjam proposed to her, she declared that her marriage portion should be 3000 (Dinar!) in addition to Imam ‘Ali’s murder. He told that by accident with this very aim he had traveled to Kufa.
He smeared his sword with poison and attacked Imam on the head. The deepness of the wound as well as the poison of the sword martyred Imam. Reportedly, Ibn Muldjam had been in Ash‘ath Ibn Qays’s house that night.
Various narrations indicate that Imam was attacked by Ibn Muldjam inside the mosque.
In accordance to other ones, he attacked Imam while he was waking people up for prayer.
Many historical sources have referred to the former although many reports recorded say Imam was attacked while doing prayer. Maytham Tammar had reported that Imam had started his Dawn Prayer and no sooner had he recited eleven verses of the Sura of“the Prophets”
than Ibn Muldjam wounded Imam on the head.
As narrated by one of Dju‘da Ibn Hubayra’s descendants, Imam was wounded while doing his prayer.
The man above-mentioned, Dju‘da, had been Umm Hani’s son who every so often had led the prayers as a substitute leader and narratedly he had been the one who completed the prayer when Imam was attacked. Shiykh Tusi has also confirmed the aforesaid narration.
Yet, Muttaqi Hindi’s report had been that Ibn Muldjam had hit Imam when Imam was prostrating back.
Ibn Hanbal
together with Ibn ‘Asakir
has confirmed the report. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr stated that there had been no consensus on whether Imam was attacked while doing the prayer or before it and whether any one substituted him or he himself led the prayer to the end. Many are of the opinion that Imam had Dju‘da Ibn Hubayra lead the incomplete prayer.
A great number of hadiths have been narrated by the Holy Prophet’s Household and the Sunnis concerning how Imam felt during the night before being wounded. Ibn Abi l-Dunya quoted Imam Baqir(a) as saying that Imam had been fully aware of his martyrdom.
As soon as being injured, Imam shouted out, فزت ورب الكعبة“By Allah of Ka‘ba, to salvation I reached.”
Ibn Abi l-Dunya has narrated Imam’s will in different ways which included both financial and religious issues. The salient issues recommended by Imam were as follows,
Observation of kinship, heed to the orphans and the neighbors, following the guidelines of the Holy Qur’an, performing prayers as the pillar of the religion, Hadjdj, fasting, Djihad, Zakat (tax alms) following the Holy Prophet’s infallible Household, serving Allah’s servants, enjoining to good and forbidding from evil. Reportedly, on Ramadan 21st, while Imam was whispering, لااله الا الله“There is no God but Allah”
and the verse of, فمن يعمل مثقال ذرة خيراً يره ومن يعمل مثقال ذرة شراً يره“So he who has done an atom’s weight of good shall see it. And he who had done an atom’s weight of evil shall see it”
Breathed his last.
According to another narration, after Imam’s martyrdom, Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a), Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Dja‘far as well as few numbers from the household took Imam (a) out of Kufa nightly and hiddenly from sight buried him. It was because the Kharidjites and the Umayyads might exhume Imam.
Upon hearing the news of Imam ‘Ali’s martyrdom, a group of the Exaggerators in Ctesiphon did never believe their ears. This group is the initiator of the exaggerating thoughts among the Shi‘ite Muslims whom we will address later. Ibn Abi l-Dunya’s report in this respect referred to a person named Ibn al-Sawda’ from the tribe of Hamdan know as ‘Abd Allah Ibn Saba’. Elsewhere, the name of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb al-Saba’i, was mentioned and that such a claim had been made in Ctesiphon.
Both narrations reveal that the person had even been anonymous. See also ‘Uthman’s Opponents.
Imam ‘Ali’s Life
The analysis of Imam’s lifestyle as a paragon seems beyond the possibility here; yet, we refer to some aspects for luck in brief.
Imam’s political and social life is so exemplary that it can be deemed utopian. At times, so uniquely firm was he regarding divine decrees that not a single one could ever emulate him as he himself had pointed to it in a letter.
For those yearning to be faithful to it, his lifestyle is a perfect pattern. Every time we can learn from it but the way is still too long to go. In other wards, Imam’s lifestyle has been the best during man’s life. It belongs to a perfect man who can indeed be called human and Allah’s successor on the earth. Such an engrossing life did he have that it had his friends reach the zenith of amity and his enemies reach the zenith of enmity in front of him.
In this regard, the Prophet (s) has stated, يهلك فيك الرجلان محب مفرط ومبغض مفرط
His withstanding for the sake of the path of Truth does incense the enemy that it makes him go to extremes whereas it does fan the blames of his friend’s love that he may go to extremes.
The one feeling affection for him can ascend as highly as the rank to be called a devoted Shi‘ite Muslim but if he neglected slightly he would be affected by the exaggerating tendency. Rarely ever has it be seen that divinity be attributed to a person. ‘Ali (a), however, in a community where Allah had underscored the humanity of the prophet Muhammad(s) was targeted by such attribution although Imam opposed it severely.
Imam’s asceticism is what overshadowed all his life. He was an ascetic man who turned back on anything though he was entitled to possess everything. A group asked about the most ascetic man in the presence of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. Some named Abudhar and ‘Umar but ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz said,أزهد الناس علي بن ابيطالب (ع)“No one is the most ascetic but ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.”
Imam not only associated with the poor but also behaved kindly towards them.
He was sometimes seen doing prayer or delivering a sermon wearing his one and the only shirt wet.
Repeatedly, Imam has referred to his simple life in Nahdj al-Balagha. Noticing that Imam ate very frugal food, one of his disciples told him, أبالعراق تصنع هذا؟ العراق أكثر خيراً وأكثر طعاماً …“Do you eat such food in Iraq where the best food can he found?”
Imam was the first one who practiced what he peached objecting to ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf in Nahdj al-Balagha or in his public sermons concerning this worldly life.
Aswad Ibn Qays recounted that Imam ‘Ali (a) fed the Kufiyans on the fertile land of the mosque but he himself ate the food in his house.
One of his disciples said,“I said to myself that ‘Ali eats more delicious food at home than what he gives people. So I left my food half eaten and followed him. He called Fidda and asked her to prepare the food. She brought a loaf of bread and yogurt diluted with water. He dipped the pieces of bread in the liquid while it was with bran. I asked him why he had not asked for bread baked with flour without bran. Shedding tears, he answered, “By Allah, neverever bread without bran was found in the Prophet’s house.”
‘Uqba Ibn ‘Alqama narrated,”When I met Imam ‘Ali (a), there was sour yogurt diluted with water in front of him that was so sour and watery that it upset me. I asked him whether he would eat it.O Aba l-Khabub, worse than this was the prophet’s food and rougher than mine was his clothes.
Imam answered,“I fear if I did not do what he had done, I would never join him”
.
When a special food was brought for Imam, Imam stated,“Never do I eat what the Prophet (s) had never eaten”
.
It does not imply that eating such food is unlawful but sheer act of following Allah’s Messenger is of supreme importance for an Imam.
Presenting another example appears appropriate. As recounted by Abu l-Shiykh Ansari, born in 369, Imam appointed ‘Amr Ibn Salama as the governor of Isfahan. When setting out for Kufa, ‘Amr was intercepted by the Kharidjites. With the tributes and the gifts, he had to settle in Hulwan. As soon as the Kharidjites went away, he left the tributes in Hulwan and took the gifts with him to Kufa. Imam ordered him to lay them on the fertile land by Kufa Mosque and then distribute among Muslims. Umm Kulthum, Imam’s daughter, sent for ‘Amr to send her some honey brought. He sent her two cans then. When Imam came to the mosque for prayer, he realized that the honeys were two less. He called ‘Amr and asked where the two others were. He answered,“Do not ask what happened”
, then he went and brought two cans of honey and added to them.
Imam repeated,”I only wanted to know what happened to those two”.
“Umm Kulthum demanded to send honey to her”
, answered ‘Amr.
“Not have I told you to distribute the gifts among people?”
Imam asked.
He sent for her to send the honey back. When brought back a little was consumed. He sent for the traders to estimate the price of the subtracted amount. It was three or so dhms. Imam sent for Umm Kulthum to pay for it. Then, the honey was distributed among Muslims.
Numerous examples can be found in al-Gharat and other books.
It is Imam’s own statement, أنا الذي أهنت الدنيا
“I am the one who despised this world.”
That manifests his stance against this worldly life. Imam’s behavior towards the agents is another dimension of his life addressed in historical sources. From any point of view, Imam supervised his agents and during his short term, many letters were written by him reprimanding them. After ‘Ali’s martyrdom, Suda, ‘Umara Hamdani’s daughter, came up to Mu‘awiya. She had participated in Siffin. For a short while, Mu‘awiya talked her about Siffin. She requested him to depose Busr Ibn Artat oppressing them. He declined, however. Suda consequently prostrated and an hour later rose up. Mu‘awiya asked her what it was for.
She responded,”When I went to ‘Ali to complain about the man responsible for our alms, he was busy with praying. After his prayer, he asked me what I wanted. On hearing with no delay he took a piece of skin out of his pocket and urging him to observe justice he wrote,“As soon as receiving the letter, do what ordered until I send one to replace you. He gave the letter to me to hand in him. He was deposed accordingly.”
0%
Author: Rasul Ja'farian
