In their books on jurisprudence and faith, Sunni scholars have raised the question: Is it obligatory to obey a sinf ul-and tyrant ruler?

Shaykh Abu Zahra writes in al-Mazahib al-Islamiyyah: Ibn Hanbal, Shafei and Malik say: “One should be patient in facing the injustice of rulers.”

At the end of Qazi Abdur Rahman Eiji's1Al-Mawaqif, Part Eight and Sayyid Sharif Jurjani's2Sharh Mawaqif it is stated:

“The Murji’ah3 believe that if a person has perfect faith, his sins cannot cause any harm to him and if he is a disbeliever, his good deeds would bring him no profit. Another group believes that faith means belief in Allah, humility before Him and sincere love for Him. Whoever possesses these qualities, is a believer; and disobedience toward Allah and sins would not cause any harm to him.

On the basis of this belief, in their view, it is not allowed to rise against a tyrant ruler, who makes light of the religion of Allah and oppresses the people. This is because it would result in disunity among Muslims and destroy peace and security of the society. After that, the book quotes a tradition from Abu Bakr that the Holy Prophet said:

“When mischief has spread, it will be better to sit down than to walk, and it will be better to walk than to run here and there, and running here and there will be better than getting involved in mischief.”

“When mischief had spread (you must disperse); he that owns camels or sheep should go out to graze them in the forest, and one who has agricultural land should get busy in farming.”

Someone asked: “O Messenger of Allah (S), what should one do, if one does not have camels, sheep or land?” The Prophet replied: “He should whack his sword on a rock and break it.”4

Such narrations are indeed fabrications by the past and present scholars who support the tyrant rulers, just as they have interpreted the Qur’an to please the rulers and to protect their interests.

Shaykh Abu Zahra has quoted such a fabricated tradition,5 from Sahih Bukhari, that the Holy Prophet said:

“If a person obtains power and disobeys Allah; one who observes his sins should hate them but should not raise his hand to fight against him.”

In addition to these fabricated tradition reports, Asha‘iras believe that the actions of man in this world are bound by destiny and whatever he does is according to the Divine decree.6

Whatever is mentioned above is the belief of Ahl Sunnah. However, Shi’as believe that man is free in his actions and Allah has not compelled him to transgress. Man is answerable for his own deeds. Caliphate is a Divine right vested in Ali (‘a), descendants of Ali (‘a) and their representatives. Shi’as have been indulgent to just rulers and have cooperated with them. They say that a just infidel ruler is better than a Muslim ruler who commits injustice.

It is a well-known statement of Sayyid Ibn Tawus that: “A just disbeliever is better than an unjust Muslim.” Allamah Baqjr Majlisi has also mentioned in Bihar ul-Anwar: “The State can survive with infidelity but not with injustice.”

Sharif Razi, the compiler of Nahj ul-Balagha, has said about Umar Ibn Abd ul-Aziz: “If it is agreed that people should weep for Bani Umayyah, 1 would shed tears for you.”7

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a) says: ''One who obeys the sinners is faithless.”

Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (‘a) says: “One who causes Allah's annoyance for the sake of pleasing an unjust ruler, stands expelled from Allah's religion.” ·

Imam Ali (‘a) has said: “It is not allowed to disobey the Creator for the sake of obeying the creatures.”

Cooperation With Unjust Regimes

Shi’a scholars believe that actions amounting to cooperation with oppressors are unlawful and are considered as greater sins.

During the reign of Haroon ar-Rashid, a man named Safwan owned some camels that he used to rent out, and this was his occupation. Haroon had hired some of his camels to go for Hajj. One day Safwan called to meet Imam Musa al-Kazim (‘a), and the following conversation ensued:

Imam: All your actions are good, except one.

Safwan: What is it, Maula?

Imam: Renting camels to Haroon.

Safwan: (I swear) By Allah, I have not hired out the camels to him that he might oppress or go hunting and undertake pleasure trips. I hired them to him for Hajj. Also, my servants hold the charge of those camels, not me.

Imam: Does Haroon owe you the rental charge?

Safwan: Yes sir.

Imam: Do you wish that he may live and pay you the rentals?

Safwan: Yes.

Imam: One who wishes for such persons to live is reckoned to be one of them and one who is of them would go to Hell.

Hearing this Safwan went to the market and sold all his camels. When Haroon heard about it, he summoned Safwan and said: I heard that you have sold all your camels?

Safwan: Yes, I have sold away my camels.

Haroon: Why have you done this?

Safwan: I have become old and cannot remain with the camels, and my servants also cannot look after them properly.

Haroon: No, it is not so. I know whose hint you followed in doing this. Musa Ibn Ja'far must have advised you to dispose the camels.

Safwan: What have I to do with Musa Ibn Ja'far?

Haroon said: Leave it! But for the good friendship between us, I would have killed you.

Letter By Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq To Mansur

Mansur wrote to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq: Why you don 't come and see me like other people?

Imam (‘a) wrote in reply: I do not possess anything about which I fear that you will take it away, and you don't have anything that can be of use to me in the Hereafter. Also, you are not blessed with anything for which I may congratulate you and neither are you in such a suffering that I should offer you condolence.”

Mansur then wrote: Come and advise me.

Imam (‘a) replied: One who desires the world will not advise you and one who seeks the hereafter will not befriend you.

Mansur said: By Allah! Abu Abdillah has clarified the position of the people to me and told me about the difference between the seekers of the world and seekers of the hereafter.

Numerous events like this are found in history, which show why the Shi’a religious authorities of Najaf al-Ashraf, Qom and other cities do not interfere in governmental affairs and why they remain aloof from politicians. Their style also shows that they have inherited this line of action from the purified imams (‘a).

Participation In Governmental Affairs

Some Shi’a scholars have ruled that it is unlawful to participate in governmental affairs. It is only allowed to take part in matters that are in the interest of the believers, and those that are intended to save them from injustice. Apart from these, it is unlawful to participate in any affair of the government, even though it may only be partial.

In fact, the Shi’a jurists have also expressed views regarding the conduct of tyrant rulers. For example, they have laid down ‘justice’ as the condition for qualification as leader of Friday and congregational prayers while most rulers of Islamic states have led these prayers. And it is essential if the people are aware that the person leading the prayer is a sinner and oppressor, their prayers behind him would be invalid. This condition of ‘justice’ shows that the criteria for absolute leadership are not confined to merely honesty and sincerity. It is also necessary for the leader to be just.

Shi’a jurists have also ruled that singing and dancing, playing musical instruments, sportive hunting and revelries are unlawful even though the rulers themselves have indulged in these acts and provided facilities for people. These were clearly opposed to the verdict of jurists and proves the sinfulness of the rulers.

It shows that the origin of Shi’a faith is based on opposition against corruption and injustice. Hence if a ruler takes steps to destroy the Shi’as, it is not something new. All despotic regimes have acted in this way.

Oppressive And Pseudo-Religious Regimes

Oppressive and tyrannical regimes plunder the property of the people, persecute free people, and play with their lives. In this atmosphere of injustice, they select unscrupulous Mullahs (clerics) who legitimize their crimes and give them a religious hue.

Mu’awiyyah had chosen Abu Huraira Doosi8 and Samra Ibn Jundab9 to fabricate traditions that were designed for character assassination directed at Imam Ali (‘a); and attribute these sayings to the Holy Prophet (S) so that his profligate son, Yazid, is shown to be so religious that he could dare say: “Husayn was killed by the sword of his grandfather!”

An Imam of Ahl Sunnah, Hasan al-Basri10 said: “Howsoever oppressive the kings of Bani Umayyah may be, it is obligatory to obey them ...I swear by Allah that their merits are more than their defects.”

As the Urdu poet says: The faqih (jurist) is lamenting the situation of the town. God and Muhammad and Prayer Niche and Pulpit.

The Abbasid rulers also had a large number of such sycophants in their service. In contrast to the attitude of these sycophants, Shi’a imams, intellectuals and poets have taken a stand against despotic regimes. They have not cooperated with the oppressors because according to the Shi’a belief, to confront falsehood in a resolute way and to sacrifice one's life in the path of Allah is the true success.11

Doubtlessly, tyrant regimes have not forgotten this belief of the Shi’as. They killed the Shi’as, subjected them to various kinds of hardships and exiled them from the country. They also ‘purchased’ the faith of some pseudo-religious men and declared that those believers who sincerely believe in Allah, His prophet, and his purified imams (‘a) should be eliminated. This happened while their pseudo religious sycophants who have sold out their faith approved these wanton killings and extend legitimacy to them.

Oppression Of Shi’as By Means Of Religious Literature

It is not a matter of surprise that pseudo-religious persons - after selling their faith to the Satan - raise the slogan that Shi’as are heretics and issued verdicts of killing them. Just as in the present age we have yellow journalism that writes in favour of the capitalists and imperialists, in the past there also existed writers who wrote to please the tyrannical regimes.

It is nothing new. What is new is that we trust, without investigation, statements of the writers attached to the regimes and consider their books to be heavenly scriptures. So, we should make an unbiased survey of history books and purify them of fabricated materials, especially those books that introduce different sects, because the writers in the past also used to accept bribes and wrote what pleased the regimes. It is like journalism of our time, which repeats lies so frequently that people think it is true.

When a writer intends to discuss an Islamic sect, he should refer to the authentic books of that same sect and understand it with the help of its own representative literature.

Shi’as In The View Of Ahmad Amin

As we mentioned, the Murji’ah, the Ahl Al-Sunna in general - and the imams of Ahl Al-Sunna, such as Imam Malik, Imam Shafei, Imam Ahmad and Imam Hasan al-Basri - all consider that obedience to oppressive regimes is necessary. According to them, persecutions by the regimes should be accepted as decrees of fate, and one must not rise in revolt against the rulers. However, the Shi’a population consider revolt against tyrant rulers as necessary.

On this point, Shi’a belief is exactly opposite to the Sunni view. In the view of many followers of Ahl Al-Sunna, fighting against tyrant regimes is like fighting against Islam. Meanwhile, Shi’as say that one of the fundamentals of religion is the campaign against mischief and corruption. In light of this principle, we can understand the statement of Ahmad Amin (an Egyptian author), and other Ahl Al-Sunna who say: “A Shi’a can be one who wants to destroy Islam!”

This is the view of Ahmad Amin and his predecessors who had views like him, because in their view Islam is embodied in the person of a ruler, whether he be just or oppressive, and whoever fights against such a ruler, revolts against Islam.

However, according to Shi’as, a tyrant ruler destroys the laws of Islam and tramples upon Islamic teachings. Thus, one who fights against such tyrant rulers supports the faith and acts according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. We are therefore not surprised if Ahmad Amin says that Shi’a are 'destroyers', because they are in fact those who destroy the foundations of corruption, injustice, and ignorance.

We quote below from the book titled Ali wa al-Qaumiyat ul-Arabiya by a Christian intellectual, George Jordac, wherein the author says under the heading “Maa'ath-Thaireen.”

“Followers of Ali (‘a) represent those who campaign against the despotic regimes of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. They took up confrontation with these despotic regimes in order to uproot injustice and despotism.”

“With this goal, Shi’as undertook to defend the rights of the oppressed and helpless people. In the history of Shi’as, we find many courageous personalities loyal to the goal of eradicating various types of injustice, who fought against oppression and acquired the honour fulfilling the wishes of Ali (‘a).''

“Shi’a interpretation of religion does not strengthen the interests of traitors; it benefits common people. It is for this reason that the oppressed Arabs, slaves and Zimmis12 supported those leaders who were descendants of Ali (‘a).''

“Despite having been through the various phases during different ages, there is no change in the revolutionary ideology of Shi’as, and the vicissitude of time has not brought any change to it. This school still conforms to the aspirations of the oppressed and the deprived, and aspirations of Ali (‘a).”

''If we undertake a survey of those revolutionary movements during the reigns by Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas that took place in Hijaz, Iraq, Syria. Iran and Africa etc. - against oppression and despotism - we would find that the leader of the oppressed was Ali (‘a). If we scrutinize the aim of those revolutionaries, who shook the East for centuries, we will find that the aim of all of them was the establishment of social justice for which Ali (‘a) fought, to which Ali (‘a) invited the people, and in the path of which Ali (‘a) was martyred.

In the same way, we see that many sacrifices were made in the path of friendship with Ali (‘a). To all the Muslims, Christians, Westerns, slaves and those who were persecuted and whose rights were usurped, Ali is their standard bearer, and his teachings are guidelines for them.”

“The name of Imam Ali is chanted by the oppressed and seekers of justice and only he is their sanctuary. Whoever rises against a tyrant considers himself under the protection of Ali (‘a) and it was him who campaigned against corruption, mischief, and injustice. Therefore, their revolution is a fulfilment of Ali’s aspiration. Ali’s name is associated with their reforms that people crave for, and only his name is associated with good deeds that people who are placed in oppressive environments are hopeful for.”

“Thus, Shi’a faith is the refuge for the oppressed and deprived classes of the society and is the standard bearer for the defenders of those whose rights are usurped. These statements expose the erroneous attitude of Ahmad Amin that the Shi’a faith is responsible for the destruction of Islam and discord between Arabs.” (End of quotation from the book by George Jordac).

Thus, there is no doubt that the foundation of Islam was destroyed by those who made truth deviate from its path and having diverted it from its source (the family of the Holy Prophet) and exposed it to the avarice of illegitimately born and ‘freed captives’.13 The foundation of Islam was destroyed by those who made the ‘mother of the faithful’14 mount a camel and roam the rough cities and deserts. The foundation of Islam was destroyed by those who initially instigated people to kill Uthman - and then on the pretext of retaliation - waged war against the rightful successor of the prophet and fought him at Basra and Siffin. The split in Islam and amongst the Arabs was created by those who poisoned Imam Hasan (‘a) and martyred Imam Husayn (‘a).

It was Mu’awiyyah, Yazid, Talha and Zubair and their associates who destroyed the foundation of Islam and Arab brotherhood. It has no connection with the Shi’as.

Imam Ali (‘A) And The Quraish

The Almighty Allah had bestowed significant wealth on His prophet and his family from surrendered property (fayy) and confiscated war booty (ghanimah): Fayy is obtained without the effort of anyone or without a battle, while khums (literally meaning a part equivalent to a fifth) of ghanimah is as specified by Qur’an:

“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer…” (8:41).

Whatever used to be the share of the Holy Prophet (S) from war booty like swords, horses, and clothes etc. he used to distribute among the people. His daughter, Lady Fatimah az-Zahra and his grandsons Hasan and Husayn and his cousin and son-in-law, Ali used to starve for days at end. Their house consisted of mud wall and thatched roof.

Lady Fatimah worked the handmill so much that her hands became rough and carried water skins so frequently to her house that her neck had scars.

One day Lady Fatimah came to her venerable father and requested him for a maidservant. His Eminence said: “Fear Allah, recite obligatory prayers, look after your household work and when you go to bed recite: 'Subhaana Allah ' 33 times, 'Al-hamdu li-Lla ' 33 times and 'Allahu Akbar' 34 times. It is better for you than getting a maidservant.”

When once Lady Fatimah became indisposed and was confined to bed, the Holy Prophet visited her. He asked about her health and well-being. She replied: “Dear father, my ailment becomes more severe in the absence of food.” The prophet of Allah began to weep and said: “Do you not want to be the chief of the ladies of the world?” Such was the private life of the guide of Muslims and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet, Ali (‘a).

Imam Ali (‘A) During The Period Of The Holy Prophet

During the lifetime of prophet, despite so many difficulties, Ali crushed the heroes of the Quraish in battles. He always acted as a bodyguard of the Holy Prophet (S) and protected him and stood shoulder to shoulder with the prophet in every situation while others ran away from the battlefield or continued enjoying all amenities of life.

After his appointment as prophet, the Messenger of Allah (S) spent thirteen years in Mecca suffering persecution by the Quraish. During this period Imam Ali (‘a) also bore all hardships with determination. Bani Hashim remained confined in Sheb-e-Abu Talib for three years. The Quraish severed all connections with them and didn't even supply rations to them.

Obviously, it was a time of severe hardships and scarcity, but the Quraish took no pity on them. Throughout these three years, Imam Ali (‘a), his brothers and his father remained with the Holy Prophet like a shadow. When the prophet came out of the valley, thousands of hardships awaited him. He was ridiculed and called a magician and a lunatic.

Umm Jamil, the wife of Abu Lahab and paternal aunt of Mu’awiyyah, used to scatter thorns on his path. One day the Holy Prophet (S) was performing prayer and while he was in prostration (sajdah), the wicked Uqbah Ibn Abi Muit placed his foot on his neck and pressed it so hard that the prophet thought his eyes would pop out. On another occasion, when the prophet was also in prostration, Uqbah threw sheep gut on his head. Still at another time, when the prophet was circling the holy Kaaba, Uqbah put his turban around the neck of prophet and dragged him out of the House of Kaaba.15

Imam Ali's Loyalty

Whenever the polytheists of Mecca saw the prophet in the street, they instigated children to pelt stones at him. However, Imam Ali (‘a) who used to accompany him would drive them away. During the time of the persecution by the Quraish and the polytheists, His Eminence Abu Talib supported the prophet with complete steadfastness and till the end of his life, he continued to protect and support the prophet.

After the passing of His Eminence Abu Talib, the Quraish devised a plot to eliminate the prophet while he was asleep. On learning about this plot, Imam Ali (‘a) asked the Holy Prophet (S): ''O, Messenger of Allah (S), would your life be saved if I sleep in your bed?” The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Yes.” Imam Ali (‘a) said: If you are safe, I don’t care about death.” So, covering himself with a green sheet, he slept peacefully in the prophet's bed during the night of migration.

As a specimen of the hardships that the Muslims and the prophet had to endure at the hands of polytheists, it is sufficient to note that the treatment they meted out to Bilal, Khabbab, Ammar, Ammar’s father, Yasir, and Ammar’s mother, Sumayya (r.a). The polytheists handed over Bilal to children and mentally unsound people, who tied him up with a rope and dragged him around. They told him: We would not release you till you utter the names of Laat and Uzza.16 Bilal, however, only said “Ahad, Ahad!”17

They placed heavy boulders on the chests of Yasir and Sumayya and attacked them with spears saying: Give up the worship of Allah and obeying Muhammad. They suffered so much that eventually Sumayya breathed her last as a result of the wounds inflicted by Abu Jahl with his spear. She became the first martyr of Islam. Khabbab Ibn Arat was made to wear a coat of mail and was exposed to the scorching heat which made him suffer severely.

If His Eminence, Abu Talib had not endured those hardships, Islam would have been nipped in the bud and would not have illuminated the world with its light. However, when he breathed his last, the prophet had not yet firmly established himself. The polytheists thought that after the death of Abu Talib, they would be able to eliminate the prophet. So, they hatched a plot to kill him. But Imam Ali (‘a) defended him like his father had done.

Imam Ali After The Prophet's Passing

Whatever has been said about the self-sacrifice of Imam Ali in battles and people's grudges against him is related to the time of the Holy Prophet. After the prophet, allegiance was given to Abu Bakr at Saqifah Bani Sa’adah without consulting Imam Ali (‘a) and without the participation of the Bani Hashim clan and the supporters of Imam A li (‘a).18 He had not yet recovered from the shock of the prophet's demise when another calamity befell him.19

Yes! The caliphate (rulership) was usurped. Two tragic events affected his heart very quickly and at the same time. Yet, for the sake of Islam's advancement, he did not say anything to Abu Bakr on this matter. He maintained this attitude despite some distinguished companions - having met him openly and in secret - urging him to rise and regain his right.

They assured him that they were prepared to lay down their lives for his sake. But Imam Ali did not accept their advice and said: “Be patient in order to avoid bloodshed and preserve public interests.” When the opponents realized that Ali would not take up the sword to defend his right, they compelled him to either fight or pay allegiance.

Imam Ali had no choice but to remain patient and ignore his right. Therefore, he left Abu Bakr and Umar to themselves and did not speak to them about his right to caliphate. But they did not leave Imam Ali (‘a) alone. They confiscated the Fadak orchard, which the Holy Prophet (S) had gifted to Lady Fatimah, and they did not accept the arguments advanced by Imam Ali (‘a).

They rejected the claim of Lady Fatimah, the honourable daughter of the Messenger of God, whose infallibility is certified in the ‘Verse of Purification’ and whom the prophet has taken along with himself in accordance with Allah's command at the time of imprecation duel20 with the Christians of Najran. The participation of Lady Fatimah is described in the Qur’an in the following way:

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

The power elites were so severe with Imam Ali that they stormed his house. They wanted to set ablaze the blessed house, in which Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Husayn (‘a) and some other members of Bani Hashim were present.21 ' Imam Ali ignored even this offence of theirs so that they might not commit a still greater crime. Later they came and apologized to Imam Ali (‘a).

They behaved in such an offensive way towards Ali about whom the Holy Prophet had said these:

“Ali is from me and I am from Ali.”

“Glancing at Ali's face is an act of worship.”

“Whoever hurts Ali, hurts me.”

Was Imam Ali guilty of any offence other than his excellence, knowledge, wisdom, faith, and precedence in embracing Islam? Had he any choice except remaining patient in the face of the crimes of those people?

Imam Ali (‘A) And Umar’s Shura Council

Umar took over the caliphate after Abu Bakr's death. He used to consult Imam Ali (‘a) on various matters and acted on his advice. None except Imam Ali (‘a) was aware of this.

Umar acknowledged Ali's superiority and often used to say:

“If Ali had not been there, Umar would have perished.”

“If Ali had occupied the seat of the caliphate, he would have guided you to the straight path.''

When people heard so much praise for Imam Ali, they thought Umar would appoint Imam Ali as caliph after him and thus the right would be restored to its owner. But when Umar’s death approached, he forgot all previous achievements of Imam Ali (‘a) and made him an equal to those persons who had no good antecedents.

Umar placed five persons22 at par with Imam Ali (‘a) and said:

“If Ali and Uthman reach an agreement with each other, their view would be correct. And if these six persons are divided into two groups, the view of the group of which Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf is a member should be taken as correct.”

He took this decision as he knew that Imam Ali and Uthman would not agree with each other and since Abdur Rahman was Uthman's brother-in-law, his vote shall go to Uthman. Then he ordered his son, Abdullah, that if these three do not carry out his wishes he should behead all six of them.

It is mentioned in Tarikh Tabari23 that when Umar selected the members of Shura Committee, he also remarked about the qualities of each of them. Addressing Talha he said:

“You are the one who said: When the Messenger of Allah (S) passes away, we shall marry his widows. Muhammad is not worthier than we are for our cousins. For this the Almighty Allah revealed this verse:

“And it does not behove you that you should give trouble to the Apostle of Allah, nor that you should marry his wives after him ever; surely this is grievous in the sight of Allah” (33:53).

Then he told Zubair: “I swear by Allah; your heart is not kind and merciful for a day and night. One day your heart is harsh and mean, and on another day, it becomes pious and obedient. Again, on another day you become faithless and hot tempered. In short, you are a Satan one day and kind the next.”

Then he addressed Uthman: “The dung of animals is better than you. If you become a caliph, you will make the descendants of Abi Muit dominate the people and if you do so you shall be killed.”

Then he told Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf: “You are a weak person. You would love your people so as to employ them.”

Then he said to Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas: “You possess the spirit of bias, intrigue, and bloodshed. Even if the strap of a water bag is given to you, you cannot take care of it.”

Then Umar said to Imam Ali (‘a): “If your faith is compared with the faith of all people of the world, your faith will be heavier:'“

Many contradictions are seen in the Shura committee formed by Umar. He said: “When the Holy Prophet departed from the world, he was pleased with these six persons.” Despite this, Umar disparaged all except one of them. This disparagement does not conform to his claim that they gained the pleasure of the Holy Prophet and their competence for rulership. Despite this, he nominated all of them for caliphate and at the same time he also considered killing them lawful.

It astonishes someone that if these persons were fit for caliphate and the prophet was pleased with them in his last days, how can Umar permit their murder? And if it was lawful to kill them, how can he select them for the caliphate?

On what basis did the group of three - that included Abdur Rahman - enjoy preference over the other group that included Imam Ali (‘a)? And why was the requisite authority not given to Abdur Rahman at the very outset? Why did Umar ignore the principle that the affairs of Muslims should be left to public vote? Why did he not select, from the members of the Shura Committee, the man he considered to be the best, as Abu Bakr did earlier?

These are questions that need satisfactory answers.

In his book, Al-Iqd ul-Farid,24 Ibn Abd Rabb has narrated the following conversation between Mu’awiyyah and Ibn Haseen:

Mu’awiyyah: What was the cause for differences and deviation among Muslims?

Ibn Haseen: Uthman's murder.

Mu’awiyyah: You said nothing new.

Ibn Haseen: Ali's confrontation with you.

Mu’awiyyah: It is not correct.

Ibn Haseen: Ali's confrontation with Talha, Zubair and Ayesha.

Mu’awiyyah: It is nothing new.

Ibn Haseen: I do not know more than what I have said.

Mu’awiyyah: Differences appeared among the Muslims as a result of the Shura committee instituted by Umar. This committee consisted of six persons, each of whom was a candidate for caliphate. Their kinsmen also wanted that caliphate should reach their man so he may hold a high post. So, differences cropped up amongst Muslims. If Umar had nominated one person to be his successor as Abu Bakr had done, the differences would not have developed.

Indeed, Mu’awiyyah and others like him who occupied the seats of authority acknowledged the invalidity of Uthman's right.

Imam Ali (‘A) And Uthman's Caliphate

Anyhow, pledge of allegiance Uthman's took place (and the result of the illegal Shura became manifest). Imam Ali (‘a) had no alternative but to remain patient as he had done at the time of the assumption of caliphate by Abu Bakr and Umar.

Not many days passed when some of those who had given allegiance to Uthman as well as others, came to Imam Ali (‘a) and requested him to depose Uthman from the caliphate. They placed their hands in the hand of Imam Ali (‘a) and said: We are ready to support you till our last breath. Imam Ali (‘a) did not heed their words and left Uthman and the Muslims to themselves so that Muslims may themselves judge their actions.

The reason for the restlessness and revolt of the Muslims was that the governors (appointed by Uthman) were changing the ways of the Holy Prophet. Uthman recalled to Medina a person who had been expelled by the Holy Prophet.25

Uthman used monies from the public treasury for largesse on his relatives. He had also allocated large amounts from the public treasury to himself. He exiled the distinguished companion of the prophet, Abu Dharr. He thrashed - with his stick - Abdullah Ibn Masood26, who was a righteous companion. He cancelled divine commands and did not punish Ubaidullah Ibn Umar, who murdered a Muslim man named Hurmuzan. Such acts of Uthman cause the public to revolt against him.27

After the assassination of Uthman, people gathered around Imam Ali (‘a). It is mentioned in Nahj ul-Balagha that: “The rush of the public terrified me. They were coming from all sides and Hasan and Husayn were almost trampled upon, and both the ends of my cloak were torn.”

They were shouting: “Only Ali is fit for caliphate.” Imam Ali (‘a) told them: “Leave me alone and make someone else the caliph.” They replied: “We shall not accept anyone else.” In short, they paid allegiance to Imam Ali (‘a) and thus placed him into a new difficulty.

Uthman had left behind many problems for the new government. He had appointed incapable governors who treated forbidden things as lawful. Uthman’s tax officers sucked people's blood and misappropriated their property in every part of the country. The behaviour of Uthman's tax collectors,28 and his preferential treatment of friends and relatives caused the rebels to entertain desire for rulership. As opposed to this thinking, some envious and inimical individuals were keen to take revenge and to retaliate. What could Imam Ali have done in such situations?

Imam Ali (‘a) could not lend support to the unjust and corrupt persons. He could not accept bribes from incompetent persons and appoint them to important positions. When he began to clean up the administration, some selfish individuals pressured him to retain them in their respective positions or extend their service.

When they saw the reality that Imam Ali (‘a) was not acting according to their dictates, they disassociated themselves from his government and joined Ayesha. This led to the Battle of the Camel. Some sycophants who were opposed to truth and justice gathered around Ayesha. They staged an uprising in association with Talha29, Zubayr30 and Bani Umayyah.

When Uthman was being besieged in his palace, Imam Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn were the ones who defended him whereas Ayesha, Talha and Zubair instigated the people to finish him. However, when Uthman was killed, these same individuals demanded retaliation for Uthman's blood.

Imam Ali (‘A) And The Battles Of The Camel And Siffin

Regarding the people of Jamal, Imam Ali (‘a) faced two difficulties:

1. If he remained quiet and allowed the rebels a free hand, it would have laid a wrong example and they would have made life miserable for the nation.

2. If he fought them, it would lead to bloodshed.

To solve these two difficulties, he resorted to giving counsel and advice. He requested Ayesha to return to her house. He also advised those who had broken the oath of allegiance to remain on the covenant. However, his recommendations did not have any positive effect. So, he was obliged to subdue the rebels and remove the mischief. Eventually the battle took place resulting in defeat of the rebels.

However, Imam Ali's difficulties did not end with this battle. Mu’awiyyah, son of Hind, was a sworn enemy of Allah, His messenger, Imam Ali, and the Muslims. The Holy Prophet (S) had freed Mu’awiyyah along with his father on the day of the conquest of Mecca. Mu’awiyyah had not helped Uthman in any way. But when he came to know that Imam Ali (‘a) had dismissed him from the governorship of Syria, he rose against the latter on the pretext of avenging Uthman's murder.

In the battle of Siffin when he was on the verge of defeat, he sought the advice of Amr Ibn Aas who told him to ask the ignorant people around him to raise the Qur’an on their spears and say: This will judge between you and me.

This deception created discord in the army of Imam Ali (‘a). They told Imam Ali (‘a) to accept Mu’awiyyah's proposal. The Imam tried by all means to explain to the people of Iraq that it was only a deception and that they must take the fighting to its logical end. Though they did not have anything to do with Qur’an or the shari’ah of the prophet, they did not obey him. One of them said to the other: “If Ali does not submit to the Qur’an, we shall kill him like Uthman or hand him over to Mu’awiyyah to treat him as he likes.”

Imam Ali realized that if he continued fighting, he himself and his sons would be killed, and the progeny of the Holy Prophet would become extinct. So, he accepted the proposal for arbitration. All the proceedings took place at Domat ul-Jundal. Imam Ali (‘a) decided to select Malik al-Ashtar or Ibn Abbas as his representative to forestall the deceit of Amr Ibn Aas. Again, there was discord in his army. They said: ''You will have to nominate Abu Musa Ashari as your representative.”

Imam Ali (‘a) was compelled to agree in the face of their persistence, as a result of which the arbitration ended in favour of Mu’awiyyah. When Imam Ali's army was defeated on account of their disobedience to Imam Ali (‘a) and the judgment was against them, they said to Imam Ali (‘a): “You should not have agreed with us in our mistake.” So, they rebelled against Imam Ali (‘a) and thus the Khawarij group was born.

What The Khawarij Said

The Khawarij said very strange things. Imam Ali (‘a) gave them proper advice and he was not prepared to nominate Abu Musa Ashari as his representative, but they did not accept what he said. And when he appointed Abu Musa as his representative and the decision went against him, the Khawarij said: “You must confess that you have ceased to be a Muslim, or we shall kill you.” It was because he had accepted their demand and appointed Abu Musa as his representative that the outcome went against them.

Now when he had accepted their demands, they still wanted to fight against him and kill him. Even if he had not accepted their demands and not nominated Abu Musa, they would still have fought against him. Would it not have been a shameful thing that after years of having fought for the advancement of Islam, Imam Ali (‘a) should have declared that he had become an infidel, while he is the pivot of religion, a personification of faith and a perfect specimen of truth. In the words of the Urdu poet, Ghalib:

Expression of divine bounties, the beloved of the last prophet, qibla of the progeny of the prophet, Kaaba of the invention of certainty.

Imam Ali's right was usurped but he remained patient. They made him waver between fighting and allegiance, but he did not mention it to them. In the Shura Committee, he was placed at par with unworthy people, but he ignored the matter. And when he remained patient with the attitude of Khawarij, they took up arms against him.

I don't think that any of the prophets and saints of Allah had faced so many difficulties and problems as Imam Ali (‘a) had. I swear by God, that, in a way, Karbala is not as tragic as Nahrawan. In Karbala, Imam Husayn fought against his enemy whereas Imam Ali (‘a) had to fight against those who had been in his army till the previous day. These people were those on whose foreheads were signs of excessive prostrations, and who fasted during daytime and offered midnight prayers and recited the Qur’an. But they considered shedding Imam Ali's blood lawful and were fighting against Allah and His prophet.31

Doubtlessly, difficulties experienced by Imam Ali (‘a) were due to the Quraish’s lack of regard for one of their own sons. They had joined hands to trample upon his rights and told him in a practical way that: Either put up patiently or die of grief. Imam Ali (‘a) continued to remain patient while his heart was consumed by grief, and he was facing a dilemma.

• 1. Died 786 A.H.
• 2. Died 816 A.H.
• 3. A group of scholastic theologians is called Murji’ah. By the grace of Allah, it has now become extinct. Their belief was that if the faith is perfect, no action has any adverse effect. Actually, there was a political motive for promoting this belief. These people existed during the period of Bani Umayyah and they were supported by the Umayyads. The Murji’ah wanted to legitimise the acts of the Umayyad rulers. I don't say this on my own, it is what history says.
  They used to say: Sir, if your faith is all right, deeds are not important. If you like, you can perform good deeds and if you don't like, you don't have to do anything: deeds are not at all important. When the Umayyad rule declined, the Abbasids, due to the enmity they bore against the Murji’ah, began to persecute the latter. But the pity is that the Murji’ah thinking has found root in Shi’a thinking. However, the incident that I will narrate will prove beyond any doubt that the true Shi’a faith is absolutely against this thinking.
  Ahmad Amin has quoted a report from Abu al-Faraj Isfahani's Aghani in his book, Dhuha al-Islam. Ahmad Amin is himself opposed to the Shi’as, but despite that, he has mentioned this narration.
  A person, whose name he had also mentioned, he used to say that a Shi’a and a Murji’ah were having a debate among themselves regarding their respective beliefs. One used to say that the principles of Murji’ah are more correct and the other said that the principles of Shi’as are truer.
  The Murji’ah was saying that deeds are not important. Faith is of paramount significance, whereas the Shi’a was saying that deeds are necessary. Just then a singer passed by (I am saying that he was a singer as the narration is from Aghani, which means song). The two said: let us ask him, because this man looks intelligent. So, they decided to ask him whether the Shi’as or the Murji’ah was right. At last, they went to him and asked what his faith was, and whether the Shi’as, or the Murji’ah were right. He replied: My upper portion is Shi’a and the lower one is Murji’ah. Meaning that I am a Shi’a by faith, but with regard to deeds, I am a Murji’ah. Though I believe in the Shi’a faith, I do not act accordingly.
  Now, we have to agree that we have become a community that is like the Murji’ah in thinking as well as behaviour and deeds. It can be said that our religious thinking is dead. And when our thinking has become like Murji’ah, our consequences will also be like them. When one thinks that deeds are not important, what will remain of the world? And what of the Hereafter? Can we command any respect? Can we remain the foremost? No, never.
  Our thinking must be reformed because our way of thinking about religion is wrong. I can dare say that except for some secondary matters related to acts of worship acts and transactions, our thinking is absolutely misplaced. Neither do we mention the right things in religious gatherings and sermons, nor do we write about them in our books and magazines. We also do not think along the right lines. Before we think of converting other people to Islam, we should consider our own position. Before we light the Masjid lamps, we should first illuminate our homes.
  Religion is life, it is movement, it is awakening. But which religion? The religion brought by the Holy Prophet (S)! At the same time religion is the opium of the masses. But which religion? The concoction that we have ourselves prepared. There is the famous tradition: “If innovation spreads among the people, it is the duty of the re1igious scholar to display his knowledge, otherwise he would become eligible for the curse of Allah.” (Ustad Murtaza Mutahhari, Sayings)
• 4. So that there is no chance of fighting against the rulers.
• 5. Al-Mazahib ul-Islamiyyah, Pg. 158.
• 6. Thus, destiny has compelled the rulers to oppress, and we should be patient with their oppression.
• 7. Because he was equitable and a well-wisher of the community.
• 8. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. Vol. 3. Pg. 166, Published by Dar ul-Ishaat. Karachi that:
  When Abu Huraira narrated a tradition, those who were present there asked him if he had himself heard it from the Holy Prophet (S), he replied: No, I have taken out this tradition from my pocket.
  It is mentioned in Murujuz Zahab, Vol. 3, Pg. 454, published Dar ul-Andulus that Abu Huraira fabricated more than 5,300 traditions attributed to the Holy Prophet (S)
  Abu Huraira has said about himself:
  I have many registers of knowledge with me that I have not opened yet, and I had obtained two vessels of knowledge from the Holy Prophet (S). I have opened one and if I reveal the second, I shall be killed. And if I tell you all I know, people will say Abu Huraira has gone mad. (As-Sunnah Qobl at-Tadween. Pg. 426, quoted from Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Fath ul-Bari and Hulyat ul-Awliya)
• 9. Ahl Sunnah consider Samra Ibn Jundab also as a righteous companion. The compilers of canonical books have also taken traditions from Samra. Relating the incident of Samra, the teacher of Ibn Abil Hadid, Ja'far Iskafi, says:
  “Mu’awiyyah sent a hundred thousand dirhams to Samra that he may fabricate a tradition from the Prophet that the verse of:
  “And among men is he whose speech about the life of this world causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries” (2:204).
  was revealed about Ali (‘a) and according to the Holy Prophet, he is the enemy of the religion of Allah and that the verse:
  “And among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is Affectionate to the servants” (2:207).
  was revealed about Abdur Rahman Ibn Muljam. When Samra did not accept that amount, Mu’awiyyah sent him two hundred thousand, and when he again did not accept. he sent four hundred thousand. This time Samra accepted the money and narrated the above fabricated tradition.” (Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha, Vol. I, Pg.358, old edition)
  This fabricated tradition had a very negative effect on the Islamic society, so much so that the Khawarij began to be called as ‘sellers' or those who have sold their lives to Allah because in this false tradition, Ibn Muljam is supposed to be the subject of that verse. That was the first negative effect of the fabricated tradition by Samra.”
• 10. The patronymic (Kunniyat) of Hasan al-Basri was Abu Saeed. His father was a freed slave of Zaid Ibn Thabit. Hasan was born in the eighth year of Umar's caliphate. He lived in Basra all his life and died in 110 A.H. He was an eloquent speaker and a respected person in the eyes of the public and government officials. He was the Imam of Sunnis in Basra. According to the report of Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Hasan Basri believed in predestination, and he considered it unlawful even to campaign against a cruel and murderous creature like Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf.
• 11. The following statements by Imam Husayn (‘a) are an illuminated torch to create fervour among the Shi’as of every period:
  “O people, can you not see that truth is not being followed and evil is not being forbidden? In fact, it is only this which prepares one to meet the Almighty Allah. In my view, death is the only path to success and living with the oppressors is nothing but disgrace.”
• 12. Jews and Christians, who live under Muslim’s protection.
• 13. This phrase most probably refers to the Umayyads who were formerly the enemies of the Holy Prophet and were later defeated when the Muslims overpowered Mecca. They were technically prisoners and captives but the Holy Prophet forgave them and let them free. [Note of al-Islam]
• 14. Referring to the Holy Prophet’s wife, Aisha and the Battle of the Camel [Note of Al-Islam.org]
• 15. Uqbah Ibn Muit belonged to Bani Umayyah. The same Uqbah who was one of the captives of Badr, and Nazr Ibn Harith who tortured the Muslims and blasphemed the name of Qur’an were killed by the Holy Prophet.
• 16. The names of their idols [note of Al-Islam.org]
• 17. Meaning “God is one”.
• 18. According to the authors of Mawaqif and Sharh Mawaqif, consensus is not necessary for an oath of allegiance, and it is sufficient if one or two persons take it. The consensus of all Muslims is not essential. The consensus of the people of Medina is also not necessary and till now the position has been that an oath taken by one or two is considered sufficient. The conclusion that can be drawn from the above statement is that one vote enjoys preference over the votes of the whole nation, and it is essential for the people to submit to it.
  Hence the oath taken by Mu’awiyyah for Yazid was lawful and the same is the case of inherited rulership. If a non-Muslim becomes aware of this statement, he will naturally say: “What has happened to the freedom and democracy of Islam?'' (Author).
• 19. The body of' the Holy Prophet had not yet been buried when others started taking allegiance. This activity continued for three days, and the body of the Holy Prophet remained unburied during these days. This so happened because if Imam Ali (‘a) had buried the prophet’s body, the others who had not offered funeral prayers, would have exhumed the body. And if Imam Ali (‘a) had participated in the activities of Saqifah, the Holy Prophet's body would have remained unburied. Thus, the change of the course of the caliphate on one hand and body of the Holy Prophet remaining unburied on the other distressed him much. (Shaykh Abbas Qummi, Bait ul-Ahzan, Pg. 30)
• 20. In Islamic history, this event was known as Mubahalah [Note of Al-Islam.org]
• 21. Kanz ul-Ummal by Ali Muttaqi Hindi; Sharh Nahj ul-Balagha by Ibn Abil Hadid Muntazali; as-Siyasah wa al-Imamah by Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari.
• 22. They were Talha, Zubair, Uthman, Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf and Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas.
• 23. Vol. 4. Pg.227, published by Dar ul-Ma'rif, Egypt
• 24. Vol. 5, Pg. 31, published by Dar ul-Fikr, Beirut.
• 25. The Holy Prophet (S) had exiled Hakam Ibn ‘Aas from Medina and ordered him to live in Taif. It is mentioned in Al-Isti’ab of Ibn Abd Rabb that he used to mimic the prophet and one day the prophet saw him doing that. At that time Hakam's son, Marwan, was seven or eight years old and he lived with his father in Taif. Abu Bakr and Umar, during their respective reigns did not permit Hakam to return to Medina. But during his caliphate, Uthman not only recalled Hakam, but he also hired Marwan as his secretary. (Khilafat-O- Mulookiyat, Maulana Maudoodi, Pg. 110)
• 26. Walid, the son of Uqbah Ibn Muit, one of those who had carried out persecution against the Holy Prophet (S) took an amount of a hundred thousand dirhams from Abdullah Ibn Masood, the treasurer of public treasury, saying that he would return it. When he did not return that amount, Ibn Masood wrote to Uthman reporting the matter. Uthman replied: You are our treasurer. We can take whatever amount we may want from the public treasury; you have no right to say anything. When Ibn Masood read this letter from Uthman, he said publicly in the Kufa Masjid: “O people, I was under the impression that I was the treasurer of your public treasury, but now I have learnt that I am actually the treasurer of Bani Umayyah”.
  Then he threw the keys of the public treasury and said: “I cannot remain the treasurer of Bani Umayyah”. So, Walid sent him to Medina. When he came to Medina, Uthman ordered his servant, Yahmoom to punish Ibn Masood. On the instructions of Uthman, Yahmoom threw Ibn Masood on the ground, crippling him. He reminded bed-ridden for two years and then passed away. During these two years, Uthman kept his government allowance suspended. (AnsaAbu al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 36, Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 147, Mustadrak Hakim, Vol. 3, Pg. 13)
• 27. Those familiar with the sources on early Islam know Ali Ibn Husayn Masoodi Shafei (died 345 A.H.) very well. Masoodi is a very reliable and honest Islamic historian and geographer who is relied upon by all the schools of thought. He has written a very interesting, excellent, and authentic four-volume book on history, entitled Murujuz Zahab. Therein it is mentioned that when Uthman was assassinated, he left behind 150,000 gold dinars and a million silver dirhams. Also, his properties in Wadi al-Qura and Hunain were worth a hundred thousand gold dinars. He also left an unspecified number of horses and camels. (Vol. 2, Pg. 341)
• 28. Yaala Ibn Umayyah (who is also called Yaala Ibn Munia because his mother's name was Munia) was a revenue officer during the rule of Uthman. When he died, he left behind five hundred thousand gold dinars. In addition to this, people owed him a huge sum of money that he had lent them. The value of his property and other things that he left came to three hundred dinars.
• 29. Masoodi writes that Talha Ibn Ubaidillah had constructed a magnificent palace in Kufa. Talha’s income from his properties in Iraq alone reached one thousand gold dinars. The income from the Sharrah area was more than this. In Medina, Talha had built his house with baked bricks, mortar and expensive wood. Sa’ad Ibn Abi Waqqas also had constructed a huge magnificent palace.
• 30. Masoodi writes that Zubayr Ibn Awwam had a palace constructed in Basra. He owned properties in Alexandria and Basra. He died leaving behind fifty thousand dinars, one thousand horses, one thousand male and female slaves and unspecified properties in various cities.
  Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf Zuhri had constructed a palatial mansion. There were a thousand horses in his stables. He owned a thousand camels and ten thousand goats and sheep. He was survived by four widows, each of whom inherited eighty-four thousand gold dinars.
  Zaid Ibn Thabit died leaving such a huge quantity of gold that hammers were called to break up the pieces for distribution. His movable and unmovable property was worth one hundred thousand dinars.
• 31. If Imam Ali (‘a) had not suppressed the Khawarij, all the pious and religious Muslims would have gradually adopted the Khariji dogma. And if people had become Kharijis, neither Shi’a Islam would have survived till today nor would Sunni Islam. That is why, after the Battle of Nahrawan, the Imam said in one of his sermons, which is also mentioned in Nahj ul-Balagha that: “O people, I have smashed the eye of mischief and corruption and no one else could have dared to do this.”
  Persons who recited prolonged ritual prayers, without spirituality and without understanding of the divine reality (Marifat), sanctimonious and apparently very devoted people, they were such that it was only Imam Ali (‘a) who could eliminate them. Even Imam Hasan (‘a) and Imam Husayn (‘a) could not have accomplished this task. Through this operation, Imam Ali (‘a) saved the dying Islam and showed to the world that apart from the Islam of Quraish and Islam of Khawarij, there was another Islam. (Role of the Imams in Revival of Religion, Vol. 2, Allamah Sayyid Murtaza Askari)