Al-Husayn’s Prior Knowledge of His Martrydom
What we have stated clarifies that reason; theShari’a
condones one's walking to his death when doing so serves a common interest greater than that of his own life, such as the continuity of the creed or of theShari’a
, or to bring to life a certain fact, an objective which cannot be realized in any other way, such as the case with regard to al-Husayn (‘a) taking such an amazing stand, thus reciting to the multitude a white tablet which generations and epochs have been reciting ever since.
Through his holy uprising, Imam Husayn (‘a) acquainted present and future nations with what the Umayyads did and with who discarded and violated the sacred laws of theShari’a
. Nations have learned lessons from the courage demonstrated by the most oppressed one (‘a), that they should welcome death with open arms, that they should sacrifice their all in order to support the call propagated by Muhammad (S) and learn from it lofty lessons.
They learned how to persist in defending their principles, and to sacrifice everything precious in order to liberate themselves from the claws of oppression.
Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani rejects the notion that it is despondency that causes one to attack a thousand men knowing that he has no chance of survival or of defeating the enemy by so doing, saying that such an action is not suicide because there is a benefit in it for the Muslims: it strengthens their determination and provides them with a shot in the arm that rejuvenates their energy and determination to defend their principles and to die in dignity.
Abu Abdullah, al-Husayn (‘a), by the same token, surpasses everyone else in doing so when he defied the large multitude that had sunk in falsehood. He, it is true, caused the death of his holy self as well as that of pure ones from among his family and followers.
He exposed the offspring of the Messenger of Allah (S) to plundering and captivity, yet he inscribed upon the face of time with words ofnoor
the truth about his uprising and the falsehood of all the allegations propagated by his foe that had deviated from the canons of truth and became immersed in oppression.
He is, therefore, the true victor, and whoever challenged him drowned in the sea of misguidance and was one who violated the Islamic laws drawn by the one who conveyed the Divine Message (S).
I truly wonder about one who says that al-Husayn (‘a) was counting on the support of the people of Kufa. Such an individual has surely missed the mark. Even if we surrender and say that al-Husayn (‘a) did not have a general knowledge of what was, what is, and what will be, how could he have not been informed by his grandfather (S) and his wali, his own father, of the events that would happen to him, and that he would be killed in the land of Karbala’ after being denied access to water, accompanied by his kinsfolk and followers and would all face a sure death?
Is he not the one who informed Umm Salamah of his own martyrdom when she expressed to him apprehension of his trip?
The reason for it is that the truthful and the trustworthy one, who never said anything out of his own inclination (S), had already informed him of his being killed in the land of Karbala’ after being prohibited from drinking water.
Among what al-Husayn (‘a) had said to her was: “I know the day on which I will be killed and the time when I will be killed. And I know who among my Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) and followers will be killed. Do you think that you know what I do not? Do you think that I can escape death? If I do not die today, I will tomorrow.”
He said to his brother, ‘Umar al-Atraf, “My father had informed me that my resting place will neighbour that of his own. Do you think that you know what I do not?” To his brother Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya he said, “Allah has decreed to see me murdered and the women taken captive.”
To Ibn al-Zubayr he said, “Had I hidden in a hole in these ravines, they would have hunted me out and killed me.” To ‘Abdullah Ibn Ja’far he said, “I saw the Messenger of Allah (S) in a vision ordering me to do something which I am going to do.”
When they were at a mountain pass, he said to his companions,“I see myself being killed, for I saw in a vision dogs mauling me, and the most wild among them was spotted.” When ‘Amr Ibn Lawthan suggested to him to stay away from Kufa becoming fully informed of its people's intentions, he (‘a) said, “I am not ignorant of their views, but the will of Allah is never over-ruled. As soon as they invite me, they will take out the blood clot in me.”
He made many such explicit and implicit statements in Medina, in Mecca, and on the way to Kufa, statements that you will read in this book in their entirety. They all testify that he (‘a), was fully aware of his being killed on the day with which he was familiar and in the land of Karbala’.
So, can anyone doubt this fact if he reads his sermon in Mecca when he wanted to travel from there to Iraq? In that sermon, he said,“I can see my limbs being cut to pieces by wild beasts in an area between al-Nawawees122 and Karbala’, so they will fill with my body empty stomachs and starved pouches; there is no way to avert an event already decreed.”
All these answers to those who asked al-Husayn (‘a) to wait or to go somewhere else prove that the Master of Martyrs was knowledgeable of what was going to happen to him, and that he knew the intentions of the people of Kufa. But it is a divine mystery that concerned only him, and so that his cries for help and support on the Day ofTaff
, before and after the war, would be an argument against that unlucky multitude of people.
Yet he did not inform each and every person who objected to his march to Kufa of all what he knew due to his knowledge that the facts were not to be revealed just to anyone. People vary in their capacity to absorb, and their goals vary, too. It is for this reason that the Imam (‘a) responded to each person according to his level of absorption, to his conditions, and to what his knowledge and mentality could bear.
The knowledge of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) is laborious and inaccessible; it cannot be tolerated except by a messenger prophet, an angel near to Allah, or a believer whose heart Allah tested with conviction.
Al-Husayn: A Conqueror
Al-Husayn (‘a) was convinced that he was a divinely supported conqueror due to the life his martyrdom would provide for the religion of the Messenger of Allah (S) and to the death of the innovations introduced therein. His martyrdom exposed the ugliness of the deeds committed by his foes.
It made the nation realize that Ahl al-Bayt (‘a), more than anyone else, deserved to be the caliphs. It is to this principle that his letter to Banu Hashim refers. In it, he said,“Whoever among you decides to join us will be martyred, and whoever lags behind will miss victory.”
The victory he referred to in this letter was the outcome of his uprising and sacrifices: these would undermine the foundations of misguidance and remove the thorns of falsehood from the path of the purifiedShari’a
and the establishment of justice and Tawhid, and that the nation was obligated to resist abominations.
This is the same meaning we can derive from reviewing a statement made by Imam Zayn al-’Abidin (‘a) to Ibrahim Ibn Talhah Ibn ‘Ubaydullah who had asked the Imam (‘a) upon his return to Medina, “Who won?” Said the Imam (‘a),“When it is time for the prayers, call the athan and the iqama, and it is then that you will know who the winner is.”
Here, he is referring to achieving the objective for which the Master of Martyrs had sacrificed his sacred life and the failure of Yazid in his attempts to put out thenoor
of Allah Almighty and the efforts of the Messenger of Allah (S) which his father [Mu’awiyah] had aimed to foil by killing the shahada after it had become mandatory on the nation during the five known times [of prayers], a testimony for the Prophet of Islam.
The Islamic faith undermined the foundations of shirk and put an end to idol worship. It likewise became mandatory on the nation to bless the Prophet (S) and his pure Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) whenever the believers make the tashahhud. Any blessing short of blessing his progeny is curtailed.
Zainab, the wise lady, daughter of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a), too, pointed out to this victory when she said to Yazid,“Plot your plots, exert your effort, and perfect your schemes, for by Allah you shall never be able to wipe our name out, nor will you ever kill our wali, nor will you ever attain our status, nor will you ever be able to wash away the shame and infamy of what you have committed.”
Anyone who contemplates upon theTaff
event will clearly realize that the sacrifices offered in it are greater than those offered during the Battle of Badr even though the latter was the first military victory achieved in Islam.
The reason is that the Muslims had then braved death under the protection of the flag of the Prophet (S) and were supported by angels numbering three thousand strong, while the Prophet (S) kept filling their ears with his calls for victory, urging them to assault their enemy. The Muslims, hence, faced the tyrants from Quraish feeling confident of subduing them.
As regarding theTaff
event, the suffering undergone during it was much more painful, and the agony was greater. The tides of death clamoured, the war uncovered its fangs, and Banu Umayyah surrounded the grandson of the Prophet (S) [and his tiny band] from all sides.
Oppression spurred it to action,
So it came mounting its tyranny;
Throngs that filled the earth,
Overwhelming every ravine and highway.
He trampled upon the beasts when
He found no route to escape.
The birds did not leave their nests.
Yet the band that sided with the truth did not lose heart, meeting those dangers without counting on any support or expecting any help. All essential supplies were cut off from them. Even water, the most plentiful of anything, and which was free for all, was denied them. Women and children were terrified on account of the imminent peril. The children's cries because of their thirst filled everyone's ears.
Yet they faced mountains of steel with open arms and relentless determination. All what those pure souls were concerned about was fighting Banu Umayyah. They spilled their pure blood only in defense of their honour, something which was abandoned by others. The government of the descendants of Harb became like a dog licking its nose, so the surface of the earth was in the end cleansed of their shame.
One poet belonging to Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) did well when he said:
Had not all sublime merits been grouped in us,
The Battle ofTaff
would have sufficed,
When we rose like lions while our foes
Like beasts of burden came to throng.
They came in seventy thousand strong;
So ask those among them who did survive:
If they met us though we brought only seventy.
TheTaff
battle, then, is an Islamic victory over the jahiliyya that was revived through the actions of the Umayyads and their fellows who did not seek the shining light of Tawhid and Prophethood.
Al-Husayn (‘a) did not aim by his march to attain authority, power, or recognition. Had this been his goal, he would have sought the means that would lead him to it, and he was the most knowledgeable man of such means.
He would not have informed those who were with him from among the natives of Mecca and Medina that he and those with him would be killed, and that his family would surrender to captivity. His army, as a result, abandoned him, and his might diminished. Yet his holy soul, as is the case with all free men, insisted on telling the truth rather than misleading anyone. He even tested them by granting them permission to leave him.
Those whose concern was accumulation, did in fact leave him, while the select few insisted on helping and supporting him; neither cowardice subdued them nor discouragement surfaced among them, for such is the doing of one who has lost hope from attaining his objective.
Those folks were convinced that they would win what they hoped to win as testified by their statements whereby they responded to al-Husayn (‘a) telling them on the eve of ‘Ashura that the situation had reached a critical
point, and he even excused them from their oath of allegiance to him and released them.
They said, “Praise is due to Allah Who honours us with being killed on your side! Had this world remained forever, and had we, too, been immortalized, we would still have preferred to rise with you rather than remain therein.”
He (‘a), found them ready to sacrifice their lives wagingjihad
with him and defending the sanctity of theShari’a
. He recited a line from their white tablet when he said,“I find my companions to be the most loyal, and my Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) to be the most kind and the best in staying together.”
I am surprised at the narrators and historians who transmitted a great deal and who charged those pure souls with what the face of humanity resents and is rejected by a truthful conscience. Some of them said,“Those people were shaken and their complexion kept changing colour whenever fighting intensified with the exception of al-Husayn (‘a) whose face shone like a full moon.”
They said so after finding themselves unable to find fault with the honourable and dignified martyr. Finding no way to belittle him, they charged his companions and his Ahl al-Bayt (‘a). This is only because of the hidden disease residing in the body of those who mixed poison with oil and passed it on to simpletons who regarded it as a fact. They, by so doing, distorted history, but any discreet critic can easily assess the nature and the schemes of such people.
More strange than such talk is Zajr Ibn Qays al-Ju’fi’s following statement to Yazid: “We surrounded them as they sought refuge with thickets and holes just as pigeons seek to hide from an eagle.”
May gravel fill your mouth! As if you never witnessed that terrifying situation when they demonstrated courage and determination to defend the creed, so much so that their stand on that day surpassed the Battle ofSiffin
wherein they fought on the side of the chosen one (‘a) as well as in other bloody wars which caused the people of Kufa to talk about nothing in their meetings except their courage.
Yes, those circumstances stunned you, so you do not know what you are saying, or time separated you from them, so you forgot what actually happened. But did you also forget the cries of the orphans, the wailing of the widows of Kufian families everywhere throughout Kufa on account of what those elite men had done with their swords to the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger (S)?
Your excuse is that you came out unscathed, so you took to distorting their stand, for which they will forever be appreciated, seeking to please Yazid, the product of wines.
Their avowed enemy, ‘Amr Ibn al-Hajjaj, had described the truthfulness of their intentions, urging his men saying, “Do you know who you are fighting? You are fighting the land's knights, the people of vision, those who welcome death with open arms. None of you dares to come out to fight them except that they will kill him despite their very small number. By Allah! If you throw stones at them, you will be able to kill all of them.”
A man who had participated in theTaff
Battle on the side of Ibn Sa’d was asked once, “Woe unto you! Did you really kill the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah?!” He answered by saying, “May I be stoned to death! Had you seen what we saw, you would have done what we had done.
We were assaulted by a group of men holding their swords and charging like fierce lions, crushing the cavalry right and left, throwing themselves in the jaws of death, accepting no security, desiring no wealth, nothing stopping them except either death or taking control of the government. Had we given them a chance, they would have annihilated our entire army; so, what do you expect us to do, may you lose your mother?”
Ka’b Ibn Jabir, too, testified for them. Having killed Burayr, he was reprimanded by his wife who said to him, “Did you really assist in killing Fatima's son? Did you kill the master of qaris? You have done something monstrous. By Allah! I shall never speak one word to you.” He then composed the following lines in his answer to her statement:
Never did my eyes see their likes, in their time,
Nor before, among the people, since my youth;
None strikes with the sword in the battle
Better than one defending honour, protecting it.
Steadfast were they when swords and lances worked,
Even as they were defenseless.
They sought duels, had they only had their way.
Which one of them, anyway, was upset to the extent that he shook in fear?! Was it Zuhayr Ibn al-Qayn who put his hand on Husayn's shoulder and said the following lines seeking his permission to fight:
Come forth, may you be guided!
For you are the guide who is rightly guided:
Today shall I meet your grandfather the Prophet...?
Or was it Ibn ‘Awsajah who advised Habib Ibn Muzahir to support al-Husayn (‘a) even as he was drawing his last breath, as if he was not satisfied with sacrificing his life and with all the trials and tribulations he underwent?
Or was it Abu Thumama al-Sa’idi who, seeking to please his Lord, the most Exalted One, was not concerned about calamities, pain, or anything except the prayers whose time was approaching?
Or was it Ibn Shibib al-Shakiri who laid down all his protective gear to entice someone to kill him so that he would win the honour of martyrdom even as courageous heroes well known for their bravery take pains in covering their bodies with all protective coverings so that death may not reach them?
Or was it John who was excused [because of his age] by al-Husayn (‘a) from having to fight, so he fell down to kiss the Imam's feet, tearfully begging and pleading to him saying, “My colour is black, my descent is lowly, my smell is bad, so breathe upon me with the breath of Paradise so that my colour will be whitened, and my descent will be honourable, and my smell will be good”?
If we think about the statement of Imam Abu Ja’far al-Baqir (‘a) wherein he said,“The companions of my grandfather al-Husayn (‘a) did not feel the pain of iron,”
the steadfastness of those righteous men will become
evident to us, and that they were not mindful of the pain and of the wounds which they received due to their attachment to their goal and to their eagerness to meet the Chosen One (S).
Nobody finds this statement unusual except one who does not know how someone in love feels, and how, when such a lover's feelings are directed towards the person he loves, he does not feel any fatigue or exhaustion. Historians tell us that “Kathir ‘Azza,”
the poet, was once in his tent peeling arrows when ‘Azza entered. The moment he saw her, he was in such awe that he kept peeling his fingers and kept bleeding without feeling any pain.
Narrators say that a young man from the Ansar came face to face with a woman, and he very much liked her. He watched her as she entered an alley as he chased her. He did not see a piece of glass etched in a wall, so his face was wounded but he did not feel the pain at all. When he could not see that woman any longer, he noticed that blood was running over his clothes and chest, so he went to the Messenger of Allah (S) and narrated to him what had happened to him. It was then that the following verse was revealed:
Tell the believing men that they should cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them; surely Allah is Aware of what they do.(Qur’an, Sura an-Nur, 24:30)
The Messenger of Allah (S) is quoted as saying that a martyr killed for the Divine Cause does not feel the pain of killing except as a pinch.
Rushayd al-Hajari
was called to Yazid's court where the latter asked him about what he had been informed by the Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Ali (‘a). He said, “Yes, I came to visit him one day, and many of his companions were present.
He was in an orchard. He ordered dates to be brought to him from a date tree. ‘Are these dates good, O Commander of the Faithful?,' I asked him. He (‘a), informed me that the adopted bastard (da’iyy), ‘Ubaydullah [Ibn Ziyad], would force me to dissociate myself from him (from ‘Ali ) or cut off my hands, legs and tongue, then he would crucify me on the trunk of this same date tree. I asked him, ‘Will my ultimate destination be Paradise?' He (‘a) said, ‘You are with me in the life of this world as well as in the life hereafter.' I said, ‘Then I shall never, by Allah, dissociate myself from you.'”
Rushayd used to go to that date-tree quite often during daytime and water it. He used to say the following to it as he watered it:“For you have I been nourished, and for me have you been grown!”
It was not long before [‘Ubaydullah] Ibn Ziyad became the wali of Kufa, so he called him in and asked him about what the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) had informed him. He said,“My friend told me that you would require me to dissociate myself from him, yet I would not do so, and that you would then cut off my hands, legs and tongue.”
Ibn Ziyad said, “In this case, I shall prove him a liar.” He ordered to have his hands and legs cut off and to spare his tongue. Then Rushayd was taken back to his family where people surrounded him. He kept telling them what he had learned from the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) of the knowledge of what fate has in store for men and the trials and tribulations they would have
to endure as well as the distinction Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) enjoyed over all other humans. Then he said, “O people! Ask me!
These folks [meaning Ibn Ziyad's people] have one requirement in my regard which they have not yet carried out.” A man hurried to Ibn Ziyad and said, “What have you done?! You cut off his hands and legs yet he tells people many serious matters!” Ibn Ziyad, therefore, ordered Rushayd's tongue to be cut off. The man died the same night. On the next day, his corpse was crucified
on the door of ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth's house.
Qanwa, his daughter, says, “I asked my father about the pain he was suffering. He said to me, ‘Daughter! I do not have any pain except like one feeling the pressure of people in a stampede.'”
Rushayd al-Hajari benefitted from keeping company with the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) who taught him the knowledge of fatal events and of imminent calamities.
He used to narrate what he was going through, so the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) named him “Rashid,” rightly guided.
Such condition enlightens anyone who carefully discerns it with the conviction that anyone who directs all his feelings towards the Lord, Praise to Him, and once the Divine Attributes are manifested to him, he sees what eternal bliss awaits him as a reward for promoting the creed, and he will not feel the pain of his wounds.
It also underscores what we have stated about a lover becoming unmindful of his pain once he sees the loved one just as the women [referred to in Surat Yousuf] did not feel the pain of cutting their fingers off at merely seeing the beauty of the truthful one, Yousuf (‘a), as the Almighty tells us:
“So when they saw him, they deemed him great and cut their hands and said: Far it is from Allah! This is not a human; this is a glorious angel” (Qur’an, Sura Yusuf, 12:31).
Since those women
did not feel the pain of their wounds, it is not strange to find al-Husayn's companions, who were the world’s cream of the crop, did not feel the pain of iron as a result of their love for the manifestations of divine beauty, and due to the eagerness of their souls to reach the ultimate end of sanctity after being electrified by their loyalty for the Master of Martyrs (‘a).
My father do I sacrifice for countenances that
In Karbala’ shook hands with shields,
Countenances that light up with hope
Whenever the world frowns and drips of liberality.
They glow under the darkness of clamour
Like lanterns bright, stealing the sight.
They regarded their lives as cheap in defending
The son of the Prophet's daughter,
Lives that eagerly anticipate with Allah a union.
So they were spent while from
Their sides dignity forever emits fragrance.
No water did they taste except
From the heart's blood the wounds choked in pain
Of their blood they would have drunk
Only if it could their thirst quench
Stripped were they, so they, instead of the fabric
Of the earth did they weave shrouds of wind.
Al-Husayn Among His Companions
Introductory Note
The sacredShari’a
requires people to rise in order to close the door of abomination and safeguard everyone against corruption, obliging the nation to do what all nations do: repel the oppression of oppressors who rebel against an Imam chosen to lead the nation after his having invited them to renounce their resistance to what is right, and to refer to the Greatest Legislator, Praise and Exaltation to Him, Who says the following:
“If two groups among the believers fight, reconcile them, but if one of them transgresses over the other, then kill the one that oppresses till it returns to [accepting] Allah's Commandment”. (Qur’an, Sura al-Hujurat, 49:9)
The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) rose during his caliphate to defend the sanctity of theShari’a
and to attract the nation's attention to wake up from its slumber of ignorance. It was mandatory on people to obey him because he was the rightful Imam obedience to whom was mandatory. The majority of the Muslims recognized and swore the oath of allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful, Imam ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib (‘a).
They decided that fighting those who rebelled against him was the right thing to do as testified by their statements which are recorded in their books, statements which serve as testimonials to their call, a call supported by reason and documented facts.
[Imam] Abu Hanifa, for example, says, “Whenever [Imam] ‘Ali fought anyone, right was on his side. Had ‘Ali (‘a) not fought them, nobody among the Muslims would have learned how to deal with them!
There is no doubt, moreover, that ‘Ali (‘a) fought Talhah [Ibn ‘Abdullah] and al-Zubayr [Ibn al-’Awwam] after the latter had sworn the oath of allegiance then reneged therefrom. And during the Battle of the Camel, ‘Ali (‘a) dealt with them with equity, the most learned man among the Muslims that he was, so it became a Sunnah to fight the people who promote oppression.”
His student, Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (who died in 187 A.H/803 A.D.), followed in his footsteps. Said he,“Had not ‘Ali (‘a) fought Mu’awiyah because of his oppression, we would not have been guided to fighting those who oppress.”
Sufyan al-Thawri has said,“Whenever ‘Ali (‘a) fought anyone, he was on the right track versus the other.”
Imam al-Shafi’i has said,“Silence with regard to those who were killed during the Battle of Siffin is commendable, although ‘Ali (‘a) was more right than anyone whom he fought.”
Abu Bakr, Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali al-Razi al-Jassas (who died in 370 A.H/981 A.D.), has said,“‘Ali was right in fighting the oppressive gang. Nobody maintains a contrary view. He was accompanied by many senior Sahabis,
those who participated in the Battle of Badr, as well as by those who appreciated their status.”
Abu Bakr Ibn al-’Arabi, the judge, who died in 546 A.H/1152 A.D., has said, “‘Ali was the Imam because they all regarded him as such, and he could not have abandoned people because he was the most worthy among them of receiving the oath of allegiance. He accepted such an oath out of his concern lest some in the nation should be killed due to chaos and disorder and even the distortion of the creed and the demise of Islam as a religion.”
The people of Syria asked him to seek revenge on those responsible for ‘Uthman's murder, so he (‘a) said to them, “First of all, you should swear the oath of allegiance as others have, then you can ask for justice; it is only then that you will achieve justice.” ‘Ali (‘a) was the most wise among them in his view and speech. Had he pursued those killers, their tribes would have rallied behind them, thus igniting a third tribal war.
So he waited till law and order were established and the general public had sworn the oath of allegiance to him. It is then that he directed his attention towards the court of justice to effect equity without discriminating between anyone in the nation and the other. There is no disagreement among the nation that a leader is justified in postponing effecting retribution if doing the opposite may cause dissension and disunity.
In the latter scenario, anyone who disobeyed ‘Ali (‘a) would be regarded as an oppressor killing whom is mandatory, so that justice will be served and reconciliation is achieved. His waging a war against the Syrians who refused to swear the oath of allegiance to him, as well as his having fought those who reneged from such an oath in the Battles of the Camel and al-Nahrawan, was justified.
It was the obligation of everyone to rally behind him and carry out his orders then make any demands. But since they all did not do so, they became oppressors like the ones referred to in the verse saying,
“...then kill the one that oppresses till it returns to [accepting] Allah's Commandment” (Qur’an, Sura al-Hujurat, 49:9).
Mu’awiyah scolded Sa’d Ibn Abu Waqqas
for not participating in fighting ‘Ali (‘a). Sa’d responded to him by saying that he, in fact, had only regretted his reluctance to fight al-fi'a al-baghiya (the oppressive gang), meaning Mu’awiyah and his followers.
Abu Bakr, Muhammad al-Baqillani, who died in 403 A.H/1013 A.D., said the following after enumerating some of ‘Ali 's merits: “‘Ali (‘a) is qualified for the caliphate by only some of these merits and by less than these virtues, and he deserves to be the Imam.
He is right in his views and in whatever he took charge of. Obedience to him, therefore, is mandatory due to his having received the oath of allegiance from the most respected dignitaries among the Muhajirun and the Ansar on the third day following ‘Uthman's assassination.
These insisted that only he was the most knowledgeable among the Sahaba, the most qualified, and the one most worthy of it. They pleaded to him in the Name of Allah Almighty to safeguard the rest of the nation and to protect Dar al-Hijra. They, therefore, swore the oath of allegiance to him before al-Zubayr and Talhah had arrived. Having seen everyone else
swearing to him, and having found themselves obligated, al-Zubayr and Talhah, too, swore the oath of allegiance to him.
Had they preferred not to do so, they would have fallen in sin. Their saying to him, “We swore the oath of allegiance to you against our wish,”
however, does not harm the Imamate of ‘Ali (‘a), simply because the inauguration had already been completed.
Their asking him to kill ‘Uthman's murderers prior to swearing the oath of allegiance to him was a mistake because electing a man simply so that he would kill a group of men for killing one man is not right even if hisijtihad
determined that that should be the case: he may later, according to the sameijtihad
, decide to do the opposite.
Even if it is proven that ‘Ali (‘a) permitted the killing of a number of men for having killed only one single person, the execution of all those who participated in killing ‘Uthman is not valid except after proving them guilty, and after the offspring of the murdered person present themselves at his court to demand retribution for their father's murder, and if the killing does not lead to as much chaos and disorder as that which followed ‘Uthman's murder, or even more so.
Postponing effecting retribution to its right time is better for the nation, and it avoids any worsening of the situation.
Abu ‘Abdullah, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah, better known as Al-Hakim al-Naishapuri (d. 405 A.H/1015 A.D.), has said, “The narratives relevant to the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) receiving the oath of allegiance are all authentic according to the general consensus, and it is in reference to them that Khuzaymah Ibn Thabit delivered these poetic lines as he stood before the pulpit:
If fealty to ‘Ali we swear,
Hasan's father suffices us
Against the dissensions we fear:
The best of people we found him to be,
The most knowledgeable among the Quraish
Of the Book and the Sunnah is he.
None can surpass him among the Quraish
When he does ride and charge,
And all good is in him indeed,
Quraish do not match his word and deed.
Al-Thahabi collected such narratives in his book Talkhis al-Mustadrak without rebutting them.”
Then Al-Hakim goes on to cite ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar [Ibn al-Khattab] saying,“Nothing distresses me, in as far as the verse saying, ‘...then kill the one that oppresses till it returns to [accepting] Allah's Commandment’ (Qur’an, Sura al-Hujurat, 49:9)
, except that I did not fight the oppressive gang as Allah Almighty had ordered me.”
Al-Hakim al-Naishapuri quotes Abu Bakr, Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Khuzaymah, saying that he is used to hear his mentors say, “We testify that all those who disputed with the Commander of the Faithful ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib (‘a) with regard to his caliphate were oppressors,” and so does Ibn Idris.
Abu Mansur ‘Abdul-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429 A.H/1038 A.D.) has said, “All the people of righteousness were unanimous in recognizing ‘Ali 's Imamate when he was singled out for it following ‘Uthman's murder, and that he was right and accurate in judgment when he fought the Battle of the Camel and Mu’awiyh's followers in the Battle ofSiffin
.”
Abu Ishaq Ibrahim Ibn ‘Ali al-Shirazi al-Fayroozabadi (d. 476 A.H/1084 A.D.) has said, “If a group of Muslims dissents from the leading Imam, advocating his deposition according to its own way of thinking, or likewise stopped a due payment, thus becoming rebellious, the Imam ought to fight it in accordance with the verse saying,‘...but if one of them transgresses over the other, then kill the one that oppresses till it returns to [accepting] Allah's Commandment’ (Qur’an, Sura al-Hujurat, 49:9).
Abu Bakr fought those who refused to pay the zakat, while ‘Ali (‘a) fought the people of Basra during the Battle of the Camel and fought Mu’awiyah atSiffin
and the Kharijites at al-Nahrawan.”
The gist is that ‘Ali (‘a) was right in fighting those parties because he was the leader (the Imam) the oath of allegiance to whom was a must. Their rebellion against him, no matter for what reason, did not justify their actions.
Imam al-Haramain al-Juwaini
(d. 478 A.H/1086 A.D.) says,“‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib (a) was the rightful Imam when he took charge, whereas those who fought him were oppressors.”
Ala’ ad-Din al-Kasani al-Hanafi (d. 587 A.H/1191 A.D.) has said,
“Our master, ‘Ali, fought the people of Harura at Nahrawan in the presence of the Sahabah in fulfillment of the prediction of the Messenger of Allah (S) to him wherein he said, “O ‘Ali ! You will be fought for implementing the Qur’an just as we fight in defense of its revelation.” His fight for the interpretation of the Holy Qur’an was his fighting the Kharijites.
Thishadith
proves that ‘Ali is our Imam and master because the Prophet (S) compared the fighting undertaken by ‘Ali in defense of implementing the Qur’an with that of his own fighting in defense of its revelation. The Messenger of Allah (S) was right in defending its revelation; therefore, our master ‘Ali was also right in fighting for its implementation. Had he not been a rightful Imam, he would not have been right in killing those folks because the call had included them due to their being in “dar al-salam” and to being Muslims.
Anyone whom he called to fight them was obligated to respond positively and not to lag behind so long as he was able to do so because obedience to the Imam, which results in no disobedience to Allah, is an obligation, let alone obedience.
What is narrated about Abu Hanifa with regard to the subject of when dissension happens among the Muslims, he is of the view that a man should take to staying at home. Such a view is relevant to a particular time that is: When his religious leader does not call upon him to bear arms. But if he does, then obedience to him is obligatory as we have stated earlier.”
Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (d. 677 A.H/1279 A.D.), a Shafi’i, has said,“‘Ali was on the right track in those wars. Most of the Sahaba and tabi’in, supported by all Muslim scholars, were of the view that during the time of dissension, support and assistance must be rendered to the right party against the oppressors according to the verse saying, ‘... so fight the one that oppresses,' which is the right thing to do.”
Ibn Humam, the Hanafi (d. 681 A.H/1283 A.D.), has said, “‘Ali (‘a) was on the right track when he fought the Battle of the Camel and when he fought Mu’awiyah at Siffin. The Prophet (S) had said to ‘Ammar, ‘The oppressive party shall kill you,' and he was, indeed, killed by Mu’awiyah's followers, something which proves that they, in fact, were the oppressive party.
‘A’isha expressed her regret [at having fought ‘Ali during the Battle of the Camel] according to Abu ‘Amr as he so records in his book Al-Isti’ab. She said once to ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, ‘O father of ‘Abdul-Rahman! What stopped you for prohibiting me from marching?' He said, ‘I saw a man who did so even before you,” meaning Ibn al-Zubayr. She then said, “Had you admonished me not to march, I would not have gone out.”
Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H/1328 A.D.) has said, “When ‘Uthman was killed and people swore the oath of allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib (‘a), who was then the most worthy of being the caliph and the best of the remaining Sahabah, the views were, nevertheless, diverse and the fire of dissension was lit.
There was no complete unity, nor could the caliph, nor those who were the best among the nation, realize all their plans for the goodness of the nation till the Haruri renegades [the people of Harura] rose to fight the Commander of the Faithful ‘Ali (‘a) and those who supported him. In obedience to the Command of Allah Almighty and that of the Messenger of Allah (S), he killed them.
The Prophet (S) had said, ‘The renegade group must be killed [even] by the closest of both parties to righteousness.' ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib (‘a) and those with him were the ones who fought them. Based on the statement of the Prophet (S), ‘Ali and his followers are closer to the truth than Mu’awiyah and his party.”
He has also said, “Any Shi’a group admits that Mu’awiyah could never be compared with ‘Ali (‘a) in as far as the caliphate is concerned, and he could not be a caliph while ‘Ali (‘a), too, was the caliph. ‘Ali's feats, his being the foremost to accept Islam, his knowledge, piety, courage, and all his virtues were quite obvious and well known to everyone.
None among the ahl al-shura [those named by Abu Bakr as members of the advisory committee] remained except he and Sa’d. The latter had already abandoned such a subject, and ‘Uthman had already died; so, none remained except ‘Ali.”
Al-Zayla’i (d. 762 A.H/1361 A.D.) has said, “Right was in the hand of ‘Ali (‘a) when his turn came [to lead the Muslims]. The proof is in the statement of the Prophet (S) to ‘Ammar: ‘The transgressing party shall kill you.' There is no contention that he [‘Ammar] was on ‘Ali's side when Mu’awiyah's followers killed him.
Then they were unanimous in regarding ‘Ali as being on the right track when he fought the fellows of the Camel, namely Talhah, al-Zubayr, ‘Ayisha, and those who supported them, as well as the fellows of Siffin, namely Mu’awiyah and his army.” He goes on to say, “When ‘Ali (‘a) became the caliph, while Mu’awiyah was in Syria, the latter said, ‘I shall not offer him anything, nor shall I swear the oath of allegiance to him nor visit him.'”
Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 751 A.H/1351 A.D.) has said,“During his time, ‘Ali was the foremost of the nation and the very best, and there was none when he took charge better than him.”
Abu ‘Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Muflih, the Hanbali scholar (d. 763 A.H/1362 A.D.), has said,“‘Ali (‘a) was the closest to righteousness than Mu’awiyah and the most fair in fighting those who transgressed. There were those who sided with ‘Ali and those who refrained.”
Ibn Hubayrah depends on Ubayy'shadith
to advocate that people should renounce taking to arms during dissension, meaning when ‘Uthman was killed. As regarding what happened thereafter, none among the Muslims supported the notion that anybody was excused for lagging behind without supporting ‘Ali (‘a). And when Sa’d, Ibn ‘Umar, Usamah, Muhammad Ibn Maslamah, Masruq, and al-Ahnaf did so, they all regretted it.
On his death bed, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, for example, said, “I am leaving this world and there is no bigger sigh in my heart than having been reluctant to support ‘Ali (‘a).” The same has been reported about Masruq and others because of such reluctance.167 Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani (d. 852 A.H/1449 A.D.) has said, “Imam ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib was on the right track when he fought those who waged against him the wars of the Camel, Siffin, and others.”
Mahmud Ibn Hajar al-Haythami (d. 974 A.H/1567 A.D.) has said,“The people of the Camel and of Siffin charged ‘Ali (‘a) of collaborating with those who murdered ‘Uthman while he was innocent of it, and far he was from doing something like that.”
He goes on to say,“A religious authority is bound to fight those who transgress because the Sahabah have all conceded that this should be the case, and that he should not fight them before sending them a discreet, equitable, and trustworthy person to advise them and to inquire about their reasons for disobeying him in accordance with the incident when ‘Ali (‘a) sent Ibn ‘Abbas to the Kharijites at al-Nahrawan, thus causing some of them to return to his obedience.”
The discussion between Ibn ‘Abbas and the Kharijites is detailed on p. 48 of Khasa’is Amir al-Mu’minin by al-Nasa'i.
Al-Shihab al-Khafaji (d. 1100 A.H/1689 A.D.) has said, “The Prophet's statement to ‘Ammar: ‘The transgressing party shall kill you,' and the fact that the supporters of Mu’awiyah killed him at Siffin because he was supporting ‘Ali (‘a), is a clear indication that the righteous caliph was ‘Ali (‘a), and that Mu’awiyah was wrong in following his own personal views.
A transgressor is one who unfairly declares his mutiny against his leading Imam. Another hadith by him (‘a) and his progeny, says, ‘If people dispute, the son of Sumayya will always be right,' and the son of Sumayya is ‘Ammar who sided with ‘Ali (‘a). This is what we owe Allah to say: ‘Ali, Allah glorified his countenance, was right and justified in not arresting those who participated in killing ‘Uthman.”
Al-Shawkani (d. 1255 A.H/1840 A.D.) quotes a tradition of the Prophet, peace of Allah be upon him and his progeny, narrated by Abu Sa’id [al-Khudri] wherein he says,“My nation shall split into two parties between whom renegades will come out who should be killed by the closest party to
righteousness.” He says, “This proves that ‘Ali (‘a) and his supporters were right, whereas Mu’awiyah and his followers were wrong.”
Abul-Thana’ al-‘Alusi, the scholar of exegesis, has cited a number of Hanbali scholars advocating the necessity for killing those who transgress because ‘Ali (‘a) was too distracted, during his caliphate, with fighting the transgressors to be involved withjihad
. This means that fighting transgressors is better than participating injihad
. Then he documents how ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar [Ibn al-Khattab] regretted his reluctance to side with ‘Ali in fighting the transgressing party. Al-‘Alusi did not rebut it.
Muhammad Kurd ‘Ali has said,
“‘Ali did not violate the Sunnah when he dissociated himself from those who killed ‘Uthman. Those who participated in killing him belonged to most of the tribes, and they were very large in number. ‘Ali could not have faced them all by himself.
It was impossible for him to arrest them, or even to arrest some of them, since they supported him, even if he had known who they were. The incident took place against his wish, and it was not in his interest to enrage numerous tribes that supported him then.
‘Ali (‘a) used to swear by Allah that had the Umayyads required him to produce fifty truthful men from Banu Hashim to swear by Allah that he did not murder ‘Uthman, nor condoned his murder, he would have obliged.”
The above are texts excerpted from Sunni scholars' books testifying to the fact that ‘Ali (‘a) was more worthy of being the caliph than anyone else, and that whoever rebelled against him deserved to be fought till he returned to the right course. Such was the choice made by the best from among the Sahaba and the tabi’in. Among the latter was Uways al-Qarni who was a foot soldier during the Battle ofSiffin
.
‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-’As used to say, “I regretted nothing more than not fighting the transgressing party as Allah Almighty had commanded me to.” He used to narrate what the Prophet (S) used to say, that is, “Sumayya's son will be killed by the oppressive party,” and that the oppressive party was that of Mu’awiyah and his gang.
When he was asked about why he did not participate in the Battle of Siffin on ‘Ali's side, he produced an excuse which will not avail him on the Day of Judgment. Said he, “I never used a sword or a lance, but the Messenger of Allah (S) required me to obey my father, and I did.”
This is nothing but falsehood and deception. How could he find it palatable to oppose the truth by thus misinterpreting a statement made by the Prophet (S)? Does theShari’a
permit interpreting thehadith
as enjoining obedience to one's father if such obedience requires forsaking the obligations or committing what is prohibited? Of course not.
Obedience to the Imam who has received the oath of allegiance was mandatory on all Muslims, and theumma
then had no choice except to obey him and carry out his orders, and no obedience to one's father can take precedence over obedience to the Imam (‘a). The verse saying,
“And if they intimidate you so that you may associate with me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them” (Qur’an, Sura al’Ankabut, 29:8)
may be inclusive. The prohibited association referred to in this verse, therefore, may connote prohibiting forsaking obedience to Allah, Glory to Him. It implies prohibiting forsaking obedience to the Prophet (S) and to the Imam who has received the oath of allegiance from the Muslims. ‘Ayisha,
thereupon, used to perform her prayers in full when she marched to Bara to fight ‘Ali (‘a) because to shorten the prayers, in her view, was done when one travels in obedience to Allah's Commandments.
The sacredShari’a
has required the Imam of the nation to win his argument against anyone who rebelled against him and abandoned obedience to him by reminding him of Allah's incessant favours on His servants despite their rebellion and oppression.
Then he informs them that this vanishing life does not bring anyone who is immersed in his love for it except loss. He may do so by admonition and by citing Qur’anic verses in order to enlighten those whose desires blinded them, so that they may see the path of guidance and realize the shining truth.
The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) followed this plan of action which Islam canonized during the first three days after his calling upon his companions not to transgress the commandments of theShari’a
and not to rush to fight so that the other party might be the transgressing one that fought the believers, hence the argument against it would be established as the one that started the aggression.
He, peace of Allah be upon him and his infallible offspring, admonished the fellows of the Camel,Siffin
, and al-Nahrawan a great deal so that nobody would have any excuse when the books of deeds are spread wide open and every argument of those called upon by him and who insist on disputing with him and in being stubborn is refuted. Those who were guided by Allah to conviction were enlightened by the light of his guidance, whereas those who strayed from the path of righteousness were not.
0%
Author: Abd al Razzaq al-Muqarram
