Muawiya

The Early Sahaba Fought Alongside Imam 'ali (as)

In his attempt to play down the actions of Imam 'Ali (as), 'Abu Sulaiman had made this baseless claim:

With regards to Abu Sulaiman's claim that "many other of the first believers from the muhajireen and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight" - he has no evidence to support this claims and fails to cite even a single source. The fact is that the early converts the Muhajireen and Ansar WERE those that fought with Imam Ali (as) at Sifeen. This has even been admitted by the Sunni scholar Al Muhaddith Shah 'Abd al-'Aziz Dehlavi who in his book written against the Shi'a states:

"The title Shi'a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay'ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali's) caliphate.

They remained close to him, they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali's commands and prohibitions. The true Shi'a are these who came in 37 Hijri" (NB 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu'awiya at Sifeen). Tuhfa Ithna 'Ashariyyah, (Gift to the Twelvers) (Farsi edition p 18, publishers Sohail Academy, Lahore, Pakistan).

The Muhajireen and Ansar (Sahaba) were the Shi'a of Ali (as). One wonders how Abu Sulaiman claims that MANY Muhajireen and Ansar did not participate. Amongst those killed fighting alongside Imam 'Ali (as) were prominent companions including Khuzema bin Thabit (al Isti'ab Volume 1 page 437; Usdul Ghaba Volume 2 page 133 - Chapter Dhikr Khuzema), devotee of Rasulullah (s) Uways Qurni (Usdul Ghaba Volume 1 page 180; al Isti'ab Volume 1 page 123). One prominent Sahaba killed fighting under Maula 'Ali's banner was Hashim ibne Utbah. We learn in Usdul Ghaba Volume 5 page 277 that when Hashim ibne Utbah was killed, Abu Tufail Amar ibne Waseela said:

"you are a martyr because you fought an enemy of the Sunnah".

Usdul Ghaba vol. 5 page 277

We read in al Istiab Volume 3 page 229 that:

"Abdur Rahman Ibn Abdi narrates that eight hundred Sahaba who pledged allegiance at Ridwan fought alongside 'Ali at Sifeen".

Al Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Vol. 3, Page 229

This is a significat figure, particularly when one takes into account that the number of Sahaba who pledged allegiance at Ridhwan totalled 1400. With the passage of thirty yeas there is no doubt that many would have died whether via natural deaths or in the battlefield. Despite this fact, we learn that a significant number stood shoulder to shoulder with Imam 'Ali (as) at Sifeen.

It is indeed sad to see that the early Muslims knew where the truth lay and fought with 'Ali (as) whilst we have a defender of Mu'awiya writing some 1400 years later raising question marks on Imam Ali (as)'s position and defending and showering praise on his enemies.

Abu Sulaiman's refusal to describe Mu'awiya as a baghi

We then witness Abu Sulaiman's deviant interpretation of the Qur'an so as to protect Mu'awiya and apportion transgression to Imam Ali (as):

Ansar.org states:"Even if we supposed that the people who fought Ali were insurgents and not depending on personal interpretation of texts, then it would not be considered as a slander in their belief and their deservance in entering heaven. Almighty Allah says: "If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them:

but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just), The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers;

and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy." [Surat Al-Hujarat, verses 9 and 10] Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other. Then what about if one of them transgressed on the other thinking he is right? Does it prevent him from being an interpreter, wrong or right? "

One can see how desperate Nasibis get to protect their beloved Imam. He claims that:

Ansar.org states:"Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other"

The Qur'an says no such thing, it refers to one party transgressing:

"but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds" This is being done intentionally he is seeking to describe Imam Ali (as) as a baghi too, i.e. the battle was between two groups of baghis! Abu Sulaiman's refusal to acknowledge which party had transgressed is quite intentional, the moment his rebellion is proven then his actions can be condemned, which would be too much for him.

The fact is Mu'awiya and his party had refused to give baya to Imam Ali (as) and were defiantly opposing him. Is this not evidence of transgression, opposing the Khalifa of the time? Whilst his Nasibi leanings make it impossible to speak the truth we shall delve in to the matter to determine the Ahl'ul Sunnah definitions of a baghi.

Defining baghi (rebell)

Durre Mukhtar page 113:

"Baghi is one who indulges in an act that is not halaal. A baghi is one who opposes Imam-e-Haqqa". al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 16

"Baghi is one who refuses to obey Imam-e-Haqq and opposes him". The late scholar Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi in his 'Tafhim ul Qur'an' Volume 5 page 80 collates the opinions of the Ahl'ul Sunnah ulama about a 'baghi'. He writes:

"Ibne Khumman in Hidaya's commentary Fathul Qadir states that the scholars have declared that a baghi is he who disobeys the rightful Imam. Imam Shafii in Kitab ul-Umm states 'Baghi' is he who fights the Adil Imam. Imam Malik declared that it is a duty to fight those who oppose the 'Adil Imam [al Mudawanna]".

Mu'awiya became baghi because he fought Imam 'Ali (as)

Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyyah page 181 Chapter 7

"Anyone who knows Farsi and school child who read Jami Aqaid Ahl'ul Sunnah should know there's a jamaah that from Ali's khilfath up to Sulh Hasan Mu'awiya was a baghi because he didn't give bayya or obey the Rightful Imam" Sharh al Maqasid page 306:

"The aqeedah in Ahl'ul Sunnah is that the first baghi in Islam was Mu'awiya" Hidaya Page 134, Volume 3:

"Being a Judge under a Zaalim King is [permissible in the same way that one is appointed as a Judge under an Adil Imam, for example the Sahaba were Judges under Mu'awiya Zaalim even though the truth was with 'Ali" Naylul Autar page 187 Volume 7:

"In hadith it is proven that Hadhrath 'Ali was on the path of truth and Mu'awiya and his companions were on falsehood. Only a stubborn person will deny this".

al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 22:

"Mu'awiya and his companions are baghis without a doubt and they are Qasitoon, Allah says Qasithoon are in deepest part of Hell". In Al Milal wa al Nihal by Allamah Shahrastani in Volume 1 page 103 cites the comments of the Sahabi Abul Hasan Ashari who expressed a clear opinion namely that:

"Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas fought against the rightful Imam. Ali fought the rebels, he was with the truth and the truth was with him Mu'awiya's rebellion was in violation of the Qur'an Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:

"O you who believe! Obey Allah and his Apostle and those in authority among you". (Al-Quran, Surah Nisa, Verse 59) It is interesting that 'Abu Sulaiman has failed to comment on this verse in his lengthy article. This is a clear verse that proves beyond a doubt that Mu'awiya's opposition was one that contravened the Book of Allah (swt). This verse provides no room for manoeuvre. Obedience to those in authority is on par with obedience to Allah (swt) and the Prophet (s). This means that disobeying the Leader amounts to disobeying Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). The verse is absolutely clear. How can anyone interpret this verse as entitling someone to rebel against a leader. Anyone who does so is a rebel.

Now we ask:

Does Imam Ali (as) not come within this verse?

Was he not 'those in authority'?

Is he not the fourth rightly guided khalifa?

Did Mu'awiya obey him?

In accordance with this verse and the definitions of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Mu'awiya's disobedience of Imam Ali (as) had made him a rebel. His entire rebellion was baseless since the Qur'an would not support it. He had no text to justify his actions he was on the path of falsehood and had led his supporters down that same slippery road of deviance.

Mu'awiya's rebellion was in violation to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)

If this verse of the Qur'an is not a sufficient indictment against Mu'awiya, then we also have this hadith in Sahih Muslim "Kitab al Imara" Book 020, Number 4557:

It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims - then he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahilliyya.

And he who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride and fights for his tribe-is not from my Umma, and whoso from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower).

Mu'awiya openly violated this tradition. He refused to obey Imam 'Ali (as), he separated from the main body misleading others in the process. The seriousness of this tradition is clear one who separates and died "would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahilliyya" i.e. he would die a kaafir. Rasulullah (s) did not provide any defense for such individuals. He did not say that they would be rewarded having exercised ijtihad, he said that the perpetrators were not his followers.

This is in relation to those that rebel against any Leader, with regards to those that rebel against Imam 'Ali (as) we read in al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 36 that Rasulullah (s) said:

"If anyone fights Ali's Khilafath, kill him". Rasulullah offered no excuses for the opponents of Imam 'Ali (as), all who come against Imam 'Ali (as) should be killed; clearly Mu'awiya comes within this hadith. Mu'awiya was from amongst Qasateen (those refrained from giving bayya to Imam e Haqq) Usdul Ghaba page 114 V 4 Abu Sa'id narrates:

"Rasul ordered us to fight Nakisheen, Qasatheen and Marakeen. We asked under who? He said Ali ibn abi Talib! .. Amar will be killed in this war". Matalib al Sa'ul p 68 "Sahaba and Ayesha fought Ali and they were amongst oath breakers. Ali fought Mu'awiya and he was amongst the Qasatheen" Sharh al Maqasid Volume 2 page 304:

"Rasulullah (s) said to Ali 'Nakisheen, Qasatheen and Marakeen will fight you'. Mu'awiya and his companions were Qasatheen they left the truth, which was to follow Ali and give him bayya".

Of relevance here is the admission of the darling of the Nasibis, Ibn Taymeeya, who writes in Minhaj al Sunnah page 210 Volume 3 "Dhikr Mu'awiya": "During Ali's reign the most entitled person to be the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s) was 'Ali. He was a rightly guided khalifa and to obey him was mandatory"

So from this Nasibis own pen we have an admission that 'Ali was the rightful Imam and that it was mandatory to obey him. From the hadith mentioned before it is clear that those who refuse to submit to the Rightful Imam and oppose him, are deemed as Qasatheen. The duty was to obey Imam Ali (as) and yet Mu'awiyah and his supporters refused to recognise his authority and give him bayya, hence they were the Qasatheen.

Mu'awiya was amongst the Fajireen (perpetrators of debauchery)

Fara'id us Simtayn page 157 Kifaya al Talib p 221 Ch 58 Mawaddatul al Qurba p 45 Manaqib al Khawarazmi p 11 Nuzul ul Abrar "Dhikr Fadail Ali" p24 Kunuz al Haqaiq v 2 page 16 Jami' al Sagheer v 2 p 65 Qurrat al 'Aynayn p 141 Maula wa Mu'awiya p 141 al Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 129

All the above books record traditions in which Rasulullah (s) referred to Imam 'Ali (as) as the killer of the Fajireen:

For example in Nuzul ul Abrar Chapter "Dhikr Fadail Ali" p24 we read that The Prophet (s) said:

"O 'Ali you are the Imam of the pious and the slayer of those that are fasiq and fajireen" In al Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 129, we read a more lengthy tradition: "'Ali is Imam of the pious and killer of the fajireen. Aided will be those that aid him, abandoned shall be those that abandon him".

al Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol. 3, Page 129

In addition to this we have the comments of Imam 'Ali (as) taken from Tareekh Tabari Volume 4 page 77: "The Fajir son of a fajir is Mu'awiya and the fajir son of a kafir is Amr bin Aas"

Abu Sulaiman's plea that both parties were believers

Ansar.org states:[Surat Al-Hujarat, verses 9 and 10] "Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other".

We are not suggesting that Imam Ali (as) was fighting the Kuffar, he was fighting believers. Since the duty is to fight until the transgressors accept the truth, the verse makes it clear that believers can be wrong and when they transgress one is permitted to fight them. Perhaps Abu Sulaiman could elaborate 'What if this group of believer's don't accept the truth and are killed while they were still transgressors? Will they still be equal to those who were on the path of truth? This clearly cannot be the case and Allah (swt) says "Are a Momin and Fasiq equal? certainly not". The Ulema of Ahl'ul Sunnah have been uncompromising in the criticisms of a baghi.

To rebel against the Imam is tantamount to Zina in a Mosque Naylul Atar page 1893 Volume 7 Mu'awiya instituted the bid'ah of cursing Imam Ali (as) In his attempt to protect his Nasibi Imam, Abu Sulaiman vigorously seeks to deny the historically established fact that Imam Ali (as) was cursed by Mu'awiya. He claims:

Ansar.org states:It is a lie that Mu'awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu'awiya's biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians presents these words about Mu'awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories.

In addition, most of these historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them.

This being the case then what facts of history should we accept, only those that support Nasibi's and defame Shi'a? Abu Sulaiman is stating that anything that agrees with the Shi'a must be false on account of Shi'a influence. By the same logic anything that supports Nasibi must also be false as it is based on Nasibi influence.

Evidence of the tradition of cursing Ali and Mu'awiya being at its heart can be found in a vast array of books of leading scholars of Ahl'ul Sunnah. The books of Tarikh, Sirah and hadith are replete with the fact that Mu'awiya introduced the bidah of cursing Imam of Guidance, Ammerul Momineen Ali (as), in his Kingdom. If we are to accept Abu Sulaiman's absurd claim then he is in effect suggesting that all the classical Sunni historians were duped and into narrating this fable.

It would be one thing if this alleged fabrication could only be located in scarcely known extant works, but the fact is that leading scholars of Ahl'ul Sunnah have narrated that Imam 'Ali (as) was indeed reviled during the reign of Banu Umayya upon the specific orders of Mu'awiya bin Hind. Abu Sulaiman's attempts to hide this fact is in vain to suggest that most of the historians (who narrated this) are Shia rather than Sunni who would never find fault with Mu'awiya, laughable notion.

Especially for him and those wishing to examine the matter further we shall insha'allah present a list of references where you can locate this episode. We then leave it to readers to decided whether there is indeed any basis for Abu Sulaiman's claims that this event never happened, did all these historians get it wrong?